Topic: Climate Change Skeptic Changes Sides.
started by: Liberal
Posted by Liberal on Sep. 01 2010,8:11 am
Flips sides on Climate Change, and Cap and Trade? 
QUOTE
The world's most high-profile climate change sceptic is to declare that global warming is "undoubtedly one of the chief concerns facing the world today" and "a challenge humanity must confront", in an apparent U-turn that will give a huge boost to the embattled environmental lobby.
Bjørn Lomborg, the self-styled "sceptical environmentalist" once compared to Adolf Hitler by the UN's climate chief, is famous for attacking climate scientists, campaigners, the media and others for exaggerating the rate of global warming and its effects on humans, and the costly waste of policies to stop the problem.
But in a new book to be published next month, Lomborg will call for tens of billions of dollars a year to be invested in tackling climate change. "Investing $100bn annually would mean that we could essentially resolve the climate change problem by the end of this century," the book concludes.
Examining eight methods to reduce or stop global warming, Lomborg and his fellow economists recommend pouring money into researching and developing clean energy sources such as wind, wave, solar and nuclear power, and more work on climate engineering ideas such as "cloud whitening" to reflect the sun's heat back into the outer atmosphere.
In a Guardian interview, he said he would finance investment through a tax on carbon emissions that would also raise $50bn to mitigate the effect of climate change, for example by building better sea defences, and $100bn for global healthcare.
< http://www.guardian.co.uk/environ...-u-turn >
Posted by Expatriate on Sep. 02 2010,9:39 am
well I'm fliping sides too I want some globle warming, I hate long cold winters...
Posted by grassman on Sep. 03 2010,6:54 am
It is funny how some need to be hit in the face with a brick before they can see the light.
Posted by ICU812 on Sep. 03 2010,10:01 am
(grassman @ Sep. 03 2010,6:54 am)
QUOTE
It is funny how some need to be hit in the face with a brick before they can see the light.
What's funnier is that people know what is causing it and choose to contribute to it day in and day out.
Big trucks, big mowers, two-stroke trimmers and such. I'm not tossing a brick, I'm just saying.
Posted by jimhanson on Sep. 03 2010,10:19 am
(ICU812 @ Sep. 03 2010,10:01 am)
QUOTE
(grassman @ Sep. 03 2010,6:54 am)
QUOTE
It is funny how some need to be hit in the face with a brick before they can see the light.
What's funnier is that people know what is causing it and choose to contribute to it day in and day out.
Big trucks, big mowers, two-stroke trimmers and such. I'm not tossing a brick, I'm just saying.
Not to mention AlBore's jets and Obummer burning 6000 gallons of jet fuel to plant one tree in Colorado.
If they REALLY believed in
I know, I know--"They're doing it for our own good."
Posted by MADDOG on Sep. 03 2010,5:04 pm
QUOTE
Sept. 2,2010
Suzuki's sockeye black eye
Last year the David Suzuki Foundation issued an article that blamed declining sock-eye salmon stocks on global warming, among other things:
This year, the salmon are back, in numbers not seen in almost 100 years:
The Suzuki Foundation has been caught out by the nature of things, they took a short-term trend and used it as an example that global warming is real. Now, nature has bounced back with record numbers of fish and the David Suzuki Foundation’s unfounded fear-mongering is exposed.
Suzuki's sockeye black eye
Last year the David Suzuki Foundation issued an article that blamed declining sock-eye salmon stocks on global warming, among other things:
QUOTE
The Fraser River’s sockeye salmon are in trouble. And when the salmon are in trouble, we’re all in trouble.
The number of sockeye returning from the ocean to the Fraser River this year is one of the lowest in the past 50 and follows two years of dangerously low returns. In fact, we have witnessed decades of decline for diverse sockeye populations from the Fraser Watershed, some of which are now on the brink of extinction.
Sockeye have been heavily fished over the years, their spawning habitat in rivers and lakes is being destroyed, their survival is threatened by warming oceans and rivers due to climate change, and they are vulnerable to sea lice and diseases from open-net salmon farms.
The stocks were so low last year that the government launched an investigation which is set to cost $14 million and start next month. The David Suzuki Foundation was granted standing as part of the Conservation Coalition.The number of sockeye returning from the ocean to the Fraser River this year is one of the lowest in the past 50 and follows two years of dangerously low returns. In fact, we have witnessed decades of decline for diverse sockeye populations from the Fraser Watershed, some of which are now on the brink of extinction.
Sockeye have been heavily fished over the years, their spawning habitat in rivers and lakes is being destroyed, their survival is threatened by warming oceans and rivers due to climate change, and they are vulnerable to sea lice and diseases from open-net salmon farms.
This year, the salmon are back, in numbers not seen in almost 100 years:
QUOTE
Fishery officials estimated Tuesday that more than 25 million sockeye salmon will return to the Fraser River this year, the largest number since 1913. Last year’s return was 1.7 million — the lowest in more than 50 years.
And the estimate could yet go higher as Tuesday’s test catch was the largest all year, said Barry Rosenberger, area director for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
Radical environmentalists have been parading NOAA’s declaration that the first 6 months of 2010 were the warmest on record. Yet sockeye salmon thrived in what are presumably the same ‘warming oceans’ the Suzuki article declared would see them vanish almost into extinction.And the estimate could yet go higher as Tuesday’s test catch was the largest all year, said Barry Rosenberger, area director for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
The Suzuki Foundation has been caught out by the nature of things, they took a short-term trend and used it as an example that global warming is real. Now, nature has bounced back with record numbers of fish and the David Suzuki Foundation’s unfounded fear-mongering is exposed.
Posted by Montyman on Sep. 03 2010,5:31 pm
(ICU812 @ Sep. 03 2010,10:01 am)
QUOTE
(grassman @ Sep. 03 2010,6:54 am)
QUOTE
It is funny how some need to be hit in the face with a brick before they can see the light.
What's funnier is that people know what is causing it and choose to contribute to it day in and day out.
Big trucks, big mowers, two-stroke trimmers and such. I'm not tossing a brick, I'm just saying.
Must also mention China...and lots of other places besides the US...our EPA is crazy strict.
M
Posted by grassman on Sep. 03 2010,11:40 pm
(Montyman @ Sep. 03 2010,5:31 pm)
QUOTE
(ICU812 @ Sep. 03 2010,10:01 am)
QUOTE
(grassman @ Sep. 03 2010,6:54 am)
QUOTE
It is funny how some need to be hit in the face with a brick before they can see the light.
What's funnier is that people know what is causing it and choose to contribute to it day in and day out.
Big trucks, big mowers, two-stroke trimmers and such. I'm not tossing a brick, I'm just saying.
Must also mention China...and lots of other places besides the US...our EPA is crazy strict.
M
You are correct. My equipment is all to the upper scale of non-pollutant. I do have to drive a truck to move my stuff around. This is small potatoes to what some big business does to dodge responsibility to keep things clean. I believe in making a place I have go to, better than before I got there.
Posted by Navy_Gary on Sep. 04 2010,7:34 am
Posted by Expatriate on Sep. 04 2010,10:33 am
(jimhanson @ Sep. 03 2010,10:19 am)
QUOTE
Not to mention AlBore's jets and Obummer burning 6000 gallons of jet fuel to plant one tree in Colorado.
If they REALLY believed inglobal warming "climate change"--they wouldn't engage in such behavior.
I know, I know--"They're doing it for our own good."
If they REALLY believed in
I know, I know--"They're doing it for our own good."
I will agree with you Hypoxia, carbon dioxide emissions from aviation is a major problem, jet engines are massive fuel consumers exhausting directly to the upper atmosphere, they benefit a handleful of passengers compared to rail or bus..even fewer when used by Government officials, whether they be Federal or State..
Posted by Glad I Left on Sep. 04 2010,12:08 pm
I don't really have an opinion one way or the other global warming/climate change or whatever anyone calls it these days. Are temps rising? Is it man's fault alone? Who knows, there is evidence both ways on that.I think most of us can agree that living in a clean world is better than the opposite. However, when do you stop taxing yourself into oblivion to achieve this utopia?
Posted by Common Citizen on Sep. 04 2010,1:37 pm
Who wouldn't agree that there's climate change... take this morning for instance. friggen cold out when I walked outside and it was only 3 weeks ago we had heat indices in the 100's. 
I find it funny when you call a lib out on the global warming bologna, and then they assume you support pollution...
I mean, didn't they want to tax cattle farmers because the farts from cows created to much carbon emissions? Come on..grow some brains. About as dumb as developing a fart-o-meter and sticking on your bed and charging you a tax everytime you rip one before you climb out of your fart sack for the day. Crap...I better not give Al Gore any ideas... The alarmist would like you to believe that man has created this and therfore should fix it when the fact of the matter is that the earth has been warming and cooling since it was created.
It's as if th baby boom generation is searching for a way to "save" the world. As if they are trying to one up the "greatest generation". The baby boomers have lived in the shadow of their father's and they are trying desperately to prove that they're just as worthy.
nuff said...
Posted by jimhanson on Sep. 04 2010,2:15 pm
Expatriate-- QUOTE
I will agree with you Hypoxia, carbon dioxide emissions from aviation is a major problem, jet engines are massive fuel consumers exhausting directly to the upper atmosphere, they benefit a handleful of passengers compared to rail or bus..even fewer when used by Government officials, whether they be Federal or State..
You assume that " climate change" is REAL--unproven.
Then you assume that it is caused by MAN--unproven.
That's the hypocrisy of the AlBore's and Obummers of the world--decrying "man-caused global warming" while flying jets around to speak about eliminating it--and proposing a tax on emissions as well.
Where are all of the REST of the people that believe in this hoax? Why aren't they castigating Albore and The One for their hypocrisy? Why aren't these guys taking the bus, the train, or their Prius to these meetings?
Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Sep. 04 2010,2:39 pm
Call me forgetful but isn't carbon dioxide needed? If I remember back from science class plants take in CO2 and convert that back into O2. All of this bologna about CO2 being bad is BS.The earth needs CO2, we need CO2 to survive.
Also they have a funny routine played on the radio down here, about that psycho enviro-nut-whack-job that was rightfully so killed at the discover channel HQ's, about he was part of Al Gore-Qaeda, truly some funny stuff.
Posted by Expatriate on Sep. 04 2010,9:09 pm
(jimhanson @ Sep. 04 2010,2:15 pm)
QUOTE
Expatriate--
You assume that " climate change" is REAL--unproven.
Then you assume that it is caused by MAN--unproven.
That's the hypocrisy of the AlBore's and Obummers of the world--decrying "man-caused global warming" while flying jets around to speak about eliminating it--and proposing a tax on emissions as well.
Where are all of the REST of the people that believe in this hoax? Why aren't they castigating Albore and The One for their hypocrisy? Why aren't these guys taking the bus, the train, or their Prius to these meetings?
QUOTE
I will agree with you Hypoxia, carbon dioxide emissions from aviation is a major problem, jet engines are massive fuel consumers exhausting directly to the upper atmosphere, they benefit a handleful of passengers compared to rail or bus..even fewer when used by Government officials, whether they be Federal or State..
You assume that " climate change" is REAL--unproven.
Then you assume that it is caused by MAN--unproven.
That's the hypocrisy of the AlBore's and Obummers of the world--decrying "man-caused global warming" while flying jets around to speak about eliminating it--and proposing a tax on emissions as well.
Where are all of the REST of the people that believe in this hoax? Why aren't they castigating Albore and The One for their hypocrisy? Why aren't these guys taking the bus, the train, or their Prius to these meetings?
You're the one who brought up the inefficiency of air travel I merely concurred, jet engines are fuel hogs, rail like Japan or Europe would be much more fuel efficient..I do believe in finite fossil fuel resources...
Humans have a better chance of surviving Global warming in my opinion than global cooling..just how much snow and ice can the poles of the North and South hemisphere hold before a cycle takes place...
It was reported some years back that six American fighter planes and two bombers that crash-landed on the ice in Greenland during World War II were found 46 years later buried under 260 feet of ice...if ice was building at that rate isn't it time for a cycle..
Global warming may be a natural cycle, my opinion is humans don't know as much as they think they do, it really wasn't all that long ago the greatest scientific minds told us the world was flat..
The Global Warming cry has been around for some time now it really hasn't taken off until Corporate America saw the chance to make a buck and sent their lobbyists to whisper in our representatives ears "green economy" it doesn't take much of a search to find one of the biggest profiteers of global warming, General Electric which produces wind turbines, the gas turbines utilities are buying to back up the wind turbines that don't produce electricity and they've got there fingers into cap and trade too..
Posted by jimhanson on Sep. 05 2010,12:00 pm
Expatriate--my views are exactly the same as yours, but I differ on the statement QUOTE
You're the one who brought up the inefficiency of air travel I merely concurred, jet engines are fuel hogs, rail like Japan or Europe would be much more fuel efficient..
Yes, rail is more efficient--but I didn't make an efficiency argument for air travel. I simply pointed out the hypocrisy of AlBore and Obummer in profligate and unneccesary uses of jets, all the while pushing their unproven agenda. QUOTE
Not to mention AlBore's jets and Obummer burning 6000 gallons of jet fuel to plant one tree in Colorado.
If they REALLY believed in global warming "climate change"--they wouldn't engage in such behavior.
I know, I know--"They're doing it for our own good."
If they REALLY believed in global warming "climate change"--they wouldn't engage in such behavior.
I know, I know--"They're doing it for our own good."
Expatriate
QUOTE
It was reported some years back that six American fighter planes and two bombers that crash-landed on the ice in Greenland during World War II were found 46 years later buried under 260 feet of ice...if ice was building at that rate isn't it time for a cycle..
Buzz Kaplan from Owatonna was in on that dig, as well as my friends Pat Epps from Atlanta and Norman Vaughn from Alaska. We flew over it again in 1996--all of the buildings used at the time are buried. Your point is a good illustration--the aircraft were indeed 262 feet below the surface. They melted down with hot water coils to reach them.The fact that they were buried under 262 feet of ice is a sign that the snow pack is GROWING, not shrinking as the alarmists whine about. That area of the icecap gets about 40 feet of snow a year. The weight of the snow squeezes the snow crystals into solid ice--the transition occurs about 67 feet below the surface. It is the weight of this accumulated ice that starts glaciers flowing to the sea. Alarmists point to "calving" glaciers falling into the sea. Far from being a sign of glacial deterioration, it is the sign of healthy glaciers--the fact that they have enough snow on the upper reaches of the glacier to cause it to flow.
This ice becomes icebergs, and as we all know,the melting of those icebergs is causing polar bears to drown, according to Algore!
Posted by alcitizens on Sep. 05 2010,12:53 pm
^ding-a-ling
Posted by Wolfie on Sep. 06 2010,12:30 am
Does anyone else find it ironic that the gunman at the Discovery Channels HQ had a concern that they weren't broadcasting enough material about population control and the cops shot him.