Seizing Natural Climate Change by Politicans!

[Papa Bear]

In the contiguous United States, the average winter temperature was 33.2°F (0.6°C), which was 0.2°F (0.1°C) above the 20th century average - yet still ranks as the coolest since 2001. It was the 54th coolest winter since national records began in 1895.

Winter temperatures were warmer than average from Texas to the Southeast and along the Eastern Seaboard, while cooler-than-average temperatures stretched from much of the upper Midwest to the West Coast.

Not too bad since we have only kept records starting in the late 1800s and the equipment was far from accurate!

Folks it is called weather and we now have politicians that aren't going to talk about they are going to tax you about it!

[Papa Bear]

Sea Ice Extent
February's Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice extent
February's Northern Hemisphere
Sea Ice Extent plot

According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center, the February 2008 Northern Hemisphere sea ice extent, which is measured from passive microwave instruments onboard NOAA satellites, was below the 1979-2000 mean, but greater than the previous four years. This was the fifth least February sea ice extent on record. Including 2008, the past five years had the least February sea ice extent since records began in 1979. Sea ice extent for February has decreased at a rate of 2.8%/decade (since satellite records began in 1979) as temperatures in the high latitude Northern Hemisphere have risen at a rate of approximately 0.37°C/decade over the same period.

February's Southern Hemisphere Sea Ice extent
February's Southern Hemisphere
Sea Ice Extent plot

Meanwhile, the February 2008 Southern Hemisphere sea ice extent was much above the 1979-2000 mean. This was the second largest sea ice extent in February (27% above the 1979-2000 mean) over the 30-year historical period, behind 2003. Sea ice extent for February has increased at a rate of 3.4%/decade.

For further information on the Northern and Southern Hemisphere snow and ice conditions, please visit the NSIDC News page, provided by the NOAA's National Snow and Ice Data center (NSIDC).

Again not bad considering that Mars is warming as well! We are talking point this and point that and mean variations that have been with us since man has roamed the earth! Change is normal and natural and we are not the cause!

The amazing thing the records have only been measured and kept since 1979! We are expected to believe them?

[thalassamania]

...

The amazing thing the records have only been measured and kept since 1979! We are expected to believe them?

Deal with the question on the table, then we can move on to other things. Do you currently see the following post as true or false?

NOAA has reported that it Ocean Robots placed to monitor ocean temperatures are showing colder than they expected and no sign of Global Warming! (Temperatures have dropped) According to a NOAA spokesman "We need more time to see if we can make sense from these reading" "We can't understand why 1993 was one of the warmest in the ocean but they have been cooling ever since" "This is not what we thought was happening and it has us stumped"! Well I guess the sky isn't falling after all, but look to pay more at the pump. The Dumocrats in the US want to raise gas tax by 3.00 per gallon "To ween us off oil". According to a Dumocrat strategist on Fox news. "Drilling for more oil here would be like giving crack to an addict".

Guess all my years of travel and the temps I recorded were right. ALGORE was wrong and I have been trying to tell everyone. Where is my prize? But it goes to show you there is something else going on here: CONTROL

[Papa Bear]

Free Republic
Articles · Comments · Search News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The global warming scam
Asia Times ^ | 02.25.05 | Derek Kelly, PhD

Posted on 02/25/2005 12:02:42 AM PST by Dr. Marten

The global warming scam
By Derek Kelly, PhD

Scam, noun: a swindle, a fraudulent arrangement.

A chronology of climate change
During most of the last billion years the Earth did not have permanent ice sheets. Nevertheless, at times large areas of the globe were covered with vast sheets of ice. Such times are known as glaciations. In the past 2 million to 3 million years, the temperature of the Earth has changed (warmed or cooled) at least 17 times, some say 33, with glaciations that last about 100,000 years interrupted by warm periods that last about 10,000 years.

The last glaciation began 70,000 years ago and ended about 10,000 years ago. The Earth was a lot colder than it is now; snow and ice had accumulated on a lot of the land, glaciers existed on large areas and the sea levels were lower.

15,000 years ago: The last glaciation reaches a peak, with continental glaciers that cover a lot of the sub-polar and polar areas of the land areas of Earth. In North America, all of New England and all of the Great Lakes area, most of Ohio, Indiana, Minnesota and the North Dakotas, lie under ice sheets hundreds of meters thick. More than 37 million cubic kilometers of ice was tied up in these global sheets of ice. The average temperature on the surface of the Earth is estimated to have been cooler by approximately 6 degrees Celsius than currently. The sea level was more than 90 meters lower than currently.

15,000 years ago to 6,000 years ago: Global warming begins. The sheets of ice melt, and sea levels rise. Some heat source causes approximately 37 million cubic kilometers of ice to melt in approximately 9,000 years. Around 9,500 years ago, the last of the Northern European sheets of ice leave Scandinavia. Around 7,500 years ago, the last of the American sheets of ice leave Canada. This warming is neither stable nor the same everywhere. There are periods when mountain glaciers advance, and periods when they withdraw. These climatic changes vary extensively from place to place, with some areas affected while others are not. The tendency of warming is global and obvious, but very uneven. The causes of this period of warming are unknown.

8,000 years ago to 4,000 years ago: About 6,000 years ago, temperatures on the surface of Earth are about 3 degrees warmer than currently. The Arctic Ocean is ice-free, and mountain glaciers have disappeared from the mountains of Norway and the Alps in Europe, and from the Rocky Mountains of the United States and Canada. The ocean of the world is some three meters higher than currently. A lot of the present desert of the Sahara has a more humid, savannah-like climate, with giraffes and savannah fauna species.

4,000 years ago to AD 900: Global cooling begins. The Arctic Ocean freezes over, mountain glaciers form once more in the Rocky Mountains, in Norway and in the Alps. The Black Sea freezes over several times, and ice forms on the Nile in Egypt. Northern Europe gets a lot wetter, and the marshes develop again in previously dry areas. The sea level drops to approximately its present level. The temperatures on the surface of the Earth are about 0.5-1 degree cooler than at present. The causes of this period of cooling are unknown.

AD 1000 to 1500: This period has quick, but uneven, warming of the climate of the Northern Hemisphere. The North Atlantic becomes ice-free and Norse exploration as far as North America takes place. The Norse colonies in Greenland even export crop surpluses to Scandinavia. Wine grapes grow in southern Britain. The temperatures are from 3-8 degrees warmer than currently. The period lasts only a brief 500 years. By the year 1500, it has vanished. The Earth experiences as much warming between the 11th and the 13th century as is now predicted by global-warming scientists for the next century. The causes of this period of warming are unknown.

1430 to 1880: This is a period of the fast but uneven cooling of Northern Hemisphere climates. Norwegian glaciers advance to their most distant extension in post-glacial times. The northern forests disappear, to be replaced with tundra. Severe winters characterize a lot of Europe and North America. The channels and rivers get colder, the snows get heavy, and the summers cool and short. The temperatures on the surface of the world are about 0.5-1.5 degrees cooler than present. In the United States, 1816 is known as the "year with no summer". Snow falls in New England in June. The widespread failure of crops and deaths due to hypothermia are common. The causes of this period of cooling are unknown.

1880 to 1940: A period of warming. The mountain glaciers recede and the ice in the Arctic Ocean begins to melt again. The causes of this period of warming are unknown.

1940 to 1977: Cooling period. The temperatures are cooler than currently. Mountain glaciers recede, and some begin to advance. The tabloids inform us of widespread catastrophes due to the "New Glaciation". The causes of this period of cooling are unknown.

1977 to present: Warming period. The summer of 2003 is said to be the warmest one since the Middle Ages. The tabloids notify us of widespread catastrophes due to "global warming". The causes of warming are discovered - humanity and its carbon-dioxide-generating fossil-fuel use and deforestation.

Anyone else find something fishy about the final sentence?

Comments
The above chronology of recent (geologically speaking) climate changes should place global-warming catastrophists (such as those who developed the Kyoto treaty) in an awkward position. Their fundamental assumption is that Earth's climate was stable and was doing just fine before the Industrial Revolution started interfering with climate's "natural" state. It is the Industrial Revolution, and in particular the use of fossil-fuel-burning machines, that has led us to the brink of environmental catastrophe due to global warming caused by increasing amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere.

But it is plain to see that both warming and cooling occurred numerous times before the Industrial Revolution. Similarly, all the dire predictions of global-warming consequences - sea-level rise, for example - have happened in the past. In fact, the greatest warming period was when dinosaurs walked the land (about 70 million to 130 million years ago). There was then five to 10 times as much CO2 in the atmosphere as there is today, and the average temperature was 4-11 degrees Celsius warmer. Those conditions should have been very helpful to life, since they permitted those immense creatures to find an abundance of food and they survived.

The Cretaceous was an intense "greenhouse world" with high surface temperatures. These high temperatures were due to the much higher level of CO2 in the atmosphere at the time - four to 10 times as much as is in our air today. The biota was a mixture of the exotic and familiar - luxuriant green forests of now-extinct trees flourished within the Arctic Circle and dinosaurs roamed. The global sea level was at its highest ever during this period, peaking during the Late Cretaceous around 86 million years ago. It is certain that the global sea level was well over 200 meters higher during this time than it is today. The Earth was immensely hotter, the CO2 vastly more plentiful, and the sea levels much higher than they are today.

The Earth has also been immensely colder, the CO2 much less plentiful, and the sea levels much lower than today. Fifteen thousand years ago, the sea level was at least 90 meters lower than it is today. The land looked bare because it was too cold for beech and oak trees to grow. There were a few fir trees here and there. No grass grew, however, just shrubs, bushes and moss grass. In the northern parts of North America, Europe and Asia there was still tundra. The animals were different from today too. Back then there were woolly mammoth, woolly rhinos, cave bears (the former three now extinct), bison, wolves, horses, and herds of reindeer like modern-day reindeer.

The major "sin" for the global warmists is CO2. The Kyoto treaty is meant to reduce the amount of this gas so as, they say, to reduce the degree of warming and eventually return us to some stable climate system. If we look at the historical situation, however, this is cause for alarm. For one thing, there has never been a stable climate system. For another, the level of CO2 in our atmosphere is near its historic low. In the long run, the greatest danger is too little rather than too much CO2. There has been a long-term reduction of CO2 throughout the 4.5-billion-year history of the Earth. If this tendency continues, eventually our planet may become as lifeless as Mars.

Glaciation has prevailed for 90% of the last several million years. Extreme cold. Biting cold. Cold too intense for bikinis and swimming trunks. No matter what scary scenarios global-warming enthusiasts dream up, they pale in comparison with the conditions another ice age would deliver. Look to our past climate. Fifteen thousand years ago, an ice sheet a kilometer and a half thick covered all of North America north of a line stretching from somewhere around Seattle to Cleveland and New York City.

Instead of reducing CO2, we should, perhaps, be increasing it. We should pay the smokestack industries hard dollars for every kilogram of soot they pump into the atmosphere. Instead of urging Chinese to stop using coal and turn instead to nuclear-generated electricity, we should beg them to continue using coal. Rather than bringing us to the edge of global-warming catastrophe, anthropogenic climate change may have spared us descent into what would be the most serious and far-reaching challenge facing humankind in the 21st century - dealing with a rapidly deteriorating climate that wants to plunge us into an ice age. Let's hope Antarctica and Greenland melt. Let's hope the sea levels rise. All life glorifies warmth. Only death prefers the icy fingers of endless winter.

What do you think?

Derek Kelly, who has been an American university teacher and a computer-software developer, is now trying to help Chinese university students speak English.

TOPICS: Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Germany; Government; Japan; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; Russia; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: climatechange; globalwarming; scam Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-50, 51-100, 101-103 next last

1 posted on 02/25/2005 12:02:43 AM PST by Dr. Marten
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]
To: Dr. Marten
Doc, this is a truly GREAT post. This is a great one by all measures. I love that line about "we should be paying the Chinese to burn coal." Lol.....that is really funny because of its ring of truth and classic irony. I agree with the author that global cooling is a much greater danger than global warming. IIRC, there was a very cold century not too long ago when a large percentage of the European population died from hunger and disease brought on by the cold. I think it was the 15th century.

The science behind the global warming theory is really weak as I've stated numerous times on FR. It's all based on inadequately research assumptions that are used by elaborate computer models which crank out essentially meaningless forecasts. The forecasts are meaningless because they are based on soft, unproven assumptions. One factor the forecasters always seem to forget is that the rate of any chemical reaction increases with concentration of the reactants. Therefore, the more CO2 we add to he atmopshere, the faster plants consume CO2 in photosynthesis reactions and the faster the CO2 reacts with compounds in the soil.

The effect of C02 on temperature is also highly debateable. Just a few months ago, I heard about new research indicating that CO2 helps to radiate heat AWAY from the earth in the upper atmosphere. The global warming theory is just classic bureaucratic group think--people in government supported organizations believe in global warming because this expressed belief is good for their careers and their department budgets. I've never seen a better example of mass stupidity by smart people than the "consensus" that global warming is actually happening and it is caused by increasing CO2 levels.
2 posted on 02/25/2005 12:22:11 AM PST by carl in alaska (Blog blog bloggin' on heaven's door.....Kerry is a liar and rotten to the core)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]
To: Dr. Marten

I don't believe in a 2 to 3 million or older earth but this guy makes sense about global climate change. Can't say the same for those who claim we are heading into doomsday from global warming.

3 posted on 02/25/2005 12:24:49 AM PST by taxesareforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]
To: farmfriend

Environment

4 posted on 02/25/2005 12:33:46 AM PST by Brian328i
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]
To: Dr. Marten
See this for another good piece on the scam ( Fonts are large ):

PERSPECTIVES: RISING CO2 LEVELS - THE REASON WHY ~~The earth has a cycle

And this web site:

Not by Fire but by Ice
THE NEXT ICE AGE - NOW!
5 posted on 02/25/2005 12:35:45 AM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach (This tagline no longer operative....floated away in the flood of 2005 ,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]
To: Dr. Marten

bump good post. Thanks for the info.

6 posted on 02/25/2005 12:39:23 AM PST by Captain Beyond (The Hammer of the gods! (Just a cool line from a Led Zep song))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
From the second link:

**********************************************

Precession of the Equinoxes

Not by Fire but by Ice
THE NEXT ICE AGE - NOW!

Pacemaker of the Ice Ages

Changes in global ice volume during the last 500,000 years, as determined from CLIMAP isotopic measurements. Chart is from John and Katherine Imbrie's book Ice Ages: Solving the Mystery, by permission of Enslow Publishers. Data from J. D. Hays et al., 1976, by permission J. D. Hays.

BACK TO HOME PAGE

* In 1976, scientists at Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory spearheaded a project called CLIMAP (Clint: Long-range Investigation Mapping and Prediction) to map the history of the oceans and climate.

* They discovered that ice ages begin or end, almost like clockwork, every 11,500 years. It's a dependable, predictable, natural cycle. Pacemaker of the Ice Ages, they called it.

* They drew up a chart of the cycle (above).

* See the sharp peaks every 100,000 years or so? Each peak marks the abut end of a period of warmth similar to today's and the catastrophic beginning of a new ice age.

* See where we are today? (At the far right side of the chart?) We're at the tip of the highest peak ever, teetering on the knife-edge of disaster. We haven't been that high on the chart for half a million years.

* And do you see what happened--without exception--every time we got that high on the chart?

* Instantaneous ice age.

* The next ice age could begin any day.


7 posted on 02/25/2005 12:44:08 AM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach (This tagline no longer operative....floated away in the flood of 2005 ,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]
To: Dr. Marten
The "green" fanatics may be able to fool a majority of the public however they will never be able to fool Mother Nature.

Mother Nature has her own agenda and is not in a position to have to kowtow to human intervention! ; )
8 posted on 02/25/2005 1:02:37 AM PST by EGPWS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]
To: Dr. Marten

1940 to 1977: Cooling period. The temperatures are cooler than currently. Mountain glaciers recede, and some begin to advance. The tabloids inform us of widespread catastrophes due to the "New Glaciation". The causes of this period of cooling are unknown.

One of those "tabloids" was the Weekly Reader. They had a picture with vast tundras and two domed cities miles apart.

Scared the Hell out of me when I saw that. Scared me so much that when this "Global Warming(TM)" fad started, it caused me to question everything I was ever taught in the public school system.

I don't believe a word of anything unless I can prove it too myself. If I can't prove, for example, Big Bang, then it isn't important enough to worry about.

Seems to me, unless you are a scientist, you have to take almost any thing an alleged expert says on faith.

I simply don't have that much faith.
9 posted on 02/25/2005 2:13:24 AM PST by Duke Nukum (King had to write, to sing the song of Gan. And I had to read. How else could Roland find the Tower?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]
To: carl in alaska

>>CO2 helps to radiate heat AWAY from the earth in the upper atmosphere.

Actually, the original scientist who sounded the global warming alarm....later retracted when he calculated that the reflectance of CO2 couteracts warming.

10 posted on 02/25/2005 3:29:32 AM PST by The Raven
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]
To: taxesareforever

Believe it or not, it does not make any difference. This planet is 4,000,000,000+ years old. Your beliefs will not change that FACT.

11 posted on 02/25/2005 4:27:16 AM PST by nuke rocketeer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]
To: Dr. Marten

bttt

12 posted on 02/25/2005 4:47:06 AM PST by secret garden (Go Spurs Go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]
To: taxesareforever

How old do you thing earth is?

13 posted on 02/25/2005 4:49:58 AM PST by Sam Cree (Democrats are herd animals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]
To: Sam Cree

Hahahaha! Its warm in the day, cold at night. I don't see any warming!

14 posted on 02/25/2005 5:20:47 AM PST by 1FASTGLOCK45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]
To: 1FASTGLOCK45

"The Polar Ice Caps are Melting" story comes out every few months. Some expedition goes out and measures the sea ice at some location they already have data from 5, 10 years ago for example and surprise, they announce with much fanfare, that the ice is 20% thinner than it was

(Sometimes these guys are just kooks by the way. One highly noted study comes from a zoology professor who was working on a cruise ship lol.)

Anyway, here is a link to the latest animation from NASA's ICESat satellite of the North Pole sea ice (the best you will see) 1979 to 2004.

The polar ice moves back and forth so much and moves so much with the seasons that only a long-long-long-term satellite study with radar measurements can tell you anything at all.

http://www.nasa.gov/mpeg/103496main_...4_320x240.mpeg

15 posted on 02/25/2005 5:33:13 AM PST by JustDoItAlways
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]
To: Dr. Marten
What do you think?

I dunno...call me crazy...but I'm thinking the temperature on our planet has an awful lot to do with that thing in the sky that we call the Sun! The way these people talk, you'd think that the Sun was a constant.

If these people really wanted to isolate CO2 as the culprit, they'd first need to do an energy balance on the whole, and weed out any variability from bigger contributors like the Sun. Draw a box around the Earth and find out how much of the Sun's energy hits the earth in a given year. It ain't gonna be constant: the sun experiences cycles; some years it burns hotter than others. You've got to eliminate this variability from the equation before we can talk about such minor causes as fossil fuels.
16 posted on 02/25/2005 6:27:06 AM PST by Fredgoblu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]
To: taxesareforever
I don't believe in a 2 to 3 million or older earth

You have a better estimate and if so, how did you arrive at it?
17 posted on 02/25/2005 6:37:31 AM PST by Protagoras (" I believe that's the role of the federal government, to help people"...GWB, 7-23-04)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]
To: nuke rocketeer

This planet is 4,000,000,000+ years old. Your beliefs will not change that FACT.

Facts are NORMALLY established by observation. What was the name of the individual who you would quote lived 4 billion years ago? And by the way, your beliefs WILL establish that FACT?

18 posted on 02/25/2005 10:36:08 AM PST by taxesareforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]
To: The Raven

If you can find a link to that retraction you'll be a hero around here.

19 posted on 02/25/2005 10:37:06 AM PST by carl in alaska (Visit downtown Chicago on a cold windy January day and you'll find that global warming is a myth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]
To: Sam Cree

Somewhere in the vicinity of 8 to 10 thousand years old.

20 posted on 02/25/2005 10:37:30 AM PST by taxesareforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]
To: Protagoras

Geneology of the Bible establishes that the earth is in the vicinity of 8 to 10 thousand years old.

21 posted on 02/25/2005 10:39:18 AM PST by taxesareforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]
To: carl in alaska
I've never seen a better example of mass stupidity by smart people than the "consensus" that global warming is actually happening and it is caused by increasing CO2 levels.

LOL, very true and well put. "Mass stupidity" is a great way to describe the whole gorebull warming issue.
22 posted on 02/25/2005 10:44:55 AM PST by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]
To: taxesareforever
Geneology of the Bible establishes that the earth is in the vicinity of 8 to 10 thousand years old.

Not literally of course. Numbers in the bible are explained. To God one day is like a thousand years. And visa versa.
23 posted on 02/25/2005 10:49:58 AM PST by Protagoras (" I believe that's the role of the federal government, to help people"...GWB, 7-23-04)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ]
To: taxesareforever

Radioactive decay products in different rocks. The same 'theory' that runs nuke plants and makes bombs go boom also enables one to detrmine the decay products and determine how long they were there. Based upon these observations, the age of rocks are established. Also see all the articles on the natural reactor found in Africa. This planet is very, very old and no amount of biblical literalism can erase that fact. I also speak as a christian conservative. Until you can disprove nuclear theory, you will have absolutely no basis for stating that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.

and BTW....measurement error and assumptions gives an uncertainty of 10% or so. Heck even at 50% uncertainty it would still be at least 2,000,000 yrs old at minimum.

24 posted on 02/25/2005 11:01:30 AM PST by nuke rocketeer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]
To: Always Right
LOL, very true and well put. "Mass stupidity" is a great way to describe the whole gorebull warming issue.

I have no doubt that some proponents of the warming scam are stupid, but the vast majority of them are democrats and this "issue" is one of the collection of democrat issues used for garnering votes for the rest of their agenda. This agenda was the one Kerry never quite seemed able to spell out for us. (World wide socialism, with democrats in charge? Is that is Mr. Kerry?)

No most global warmers are hot for political power and are warming up for the next election. On hot days you will hear its warming all over, on cold days and stormy days you will hear that the warming has created more severe weather. All this will stop once democrats get their way. Conservatives will do well to do more than laugh at their efforts.
25 posted on 02/25/2005 11:02:57 AM PST by KC_for_Freedom (Sailing the highways of America, and loving it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

What does the "Precession of the Equinoxes" have to do with it? I will buy into the obliquity of the ecliptic, which is changing and which certainly is one of the "astronomical driving functions" of global climate.

26 posted on 02/25/2005 11:23:45 AM PST by Lonesome in Massachussets (Deadcheck the embeds first.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]
To: Dr. Marten
[ Anyone else find something fishy about the final sentence? ]

I do....
Obviously the author believes republicans will only remember, after reading all that, the last sentence and democrats will only remember the last half of the last sentence..

Pretty sneaky.. them left wing scientologists.. The follow up expected is on the dread poison di-hydrogen oxide.. It'll kill you if you get too much of it.. and it is also produced by them pesky glaciers melting..
27 posted on 02/25/2005 11:26:37 AM PST by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to include some fully orbed hyperbole....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]
To: nuke rocketeer
Believe it or not, it does not make any difference. This planet is 4,000,000,000+ years old. Your beliefs will not change that FACT.

Who do you know that has been around to verify that FACT?

Some Scientists believe the earth is that old. There are some that don't...

... In contrast to the narrow specialization of present-day scientists some great physicists in the nineteenth century made significant contributions to numerous branches of science. England recognized this breadth and depth in Sir William Thomson and elevated his title to Lord Kelvin. It was Kelvin's brilliant thermodynamic analysis that gave us the absolute temperature scale that bears his name. When the Atlantic cable was laid it took the ingenious electromagnetic developments of Kelvin to make it a workable device. His best papers are to be found in a six volume set, Mathematical and Physical Papers, Lord Kelvin, (Cambridge University Press, 1911). Many of those papers employed physics to expose the errors inherent in the long-age concepts held by uniformitarian geologists. One paper was entitled: "The 'Doctrine of Uniformity' in Geology Briefly Refuted"; another was entitled: "On the Age of the Sun's Heat". Many of his papers dealt with the age of the earth... -PHYSICS: A CHALLENGE TO GEOLOGICAL TIME

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-016.htm
28 posted on 02/25/2005 11:37:53 AM PST by pageonetoo (you'll spot their posts soon enough!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]
To: Protagoras

Not literally of course. Numbers in the bible are explained. To God one day is like a thousand years. And visa versa.

However, days were made for man and not for God. To be in God's presence a day is like a thousand years. We are not in God's presence until we die or the end of the world comes. The account of creation to the presence is not literal, it is truth. Add it up.

29 posted on 02/25/2005 11:40:38 AM PST by taxesareforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies ]
To: nuke rocketeer

And of course science is infallible. Wouldn't want to make so-called scientists appear to be wrong. How could they make money on their teachings and books and government grants?

30 posted on 02/25/2005 11:45:16 AM PST by taxesareforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]
To: taxesareforever
So you are saying that the universe was created in six sessions which were defined by the amount of time the earth spun on it's axis in relation to the star called the sun?

And dinosaurs and men walked together? And a year is 365 days and Methusla lived nine hundred earth years?

It takes all kinds.

We are not in God's presence until we die or the end of the world comes.

Nonsense, where did you get that fable? God is everywhere in his creation.
31 posted on 02/25/2005 11:54:10 AM PST by Protagoras (" I believe that's the role of the federal government, to help people"...GWB, 7-23-04)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies ]
To: Protagoras

We are not in God's presence until we die or the end of the world comes.

Nonsense, where did you get that fable? God is everywhere in his creation.

So, does a day seem like a thousand years to you?

So you are saying that the universe was created in six sessions which were defined by the amount of time the earth spun on it's axis in relation to the star called the sun?
And dinosaurs and men walked together? And a year is 365 days and Methusla lived nine hundred earth years?

No, I'm not saying, all I am doing is citing what God says in the Bible. If you dispute this, take it up with God.

32 posted on 02/25/2005 12:05:20 PM PST by taxesareforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies ]
To: Lonesome in Massachussets
Don't have a really good answer but from :

Precession of the Equinoxes

I find this:

Since planetary precession due to perturbations from Jupiter and Saturn causes the perihelion of the Earth's orbit to precess, the precession of the Earth's axis relative to the Sun has a period of 21,000-22,000 y.

11,500 is aproximately half of 22,000
33 posted on 02/25/2005 12:10:14 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach (This tagline no longer operative....floated away in the flood of 2005 ,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]
To: All
PRECESSION OF THE EQUINOX

The Earth's rotation axis is not fixed in space. Like a rotating toy top, the direction of the rotation axis executes a slow precession with period of 26,000 years for the entire ecliptic of our planetary bodies to travel around our sun, a trip of 360 degrees. Each one of the 12 signs of the zodiac takes about 2100 years for our solar system to pass through. Every 72 years we actually move backward 1 degree. After 2100 years we move out of one age and into another.

The precession is like a star clock that helps us date the rotations of earth in our solar system through our galaxy.

At the time of the birth of Christ we were moving out of the Age of Aries which was the Roman Empire into the Age of Pisces. That happened around 60 BC. The early Christians were aware of this and used as their symbol the 2 fishes going in opposite directions.

Since the rotation axis is precessing in space, the orientation of the Celestial Equator also precesses with the same period. This means that the position of the equinoxes is changing slowly with respect to the background stars. This precession of the equinoxes means that the right ascension and declination of objects changes very slowly over a 26,000 year period. This effect is negligibly small for casual observing, but is an important correction for precise observations.
34 posted on 02/25/2005 12:14:30 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach (This tagline no longer operative....floated away in the flood of 2005 ,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]
To: taxesareforever
No, I'm not saying, all I am doing is citing what God says in the Bible.

Actually you are making up your own interpretations of what God says.

Centuries and centuries of theological study by people who actually understand what is being said have thankfully prevailed over the kind of nonsense that would have surely resulted in the end of faith if adopted by anyone other than a few people in obscure cults.

Does your cult have a name?
35 posted on 02/25/2005 12:17:17 PM PST by Protagoras (" I believe that's the role of the federal government, to help people"...GWB, 7-23-04)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies ]
To: Protagoras

Does your cult have a name?

I don't call it a cult, but I do call it Christianity.

36 posted on 02/25/2005 12:35:09 PM PST by taxesareforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies ]
To: Protagoras

Does your cult have a name?

I don't call it a cult, but I do call it Christianity.

37 posted on 02/25/2005 12:35:11 PM PST by taxesareforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies ]
To: taxesareforever

Thanks.

38 posted on 02/25/2005 12:35:16 PM PST by Sam Cree (Democrats are herd animals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]
To: taxesareforever
This planet is 4,000,000,000+ years old.

That assumes that the parameter 'time' has remained the same over time. But Einstein established that 'time' is itself an equation that depends upon the velocity of the observer relative to 'zero velocity' in the universe. We don't know how fast we're traveling through the universe relative to that 'zero velocity'. Very recent evidence suggests that expansion of the universe is SLOWING, while at the original 'big bang' creation moment, the mass that now makes of our Earth would have been moving at phenomenal speed.

Many physicists now believe that the ultimate 'end of the world' will actually be a humongous FIZZLE, with atoms ultimately moving so slowly, they will not be able to maintain their particulate integrity.

Thus, carbon dating may be subject to enormous error to an Earth-bound observer, especially during the first milliseconds of the 'big bang'.

The future with God is much brighter, so bright in fact I'm gonna need shades....
39 posted on 02/25/2005 12:39:45 PM PST by O Neill (Aye, Katie Scarlett, the ONLY thing that lasts is the land...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]
To: taxesareforever
I don't call it a cult, but I do call it Christianity.

You can call it what you like, but so did the Branch Davidians.

Don't you have name for your little group?
40 posted on 02/25/2005 12:42:54 PM PST by Protagoras (" I believe that's the role of the federal government, to help people"...GWB, 7-23-04)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies ]
To: taxesareforever
"So, does a day seem like a thousand years to you?"

Yes, sometimes a work day seems like a thousand years to me.
41 posted on 02/25/2005 12:46:25 PM PST by CarryaBigStick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies ]
To: Protagoras

Don't you have name for your little group?

Yes, Christian. "Many are called but few are chosen".

42 posted on 02/25/2005 1:03:02 PM PST by taxesareforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies ]
To: Dr. Marten

bookmarking

43 posted on 02/25/2005 1:04:05 PM PST by riri
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]
To: taxesareforever
Please don't pretend that all Christians believe in your cult's bizarre tenets.

And the fact that you seem to think you are a chosen one speaks volumes.

How many people in your cult? And please don't pretend all Christians are in your cult.

Why are you so timid about the name of your group? You must be embarassed.
44 posted on 02/25/2005 1:08:05 PM PST by Protagoras (" I believe that's the role of the federal government, to help people"...GWB, 7-23-04)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies ]
To: Protagoras
...so did the Branch Davidians.

Known to some as 'Clinton's Kindling'...

C'mon, baby, light my fire....
45 posted on 02/25/2005 2:17:38 PM PST by O Neill (Aye, Katie Scarlett, the ONLY thing that lasts is the land...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies ]
To: Protagoras

What do you mean by what is the name of my group? What is the name of your group because so many of YOUR group have different opinions on age of the earth. So, who do you espouse to be wiser than the God of the Bible?
I am not embarassed to be called a Christian. Name a Christian group which says the earth is millions of years old.

46 posted on 02/25/2005 2:36:55 PM PST by taxesareforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies ]
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Precession of the perihelion is unrelated to precession of the equinox. I think you are saying that the phasing of the equinox and perihelion passage are important. Currently the Earth passes through the perihelion about 6 January, near the winter solstice in the Northern Hemisphere. This has the salutary effect of moderating both Summer and Winter temperature extremes in the Northern Hemisphere, where most the land mass that can accrete snow is.
47 posted on 02/25/2005 2:43:21 PM PST by Lonesome in Massachussets (Deadcheck the embeds first.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]
To: Dr. Marten

It's so warm, I'm freezing. I just scraped one inch of global warming off of my car's windshield.

48 posted on 02/25/2005 2:48:13 PM PST by corlorde (Without the home of the brave, there would be no land of the free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]
To: taxesareforever

Actually, if the geneologies in the Bible establish anything at all, it would be that man has been present on the earth for 8 to 10 thousand years.

There is considerable debate on how long the five "days" of creation that went on before that actually lasted. For instance, how long was the night before God said "Let there be light."? The Bible says that there was evening, and there was morning, one day. So, do you think that He started time exactly 12 hours before He created light?

49 posted on 02/25/2005 5:33:28 PM PST by TwoWolves (The only kind of control the liberals don't want is self control.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ]
To: Dr. Marten

Amusing that the global-warming naysayers don't realize how negative such thinking is.... it basically says, "we don't have any effect, so we can't stop the climate change that's occurring!"

50 posted on 02/25/2005 6:27:26 PM PST by Gondring (They can have my Bill of Rights when they pry it from my cold, dead hands!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-50, 51-100, 101-103 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
Free Republic
Articles · Comments · Search News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson

[Papa Bear]

The Global Warming Tax Scam Kicks In
Fresh studies, polls conclude climate change being used as revenue raising tactic


Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Tuesday, September 4, 2007



The British government is raising almost double the revenue in so called "green taxes" that it needs to offset the social cost of CO2 emissions according to a new report. An accompanying opinion poll also reveals that nearly two-thirds of people think politicians are using the green issue as an excuse to tax more.

The conclusion of a report by the TaxPayer's Alliance watchdog, states that "In many cases, individual green taxes and charges are failing to meet their objectives, are set at a level in excess of that needed to meet the social cost of CO2 emissions, and are causing serious harm to areas of the country and industries least able to cope."

The study found that the social cost of Britain’s entire output of CO2 was £11.7 billion in 2005 but in the same year, the total net burden of green taxes and charges was £21.9 billion. Meaning that even two years ago taxes were £10.2 billion in excess of the level agreed to meet the Britain’s CO2 emissions. The Alliance calculates this excess is equivalent to over £400 for each household in Britain.

"We need more honesty about the costs of extra green taxes when British taxpayers already pay some of the highest pollution charges in the world," said Matthew Elliott of the TaxPayers' Alliance.

(Article continues below)

The report also reveals that the main “pollution taxes” of fuel duty; vehicle excise duty (road tax); the Climate Change Levy; Air Passenger Duty; the Landfill Tax and the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, each have serious flaws which indicate that the government is less concerned about the environment and more concerned with raking in excessive revenues.

In addition a second study by accountants UHY Hacker Young backs up this claim by revealing that the Government gives back in tax breaks just two per cent of the money it collects through environmental taxes.

UHY Hacker Young tax partner Roy Maugham said: "It's surprising just how lopsided the Government's approach to green taxes has been over the last ten years.

"At the moment it's all stick and very little carrot."

If the government were really concerned about climate change then they would be offering incentives not punishments for reducing CO2 emissions in the form of tax breaks. But tax breaks aren't a giant cash bonanza for our exalted guardians of Mother Earth, the loving government, who are going to tax the living hell out of us for our own good and for the very survival of mankind, while lining their own pockets.

The Treasury has said the claims in the studies are "ridiculous" and has dropped the green bomb on the TaxPayers Alliance, reminding it that climate change is a justification to do anything.

A spokesman said: "In arguing against these taxes, the Taxpayers' Alliance are being doubly dangerous - it would mean cuts to public services, schools and hospitals, as well as higher carbon emissions leading to accelerated climate change."

Meanwhile Corin Taylor, research director of the TaxPayers' Alliance, has reminded the government that over vamped green charges, far from being a solution, are a primary cause of cuts in public services. "Green taxes and charges impose substantial costs on, amongst others, the National Health Service." Taylor commented.

Released alongside the TaxPayers' Alliance study, a new YouGov poll of more than 2,000 adults (double the usual sample) was commissioned into public attitudes towards green taxes.

When asked what they thought the primary motivation was for new green taxes, 63 per cent agreed with the statement: “Politicians are not serious about the environment and are using the issue as an excuse to raise more revenue from green taxes.” Only 20 per cent thought that “Politicians are serious about the environment and are bringing in new green taxes to change people’s behaviour to help reduce carbon emissions.”

[Papa Bear]

http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/a...2006forWeb.pdf
This is very good ready and if you still believe then it is your religion and no matter what anyone says you will be taxed to death believing your feeling the heat!

[Papa Bear]

Global warming theory is hooey. I believe the whole darn solar system is getting warmer because of an increase in the sun's radiant output.

I wrote an essay on this topic six years ago entitled "If You Can't Stand the Heat, Don't Blame Global Warming." In this paper published by the Independence Institute, I warned that wild assumptions were fueling the theory that human energy consumption was causing measured but slight increases in the Earth's average atmospheric temperature.

The worst wild assumption, I argued, is "that the modern Earth is a steady state, unchanging planet receiving a constant, invariable amount of heat from the sun."

The Earth has been warming since the end of the Pleistocene Ice Age about 18,000 years ago, and there's nothing to indicate that 130 years of Industrial Man has accelerated the warming trend. In fact, geocraft.com says we're more likely to start experiencing a cooling trend leading to another Ice Age in about 2,000 to 10,000 years.

As recently as 1715, Europe was experiencing a mini-Ice Age caused by a decrease in sunspots and total solar output. Peaking between 1645 and 1715, the Maunder Minimum caused glaciers to move southward, rivers to freeze more frequently and longer, and many reported crop failures.

Gary Rottman, a senior research associate at the Boulder-based Laboratory for Atmospheric Science and Physics, speculated in 2000 that the sun's visible spectrum output may have decreased by only .03 percent during the Maunder Minimum, but that was enough to cause dramatic climate change on Earth.

The sun's measurable output has increased by .01 percent since accurate measurements began in 1978, Rottman said.

According to one research organization, the warming trend on Earth ended in 1998. The Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia reports that for the years 1998-2005, the global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).

[thalassamania]

Deal with the question on the table, then we can move on to other things. Do you currently see the following post as true or false?

NOAA has reported that it Ocean Robots placed to monitor ocean temperatures are showing colder than they expected and no sign of Global Warming! (Temperatures have dropped) According to a NOAA spokesman "We need more time to see if we can make sense from these reading" "We can't understand why 1993 was one of the warmest in the ocean but they have been cooling ever since" "This is not what we thought was happening and it has us stumped"! Well I guess the sky isn't falling after all, but look to pay more at the pump. The Dumocrats in the US want to raise gas tax by 3.00 per gallon "To ween us off oil". According to a Dumocrat strategist on Fox news. "Drilling for more oil here would be like giving crack to an addict".

Guess all my years of travel and the temps I recorded were right. ALGORE was wrong and I have been trying to tell everyone. Where is my prize? But it goes to show you there is something else going on here: CONTROL

[Papa Bear]

Climate change 'is the norm'
Viewpoint
By Dr Martin Keeley
Geologist, and a Visiting Professor at University College London

Scientists use "proxy data" to reconstruct the ancient climate

More details
Even as climate experts and politicians meet in Buenos Aires to mark the entry into force of the Kyoto Protocol, many sceptical scientists will still be arguing that the international consensus on "global warming" has got it wrong.

Those of us who study the pre-human history of the Earth find the current debate over global warming difficult to fathom. Climate changes - this is what it does.

To expect permanent stability in climate patterns displays a fundamental lack of understanding of the complexity and instability of weather.

If the global climate were not getting warmer, it would be getting cooler; stasis is not an option.

Ice caps either advance or retreat, and thank goodness. Following the last Ice Age, the climate is warming, and sea-level is rising - but well within their historical ranges.

As environments alter, so fauna and flora either adapt or die out; nature is very unsentimental.

But for the now-infamous and discredited "hockey stick" temperature curve for the last millennium, used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to add body to the case for Kyoto, most observers would not have suspended belief over claims that today's weather is the "mostest" "on record".

Time dependent

This expression is simply a lie. We know from the geological (and archaeological) record that weather variations and extremes are the norm.

Such extremes occur gradually and rapidly, and obviously were not human-induced (anthropogenic). How then can they represent a threat greater than that of terrorism, as the UK's chief scientist, Professor Sir David King, maintains, except to minds unwilling to accept the inevitability of planetary change?

Polar bear (AP)
On thin ice: "Fauna and flora either adapt or die out"
The factors influencing climate and sea-level change are multiple and complex, whether slow or rapid. I still cannot comprehend how anyone can hope to model even present day phenomena, never mind into the future; we still cannot predict next week's weather with any accuracy.

The real question then is not whether climate and sea level changes are occurring and are good or bad things; they have been occurring naturally for billions of years. Nor is the question whether these changes are actually taking place; a moot point at best, as there are conflicting data, but the question is utterly dependent on the time frame.

Rather, environmentalists ask whether climate change is anthropogenic, and if so, can it be stopped. I have come across no rigorous proof that wasteful human pollution has caused any significant climate change.

The accusation is that the hockey stick-shaped temperature track is built from selective data sets

More details
One would be better off asking the question whether volcanic eruptions alter the weather; there at least we can answer "yes".

The only proof of anthropogenic climate change ever offered, which to my mind is fallacious, is that temperature has increased with Western industrialisation; before industrialisation, the hockey stick would negate the Medieval Climate Optimum and Little Ice Age.

There is a closer correlation between this latest warming and universal suffrage. In science, temporal coincidence between events is no proof of a causal link.

Media 'scare'

So, as we enter the third millennium, we should preoccupy ourselves not with the silly question of whether at outrageous expense we could predictably influence the weather, least of all by focusing on just a single component. Instead, we should consider how to adapt ourselves to the inevitability of natural climate and sea-level change.

The issue thus framed would completely alter the capital expenditure question facing policy makers, away from tinkering with the emissions from the cleaner, industrialised nations (thereby delaying modelled anthropogenic global warming by little more than a decade), and towards more pragmatic solutions.

Farm aid Soeren Ludvigsen with this year's potato crop in Eqaluit Ilua, southern Greenland (AP)
With further warming, crop production can move to higher latitudes
These might include the abandonment of sub-sea level lands condemned to flooding (including the Netherlands), shifting to Mediterranean crops in northern Europe, the re-cultivation of cold terrains (eg Greenland), and the aggressive reforestation as a microclimate control strategy to rehabilitate dry lands.

As for oil, it will almost certainly be too expensive to use as a mass energy source within 25 years.

Global warming is indeed a scam, perpetrated by scientists with vested interests, but in need of crash courses in geology, logic and the philosophy of science.

It provides the media with a new scare story, which has been picked up by the focus groups and turned into the new religion, offering us hell if we don't all change our ways. However, believing in anthropogenic global warming is not enough, but that is all it can offer.

The author, Dr Martin Keeley, is Visiting Professor in Petroleum Geology, at University College London, UK.

[Papa Bear]

http://climate-skeptic.typepad.com/p...0920pirate.gif

How is it possible that a model that accurately represents the past fails to accurately predict the future? Financial modelers, like climate modelers, look to history in building their models. Again, like climate modelers, they rely both on theory (e.g. higher interest rates should generally mean lower stock prices) as well as observed correlations in the historic data set. The problem they meet, the problem that every modeler meets but most especially the climate modeler, is that while it is easy to use various analysis tools to find correlations in the data, there is often nothing that will tell you if there is really a causal relationship, and which way the causality runs. For example, one might observe that interest rates and exchange rates move together. Are interest rate changes leading to exchange rate adjustments, or vice versa? Or, in fact, are they both caused by a third variable? Or is their observed correlation merely coincidence?

It was once observed that if an old AFL football team wins the Superbowl, a bear market will ensue on Wall Street in the next year, while an NFL team victory presaged a bull market. As of 1997, this correlation held for 28 of the last 31 years, a far better prediction record than that of any Wall Street analyst. But of course this correlation was spurious, and in the next 4 years it was wrong every time. Had someone built a financial model on this indicator, it would have looked great when he ran it against history, but he would have lost his shirt using it.

Want a better prediction record? For seventeen straight US presidential election cycles, from 1936 to 2000, the winner of the election was accurately predicted by…the Washington Redskins. In particular, if the Redskins won their last home game before the election, the party that occupies the White House holds it in the election. Otherwise, if the Redskins lose, the opposition party wins. Seventeen in a row! R-squared of one! Success against odds of 131,072:1 of guessing all 17 right. But of course, the input was spurious, and in 2004, soon after this relationship made the rounds of the Internet, the algorithm failed.

Note that the historic relationship between football and elections is much stronger than the historic relationship between global warming and CO2. In the last 12 decades, CO2 levels and temperatures have only moved in the same direction in half the decades.