Join the Discussion

Comments So Far: 159

• 100%

  Neophile1 year, 8 months ago

  Sadly there will always be global warming deniers. And thanks to the internet, it is easier than ever for anyone to have a soap box to get their ideas out.

  However they will be marginalized along with conspiracy theorists, tinfoil hat wearers and other ideologues who reject scientific evidence.

  It is great that this disinformation has one less source of corporate funding though.

  Reply

  32 Replies

  • 0%

    TechnologyExpert1 year, 8 months ago

    I don't understand the people who still doubt this! Look at this guy's response to my comment here:

    http://donoevil.netscape.com/story/2007/02/05/an-o

    His comment back is here:

    http://donoevil.netscape.com/story/2007/02/05/an-o

    There is enough oil to last 1000 years?!!! When we've already used 1/2 of it in 150, and are using it up faster than before?

    Reducing carbon emissions will kill plant life which needs carbon dioxide?????? There is plenty of carbon dioxide. Give me a break!

    The rest is all weird as well; where does this type of attitude come from?

    Reply

    28 Replies

    • 100%

      Neophile1 year, 8 months ago

      Who needs logic when you have ideology?

      Reply

      21 Replies

      • 82%

        ybdogsct1 year, 8 months ago

        Something tells me you don't possess an advanced degree in any scientific field.

        Reply

        14 Replies

        • 100%

          jeffery11 year, 8 months ago

          There is no way that you have any advanced degree or even graduated high school. You can't even research basic information on the internet and seem completely oblivious to any real science site.

          Reply

          1 Reply

          • 100%

            froggs091 year, 8 months ago

            jeffery1, did you graduate from elementary school? Just asking, you seem to cut down everyone who doesn't agree with you. Do you kiss Al Gore before you go to bed every night? Just wondering!

            Reply
        • 33%

          TechnologyExpert1 year, 8 months ago

          Mensa member. My wife's a psychologist, she gave me the std IQ test ... genius level.

          So what, for either of us? Evidence is evidence. I could be Einstein and still be wrong if I discount the evidence.

          Now, despite the fact that CSI is a TV show, and a lot of it is bunk in terms of what they actually can and cannot do, Grissom is always right in what he says: "follow the evidence".

          Reply

          1 Reply

          • 56%

            LABELDUDE1 year, 8 months ago

            Techno, better get your "I.Q." test from an unbiased source. Your wife may be just trying to convince herself she didn't make a grevious error.

            Reply
        • 100%

          ybdogsct1 year, 8 months ago

          MANORAK WROTE:

          "Masters of Physics, Physical Sciences and PhD in Electrical Engineering and Technology"

          A PhD in technology? Masters in Physical Science? I didn't know advanced degrees in those "fields" existed. But then again, what do I know:

          Master's Degree Molecular Biophysics & Biochemistry

          Nearly finished combined PhD/MD degrees

          3 of my former roommates now work for JPL. 1 works for Raytheon. 1 works for DuPont. There's a reason why 90% of university science professors have certified global warming. If you have raw data published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal that supports your conclusion that global warming is "caused by solar flares, sunspots and solar radiation...man has little or nothing to do with it..." I'd like to see it. Go ahead and make it as technical as you want. My friends and I will have a look at it.

          I'll be waiting.

          Reply

          9 Replies

          • 0%

            capecoralM1 year, 8 months ago

            Example of a few that don't agree with the man made theory:There are many others as we all know.

            Global warming has finally been explained: the Earth is getting hotter because the Sun is burning more brightly than at any time during the past 1,000 years, according to new research.

            A study by Swiss and German scientists suggests that increasing radiation from the sun is responsible for recent global climate changes.

            Dr Sami Solanki, the director of the renowned Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Gottingen, Germany, who led the research, said: "The Sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures.

            http://www.mps.mpg.de/projects/sun-climate/

            Reply

            8 Replies

            • 0%

              eddie1071 year, 8 months ago

              It seems strange to me that this is even a "Hot Topic". The earth does seem to be getting warmer, but in reality, the earth has always been going through changes in its history. But now that man has been introduced into the equation, the changes are going to be much more dramatic.

              Everyone wants to point their finger and talk about who is doing wrong, but they all ignore the real problem. And that is the Human Race. We are consumers, and as long as there is a market, it will be filled, if not by a giant factory billowing smoke in America, then it will be in China, or Mexico, because those people need to eat too. So they in turn can multiply and become consumers too.

              The world is in the greatest mass extinction since the dinosaurs, we are just waiting for our pollution to kill a keystone species, then we are all dead. The only way to stop pollution, is to stop the population, and that will never happen, until it happens on a massive scale.

              Reply
            • 0%

              jeffery11 year, 8 months ago

              From space.com:

              "It might seem logical to assume tie climate to solar output, but firm connections are few. Other studies looking further back in time have suggested a connection between longer variations in solar activity and temperatures on Earth."

              Looking at historical solar cycles versus temperature seems to indicate that the temperature rise/falls are due to the fact that as we add greenhouse gases any solar activity has a greater affect and NOT that global warming is caused by solar activity variance only.

              Come on. Start using your head. Clear out the right wing nonsense and think outside the ideological box. We are talking about a large system that is affected by numerous factors. It appears that our addition of greenhouse gases exacerbates the effects of solar activity.

              Quit the dark side and join the open world of objectivity.

              Reply

              2 Replies

              • 0%

                capecoralM1 year, 8 months ago

                Come on Start clearing out the Mass Media Brainwashing you have been subjected to. The suns output has been documented, studied, and conclusive evidence is that the sun is the main heat source for the earth.

                Reply

                1 Reply

                • 0%

                  ybdogsct1 year, 8 months ago

                  CAPECORALM WROTE:

                  "Come on Start clearing out the Mass Media Brainwashing you have been subjected to"

                  I would ask you to do the same. When you're done clearing out your brain, you might want to fill it with sound science by taking a graduate level science class.

                  Reply
            • 100%

              ybdogsct1 year, 8 months ago

              The vast majority of scientists have debunked solar variation theory.

              http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Changes_In_Solar

              "Our results imply that, over the past century, climate change due to human influences must far outweigh the effects of changes in the Sun's brightness"

              http://www.aip.org/history/climate/solar.htm

              "By the 1990s, there was a tentative answer: minor solar variations could indeed have been partly responsible for some past fluctuations... but future warming from the rise in greenhouse gases would far outweigh any solar effects."

              http://www.washtimes.com/world/20040718-115714-633

              "over the past 20 years, the number of sunspots had remained roughly constant, while the Earth's temperature had continued to increase. This suggested that over the past 20 years, human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation had begun to dominate "the natural factors"

              Reply
            • 0%

              ybdogsct1 year, 8 months ago

              http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/StottEtAl.pd

              "...most warming over the last 50 yr is likely to have been caused by increases in greenhouse gases. The best estimate of the warming from solar forcing accounts for only 16% or 36% of total greenhouse warming depending on the solar reconstruction."

              CAPECORALM WROTE:

              "Example of a few that don't agree with the man made theory."

              Even the scientist YOU cite, Dr SAMI SOLANKI, has admitted:

              http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/solanki2004/so

              "Although the rarity of the current episode of high average sunspot numbers may indicate that the Sun has contributed to the unusual climate change during the twentieth century, we point out that solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades."

              Next time you cite a source, try citing the entire article instead of cherry-picking selections out of context.

              Reply
            • 0%

              ybdogsct1 year, 8 months ago

              http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/seminars/991118FO.htm

              "During the past two decades (1976-1996) direct observations of solar irradiance suggest negligible long-term solar forcing of climate. Over this observational period, solar radiation levels remained approximately constant, exhibiting no change during two successive solar cycle minima (1986 and 1996) while observed surface temperatures nevertheless increased by 0.2°C over the same period of time....In general, these calculations make it clear that it is scientifically very difficult to construct an explanation for the 20th century warming that does not include a major role for the added greenhouse gases resulting from human activities.

              "Added greenhouse gases provide, by far, the most plausible hypothesis for explaining the warming of the 20th century."

              Reply
            • 83%

              ybdogsct1 year, 8 months ago

              http://www.mpg.de/english/illustrationsDocumentati

              "the Sun can be responsible for, at most, only a small part of the warming over the last 20-30 years. They took the measured and calculated variations in the solar brightness over the last 150 years and compared them to the temperature of the Earth. Although the changes in the two values tend to follow each other for roughly the first 120 years, the Earth's temperature has risen dramatically in the last 30 years while the solar brightness has not appreciably increased in this time."

              http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/448.htm

              "The estimation of earlier solar irradiance fluctuations, although based on physical mechanisms, is indirect. Hence our confidence in the range of solar radiation on century time-scales is low...the direct effect of variations in solar forcing over the 20th century was about 20 to 25% of the change in forcing due to greenhouse gases."

              Reply
      • 0%

        jeffery11 year, 8 months ago

        Solar activity you say? Here's a little something from Stanford's Solar Center:

        "Some uncertainty remains about the role of natural variations in causing climate change. Solar variability certainly plays a minor role, but it looks like only a quarter of the recent variations can be attributed to the Sun. At most. During the initial discovery period of global warming, the magnitude of the influence of increased activity on the Sun was not well determined.

        ...While a component of recent global warming may have been caused by the increased solar activity of the last solar cycle, that component was very small compared to the effects of additional greenhouse gases. According to a NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) press release, "...the solar increases do not have the ability to cause large global temperature increases...greenhouse gases are indeed playing the dominant role...""

        Reply

        3 Replies

        • 100%

          capecoralM1 year, 8 months ago

          http://www.senate.gov/~rpc/releases/2003/ev060203.

          Reply

          2 Replies

          • 100%

            jeffery11 year, 8 months ago

            You've got to be f'ing kidding! A report from John Kyl and the Republican Policy Committee! Give me a break, as if this isn't a joke. You do not get more agenda driven than Kyl and a Republican committee. Get something from real scientists already.

            Reply

            1 Reply

            • 0%

              capecoralM1 year, 8 months ago

              I will ask you to do the same. There is no scientific data that PROVES beyond a shadow of doubt that global warming is man made. In fact the climate has changed many times in history. It has been warmer than now and cooler than now. Anyway cooler climates have had a much more devastating effect on species so you, as an admitted environments, should be happy the climate is warmer as more species thrive in a warmer a climate. Even you should recognize the IPCC political statements use terms such as "likely" meaning there is a chance that it is also "Unlikely". John Kyle did not testify others did and those testimonies were used to create the report. I know you are a Republican hater but the facts are not made up by republicans. The facts being reported are simply the subject of a report authored by a committee chaired by a republican. For more information see the Bibliography of sources.

              Reply
      • 0%

        ETproductions1 year, 8 months ago

        manorak, There certainly IS evidence that periods of heavy sun spot evidence do influence temperatures on earth, but to make the great leap that this PROVES that greenhouse gases can have no impact is so ridiculous that I'd have to say of you do hold a technical PHD then you are either bought your degree from an Internet Degree mil or you are one of the very scientists this article is mentioning as bought off as shills -- and I doubt that. I don't think Exxon Mobil would fund an Electrical Engineer to contribute to climatology disinformation.

        Do you insist that all of astrophysics is wrong about the reason the surface temperatures on Venus is an average of 894 degrees F. not because the planet is shrouded in greenhouse gases but because there are always solar flares pointing only toward Venus? How could all of astronomy missed this important "fact". You better get on the horn to NASA and the worlds universities and set all these silly astronomers straight.

        Reply
      • 0%

        ETproductions1 year, 8 months ago

        We KNOW greenhouse gases affect temperatures on both Earth and other planets. We KNOW greenhouse gases are on the rise on earth due to human activity. We KNOW that if you lay the graph of CO2 for the past 100 years over a graph of average temperature worldwide, they track remarkably. We KNOW that if you lay a graph of solar activity over the same temperature graph, they don't track.

        So even if you have a PhD from every university known to man, your are simply wrong if you claim that sunspots and solar flares are the only controlling factors in earth's temperature swings. You are denying the Milankovitch Cycle, vulcanism and ash distribution, and greenhouse gases.

        See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age for a graph that charts what has caused major temperatrue swings over the last 400,000 years. THere are three factors tracked. Volcanic dust, CO2 and temperature.

        For recent tracking, see http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/GlobalWar and scroll down.

        Reply
    • 0%

      froggy721 year, 8 months ago

      from public schools. We've been told since the late 60's that oil will run out during the late 70's. Then in the late 70's its change to the 80's....& so on & so on...

      Its now 2007 and my kids come home with an earth day flier,

      almost the same I had in the 60's - and its telling of the world will run out of oil by 2015...40 years of this terror is enough.

      Reply

      5 Replies

      • 0%

        IAmMine1 year, 8 months ago

        Ahh, Manorak bringing up Monte Hieb who works for the coal industry. Thanks for supporting the argument in this article.

        Reply

      • lovermanComment removed: User banned.
      • 0%

        ybdogsct1 year, 8 months ago

        FROGGY57 WROTE:

        "We've been told since the late 60's that oil will run out during the late 70's. Then in the late 70's its change to the 80's....& so on & so on..."

        1) This is irrelevant to global warming.

        2) This is not necessarily "fearmongering." This phenomenon may have to do with discoveries of new oil fields and evolution of new drilling technology that have made previously (fiscally) inaccessible oil fields accessible.

        3) I haven't seen any 1960s-1970s articles from peer-reviewed scientific journals that claimed the world would run out of oil by 2015. This may have been propaganda from the oil companies using an allegedly impending oil supply crisis as an excuse to raise prices. It wouldn't be the first time they did this.

        http://www.ferc.gov/industries/electric/indus-act/

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_energy_cri

        Reply
      • 0%

        jeffery11 year, 8 months ago

        40 years of people like you is enough.

        Reply
      • 100%

        TechnologyExpert1 year, 8 months ago

        You have it completely wrong. What was said, and what was accurate, was Hubbert's Peak.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil

        That the US would PEAK in 1970. In fact, this DID happen.

        Reply
  • 0%

    LABELDUDE1 year, 8 months ago

    Neophile. "tinfoil hat wearers"? What are you talkin' about. Those are the brave folks actually DOING something about GLOBAL WARMING. Not just Yammering about it. Are Ye simple?

    Here it is again: 280 million U.S.A. residents can make a difference. Stop whining and make yourself a tin foil hat!

    Site 1 is http://people.csail.mit.edu/rahimi/helmet. This site describes The Centurion, The Fez and The Classical. These three fine Reynolds double tin foil hats are attractive, sporty and reflect dangerous rays back into the dark reaches of space where they belong while at the same time reducing global warming. For best results in reducing global warming, wear continuously from sun-up till sun-down. The newer "Al Gore" model is not yet in production and has so far proven to be dull, lifeless and not too effective.

    Reply

    1 Reply

    • 45%

      LABELDUDE1 year, 8 months ago

      Most people are not aware that a fine, nice-looking and effective tin foil hat may actually be constructed using the plans for making a paper hat. Simply substitute tin foil or aluminum wrap for the paper required in the instructions for a paper hat and follow the directions.

      Site 2 is http://www.ehow.com/how_414_make-paper-hat.html. It will lead the way to your ownership of a fine pointy-topped tin foil hat that you can be proud to wear anywhere.

      Reply
  • 86%

    Blackace1 year, 8 months ago

    It's amazing how a person's greed can exceed his need to live? It's heartless and stupid...you can argue against global warming all you want, but you must know nature has a mind of its own; she will not follow your lies blindly. You are a fool if you follow these guys, while looking at the vicious weather we have had as of late.

    Reply
• 36%

  DeborahByrd1 year, 8 months ago

  It's very exciting that scientists are beginning to speak out about this disinformation campaign.

  Reply

  6 Replies

  • 100%

    Wil1 year, 8 months ago

    I completely agree, Deborah. It seems like there are two groups of people at the moment: those who understand the science and the real threat to our planet, and those who believe the petroleum industry's propaganda.

    As someone who truly loves this planet we live on, I sincerely hope that more of the people who have been fooled by the propaganda can be enlightened, so that we can all work together as a species to ensure our planet's survival.

    (I love Earth & Sky, too. Thanks for all the work you do to make it happen.)

    Reply

    5 Replies

    • 100%

      jeffery11 year, 8 months ago

      The only disinformation campaign is being run by corporate interests with the help of the anti-environmental fasctists in the U.S. government.

      From your incredible post it appears that you have been studying Republican spin. Implying that the media refusing to air disinformation directly leads to totalitarianism is a twit's attempt at being Rovian because it was the media's compliance to the administration's lies and refusal to discuss Bush's illegal behavior that leads to totalitarianism.

      Understand this, global warming and its implications are debated each and every day within the scientific community. There is no conspiracy to keep opposing views from being published be cause they are published. That you do not find them means simply that either you don't understand the debate or you are too ideological to actually review the articles.

      Reply

      2 Replies

      • 100%

        Lurch1 year, 8 months ago

        >Understand this, global warming and its implications are debated each and every day within the scientific community. There is no conspiracy to keep opposing views from being published be cause they are published.

        Debate and peer-reviewed science?

        Pretty much the opposite of everything the Bush admin did while the do-nothing rubber stamp Republicans controlled congress.

        Reply

        1 Reply

        • 0%

          jeffery11 year, 8 months ago

          You got that right. The anti-environmentalists on this site like capecoralM are absolutely ideological. For example, capecoralM posted a link (above) to a report written by John Kyl on the Republican Policy Committee as proof that solar activity is a major contributor to global warming. Not an article by a real scientist, but by a conservative know-nothing ideologue.

          This is how the Republican develop policy, ignore inconvenient truths for ideological reasons.

          Reply
    • 80%

      walden31 year, 8 months ago

      dixie chicks. dan rather. bill maher.

      Reply
    • 75%

      Blackace1 year, 8 months ago

      Fools will remain...it's their nature.

      Reply
• 70%

  Mysticdon1 year, 8 months ago

  My, my, Deborah Byrd commenting on how nice her own article is. For another opinion go to this story: http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming

  Reply

  17 Replies

  • 0%

    Neophile1 year, 8 months ago

    Anyone else think its weird that americasnewssource.com redirects to canadafreepress.com? Are these guys wolves in sheeps' clothing?

    "Dr. Timothy Ball is Chairman and Chair of the Scientific Advisory Committee of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project."

    http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tim_Ball

    The NRSP has refused to answer questions on whether or not they are funded by energy interests.

    http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Natural_Res

    Which means this differing opinion might actually be an example the disinformation that this article is referring to.

    Reply

    1 Reply

    • 0%

      Wil1 year, 8 months ago

      Wikipedia says this about Tim Ball:

      "He is currently active in lobbying against the Kyoto Protocol across Canada. He formerly headed the activist organization Friends of Science and is now Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project."

      What's the Natural Resources Stewardship Project? Part of "Friends of Science" which is . . . wait for it . . . bankrolled by the oil and energy industry. Among its directors is Madhav Khandekar, from the Competitive Enterprise Institute which is . . . wait for it . . . bankrolled by ExxonMobil, taking in over 2 million dollars since 1998.

      Every single one of these guys is being paid by the petroleum industry to spread disinformation disguised as science.

      Reply
  • 0%

    DeborahByrd1 year, 8 months ago

    Hi Mysticdon. Yes! Like many others in the science community, I'm am happy that the disinformation campaign about global warming - which we've watched unfold for many years now - is finally coming to an end.

    Reply

    6 Replies

    • 100%

      IcCaRus1 year, 8 months ago

      that are none so blind as those that will not see

      the evidence is overwhelming..... are you simnly brainwashed, or are you an employee or maybe investor of ExxonMobil?

      Reply

      5 Replies

      • 100%

        jeffery11 year, 8 months ago

        You don't research crap.

        Reply

        4 Replies

        • 100%

          Eagle_Eye1 year, 8 months ago

          Who's writing manorak pay check??????? The great disformers.

          Reply

          3 Replies

          • 0%

            jeffery11 year, 8 months ago

            No one writes him a pay check. He's unemployed and lives in his disabled mom's extra room on her social security check. He takes her money.

            Reply

            2 Replies

            • 0%

              joeeddie1 year, 8 months ago

              Then he's a liberal?

              Reply

              1 Reply

              • 0%

                jeffery11 year, 8 months ago

                No. He's one of those angry white male conservtives. It's always someones else's fault for his failures.

                Reply
  • 0%

    iamverb1 year, 8 months ago

    Mysticdon,

    Next time you link to someone, you might want to check their credentials first.

    Tim Ball claims, in the article you linked to, that he is "the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology" - which isn't true. Since there is no such thing as a Ph.D. in Climatology, it's hard to understand what he means by this. He says himself, later in the same paragraph, that he holds a Ph.D. in Science from London, which is also not true. He holds a Ph.D. in Geography, which is neither a Ph.D. in Science or Climatology (not that there is such a thing).

    Next, he claims he "was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg", which also isn't true - again, there is no such thing. He was a geology professor. Granted, some of his published scientific works relate to climate change, but calling my Aunt an Uncle doesn't mean she has balls. At the very least, he misrepresents both his accredation and his experience.

    Reply

    7 Replies

    • 0%

      jeffery11 year, 8 months ago

      Alright, what are you talking about? A quick rearch for PhD and climatology resulted in the following from the University of Delaware:

      "A required, original research thesis is the capstone achievement of every master's student, and, of course, an original dissertation is required of every Ph.D. student in Climatology."

      Also, the University of Arizona and Rutgers lists PhDs in climatology.

      I haven't checked the other information about Mr. Ball, but there are PhDs awarded in climatology so why would you say that there's no such thing?

      Reply

      5 Replies

      • 57%

        ybdogsct1 year, 8 months ago

        IAMVERB WROTE:

        "Tim Ball claims, in the article you linked to, that he is "the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology" - which isn't true."

        JEFFERY1 WROTE:

        "Also, the University of Arizona and Rutgers lists PhDs in climatology."

        The University of Arizona and Rutgers aren't located in Canada.

        Reply

        1 Reply

        • 100%

          jeffery11 year, 8 months ago

          From jamverb: "Since there is no such thing as a Ph.D. in Climatology,"

          He doesn't state that it applies only to Canada.

          Reply
      • 0%

        ind061 year, 8 months ago

        Which doesn't change the strange, non-academic phrase "PhD in Science". WTF? Look, I have a Masters in History, specifically I have a MA in 19th Century American Diplomatic History. Nobody says they have a PhD in "Science", the whole concept of the PhD is specificity, not generalization, you don't even get a BA in "Science"! C'mon, no real academic talks like that.

        Reply

        2 Replies

        • 38%

          jeffery11 year, 8 months ago

          I have no idea who this Tim Ball is or even what he says. I just didn't get why jamverb would say that a PhD dodsn't exist for a specific field of study when a quick search shows a buunch of schools grant them.

          Here's a URL to something on this Tim Ball:

          http://www.desmogblog.com/timothy-f-ball-tim-ball

          I'm NOT attacking jamverb's post only wondering about that PhD statement, that's all.

          Reply

          1 Reply

          • 80%

            ind061 year, 8 months ago

            Sorry, I'm not attacking you, jeffery1, you're right about the Climatology PhD, it does exist. I just thought that "PhD in 'Science'" thing was strange is all.

            Reply
    • 0%

      jeffery11 year, 8 months ago

      iamverb,

      As I read my post now, it is too confrontational, sorry.

      Reply
• 33%

  ningyo1 year, 8 months ago

  the question isnt whether there are warming and cooling trends in the climate--thats always been going on--there was the big warm-up from 10-1300--and the cooling in the 1800's--what causes it is another story--i dont think fossil fuel were used much in 900 AD--right now there is a large increase in solar flares--that might have something to do with it--or volcano's--or this or that--and what of the foundations funding all these "real" scientists saying its all mans fault--if they disagree maybe their grants dry up--but nooo its only the oil money that has influence on results--baloney--the fear mongering global warming crowd is only interested in blaming america--not real science--and proving something by consensus is not science ..its mob rule..a thousand years ago the "consensus of scientists was that the earth was flat--they got that one wrong also--let the negative libscape attack begin--go scarlet knights

  Reply
• 67%

  hamy1 year, 8 months ago

  Science isn't trying to do anything except to save our planet. What I don't understand is why would anyone not want to have cars that don't pollute, or air conditioning that doesn't destroy the air that we are breathing. Who wouldn't want less old computer parts scattered all over the world or less lung cancer?

  Why would you fight something that only serves to make this a better place to live?

  Reply

  3 Replies

  • 0%

    froggy721 year, 8 months ago

    No one is 'fighting' anything, we are only asking the unanswered question is 'why are we running out of oil in the 60's yet we still have oil and a whole lot more than 1965.' I would love to drive a car that would not pollute the air - or have air conditioning that would be clean running. The cost for these items - when they are ever built - would be outragous! We need to give those that purchase these items a great tax break to soften the cost!

    One other thing...Its a fairly niave to really think Science is trying to only save our planet. Sciencetis are people too.

    Reply

    2 Replies

    • 100%

      TechnologyExpert1 year, 8 months ago

      Once again, you don't know what you're talking about. Or you are remembering incorrectly. What you are talking about was Hubbert's Peak. Hubbert's peak NEVER said we would run out in the 60s. It said the US production WOULD PEAK in 65 - 70. Which it did, in 1970. Since then production from the US has dropped, and that is a fact.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil

      And, may I ask, what kind of car do you drive? If you drive a Hummer or even a run of the mill SUV, may I state that you can get a Toyota Yaris that gets 40MPG on the highway for about 12 - 15K ... far less than any SUV.

      Also, I don't think people like Cameron Diaz bought their Priuses to get a tax break. They did it to be green.

      Reply

      1 Reply

      • 0%

        froggy721 year, 8 months ago

        Why must you insist that I know nothing of what I'm talking about(Talk about rude)?

        Unless you were sitting in an ele. class room in the 60's with me? I know very well what was spoken and what was said. Why, becasue it bothered me and made me very worried at the time. I WAS TOLD THAT WE'D RUN OUT OF OIL BY THE MID-70s' AND SO ON...AND SO ON !

        I've always been on the conserve side too many to even add on to this message. I have been doing things for the enviroment maybe longer than you have been alive - given your rude response I'm taking a good educated guess that you are either under 35 or you are some self proclaim high

        educated person that believes in everything science tells you.

        The car I drive is a 4cyl that gives me 38/40 miles per gallon. My minivan also is a 4cyl. We drive as little as possible to save money.

        Reply
• 0%

  DeltaX1 year, 8 months ago

  Sunk. This article belongs in the Do No Evil category.

  Reply
• 0%

  acompas1 year, 8 months ago

  I take issue with the idea that "a thousand years ago the 'consensus of scientists was that the earth was flat."

  Any school kid knows that Eratosthenes (http://en...">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes),">(http the MacGyver of his day, back in 240 BC correctly (within about 99% accuracy) measured the circumference of the Earth using a plum line, the summer solstice, and his knowledge of geometry.

  Of course, we all know what happened to Eratosthenes ...

  Reply
• 0%

  icewater1 year, 8 months ago

  Global Warming. It's a subject you hear a lot about, to make a HUGE understatement.

  Persnally, I believe in global climate change and that the earth has become warmer over the last one hundred years. However, I'm beginning to have my doubts about this being a man-made phenomenon. In addition to the theatrics displayed by the proponents of co2 derived global warming ideas, I never see any presentation of evidence to support their belief that greenhouse gases are the culprit, at least not in any rag intended for mass consumption. They just expect people to believe it.

  I also don't believe that ALL scientists who choose not to believe that humans cause global warming are on somebody's payroll.

  Reply

  1 Reply

  • 83%

    Eagle_Eye1 year, 8 months ago

    puppet????

    Reply
• 0%

  Zeitgeist1 year, 8 months ago

  But why is MARS warming?

  Reply

  3 Replies

  • 0%

    Neophile1 year, 8 months ago

    I applaud your ambition, but why don't we worry about fixing our own planet first?

    Reply

    1 Reply

    • 100%

      newsquew1 year, 8 months ago

      neo,

      The warming of other planets in our solar system need not be ignored. Scientific space exploration is to learn of the universe & our place in it. I's not ambitious to use all the science available. Cause & effect on our neighboring planets do not include human activity & that has to be factored in. Solar activity is not manipulated by petro corps.

      Your earlier statement of "Who needs logic when you have ideology?" may do well with some self reflection.

      Reply
  • 0%

    froggy721 year, 8 months ago

    Yeah you are right - why is Mars warming...Maybe its was my SUV ? I quickly got rid of it after I read the article !

    Reply
• 0%

  IAmMine1 year, 8 months ago

  Dr. Theodor Landscheidt is a research astrologer. Dr. Theodor Landscheidt is not a scientist. He is a glorified palm reader.

  Reply
• 0%

  torrent291 year, 8 months ago

  So you find one paper by one guy and this somehow contradicts the tons of evidence presented by consensus of climatologists?

  Fascinating.

  Reply
• 0%

  pazuita1 year, 8 months ago

  The leftists are the propagandists? Hmmmmmmmmm

  With virtually every respected and accredited scientist, and authority on climate science in the world agreeing that humans are in some degree responsible for global warming, with the exception of those funded by the Energy industry of course, you quote Dr Theodor Landscheidt.

  Landscheidt is not a scientist, he is an astrologer. In fact, he is a research astrologer who claims to be an "Amateur Climatologist", or at least he did before his death in about 2004.

  The highly renowned Schroeter Institute for Research in Cycles of Solar Activity, had only one researcher, Dr Landscheidt himself, who was also it's founder. The entire institute was moved from Landscheidt's hometown in Germany, to Canada, apparently in a small manilla folder.

  Reply

  1 Reply

  • 100%

    pazuita1 year, 8 months ago

    No, it does not necessarily mean the data is wrong, but in this case........

    Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

    But, an Astrologer? As an expert? Laughable.

    Why not look for a good palm reader, they are far more believeable, and probably more qualified.

    Reply
• 100%

  pazuita1 year, 8 months ago

  The flat earthers, propagandists, and deniers will always be among us, but just in case some of you missed it, The Bu$h Administration is beginning to see the light, and has declared the debate over.

  The Administrations own hand picked right wing conservative Energy Secretary made this comment about the IPCC report.

  "We're very pleased with it. We're embracing it. We agree with it," "Human activity is contributing to changes in our Earth's climate and that issue is no longer up for debate."...............U.S. Energy Secretary Sam Bodman

  Debate over, or at least, that part of it should be. It's time to move on to the debate about solutions.

  Reply
• 0%

  IAmMine1 year, 8 months ago

  You do know this is a religious website right?

  http://www.discerningtoday.org/

  Reply
• 50%

  IAmMine1 year, 8 months ago

  You do know this is a religious website right?

  http://www.discerningtoday.org/

  They also are against the Endangered species act...

  Reply
• 100%

  abntv1 year, 8 months ago

  To throw out a discussion about the changes in climate on Mars is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater...who can say without question that the two planets are not being affected by the same solar events.

  Reply
• 0%

  IAmMine1 year, 8 months ago

  Wow, capnbob's blog... A far right wing website where he goas on and on with temper tantrums about democrats. I don't see any scientific proof. Manorak are you and capnbob the same person?

  Reply
• 0%

  IAmMine1 year, 8 months ago

  And all of it brought to you by the Assoc of British Drivers!! Hilarious! They sound like great people:

  "Among its associate organisations the ABD numbers Pistonheads, a website which carried death threats last year against Mary Williams, the head of road safety charity Brake, whose mother and former partner were killed in traffic accidents. Members of Pistonheads suggested that Mrs Williams should be "knocked off" or have her brake cables cut for supporting the proliferation of speed cameras. Other postings said she should be burnt at the stake as a witch. "

  http://www.guardian.co.uk/transport/Story/0,2763,1

  http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Associa

  Reply
• 100%

  walden31 year, 8 months ago

  come on - the society of british drivers? has it been peer reviewed?

  Reply

  2 Replies

  • 100%

    pazuita1 year, 8 months ago

    They can't even drive on the "Right" side of the road.

    They must be some extremist, left loving, commies.