We need to change this to say, “How stupid are you” instead of how Green. This has to be one of the stupidest ideas I have come across thus far in the history of man kind. Someone explain to me, if evolution exist, then it is most apparent in today’s society where the people are de-evolving into stupid animals or could this be the mixing of the nations as for-told in the Bible.
Go read the Bible, do something productive with your lives.
What’s next? Is Ave Maria U going to measure stool samples to see just how well the body is digesting food. This would further cut down waste as they can force the students to scale back on the amount of fecal matter they create. Team up with Cheryl Crow and you can use one sheet of T.P. to clean-up.
This will not work. Until the unlimited bufet at most college campuses ends, the students will not care because, to be blunt, they student meal plan covers it. However, if they were allotted only so much per week, with the ability to rollover to the following week, for meals at the cafeteria, then they would care. Being a college kid is just like Wall Street, you do not care unless it affects your purse strings.
Finally, something is being done about wasted food! God has blessed us abundently and we can thank Him by not wasting His gifts to us. It is a bad habit or is it a sin? And remember “Waste not, Want not” This is an excellent “experiment” in an excellent university. Thanks!
We are very fortunate to have all that we have in this country. Including the copious amounts of food that we produce. That others in Africa DON’T have food is NOT our fault, or OUR problem. Think of this a cold if you want, but you also KNOW that it’s true. Aren’t we helping the poor peoples of the Earth? Aren’t we, the United States of America, already doing MORE THAN all the rest of the world combined, to help keep those people from starving? The answer, in case your trying to rationalize yourself a “NO” is
YES. Don’t try and lay a guilt trip on any good citizen because of your own moral misgivings. Another cold hard fact, is that the people in Africa keep having more and more and more children, and they have more and more and more children, and the endless stream of poverty perpetuates itself. Again, not our f-ing fault, or our f-ing problem. When the h-ll will it ever end, and when are we ever going to stop seeing those skinny sick little kids on tv and people whining about helping them. Oh and by the way, I give more money, and a higher percentage of my income to charity than slow Joe Biden.
Just a few years ago I as a parent learned that the technequic my mother used at the dinner table led to obscenity.–”John there are starving kids in China that have no food. You can not leave the table until you eat everything off your plate.”–
Now you want to start it again. How about we lose the liberal teachings at our schools and teach personal responsibility. Then maybe our kids will be more responsible overall. It worked with our parents…
Thankyou John B for an extremly rational response.
I dont believe keeping my brain engaged makes me any the less a careing person. It just makes it possible for me to focus my careing on where it will do the most long term good
Wow. Comments by that other John B are pretty disturbing. Neither the article nor the other bloggers even brought up the topic of Africa. Yet this guy’s expletive-filled rant shows so little empathy, and misses the point of the article. Nothing he says justifies the waste of food. Charity giving and Joe Biden have nothing to do with the article. Republicans like this guy embarrass Republicans like me. What does liberalism or conservatism have to do with this?The student meal plan comments by James Grimes are well taken – all-you-can-eat buffets (contractually due to the food service vendors themselves) contribute to food waste. By the name of this university, I assume it’s probably a private school and most likely Catholic – a lesson in personal responsibility sounds like a great idea for our spoiled younger generation.
I’m sure their intentions were good, but isn’t the message basically “Don’t pollute”??? Isn’t hanging socks and bras and underwear all over the place a form of pollution? (Particularly if they don’t go back and clean it up later?)
Good in concept, but they might have thought this one through a bit more.
This is a stupid article.Why give students engaged in such useless activity a platform to stand on? America has ceased to produce intellects,scholars,great men of science, the reason why can be seen in this article as it reflects mens rea of the American scholastic community nation wide
John B and John Doe both make excellent points. It is indeed about personal responsibility. College kids waste because they’ve been brought up by parents who allowed them to do so at home. Liberal thinking allows waste and yet it allows guilt over Third Worlders who can’t control themselves. Conservative thinking and Conservative values did indeed make this country strong, and only Conservative values will keep us that way in the face of a Liberal world view and a Liberal United Nations. We, as a nation, have done all we can to help the rest of the world, and now they despise us for still having more than they do because they have no self-control.
Why not instead change how food is served? I’m at a Buffet style university, and if they did something like only give one main meal (out of a choice of three) and two or three sides (out of a choice of five or six) instead of sections of sides and main meals, then more food would be saved.
With this, you can’t start from the bottom and expect the change to happen. You have to start from the top. The students won’t mind much, just let the football players/ sports people go back for 2nds (They need it!)
Humans will not be satisfied until we’re the only living things on this planet. Trying to save food or habitat for other life forms is akin to flogging a dead horse. I have given up.
Honestly, you are full of yourself if you seriously think that how little or much food you waste means one jot to starving people in third world countries. If you feel compassion for them, do something about it. Simply wallowing in guilt is shallow and meaningless.
I think there is something to say for both sides of the argument. Yes, the students are paying for the food they throw away, they are allowed to throw away whatever is theirs, right. But at the same time, teaching conservation is a good thing. I say, let the crazies keep crazying (it’s what balanced the over zealous), but make sure we don’t go too far. Tell kids about the waste, tell them to conserve, but don’t enforce too strict rules.
What about the food left over after each mealtime is complete?? Does the school invite the homeless and destitute into the cafeteria to eat the rest of it so it doesn’t go to waste?? Or is the food thrown away, like it is at any other institution (sometimes required by law)??
I am a single mom & when my daughter was little I had very little money for food. We never had to miss a meal (thank God), but came very close and how precious every morsel becomes is something I think you have to experience to understand.
I think what they did was good and completely un-political. Sometimes you just need to see your actions from a different perspective.
Also- our food consumption in the U.S. directly affects other country’s ability to acquire food.
We pay higher prices for more food and poorer people can’t afford to buy. So if we bought less and ate what we needed, the price of food would go down & it would be more affordable for others.
You would think that they teach us history classes in higher education to learn from the past. The earth’s ecosystems all rely on the most miniscule organsims to survive. When is someone going to realize that once many of the earth’s animals are extinct and plants have been destroyed that it will all come back to bite mankind in the butt? I can almost guarantee that these krill that fisheries are hunting will no doubt affect the ocean’s biggest and smallest creatures. What are those fish eating people going to do when there are no more fish to eat; since all the krill that they eat are extinct?!
Oh pu-leeeze stop whining about damaging the planet. I can’t take it anymore. Maybe instead of using Krill to feed animals/people, the can grind up penguins and seals instead? That takes care of that problem and leaves more krill for the rest of us.
Wasting food isn’t the problem exactly. It’s a symptom of the real challenge, which is that people don’t value food.
We’ve gotten so far away from what it actually takes to produce the things we’re putting into our bodies, and that distancing has led to our belief that taking too much and then dumping it later is okay. It’s part of the same reason we’re an obese country. We overeat because we don’t realize the value of food (and I’m not talking about the “value” menu at McDonald’s either).
We start to make changes by changing people’s thoughts. We don’t change people’s thoughts by challenging their behaviors, but rather by finding out what’s important to them, and then helping them understand how their behaviors run contrary to their beliefs.
Interesting experiment, but I don’t think it was a good use of time or money to pay this person to stand by the trash can.
Has anyone actually tried college food? Seriously, the college I went to (like a year ago) had terrible food!! Like we didn’t want to waste the food but at times it would be under cooked or tasted so terrible that you would get sick off it. In fact there were those lovly nights that the restrooms in the dorms would be filled because of the food. I do believe in not wasting food, but on the same hand, I don’t want to get sick off it. Therefore, at my college you needed to pick and choose what to eat. Most times, you can decided what is decent but there are those time that it was bad.
UVM , Champlain College, and others slashed their food waste getting rid of the trays, just a plate. Saved a lot of water and energy not washing trays.
After getting rid of the trays there was much less uneaten food in the compost barrels.
hey screw yuo guys with all th negativity!! WTF are you doing to better the world we live in, leaving for our children?? I’ll tell you nothing! Yes the world changes cycle’s all the time but if we keep wasteing resources and brain like u morons than there won’t be a world to live on. now go collect you’r welfare worthless ones. Good job students you got my support!!!
Numbers? I see the 400 million metric ton estimate, but how much is being harvested each year? How much krill is reproduced each year? How much do the whales and penguins need? Without numbers this is just propaganda. I’m also a little confused as to why it’s perfectly acceptable for whales and penguins to eat krill but it’s earth-ending for humans to do so. I don’t care how extreme-vegan you are, everything you eat is a potential food source for something else.
Billy
You are a complete imbecile! We have to maintain a balance. It is the responsibility of the human race to make sure we manage our resources on this planet. The problem is, most other nations could give a crap about resource management. Humans are killing this planet. We will eventually become extinct and the planet will rejuvenate itself unless we do manage our resources.
Cute – college kids do know that sex sells, even in the “global warming” news arena. It’s just sad that these brains full of mush have been taught this hoax of global warming and the fraud of carbon dioxide as a pollutant.
There is not only no scientific consensus on human-caused global warming (regardless of what Al Gore might say), there’s no evidence of it whatsoever. Zilch.
Honestly, if you’re so worried about carbon dioxide in the environment – stop exhaling.
LOL, Billy. I agree. The number of extinct species is far greater than the number of living ones. It’s the natural course of things. I think it naive to think man can alter the course of the earth.
Well, as long as we do not over harvest the krill, no big deal, good source of food for some countries. I’m sure we will over harvest though, it is, after all, the human way, excess.
hahaha John Doe – I teach at a university in china and don’t tell your Mom but the students here do the same thing. Only difference is that a guy with a bicycle cart comes by after meals and carries off the drums of yuck. They feel it to pigs.
Why does it matter about food that is wasted? First of all if we pay for it, it is then ours to do what we will with it. Secondly, bringing awareness about “food waste” seems like another way to guilt people into feeling horrible about being American. Just like the people in America who are becoming increasingly ashamed to buy whatever they wish just becuase they can. This guilt is brought on by the media and is only hurting the economy. This is American, if u can afford buy it and then do as you wish with it, like THROW IT AWAY.
if doing laundry really increases carbon emissions, then how about committing to creating less dirty laundry by doing away with the underwear altogether? some tree huggers don’t shave, some don’t use deodorant, now we can create less dirty laundry!!! next target: toothpaste. the stupidity of this all, i’ve seen many of these people smoking – which is a definite source of carbon emission.
This is just stupid. Are you serious. As environmental students you can’t think of something better to do that to hang underwear outside. Can’t you find an oil spill or go to a forest where deforesting is threatening a species or something. Honestly, it’s just dumb. And all that talk bout how we’re screwing up the environment, i think it’s pretty arrogant to think that in the eons the earth has evolved that we can have the sole cataclismic changing hand on it’s fate. The world has been super-heated and super-chilled several times in it’s history, and to think we’re going to have any say in the matter is ludicrous.
So no species ever went extinct or was overhunted before mankind arrived? As usual…how do we discern when a species was meant to end prior to our existence? It’s impossible to play this game.
How telling the food minders that it is none of their *&^**@ business, ’cause it isn’t. I am so done with liberal guilt trips and feel good blather. It’s pap for the masses.
What a leech. Maybe I should sue these AGW frauds for pain, suffering, and mental anguish due to the extra stress caused by worrying about non-existent AGW. Maybe some of us can get together and file a class-action suit. Anyone interested???
The will they be reimbursed for the positive effects of global warking. Like, being able to grow crops further north in Canada and Russia? Fewer people being killed in accidents due to less ice and snow fall? If you are going to punish them for the bad effects, then it is not fair to not reward them for the good effects.
This is obsurd! This country wonders how we got into a recession and why businesses can’t survive; It’s because everyone and their mother want free money to compensate them for any suffering they have ever endured. We are truly a n ation of powder puffs and we are very lucky to even have a select few with the heart and the courage to defend it. I think anyone who has ever tried suing for human error should probably ask themselves, “Have i ever messed up and hurt another person?”
Aside from fish, there is nothing we can eat that does not require either the exploitation of farm animals or the conversion of wilderness to farmland. And we can’t eat fish, we might accidentally kill a dolphin trying to catch a tuna. Thus, we have nothing to eat.
Houses are made from hundreds of non-green materials, wood being the primary material. Even switching to bricks requires burning something to fire the bricks, and thus increases carbon levels. Living in natural shelters (like caves) displaces the delicate ecosystems already present. Thus, our only choice is to sleep outdoors.
Clothing today is mostly made from plastics. Plastics come from oil. Oil is bad for the environment. No suitable replacement for oil is available. Wool and other fibers require either the exploitation of farm animals, the alteration of wilderness areas to farmland, or both. The only acceptable material is no material at all.
There is no fuel available for warmth that does not increase carbon levels, and burning wood to stay warm would require cutting down trees – and obvious no-no, for a green.
Thus, to make the greens happy, we must sit out naked in the rain and snow until we die of exposure or starvation, whichever comes first.
I would say to that Oxford scientist that the plaintiff in any of these lawsuits will be hard pressed to prove that man is responsible for these so-called global warming deaths and damages. More and more people in the scientific community are coming to the realization that climate change is a naturally occuring event that man has no control over. The science of global warming that Al Gore has become the spokesman for is a seriously flawed and half baked one. The underlying push for this voodoo science is money and nothing else.
The climate has been changing for thousands of years and it will contiune to chane for thousand of years. Corn was raised north of the Artic Circle in Finland in the 1500’s but can you raise corn there now? As many scientist can prove the climate in on an approx. 1500 year cycle so in about the year 3000 it will again be warm enough to raise corn in North of the Artic Circle in Finland. I wonder what people are going to say went at sometime in the future there is a sheet of ice over Minnesota, Iowa, the Dakotas and Illinois sometime in the next few hundred years.
What??? these guys are physicists not lawyers. they know nothing of the law, and sueing a company will only make the situation worse for people. If an energy company is bankrupted by lawsuites then people do not get energy!!!! lets not get stupid about this.
Unfair??? When did it become a perfect world??? The poor always fell the brunt, whether or not responsible!! Stupid celebrities who benefit from the poor by charging millions of dollars for acting roles in movies. They also support lawsuits against “poor” people downloading movies. They are idiots and are out of touch with society!
Is this Fox Trendy? I love this – An Eco-Crank court will view all the evidence revealing Global Warming as a Fraud and then find the “perpetrators” guilty anyway. The Russians and Chinese are loving this – the West going insane and self destructing and capitulating to Russian redentism in E. Europe and general police state tyranny on the basis of cow flatulence as opposed to an armored invasion. This kind of reporting makes Fox collaborator in the conspiracy. You Fools keep this up and you’ll soon have managed news and be sued on the basis of “speech codes” for reporting obvious eco-criminal fraud. International courts will have the right to remove and replace your “journalists” and editors. I hope to soon see Fox Male Talking Heads wearing Green ribbons in their Pigtails and Man-skirts.
The dark green color at the top may look snazzy, but it makes it impossible to read black lettering. Please change the color of the text so it is readable.
You must be kidding me. No, seriously, apart from dubiousness of Man-is-causing-Global-Warming to begin with, you may as well sue the Sun for radiating more heat and Cows for passing gas.
“Global Warming” caused by human activity is a hoax being used by the political elites to control us with ridiculous “standards” that cannot be met. This madness must end now or we’ll be relegated to the stone age, living in “harmony with mother nature”, another idiotic catch-phrase.
Set for release this week, a newly updated U.S. Senate Minority Report features the dissenting voices of over 650 international scientists, many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN. How about talking about this.
There’s no doubt that we’re polluting the oceans and atmosphere to death. People pollute and world population is exploding. So, our crooked politicians aren’t going to do anymore than pocket billions for themselves and reduce the average citizen to slave status. read mensunion.org I’ve got my solar panels, greenhouse, wells, horse and wood stove up in the mountains. Good luck, boys. Arson and crime will be rampant in a few more years, due to our crooked politicians with their ineffective and shortsighted policies, causing our rapidly declining economy.
All of this over an issue that does not even exist. I said it! “man made global warming does not exist!” We never hear from the thousands of scientists who concur. Probably, because they’ll lose funding if they don’t go along with the propaganda. 20 years from now we’ll be laughing about this as we are already seeing global temperatures decrease on their own. Remember the 1970’s when scientists warned of the upcoming Ice Age?
There is a new fuel catalyst that is just coming out of Southern Oregon that can reduce emissions by 98% and increase fuel economy by 10 -37% on all fossil fuel vehicles, rather they be land, air or marine; including all two stroke engines.
Coal plants, natural gas, propane and heating oil burn ultra-clean as well.
The catalyst was tested on an used Artic King reefer unit in Salinas Ca. that exceeded CARB emission standards. By using the catalyst, the unit more than passed the CARB standards.
This product was discovered by a man from Cave Junction Or. The test that have been completed can be reviewed by going to e3fuels.com or contacting them. This catalyst has been reviewed by investigative reports on local TV news stories and they have found it to perform as stated. The catalyst is registered with EPA as well.
Lets not forget that human intervention is not the only cause for climate change. Mother Nature herself has proven to be another cause of climate change. We, as the world, are speeding up climate change with the production of green house gasses, but even without those green house gasses being emitted from man-made sources, global warming will happen, even if we ceased all green house gas emmissions. This isn’t the first time earth has gone through climate change. Its basic science.
Hmmm – and NONE of this is statistically significant – particularly when you go back before 1900. “Global warming” is just more political hogwash to milk more money from taxpayers and control the way we live.
By the way – if “global warming” was proven, supporters would not use terms like “concensus” when it came to evaluating scientific data. There is no such thing as “scientific concensus” – you don’t hear anyone saying, “we have a scientific consensus on gravity” – because true science is about proving or disproving.
Summary:
The base year for this study is 1895, probably because there are no reliable older statistics. Global warming in North America is taking place in northern Canada and Alaska, but not in the American South, eastern Canada or the American Midwest from the Rockies to the Appalachians. There has been no measurable effect on precipitation. Lots of anolalmous observations, no convincing explaination for the anolamies. Sole effect of global warming in North America is to make the sub-Artic warmer, which may be a bad thing for polar bears. Big deal.
Half the warming is “probably” the result of human activity. Why “probably”? Insufficient data and uncertain methodology.
Given all this, the case for significant global warming could be merely the “sic hic, propter hoc” fallacy – because one thing follows another, does not mean that one caused another.
Far more study is needed before we give politicians and Green activists the power to reorder our society in a manner they find pleasing.
Great. If there is a problem we can spend money on fixing it. If there IS no problem, NOAA and others would be looking for a bail-out or a job. KEEP IT UP…AP! Hope you aren’t looking for a job soon, or there will be no one left to remind us how frikn hot it is getting.
“For the January-November period, the average temperature of 54.9 degrees F was 0.3 degree above the 20th century average.”
and
“temperature has increased at a rate of 0.12 degrees per decade since 1895″
What is the data from the 7th century B.C.? Or the 3rd century? Or the 12th? Or the even the 16th century? If the earth is thousands (you say billions) of years old, isn’t it necessary to look at more data than just the last 150 or so years.
You are drawing conclusions based on a pinhole view of history and are likely making faulty conclusions because of it.
The choice of temperature records is very carefully crafted in the article. In fact the temperatures in most of the US are below average to normal and not near record highs as suggested. See http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/oct/national.html#text
And this is not new. Temperatures worldwide have not been increasing as during the 90s for past 3-5 years but seem to be on a plateau
This is a crock of crap. All this is doing is allowing big money to buy there way to a guilt free life while the little guy goes down the toilet. Our estemed governor could set an example by living in Sacramento during the week instead of flying back and forth every day to work. Oh I forgot, he can just puchase carbon credits. What a scam!!!!!
I have problems when people state such minor changes in temperature. I’m a senior engineering lab technician and the closest I can measure something or otherwise said temperature tolerance is +/- 1.8 degrees F or 1 degree C. So when someone says they can measure 0.12 degrees change over a long period I through up the red flag. These temperature stated are all well within the margin of error for most instruments. Those instruments that are more accurate are very expensive and I don’t think the government would spend this kind of money on a large scale. I do tests involving temperture all the time and depending on how the engineer writes the test plan I can very different results or otherwise said I can take data and make the results say anything I want and prove it. In 1951, instruments were somewhat more accurate than they are now and most data was taken by hand so if a scientist took a measurement with a thermometer that had graduations of 0.5 degrees the most accruate his measurment would be is +/- 0.5 degrees. Now did the scientist roung the measurement off. Now all data is collected via data acquisistion or by computers which allows scientists to collect alot of data but the accuracy is not as good as the hand taken data. So alot of data manipulation is done. Bottom line is it is just a educated guess.
It is very unfortunate the level of politics that is driving the global warming movement. Even the liars propagating this misinformation have redefined the terminology to “climate change” caused by man. This became necessary because in the last ten years the planet has been cooling. Just because these pseudo scientist that intimidate the skeptics with their degrees and flawed computer models say it is so, does not make it so. They always qualify their findings with words like “may be” or “probably”, but none of them can state with scientific certainty that the planet is doing anything it doesn’t normally do, yet we are suppose to accept legislation both nationally and internationally that deals with this invented crisis. Common sense tells you that our climate changes, always has, and always will. Drink another glass of the cool-aid people, and watch your freedom disappear faster then the water on the planet evaporates from all this “warming”. Going green is nothing more then a marketing campaign by retail and government to guilt you out of what they are really after, the green in your wallet.
Well, someone needs to identify the location of the temperature monitoring stations used to draw any conclusions about warming or cooling. If the measuring stations are mostly in urban areas you may be only measuring urban warming. I have seen some pictures of measuring stations by air conditioning equipment and by airport concrete runways. Hardly a good place for an accurate neasurement. Plus, data I have seen is that the peak temperture was in 1998. That is ten years without “warming”. It has been reported that Geologists do not agree with the idea that CO-2 is related to global warming at all. Problem is that many of these so-called experts are funded by folks with luddite attitudes. The public needs accurate hard core facts devoid of special interests. The third world guys are just trying to get money from US in the form of a tax on air. Carbon credits are the next great SCAM! they do not actually improve the environment at all. They are not regulated and we have all just seen the consequences of poor regulation whether it be too much or too litte. We are in a passive sun-spot cycle. No sun spots. Global cooling, which is worse than global warming!!!
Paalease!!!
If anyone would stop and do some research they would find that the Earth’s temperature has been DROPPING since 1998. We have NO SUNSPOT ACTIVITY which historically means lower temps! A large majority of the scientists quoted in the U.N. report didn’t agree with the final report.Can you say “cherry picking”? Many Climatoligists agree that we are in the begining of a COOLING PERIOD due to the lack of solar activity. The warmest decade in the 20th centurt wasn’t the 1990s, it was the 1930s! Can any one say “Dust Bowl” or do they even teach that in school any more? Read the “Grapes of Wrath”! We have mindless morons leading us to destruction. By the way, how much money has Al Gore made off of Global Warming and “Carbon Credits” so far? Any guesses? Go to Scienceandpublicpolicy.org. Learn what the politicians aren’t telling you!!! Why was the Earth warmer in the years of 1000 A.D.-1100 A.D.? Why was the Earth in a “Little Ice Age” from about 1200 A.D. to appproximately 1860 A.D. You can’t blame cars or coal fueled powere plants! They didn’t exist! Folks, open your brains! There are 8 billion people more or less that exhale CO2 every second. One last thing, ice core samples show that CO2 increases FOLLOW temperature increases, not the other way around!!!!
“More than half of the warming averaged over all of North America is probably the result of human activity.” How much more than half? “Probably” the result of human activity? .Classic junk-science AP dreck, meaningless stats and one-liners like,
“However, overall drought impacts over North America have become more severe in recent decades.” What does that mean? More severe than what? More severe than the Dust Bowl? How many decades can be “recent”? Repackaged Weekly Reader articles are hardly a substitute for good reporting and logical writing.
Check junkscience.com for up to the minute global temperature readings and a lesson in critical thinking. Consensus is not science!
Global Warming is a fraudulent hoax designed to destroy American jobs, retirement accounts, stock values, and manufacturing base. The media is paid billions to spread this enormous lie as truth in a one sided propaganda campaign. A massive cover up of the truth is necessary to keep America from developing its own natural resources. The Democratic politicians want to keep us completely dependent on foreign oil by blocking US exploration and production.
This hoax is devastating the American way of life as politicians try to switch to expensive, inefficient, and unreliable sources of alternative energy. The government intends to shut down the economy under the guise that fossil fuels are dangerous and are running out. This stupid act will result in a massive flight of jobs to foreign countries. Oil production will exist only in foreign lands. SUV’s will be taxed out of existance. Finally the environment will be damaged as supplies of clean life giving carbon dioxide are destroyed.
It it time to stop the lies of the media and the politicians who are in denial about the damaging environmental and economic effects of the global warming fraud. Only in America would such a massive marketing campaign be conducted to teach false science and scientific hoaxes in our school system.
Politicans who have been involved in the global warming fraud to destroy American industry must be thrown out of office. The financial devastation they have wreaked on the American people is inexcusable.
Windmills and solar panels do not power the transportation industry. Plug in electric vehicles powered by alternative energy will drive up electric rates tenfold. Congressional mandates for electric vehicles and flex fuels are meant to destroy the American Auto industry nothing more. The media is a complete disgrace for covering up the fraud.
Sea level rises when water freezes and declines when the ice melts as evidenced by the glaciers and past ice ages. The hoaxers have it completely backwards in a misinterpretation of physical and chemical laws. The politicians desire to use the global warming fraud to impose massive tax increases and strict government controls over all energy systems.
The only way to stop the fraud is daily coverage of the various aspects of the hoax. The stock market will not recover until the media stops pushing the lie and starts exposing the fraud with as much air time as they have given to create it over the past 2 decades.
Cut emmissions to 1990 levels by 2020? This will become an economic disaster as attempts to meet these ridiculous standards will destroy economic growth. The growth in the population will make this an impossible standard to meet without eliminating the ability to provide fuel and electricity to everyone in the state. California is about to self destruct from a budget deficit that has mushroomed during the global warming hoax. It will now wipe out all supplies of fossil fuel energy in a program that will result in blackouts (ala gray Davis), high electricity rates, and $5000 annual taxes on gasoline powered automobiles.
Imagine just how stupid the environmental lawmakers are in California. While creating a $41 billion annual deficit they sit on top of the largest offshore oil reserves in the world. Enough oil to make every California as wealthy as a Saudi prince. Gov. Arnold has blinded himself with the global warming deception. He has lead his state into bankruptcy trying to tax the weather and balance the budget with slot machines and lottery loans. Yes he may actually be a closet Democrat as he is definitely not a Republican.
Sorry California, but your global warming policies will suck cash right out of everyone’s pockets with high energy prices and electric rates that will explode tenfold. Alternative energy is expensive, inefficient, and unreliable. Solar power doesn’t turn on the lights at night and windmills don’t power the transportation industry.
But don’t worry. I hear the feds will bail out everyone for making stupid policies and stupid decisions. Believing politicians can control the climate with mandates and carbon taxes is really really stupid.
If measures had been in place to control populations we wouldn’t have the extent of warming were experiencing. far more co2 is produced by human and animal respiration, then by industry. untill ther are population controls in place we’ll not only be a warm planet, We,ll be a hungrier, thistery, and poorer planet to boot.
If Quote: – The largest yearly average regional temperature increases have occurred over Northern and Western North America, with up to 3.6 degrees warming in 56 years over Alaska, the Yukon Territories, Alberta, and Saskatchewan.
These areas are primarily the least populated areas of North America. How do we come to the conclusion, Quoted: – More than half of the warming averaged over all of North America is probably the result of human activity.
If it’s hot -> global warming.
If it’s cold -> global warming.
If it’s dry -> global warming.
If it’s wet -> global warming.
If it’s sunny -> global warming.
If it’s cloudy/foggy -> global warming.
If it’s windy -> global warming.
If it’s calm -> global warming.
So the U.S. has a 1,500 mile wide “hole” in global warming. That sounds more like a 1,500 mile wide “hole” in the theory.
Solar activity and the South Atlantic Anomaly explain global and ocean temperature changes far better than carbon dioxide emissions. We’ve had several monstrous volcanic eruptions spewing more carbon dioxide than all of human production without a rise in global temperatures.
There is global warming on five planets, four of which have no SUV’s.
We had global warming after the last ice age. Who caused that, Fred Flinstone?
We had global warming after the “Little Ice Age”. What caused that, George Washington’s camp fires at Valley Forge?
Here’s a great way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions: Stop talking.
Scientists skeptical of the assertion that climate change is the result of man’s activites are criticizing a recent Associated Press report on global warming, calling it “irrational hysteria,” “horrifically bad” and “incredibly biased.”
They say the report, which was published on Monday, contained sweeping scientific errors and was a one-sided portrayal of a complicated issue.
“If the issues weren’t so serious and the ramifications so profound, I would have to laugh at it,” said David Deming, a geology professor at the University of Oklahoma who has been critical of media reporting on the climate change issue.
In the article, Obama Left with Little Time to Curb Global Warming, AP Science Writer Seth Borenstein wrote that global warming is “a ticking time bomb that President-elect Barack Obama can’t avoid,” and that “global warming is accelerating.”
Deming, in an interview, took issue with Borenstein’s characterization of a problem he says doesn’t exist.
“He says global warming is accelerating. Not only is it continuing, it’s accelerating, and whether it’s continuing that was completely beyond the evidence,” Deming told FOXNews.com.
“The mean global temperature, at least as measured by satellite, is now the same as it was in the year 1980. In the last couple of years sea level has stopped rising. Hurricane and cyclone activity in the northern hemisphere is at a 24-year low and sea ice globally is also the same as it was in 1980.”
Deming said the article is further evidence of the media’s decision to talk about global warming as fact, despite what he says is a lack of evidence.
“Reporters, as I understand reporters, are supposed to report facts,”Deming said. “What he’s doing here is he’s writing a polemic and reporting it as fact, and that’s not right. It’s not reporting. It’s propaganda.
“This reads like a press release for an environmental advocacy group like Greenpeace. It’s not fair and balanced.”
I find it amazing how the “human-caused global warming” cry is continually sounded when the evidence is increasingly contradicting this politically correct claim. Just one example from Fox News web: Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Scientists Call AP Report on Global Warming “Hysteria”
According to David Deming, a geology professor at the University of Oklahoma: “The mean global temperature, at least as measured by satellite, is now the same as it was in the year 1980. In the last couple of years sea level has stopped rising. Hurricane and cyclone activity in the northern hemisphere is at a 24-year low and sea ice globally is also the same as it was in 1980.”
Deming said the article (by Borenstein) is further evidence of the media’s decision to talk about global warming as fact, despite what he says is a lack of evidence.
It is WAY past time to stop parroting the “global warming” mantra when better science has shown the earlier analyses to be incorrect.
Man am I confused. First the article states that ocean tempetures are higher, then it says no significant weather changes have occured in the south east (atlantic ocean, gulf of mexico) and east canada (read North Atlantic). Drought impacts are more severe- well, yes. Poor civil engineering has placed a strain on water supplies. Take for example Las Vegas– did any one perdict what the population explosion out here would do to the surrounding water supply? No, so, this desert city is running dry at the same time the population explodes– coincidence? Not sold yet on this man made global warming, after all, the earth has been warming and the ice caps receeding since– well the last ice age. hmmmm
wake up and smell the BS. Al gore & the rest of the brainwashed are in panic mode. Read further into the BS, the polar bears have grown in # since I was a kid.Porcupine reindeer have grown in # BS has grown in to more of a mess to destroy my country in recent years.Go ride your bike to work & ride your bike to power your lights on some rig you need to power your house ,not mine!The earth is in a ciclacal orbit, sun spots are decreasing and the sky is falling on your head.
What a scam! They will realize their mistakes only after business move to other states, energy prices are astronomical, and jobs are scarce. How about a little intelligence and research!
Remember, guys, there are dinosaur fossils in Antarctica that are millions of years old, and frozen plants found in the Arctic circle that are over 10,000 years old.
So,depending on which baseline you use, you could argue that that we are now in a period of Global Cooling, when compared with when plants and animals existed in polar regions.
Lets start a new scare; “Global Gravity Reduction”. The loss of earth’s gravitational pull has caused people to falsely believe they are losing weight because their bathroom scales don’t have as much gravitational pull on them. This causes them to see artificially low weights on the scales, which causes them to eat more, which leads to the problem with obesity that we now have. Please Al Gore, SAVE ME!!!!! And Mr. Gore: please email Chicken Little and inform him the sky is still falling. And see if he is still interested in buying some carbon credits so you can fly around the world again.
you guys are pure “nuts”…plant some more trees, open your refrigerators at the same time for some time, breathe less/talk less!! 1.6 degrees since 1951…LOL!!!
I DON’T BELIEVE A THING YOU IDIOTS ARE SAYING ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING.
THE CLIMATE HAS BEEN CHANGING FOR MILLIONS OF YEARS AND WILL CONTINUE TO DO SO. HOW ABOUT THE ICE AGE—–HUH ????????????
TELL AL TO GO GET A REAL JOB.
The data is all wrong.
The temp. collection points have become over urbanized creating hot cells from parking lots and lack of natural air movement.
The biggest problem is they have failed to take in the most important variable – the sun.
Going green is great – get back to the basics. But stop the garbage science. The scare tactics will back fire hard. The earth climate will always be changing – even if we remove man from earth.
Is Fox just selling what people want to hear or just ill-informed?
Do you guys also believe the world is flat? This is total statistically manipulative un-scientific nonsense. Fortunately, most scientists do not buy into the unethical way in which data is reported.
Unfortunately, most politicians see this as an opportunity to collect money to line their coffers.
I always like reports that read “…government researchers say…” Things are so frequently taken out of context and misrepresented. Where is the actual research data and conclusions?
If you look at the last 10,000 years of history, there were lengthly periods of time with temperatures greater than present. TOTAL sea ice (polar) has not diminished in the last thirty years. The integral earth surface temperature has not increased in thirty years. The earth has seen many heating and cooling spells over the millenia. The alarmist hype is just that, alarmist. We now have the means to track numerous bits of data and draw conclusions. Noting that historically, by polar ice core analysis, C02 levels LAG long term temperature change begs the question that possibly C02 levels may actually be partially an effect of climate change, not a cause. Certainly man made C02 and other green house gas production is significantly on the rise, though it is unclear how much impact this has compared to the orders of magnitude more abundant greenhouse gas heavyweight, water vapor. This is not exactly man made. The scientific world is not in concensus on the cause, effect, nor the time frame for global warming, if this is is a natural phenomena or not. That fact alone should grant us reason to take pause, before action.
Of course we shold always seek to reduce pollution and conserve our natural resources. We should segway society into renewable energy. Not through hysteria and hype, but through aggresive research and developement.
This article is just filled with inconsistencies. In fact the following quote can be found in another article on FOXnews.com “The mean global temperature, at least as measured by satellite, is now the same as it was in the year 1980. In the last couple of years sea level has stopped rising. Hurricane and cyclone activity in the northern hemisphere is at a 24-year low and sea ice globally is also the same as it was in 1980.” This quote can be backed up if you google global temperatures.
Well, what will the report for December bring out? Winter has not even started and many people are sick of it. Ice storms, arctic cold fronts, and a blizzard in the northwest already this month. We had an unusually cool summer in the northeast this year, several cold winters in a row and you folks still insist that we have a problem.
To me this has always been a way for government, in this case a world government to fleece the public. I really believe if anything we are headed for a period of global cooling. This would be far more serious. Also those ministers will somehow tie that to human activity as well.
I think California, being the progressive state that it is, is on the right track. This state can take the lead. It has the resources, people, programs and the will to make a difference. There are a lot of non profits, large and small companies, educational institutions,and individuals working on this effort that should collaborate with the state of California to reach the common goal of living within our means.
what a pathetic excuse for a reporter spreading this non accurate crap around.
you know of course its only a matter of time that people who do wrong to others won’t have to face a court, but those they wronged directly and I can tell you, that will be justice!
Please let everyone know that Global Warming can be prevented by hanging a wreath of garlic on your front door ! This is the same cure that has been used for centuries to prevent vampires from entering your home and it has always worked so I know it will work for Global warming.
Actually I prefer getting my science from real scientists not from politicians or politicians pretending to be scientists. When will this global scam to create global taxes and bankrupt the world economy be over?
Anyone who actualy reviews all the scientific data and real science will declare that man made Global Warming is equivilant to thinking the world is FLAT.
“When the Arctic Ocean ice melts, it never raises sea level because floating ice is floating ice, because it’s displacing water. “When the ice melts, sea level actually goes down.
It’s called the Archimedes Principle.”
It continues to amaze me that agencies like NOAA are putting out reports like this. These “sky is falling” reports must be keeping them all in jobs. For a truly scientific repudiation see http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,468084,00.html
What is the mechanism behind sea levels rising? When the ice melts in my cup I don’t get an increase in water level (I measured it). Since glaciers are like giant ice cubes, wouldn’t their melting not affect the ocean levels?
Here’s a sixth grade Science experiment for you doom and gloomers..1 glass of water 1/2-3/4 full..add ice cubes.. mark water level..when ice is melted..note water level not changing…icebergs displace water and do not add to the raising of sea levels when melted….
I don’t have a lot of education and for sure am not a scientist. I do know however that ice takes up more space than water. So when ice melts, well try it.
According to 4th grade science, when ice floats, it displaces water, but when ice melts, the water level goes down. Everyone can perform this experiment at home in their kitchen. If that is a true proposition, then why does melting artic ice cause the sea level to rise? Or does it?
How can you explain backing up your information with theory when using actual proof you can say that the ocean level will NOT rise at all.
James O’Brien, an emeritus professor at Florida State University who studies climate variability and the oceans said recently “When the Arctic Ocean ice melts, it never raises sea level because floating ice is floating ice, because it’s displacing water,” O’Brien said. “When the ice melts, sea level actually goes down.
“I call it a fourth grade science experiment. Take a glass, put some ice in it. Put water in it. Mark level where water is. Let it met. After the ice melts, the sea level didn’t go up in your glass of water. It’s called the Archimedes Principle.”
I am a farmer from Iowa. We have just harvested one of the biggest corn crops in history. I am convinced one of the reasons that it was so big is the extra carbon dioxide in the air. Plants use as much carbon dioxide as they can get.
Just more hysteria! Stop it! How do you people sleep at night? Humans have nothing to do with climate change and you should know it. Who burnt coal and drove cars in prehistoric and medeival times?
The earth’s cycles will happen regardless of our presence on it. You people are just opportunists!
Why will sea levels rise if the glaciers melt?
Because they are ABOVE the water, you dummies!
Personally, I feel the world is doomed, not because of environmental problems, but because of really stupid people. People asking questions such as: Why would sea levels rise? We are speaking of Glaciers, not icebergs!
What a crock! Seas will rise and the IQ of those predicting it will drop. Perhaps this is the only job these jokers can get given their inability to understand science. What a waste.
Other planets have been shown that their temp is also rising. I am pretty sure we have no humans on other planets causing this. Yes there have always been greenhouse gases whether it was fires from millions of persons before electricity. Volcanic eruptions. Asteroids hitting earth. Sun’s activity.
The problem with this global warming talk is that it stems from greed. Search around and see which scientists are screaming about it and also want that extra grant for more research. It’s a money game thats it..So many persons are suckered into thinking its a man-made thing..just so they can collect grant dollars to fund their other activities.
1. Not all ice is floating. Lot of it is stuck on the rocks, and ice sometimes is even 3 km thick. When this ice melts it is flowing to the ocean, and this is rising sea level.
2. Gravity is stronger at equator. When it is ice, it is stuck at the poles, but when it melts it will flow to the equator and rise water level around equator, while previously as ice it was stuck on poles.
3. There is lot of ice on the land and mountains. With global worming it will melt and go into the sea. Eart is not a cup of water.
4. This explanation is similar to one when people were giving explanation that Earth is flat. Having a silly proof is comforting, by for such characters there is always reckoning point at which “REALITY BITES”
Relax, it’s just green-scare again. It’s the same ol’ same ol’. They don’t realize that the public has moved on, and the same old scare tactics don’t work anymore. They gotta come up with something new.
Here’s something that will scare the greenies: Europe has had Cap&Trade for several years now, but it has not created any green jobs. Instead, once people pay their green taxes, they don’t feel guilty anymore and consumerism skyrockets, which actually creates more manufacturing jobs! Ha! That’s why Obama wants to bring in Cap&Trade, because it creates jobs but the grrenies will be left out of the payday. I love it! USA! USA!
Ok let’s get real for a moment. Let’s remember who started all this rubbish – Al Gore. And guess what he is – a liberal democrat! And guess what liberals and all the greedy, power-hungry guys in government try to do to the people of our country – scare them enough to make changes that will get them to inevitably give the government more….. you guessed it, MONEY!!! This is all just ANOTHER Money-Making Scheme! Analog TV’s anyone??
An ice cube floating in a glass of water will not raise the level in the glass as it melts. Was Archimedes a 4th grade science teacher? Perhaps he should have failed the grade. What do you think will happen when the mile thick (or whatever) sheet of ice covering Greenland melts? It’s not sea ice. It’s built up on land and will flow into the sea. Try cutting a hole in a board and suspending a glass of water underneath with a funnel attached to the hole. Now cover the board with ice and let it melt. Assuming all the water flows into the glass, will the level rise? Maybe you should try it with a bucket instead. I’m not a scientist, but I did pass the 4th grade.
Floating is is not the issue, it is the large blocks on ice on the surfaces of areas like Greenland or the Antarctic. This ice is not floating and WILL raise the sea levels significantly if this melts. Forget the 4th grade experiments.
You’d never guess from this collection of comments that this was Foxnews!
Whether it is accelerated by human activity or not isn’t even the question. A meteor isn’t man made, but if one is large enough it will kill every one of us. It makes thinking of ways around such an event something of a priority.
Not that your amateur experiments with kitchen ice cubes aren’t convincing, but I’ll defer to organizations like NASA on this one:
To clarify: The Arctic icecap is floating in the Arctic ocean. If it melts, there would be no significant change in ocean levels. On the other hand Greenland and Antarctica have ice sheets sitting on top of land. If these melt, these waters are added to the oceans resulting in rising ocean levels. The same is true of glaciers.
Isn’t it more likely that the Sun is the biggest driver of our climate?
Our climate is constantly changing. It’s never static.
I’ve been saying for 30 years we’re probably overdue for an Ice Age. Last one ended 15-20,000 years ago. That’s pretty typical for an interstitial period.
You folks are correct about the glass of water experiment. It’s called Alcamedes’ Principal. Water level decreases because ice has air in it. So, if the ice caps melt, guess what? We have MORE FRESH OXYGEN. Btw, the ice caps have INCREASED in size, no decreased.
Ocean level have gone DOWN an inch in the last 20 years, not up. Global tempuratures have also gone down, by 1/3 degree f.
Does the ice in your experiments sit atop the water as does the polar ice sheets and glaciers – I think not… Let’s repeat your experiment in a more realistic setting. put a half inch of water in a tin-foil pan and put enough ice just on one side so that it reaches the top of the pan….
I think you will find as the ice on the one side melts – the water level on the opposite side rises…
This is the reality of Global Warming and a much more apples vs apples test as opposed to your apples vs oranges testing….
Many of the world’s glacier packs and ice sheets, particularly in the Southern Hemisphere, are currently on land, not floating on the water. When they melt, the water will seek the lowest point (generally the ocean). James O’ Brian missed the point, as he only focused on the ice at the North Pole.
Glaciers are not floating ice. The melting of floating ice will not affect sea level, but the melting of glaciers will. The important thing to understand is that most of today’s alpine glaciers formed during the Little Ice Age. The glaciers in Glacier National Park, for example, are mostly 500 to 800 years old. Look it up. Nothing is wrong with our climate, it is just going through natural cycles related to the Sun’s electromagnetic field output.
Water melting off the sea may not rise the sea level, what is worrisome then, is ice on land melting (like in Greenland). Science has been able to show that sea levels in the past went up and down, allowing the Bering strait to be crossed by animals and humans alike.
Wow, I’m surprised to see so many commenters who disbelieve or refute the reality unfolding before us. For those of you just asking about the “4th grade ice melting experiment,” there are two factors you didn’t take into account. One is that much of the ice is ON TOP of land. It melts INTO the ocean. Secondly, the glaciers are composed of FRESH water, not salt water. Due to the density difference, the floating fresh water glaciers’ melting into the ocean will raise the ocean levels. The following site provides further clarification on this:
Temperatures vary in cycles. Dr. Spencer of Univ. of Al. has shown that we are most likely at the top of a 30 year warming trend, and cooler temps are most likely in the next 30 years.
Ice *on LAND* (e.g., glaciers, icecaps) melts = the COAST is TOAST.
If *all* the ice ON LAND melted, sea level rises >300 feet.
Wake up, sleepyheads. Time to sell your waterfront property, before the bottom drops out of the market. Really.
Actually, don’t sell. Then the rest of us *will laugh at you.*
Let’s build coal-fired power plants all along the upwind edge of Greenland. Massive powerlines to get the electricity to whomever pays the most. That’ll sprinkle coal dust all over Greenland. Cover it completely, get all that ice real warm. You don’t care? Fine. You *keep* your beach houses. Buy more, even. We get to watch your investments sink under the waves. Ha-ha.
You. Conservatives. Keep all your waterfront properties. PLEASE.
You people are confusing glaciers with icebergs. A glacier is a large mass of snow that has melted and reformed as ice, on land, not in the water.
An iceberg is a piece of that glacier that has broken off into the water.
So if all, or many, large glaciers did melt, it is possible to have a rise in sea level.
Try filling your glass almost full of water and putting your ice cubes on a plate that is tilted so that the melting ice cubes run into the glass and it will overflow.
Now we are comparing temperature increses to the AVERAGE TEMPATURE. These increses are slight and fall within the high/low area of the AVERAGE. Another way to twist data to reflect what you want it to.
Hmm… The glaciers are melting and sea levels are rising. Why are they rising? Not because of melting glaciers. A 3rd grade science experiment could prove that. Get a glass of salt water (sea water preferable) put in a couple of ice cubes and mark the glass at water level. After the ice melts the water level should not have risen.
As for global warming, that’s a natural process of our planet as is global cooling. In fact according to almost every credible university in the world the average global temperature hasn’t risen in over 30 years.
When people read about temperatures and sea levels rising they really need to look into who is writing the article they are reading. Man made global warming is a politically motivated science. “Science” being loosely used.
Although a “green” economy is in the long run a good idea, it is far too expensive to try and achieve under normal circumstances. In the end if you follow the money… well… try it sometime.
The reasoning is not that the floating ice will cause the sea to rise but that glaciers on land will melt and run off into the ocean.
That said, based on reading both sides of the debate, I think that if the climate is getting warmer that there will be more moisture in the air and that will cause more precipitation that will fall as snow in a feedback mechanism balancing the trend of melting glaciers.
Also, I have no doubt that somewhere between 45 parts of CO2 per million (earth) and 970,000 parts per million (venus) that a greenhouse will be created. I don’t believe that we’re anywhere near that threshold and that human activity is not causing climate change. Read up on your own and draw your own conclusions. Don’t buy the line about no debate.
Wow, if I read one more statement by a person bringing up the fact that ice floats i’m gonna lose it. Haven’t any of you genius’ given any thought at all to the idea that there is huge amounts of ice and snow (miles deep in some places) that is sitting on Greenland and Antartica (Not to mention northern Canada and Russia. What happens when you take an ice cube from off of your solid hand and place it in your glass of water. Wow…the water rises…imagine that.
The problem with melting ice is that most of it is NOT already sitting IN the water. Much of it is on land so when it melts it is adding water to the sea level.
Your right, Ice does displaces water. But a glacier is a mass of ice that is on land. Thus it is not displacing Water at all. such as greenland, which is covered in a lot of ice, when the ice that is already in the oceans melts, then the water does not rise, but when water melts off of the mainland, then it does rise. And ice also reflects heat, so when the ice melts, more heat is absorbed into the water, thus increasing the rate of melting on other ice. It then becomes a large circle
Most of the arctic ice is on land. When that ice melts, the runoff is into the lowest geographic point, which is the oceans basin. That additional water will cause a sea level to rise.
The theory is that the melting ice will cause the land based glaciers (on Greenland, for example) to slide into the ocean. Where the theory falls flat is that these projections are all based on COMPUTER MODELS, not empirical evidence. These same models have not been correct in any of their dire predictions. The facts are that the planet has been cooling since 2002, antarctic ice is thickening and that glaciers in Norway and Alaska are growing.
It’s all about money and the great “Agenda.” We need to scare the hell out of the masses so we can get more research money. We scared you in the 1970’s. Remember? There was going to be an ice age. Don’t you remember? Of course you probably don’t because you are a typical American – half moron and half idiot. While you play your video games, watch TV, play and watch sports, we plot on how to eliminate you. Now one of our geniuses came up with a fantastic idea that we could spin the whole global warming thing by saying that global warming will cause a new ice age that way we can go either way. You know in case it gets colder before we get our “Agenda” accomplished.
By now you must really want to know about our “Agenda.” Well, it is socialism and some communism. We want to destroy the US economy first be destroying its ability to get enough energy, then the US will become weak and ripe for revolution so we can take it over. We constantly tell you no drilling for oil, no nukes, no coal and now one of our geniuses came up with a great idea to stop wind power – it kills birds and the power lines look ugly. You Americans are the most stupid people on earth because you just suck that stuff up. What will end your freedom and kill you, you embrace. Why? Because you have the brains of worms! No bacteria! Next we want to enslave the doers and makers and take what they make and give it to us lazy a$#@s. We need a little communism because of our final solution – according to Bill Ayers (one of our great leaders) we will need to exterminate the capitalists. He says about 25 million, but we also need to get rid of the Christians too so most of us say about 200 million. Were going to take all of your bodies to northern Canada and freeze them so that we can slowly use you as food mostly to pay off the Chinese and Russians, but man we are going to have some fun barbecues too!
Our great Messiah Obama will show you soon the great things to come. One world socialist government mixed with some great communism so we can exterminate the masses that aren’t Marxist or very strong socialists. Oh it is going to be so glorious. No more poverty, wars, and diseases will be eliminated. Oh yes, we will resume the drilling of oil because we need the oil for other products than just gasoline, hahahahahaha.
Its all about controlling us they can pass what ever they want and expect us to live up to there demands. I don’t know how much the common man will put up with for much longer. They are passing laws that affect everyone of our lives and we don’t have a say in it. Unproven science, used to control everyone
What I have read the agreement is so weak with so many loopholes that EU will be lucky to get a 4% reduction. Germany, Itali, Poland, and other western EU countries stopped the agreement from being anything other than fluf.
The theory is that the miles of ice on top of Greenland and Antarctica are not floating in the ocean. If they melt, then it will directly add to the sea level. Ice in the Artic, if it melts will only minutely lower the ocean level.
most of the talk has been about arctice ice, and when that melts, sea level will decrease. in the Antarctic, we are getting more ice and snow, but if that melts, most of it on land, then presumably the sea levels would rise, but the problem is that what melts is that which is already at sea, as the glaciers press outward. people were worried when 15B broke off the Ross Ice Shelf, but it was already in the water, and when it melts, it won’t affect anything. however, if the sea level does rise 7 inches, who cares. Do you live 7 inches above sea level?
so, a “warming hole” exists right where most power plants burn coal? Interesting. We burn coal for electricity, and our temperatures are not rising. (Rockies to Appalachians) Out west, power is hydroelectric. somebody tell me how using coal is causing global warming? Of course, since most liberals live on the east and west coasts, and that, apparently, is where the temperatures are rising, the primary cause of warming is people talking too much without saying anything important.
Concerning the responses up there about ice melting in water, not causing the water level to rise….
I would assume they’re talking about huge ice sheets and glaciers melting that are on LAND (upper Canada, Greenland, Himalayas, Antarctica, etc, etc, etc), thus it would be additional water entering the oceans.
When Ice is on land and melts into the sea the melt-water will be added to the total volume of the sea. Fourth grade science won’t cut it any more, take some responsibility people. We can not continue to use the current energy solutions and expect no problems in the future for our posterity.
When Greenland was actually green in the dark ages, the ocean level was about the same as it is now. That period was about 7 degrees WARMER than it is now. During the mini ice age that followed that lasted until 1830’s, the ocean level was about the same as it is now. Where do these ’scientists’ come from?
Hey fourth-grade experimenters,have you overlooked the fact that the ice that’s melting is not only sea-ice, but land-based glaciers as well?(anyone ever heard of Greenland?) If you pile a bunch of ice-cubes on a plaform (Land) next to your glass and let the run-off drain into your glass (Sea) will it not then overflow ?
Just saying…….
Because there was climate change before, that means that we can do no wrong, and we are doing absolutely nothing to speed up the process. Just ask any Republican. I live in Florida, and there are sharks teeth all over the whole state, it was underwater once, and it will be again. This is natural, there is no such thing as ozone depletion. Pollution complaining is socialist. – yes I am being very sarcastic.
Thank god for global warming! What would it be like now if it weren’t getting so hot? I think I’ll throw couple of more logs on the fire; the earth needs a bit more CO2.
There a whole continent cover in at least 1000 feet of Ice that will melt and ADD water to the oceans that wasnt displacing anything. So when you add water to a full cup waht happens? This is something you can do at home too!
Let’s see now. There’s a temperature rise on the entire continent except for a ‘hole’ between the Rockies and the Appalachians? Isn’t that about 3/4’s of the country?? What a joke. These people will stop at nothing. Probably some of the same people who said we were entering an ice age back in the 70’s.
Hysteria is correct.Glacial advance and retreat has been one of a number of major factors in global temperature.Man’s role ( if any ) would
have little impact.I think certain people are
trying to create a for profit ” green industry”
Never underestimate these five things:
1. the insatiable greed of billionaires;
2. the willingness of their purchased politicians
to please them;
3. the duplicity of rented lackeys in ‘academia’
and ‘the media’;
4. the mindless fanatic zeal of earth-worshippers;
5. the gullible stupidity of comfortable, busy
Americans.
It’s all about the hidden taxes of Cap and Trade!!! If there wasn’t any more money to be squeezed out of taxpayers, No one would care about the sky falling! Hoax of the millennia!
Changes in climate over the course of Earth’s history are a normative event.
The rate of warming occuring now is manmade. Compared to historical climate studies.
Man has been pumping huge amounts of heat into the oceans from nuclear plants engineering, cooling paradigm. Moreover the amount of heat from all of our activities from the first industrial age, slash and burn farming, wars, current industry, auto’s, air travel and such is enourmas and culmative. CO2 is a great way to force the issue of global warming to one suspect. The truth of the matter is all the crap and heat we put into a closed system,over the last 150 years. Man has turned our Garden of Eden into a polluted and heated cesspool. Like a ballon, sooner or later, global warming gases are going to effect the atmosphere. Heating it up in record time and as we further destroy the natural mechinisms, that can no longer deal with our pollutants and industry. And the massive culmulative heat we pour into the ballon.
For all you naysayers, a degree of heating per fifty years is huge. Unprecedented, with significant ramifications.
Gone is summer skiing in France and Italy due to global warming at record rates. The African continent and American West are undergoing record drought. We have lost record ice in Greenland, Iceland,Northern Canada and Alaska. The currents that flow to Antartica at 3000–8000 feet. Have never warmed so quickly.
In your search engines look at the comparisons of glacial retreat from fity years ago until now. Their is nothing in the geologic and ice records, going back hundreds of thousands of years. That equal the warming happening now.
The planet offered man all he needed. Instead we have destroyed our Earth. With a foolish economy based on consumerism, war, enviormental destruction and hunting animals to exstinction and razing our biosphere.
If one does not believe the planet is undergoing manmade global warming and record heating and pollution. That shows you know nothing about the research or science involved.
Go to some science and glacier sites with data. Then find the sites with then and now picture sites of the worlds glaciers. Of which over 90% are in retreat.
If global pollution and warming do not bite you it will kill your children.
WILDCAT!!!!!
This is a message for Jeff. Jeff, like many Fox News viewers (as above) and contributors -such as Sean Hannity- you use the correct argument that melting ice doesn’t raise water levels as it’s already immersed in water. However the majority of ice melt will come from land resting glaciers in places like Greenland and Antartica where the melting ice is flowing into the oceans. As for Glaciers reforming- not correct. Glaciers that are tens of thousands of years old are now disappearing at a dramitic rate. I’ve visited many of them myself but don’t take my word for it- visit some scientific websites which monitor global ice levels.
Message for Ray- no human activity wasn’t. However previous climate change occurred over a period of hundreds if not thousands of years. Human induced climate change is forcing the climate to change in a few tens of years. It’s going to do tremendous damage to the species sharing this planet with us. We’re already well into one of the greatest mass extinctions cause directly by humanity. Climate change will add to it.
OK, kids, here’s how it works. If the ice is floating, of course, there in no effective change in sea level. But, and here is where the light should go on to brighten up your dim little minds, if the ice is on land and melts, it adds to the volume of water in the oceans and raises sea level. And, when floating ice melts, the sea surface reflects less heat than the ice and the water warms quicker. Stop finding ways to confront science with faith and blindness.
Forget it. Herb, Harry, Mike et al. Your comments are falling on deaf ears.
The climate has been going through periods of warming and cooling for eons, before SUVs, before Coal fired plants, before humans were in the equation.
The most recent period of global warming began around 790 AD and lasted until about 1300. The next big change is called the “Little Ice Age”, starting in 1300, with increased glaciations, and building of the Arctic ice pack. The impact on humans was dramatic, with population loss in many areas of the northern hemisphere. It did not end until around 1860. We are now in the recovery period from that Ice Age.
Well, here I am using empirical data against something that was “discovered” by a politician, and is being touted by the media. As long as they can make money off this piece of fiction, they will keep it going.
Would fox news please get these guys to put their data up on the web. Whenever, their data sets are seen by the public, errors show up that they have overlooked. According to correct data,the last 8 years has been cooling not warming. Also, the method of calculating a “global temperature” does not exist by anyone’s standard. Satellites as a sensor has drift in its data just as do temperature meters.
This is a political issue, not a scientific issue. Those in power or wishing to be in power need a way to promise something to those they wish to control. If a proposed impending global problem cannot be made into a man-caused problem, then those mere men making the proposals cannot convince others they can stop it. If those power-mongers can convince others it is man-caused then they can also impose their financial controls like Kyoto on others for even more long-lasting control, under the guise of saving their complacent sheep-like followers from themselves.
Humans and our greatest effors are but puny ants and ant piles relative to the climate effects of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases emitted naturally and the solar heating effects related to the Earth’s axis tilt, orbit shape, solar activity, etc., and it is nothing but huge egos gone amuck to believe otherwise.
question for the moderators. Do you people deny all comments in support of the world scientific consensus or just mine? If the opposition, like your collection of like minded knuckle draggers here, is right then no one loses. Some scientists lose face. If the National Academy of Science is right then civilization will be hard pressed to survive and you guys (fox) should feel great about yourselves for pushing us toward that eventuality. Congrats.
The Archimedes Principle would be true if you were only referring to sea born glaciers. If the land based glaciers melted the sea levels would HAVE to go up. Go back to fourth grade science!
It is true that ice does displace water and that, therefore, as ice melts it will not cause a rise in water levels. However, the kitchen experiment of watching ice cubes melt in a glass of water is not good science. It fails to account for the ice that is above the waterline. A smaller proportion of a glacier is above the waterline, however, it is a significant percentage of the total mass and would create a certain amount of rise.
Ice that melts over land, in places like Greenland and Antarctica will raise the sea level. It is my understanding that most of the ice in the world is over land, not floating in the oceans. But there are a lot of other factors that I know I don’t have the answers for.
For example, Antarctica is not flat. Much of the ice is on mountains. The same is true for Greenland. Will that snow melt as fast the ice floating in the Arctic? Probably not.
We know that glaciers in some areas are receding rapidly, growing elsewhere. Do the models use an average over the world, or do they use thousands of data points?
Given that tides and storm cause way more variation than the rise that is predicted, is it even significant? (Probably for the Maldive islands but who else?)
Without knowing a lot more about the study, the biases of the participants, and their funding, it is impossible to know the likelyhood of their models being correct.
Glaciers are not on the water floating…they are large masses of ice sitting on top of land. As they melt the water makes its way back to the ocean.
It’s absurd how many people do not believe in climate change. It’s a part of Earth’s natural evoultion. Parts of Texas near San Antonio use to at one time be UNDER the ocean. You can find coral shells in cliff faces.
Sea ice melting will not cause the ocean to rise because it is already floating around in the water. However anything on land that makes it’s way into the water will raise ocean levels. It is simple physics.
8 ounces of water becomes 9 ounces if you add another ounce…
Any increase in sea levels would only come from melting, land-based glaciers, as these are not currently affecting sea levels. The primary concern then would be the Greenland and Antarctic glacial masses. The difficulty here SEEMS to be that neither are melting all that quickly, according to some information sources cited by Michael Crichton in “State of Fear”.
Having said that, history shows how quickly climatic systems can alter. Thus, the most pragmatic course, while ignoring the man-made climate change hysteria, is to look at plans to deal with the possible results of whatever change might come.
Why does ice float? When water gets cold, it ’sinks’ and just before it freezes, it ‘rises’ to the surface. Thats why lakes can be frozen, and fish and other creatures still survive underneath- they aren’t frozen in the water.
Now think about that: the density of water(frozen) is less than the density of water(liquid). Thats why ice floats, it is less dense. Even though it occupies more volume, it is less dense.
Now to get to your “experiments” and the so called extra research you’ve done: When your ice cube melts in your cup, where is the ice cube?
…
…
You have it submerged in the water.
Polar ice caps are only partially submerged in water. Remember that earth has a process that returns moisture to the surface i.e. snowing. Polar ice caps are many many layers of frozen moisture. When it melts (returns to liquid), it DOES take up less space as a liquid, but it wasnt on the surface (of the ocean) before; it was a layer on top of the glacier.
Ice floats, it can penetrate the surface (of the ocean); it builds up (vertically)
Sorry if this sounds confusing, just wanted to help clarify the conclusions that every scientist makes re: polar ice melting
Seas rise because the ice is not all floating, it is over land in canada, greenland, and antarctica. Since most of the ice discussed is over land, it currently is not displacing water. Redo the ice in the glass experiment by placing the ice above the water on a filter, then, as it melts, it WILL raise water levels.
Such rubbish. Are these so called experts trying to scare everyone. In the past when the weather changed they did not have factories, cars etc. What caused the weather to change. The scientists have had their five minutes, get a life. Stop trying to justify getting more money from the government and other sources. Get a real job and make a honest living.
I measured, three times, the melting of ice in a cup and the water level dropped slightly. And there has been precious little discussion of the past climate warmings (known as the climate optimum) in the dire warnings of these so-called “scientists” who are really politicians in disguise.
If you ask me, this entire global warming thing is a socialist experiment and land grab with the goal of scaring people.
This global warming crowd is pushing the worst kind of science and deserve no consideration from the people of this country.
They are not talking about ocean ice melting and raising water levels. They are talking about the land bound glaciers melting ie: Greenland, Arctic (ice nearly 2 miles deep) that ice melting WILL rasie levels considerably.
Just to calibrate the level of commmentary on this blog: 3 out of the 9 posts are about sea levels not rising when sea ice melts. Absolutely true, and completely irrelevant!
The concern is about the vast ice sheets of Antarctica and, to a lesser extent, Greenland, all of which are resting on solid land. If they melt, the melt water will flow from the land into the ocean, increasing the volume of water in the ocean, and raising the sea level. More catastrophically, because quicker, they could even slide, as ice, into the sea before they’ve had a chance to melt.
Glaciers are on land not in the sea, if it is in the sea it is called an iceberg. Therefore, when a glacier melts it is water on land that flows into the sea, raising the level. That is simple 3rd grade learning there folks. I think most of you could not get past the second grade on “Smarter Than a 5th Grader”.
Junk science at its worst. Garbage in, garbage out. NASA reports that other planets in our solar system are warming also due probably to solar activity. Or are Americans off-roading in their SUV’s there also. There have been periods in the earth’s past when carbon dioxide levels have been 3 times what they are now with temperate temperatures at the poles. Al Gore not only invented the internet, he also invented a phony climate crisis. He is probably getting rich off of suckers buying carbon credits from him.
Sorry guys but glaciers are not ice cubes. They are like a river of ice that moves slowly over land. They do eventally make it to water and break off into the ocean and cause ice burgs. see also continental ice sheet; does anyone here even have a college education? Highschool?
ok all i have to say is that you all are idiots!! yes when ice melts in a glass the water level goes down but we are not talking about ice melting in the ocean we are talking about glacers and ice sheets on land that are melting which is causing sea levels to rise. GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT BEFORE YOU TRY TO DISCREDIT SCIENTISTS.
why is such a monumental event reported on with such a small blurb?
We could have an informed populous if you put more energy into reporting on events such as the EU meeting, instead you give sparse information and leave people uninformed.
well lets see, if we go by this nov. were were 5 degrees below normal and so is december. I guess Al baby had better turn on more lights so he can buy carbon credits from his company.
I wonder if these “sceintist” have looked at the weather in the past two years. There have been record “lows” that have not been seen in over 40 years and just walk out your door right now and tell me where the global warming is affecting because I’m sure the people in the midwest and northeast would love some global warming right now. Does some adverse affect of global warming cause it to snow in Las Vegas? I live in Alabama and it didn’t get above 40 here yesterday, another record low. El Nino is what caused a warmer increase in tempatures over a period of time but that affect is gone now and will cycle back through every so often, using true science and having an honest unbiased agenda, you can see this evidence. Ignorance causes fear.
What caused the end of the Ice Age? To my knowledge there were no humans or SUV’s roaming the frozen surface. Anyone can pick and chose numbers to make it look anyway they wish and I don’t see anywhere stating that this is proven to be the cause of anything. The word “probably” is used way too many times in the article. “Probably”, “unlikely”, and “likely” are not scientific fact but a hypothesis. If it is “global warming” doesn’t that imply the whole globe, not just selective parts having increase in temperature. I live in the South where they state the temperature has not increased (as dramatically as they hoped for) but of course they can explain that away. Tell me how living near a large, warm body of water like the ocean, which they say those temperatures are rising and we have people and SUV’s just like everyone else and yet our temperature isn’t changing like everyone else? Is global warming being selective or just inconsistent with observable facts and data?
Sea levels will fall. Water expands and becomes less dense when it freezes – that why it floats. Sea levels should drop as the result of melting polar icecaps – putting more fresh water in circulation, leading to more evaporation leading to drought mitigation. Hoorah for global warming – whatever is causing it.
Glaciers are sheets of ice….most are not just floating around in the water like the icebergs are….Greenland is an island covered in ice…so when it melts it would be like pouring water into your cup that is already full.
It is funny how so many people are doing all they can to dismiss what is really happening. What is so wrong with finding alternate fuel and energy sources? Why not make things better for the environment? A lot of people are so much against “global warming”, I have to ask, why? It doesnt really matter if you believe in GW or not, is it right to dump trash in the ocean? Is it not better for all of us to breath cleaner air? I mean seriously people why are you so resistant to making a few Changes in your personal habits? Why are you so resistant to new ideas and new things? Even if Global Warming isnt as catastrophic as all these Scientists make it out to be, what is so wrong with doing things better, cleaner and smarter?
Floating ice when it melts will not raise ocean levels – this is correct and taken into account by the models. Thus,this is NOT the ice they are refering to when discussing ocean levels. The ice that matters is on land and there is more of that than currently floating.
The earth does naturally warm and cool and we are in a natural warming period – that is also correct. However, mankind can now speed that process along. Is it smart to take a process that would have taken hundreds of thousands of years and make it happen in our lifetimes?
America needs to take the lead on green technologies. It will make the US stronger economically and more secure. Do you really want to keep funding nations that hate you? Is that smart?
Big Algore, the self-serving pied piper of the environuts is making his fortune hyping global warming just as Jesse Jackson makes his money promoting racism. Global warming may indeed be
happening and man may indeed be making some contribution but man will adapt and we will be fine..The sky is not falling and chicken little need not fear. The frozen tundras of Siberia, Alaska, Canada etc. etc. will make great places to grow wheat. If the sea rises, man can simply move to higher ground. The seas have risen hundreds of feet since the last ice age.
I don’t care about global warming. I will be fine.
The seas have risen well over a hundred feet since
the last ice age. So What ? Man will adapt and will be just fine. The sky is not falling and chicken little need not fear. Just move to higher ground.
Climate changes. Look at the positive aspects.
An unfrozen arctic ocean offers many positive opportunities. The frozen tundra of Siberia, Alaska, Canada etc. would make great places to grow wheat & corn..Man will adapt and we will be just fine..I am not worried about climate change and do not care.
The rise in sea level is because warmer water takes up more room than colder water, which makes sea levels go up, a process known as thermal expansion.
the math doesnt even work out in this. if the temperature increased .12 degrees every decade for 11 decades(1.32 degrees), but in the last 5 decades it has increased .41 degrees per decade (2.05 degrees), where is the other .73 degrees coming from? either the temperature decreased since the industrial revolution began or someone made up numbers trying to make an argument.
What’s the earth’s temperature RIGHT NOW? You can’t just add up all the temperature measurements we collect.
We have lots of weather stations in the US and western Europe, not so much in Russia or China, only a few hundred in the oceans (though that’s 2/3 of the surface). Satellites do not measure TEMPERATURE, they measure radiation or other parameters and infer the temperature based on another model.
But it’s winter in the southern hemisphere, and a storm front is crossing Nebraska, and it’s night time on half the planet, and the orbit eccentric, and the sun is oscillating, and sunspots are up this year! So these guys use models of seasonal variations and weather norms to correct for these patterns to infer an “average temperature”. For the missing data they make “reasonable scientific assumptions”. (But when the results are unreasonable, what makes you think the assumptions are?)
Then use the model-corrected data to validate the models.
We can’t predict the temperature and wind effects on a hurricane five days ahead. How do we validate a model that predicts years ahead? Or centuries?
That’s the root problem with all these reports. It’s always based on someone’s model that is difficult to validate. The models do not agree in any valid detail, but we don’t hear about the disagreements. And they have never published a analysis for any of the dozen models of their sensitivity to variations in their assumptions.
As a theoretical physicist, I can create a model that will match any set of data. And have to re-do its assumptions as soon as any new data shows up; give me a few minutes.
Mose of this is blather to draw politically-motivates research funding. This round started in the Carter administration when an atmospheric scientist joined OSTP (Office of Science and Technology Policy – the president’s science advisor) with the stated intention to increase funding for atmospheric science by making it a political and policy issue.
There may be something here. After all, 70,000 years ago there was 2,000 feet of ice over Manhattan Island, and 6,000 feet over the Rockies – that’s how those glacial valleys and the Great Lakes were carved. Grinell Glacier in Montana is barely 200 feet thick and will disappear this century; it’s been warming up for most of those 70,000 years.
But the honest science has been overwhelmed by the politics and media blather.
and how did oil get on this planet??? Oh that’s right from previous periods of global warming. So I guess we just haven’t found the automobiles they used billions of years ago that caused that. maybe soon we can discover those.
These people really are morons there is no other way to describe them.
I believe the issue is the Ice Sheets that are melting on land masses like Antartica and Greenland. These ice sheets are melting and flowing off the land into the water.
I’m not a man made global warming fan….but natural cycles do happen. What will be will be.
About 70% of the earth are oceans, containing over 1.3 billion cubic kilometers of water. How much water would you have to add to this massive “Pool” to raise the level worldwide one inch, let alone several feet? Where is this extra water coming from that will raise it any level? There’s only so much water on earth. Nothing but a hoax, pure and simple.
Harry the Farmer. So you agree man has been adding more Carbon Dioxide into the atmosphere? Hmmm? Your larger crops certainly couldn’t be attributed to improved farming methods, irrigation, fertilizers or genetically altered or hybrid plants now could it. Let’s immediately go to climate change.
Just read to interesting things this past fall that have nothing to do with “scientific” study…
1. “The Sagas of the Ice Landers” – in it the stories allude to the Viking Settlers stopping their migrations to Greenland because of … ummm… ICE. So do I assume there was LESS ICE when they began to settle Greenland?
2. In a magazine article a discussion about a Spanish Pearl Ship left in what was formerly a LAKE in the California Desert. Apparently they sailed up the Gulf of California, into this lake from the Colorado River and in the year this lake apparently dried up the Ship (or was it Ships) could not get out. So… how did there become a lake there less than 500 years ago? Was the ocean higher then? Hmmmm…
We have the mini Ice Age of the Middle Ages which explains the Viking abandonment of exploring Greenland…. we have a Spanish Ship in the mid-1500s stuck in a drying up lake in California and we have a bunch of morons so stuck on their ’science’ they cannot fathom (pun intended) a history written in books being printed to this very day.
And you know what is really sad? These guys are our ‘leaders’… the people forming the minds of the future and they don’t have a thimble full of common sense. Scary ain’t it?
One more time the greenie weenies are endeavoring to mislead the public and it is notable that Fox News goes along with the “Man is at fault” crowd as they simply post this nonsense.
Without expressing any opinion on the claims of global warming or its causes and effects, there is something misunderstood in much of this discussion:
When ice is floating in a glass and it melts, the water level may not rise. The same can be said of pack ice floating in the Arctic.
However, glacial ice is not floating in the ocean. It is sliding down the mountains above them. Most of the ice in Greenland and Antarctica is sitting on land, not floating in the ocean.
When you let an ice cube slide down the side of a glass into the water, the water level does rise. If you let the cube melt over the glass, the water level rises.
That rise may or may not be offset by other effects, but melting glacial ice and melting floating ice do have different effects on sea levels.
It is true that when ice that is floating in water melts, the water level stays the same (more or less — water is actually most dense at 4 degrees Celcius).
But much of the ice that is melting (e.g. glaciers in the Rocky Mountains, Greenland, etc.) is not floating in water — they’re on land. So all that water adds to the water in the sea.
The other thing is that as water heats up, even though it is still liquid, it expands.
Seems to me that reality is getting in the way of romance with regard to this poorly planned “Green” plan that uses top-down thinking rather than bottom-up incentives for people to want to treat the environment better.
One does wonder at the cost-benefit analysis that each project has had before being adopted out of romantic sentiments rather than hard-nosed business and project management views. If governments got out of the way and businesses were given tax-breaks to do cleanups with profits that embrace capitalistic ideals, then there would be more enthusiasm for this stuff. Instead, it’s going to be more dismal failures, abandonments and outright refusals by smart leaders who see failure in the stars with the current poor planning and execution.
This should be a warning to the U.S. – Too bad our leaders are falling down the same rabbit hole.
The ice has all melted before and it will again. However, the sea levels rising is a myth. A scare tactic. I guess a good example is to fill a glass with ice and then fill with water and mark the water level. Let the ice melt. You will then notice that the water level is actually lower. Give it a try.
Floating ice displaces water equal to its weight, and therefore its melting does not increase the height of the water. Ice on land (i.e. the antarctic but not the arctic ice) will transform to water and then flow into the ocean, adding to its total volume (and therefore height).
Apparently 4th grade science class did not include geology.
Do you not realize that most of the ice is not in the water but on land, Look at a map of Antartica and Greenland, Thats land buried under miles of ice in most areas thousands of feet deep thats discharging its melt water into the oceans of the world. 836,109 square miles for Greenland and 5,297,321 square miles of ice covered land for Antarctica, Fill your bathtub up to the top and pour a bucket of water into it, tell me what happens, Oh Yeaaaa, it raises the water level and floods.
We are undeniably using up resources, putting moxious chemicals in the air and food that are not healthy. I’m not one to say it’s all our fualt the earth’s climate is changing, it’s scientific fact it’s gone through these kinds of changes before. But look at a crowded city skyline, see that layer of thick brown muck? Sorry friends, there’s no way you can tell me that breathing that in everyday is great for you.
Nor is it any good for the food we grown, animal and plant alike… to use the growth hormones we do. Nor is it healthy to eat food packed with preservatives .. becuase the market cares more about shelf life of taste than our well being. No theory is perfect, but we definately need to take a look at these unhealthy habits we’ve gained. So whether driving that Hummer or other rediculous SUV to work every day is cuasing polar ice caps to melt, is irrelevent. It’s gluttonous, and ruining our air quality without question.
Way to go Foxnews. Global warming junk science needs another media outlet. You guys can’t seem to figure out when to go for the truth, or to go with the crowd.
@Paul, You are right that sea levels won’t rice when the Arctic ice melts. It will rise when the ice on Greenland and the ice in the ANTarctic. Those Ice sheets are on land and do not currently float on the surface of the water.
When thousands of good and honest scientists are saying something is a problem, you should listen.
Do you guys realize that even Sarah Palin believes in Global Warming. Do you guys not realize that tulips will begin budding in DC in February? Yes, there have been several instances of climate change in the past, but if you had any concept of chemistry at all you would understand how that carbon dioxide (and methane, water vapor, and a host of other chemicals) absorbs heat and warms up the Earth. That Carbon dioxide came from Humans. The methane came from our cows.
Conservatives talk all the time about responsibility. We should be responsible for our own actions. We shouldn’t make excuses. We shouldn’t blame others. Man up and take responsibility! Our actions caused this. Sorry, but driving the Hummer two blocks to pick your kid up a big mac was a bad thing to do! Make the kid walk or ride his bike for crying out loud. Why can’t YOU take responsibility and take the spec out of YOUR OWN eye. My wife are down to one car. We Now car pool and take public trans where we go. We are taking our own responsibility. Probably not enough, but we are trying. YOU should too!
Extreme warming has occurred often in the past – where do we think all the oil and coal, gas and fossils come from? The earth does as it wants and man (puny man) can’t change it. Most likely we will warm for some time. Who knows? But just as surely there will be another ice age in our future.
There are a significant number of famous glaciers that are dramatically receding. These melt and increase the flow of water from mountains to the ocean through the rivers they feed. If anybody is having difficulty believing this, a quick trip to google earth with the climate awareness layers enabled will show them all the changes our planet is undergoing right now. Simply enable the UNEP: Atlas of Our Changing Planet layer under the Global Awareness layers tab. You can look at glaciers in greenland and read about how quickly things are changing there. The Kangerdlugssuaq Glacier’s rate of flow has “more than doubled between 2000 and 2005.”
Of course you could just think your 4th grade science experiment serves as proper climactic evidence of whatever you want it to prove. Perhaps somebody could publish your findings in a journal of science? Maybe you might become the next famous scientist who showed the world’s scientists how wrong they were with your glass of ice water.
While it is technically true that melting sea ice does not increase sea levels, LAND ICE does. Sea ice not only reflects heat and slows warming, but it also slows the migration of land ice. Once sea ice has melted, land ice speeds its migration into the oceans. Greenland is already losing huge amounts of land ice.
Think of the sea ice as the canary in the mine. Once its gone, things really start to get bad rapidly.
This is crazy, you people are nuts and guess who is paying for all this! “We the tax payers” Someone needs to put A STOP to all this and refocus thier energy to solving the Hungry! Just would seem more practicle. Have you nopt learned to NOT FOOL WITH MOTHER NATURE!!!!
Ahhh, global warming. Even NASA’s Dr. Hansen(Algore’s top advisor on global warming) admits he exagerated the effects of AGW in order to “Get your attention”. All this nonesense is about power and the acquisition thereof. NO SCIENCE NEEDED.
The fact is in spite of so called global warming over the last hundred years, sea levels have not risen during the last hundred years. Beach houses on both coasts have the same amount of real estate, absent sand removal and replacement from storms.
“More than two trillion tons of land ice in Greenland, Antarctica and Alaska have melted since 2003, according to new NASA satellite data…” and the rate appears to be accelerating. This is ice on land, not floating in the ocean.
Some of the rise in sea level is due to melting of the non-floating ice, i.e. the glaciers sitting on top of rock. Consider the Greenland ice — when it melts, the water will run down to the sea. And there is a lot of water tied up in glaciers in Antarctica, Greenland, other northern lands, etc. The effect of the melting northern sea ice is to make it easier for the land-bound glaciers to slide faster into the sea, where they will melt faster as they float south (the sea ice pack often acts as a barrier to the land-bound glaciers). If you don’t believe this, please move to south Florida or the gulf coast.
The Archimedes principle certainly applies for icebergs that are in water. But Glaciers that are land-based would add to the total volume of water in the oceans. The other thing to note, however, is that when water freezes it expands thus displacing more ocean water than the water returned to the oceans when the iceburgs melt. Also, when Icebergs melt they do not crack but they do crack if they are growing. Check it out.
Basically if the weight of the water needed to occupy the same volume as an object is more than the weight of the object, the object will float. Since a rock weighs more than the same volume of water, it sinks. Water actually expands as it freezes so it occupies a greater volume as ice than it does when it is water so it floats. Any object that floats, displaces a volume of water equal to its weight. So, when ice is floating in water (ice cubes, icebergs and the ice in the Artic Ocean), it has already displaced a volume of water equal to its weight. This displacement shows up as a rise in sea level. As the ice melts, the ice gradually changes to water, but the total weight is the same, just some is now water and the rest is ice. So, as the ice melts, the sea level will basically not change. However, if as the ice melts, some of it evaporates and say forms clouds, then the sea level would actually drop a tiny bit since the sea is no longer supporting the weight of the water that evaporated.
Now ice that has its weight supported by land does not raise the level of the sea (glaciers, the ice on Greenland, the ice on Antartica, etc.). When this ice melts and if its water flows to the ocean, the sea level rises since the sea is not supporting the original weight of the ice but now gains the weight (and volume) of the water from the melting ice.
So, the loss of ice in the Artic Ocean may be a sign that the weather at the North Pole is warmer, but the sea level has not changed because of it. However, the ice in the world’s glaciers, Greenland and Antartica is also melting and it will raise the level of the sea and these sources have a lot of ice.
How much do we pay these “scientists”? They have carved out a secure niche for themselves as part of the 150 years of alarmist reporting about warming or cooling.
Even grade-school science tells us the freezing of water increases its volume by 10% (and thereby bursts its containers). Does it not therefore stand to reason the oceans’ levels could DECREASE dramatically with large-scale melting?
If their premise is correct that widespread warming will melt polar regions, the results would be cold water flowing toward the tropics, causing cooling.
Natural climactic cycles have resulted in cooling since 1998; all warming of the past 20 years to 1998 has been erased by the cooling of the past 10 years, and yet these scientists seem to be dreadfully unaware.
If the ice is higher than sea level, and is not displacing water (eg. in Antarctica, it’s held up by land), when it melts, there will be more water. The north pole probably won’t have this effect though. Either way I doubt the amount of added water would be significant enough to raise the sea level much.
So Foxnews has finally been cowed by advertisers into starting up a “green” website. I knew you were fickle but this is ridiculous. Now I suppose your news stories will be green slanted from now on. Money talks Foxnews eh?
It’s funny how we have been listening to these global warming / climate change threats from Al Gore’s Company of Clowns and yet nothing happens. Where are all of the hurricanes? Earthquakes? Why are the poles actually freezing up thicker and sooner than predicted, as well as compared to historic events?
How long is it going to take people to wise up and see Al Gore, Bill Ritter, and the rest of these people for the charlatans they are? Has anyone figured out how much money these global warming kooks have made since they went on their bandwagon, sky-is-falling parade of fear mongering? I’ll bet they have put more dollars in their pockets than facts produced to prove them right.
You know, there’s more to Global warming than you Scientists own. As much as the people cause pollution on this planet, it has no effect to the extent it causes Global Warming. The whole Solar System is involved. Maybe it is the miming effect for the other planets involved. The rest of them are jealous Earth is getting all the attention. =-)
But, you gotta give them something or than lose hope and panic.
This “ice cubes in my cup don’t raise the level” garbage is the latest ruse climate change deniers are tossing around. The ice that will raise the ocean levels isn’t “inside the cup.” It’s above sea level. Try filling your fast-food drink with ice from the machine. Under this cockamamie theory, you could fill your cup with ice to infinity and the drink level would never change. Try it. But make sure you have lots of napkins around.
Global warming is real, and it’s coming soon to a location near you. Deny it or not, it’s coming, and you’re being unbelievably dense to pretend it won’t affect. Conservatives tend to operate out of fear. This is you. Fear won’t work. Action will work.
The problem is an out-of-control human population explosion. A good long war, famine, pestilince will take care of that. Remember it was the Black Plague that brought the end of serfdom and increase wages of freemen. FDR’s New Deal didn’t break the stranglehold of the Great Depression – World War II did. Need more examples?
1) they talked about glaciers melting… not sea ice…
2) there are no “new glaciers” forming… tropical zone ones are nearly gone and all temperate zone glaciers are retreating (melting).
3) The primary reason for the rise in ocean levels is due to the thermal co-efficient of water: a warm water takes up more room than cold water.
4) the threat in the northern hemisphere is the dilution of sea water in the North Atlantic with melted polar ice: the fresh water “floats” and is carried by the Gulf Steam… because it is less dense than sea water it does not sink once cooled to return to the mid-south atlantic and recharge the gulf steam. Result: relatively warm N. Europe looses the gulf effect, becomes like labrador… equals a collapse of the Euro-temperate zone… eg; new ice age.
5) historic ice age events were not caused by man, true. Just as prehistoric forest fires were not (typically) caused by man… but that doesn’t keep man’s current activity from causing fires, or an ice age.
Only “Fact” that I can support: you can not release a 500 million year accretion of carbon in 100 years without some profound effect.
Some of these comments must have been left by complete idiots. Yes, melted sea ice will not cause the oceans to rise, but the ice on Greenland and Antartica is not sea ice, it is on land. Melt a piece of ice OVER a cup of water, letting the melted ice drip into the cup, then measure the water level in the cup. Even a 4th grader can tell you what will happen. Next time, don’t make an arguement without checking out all the facts first.
The ice that is worrisome is not the ice floating in the oceans. It is the ice sheets that cover arctic land in Canada, Greenland, Antarctica, and on mountains throughout the world. Don’t fool yourself–as those ice sheets melt and flow into the ocean the seas will rise.
Why do a lot of Americans insist global warming is a conspiracy? Do you think the world’s most emminent scientists would agree man made global is a fact when it isn’t? Why can’t you accept scientific evidence?
The reality is that no one can say for sure what will happen when all this ice melts.
14,000 years ago the ocean level was 300 feet lower than today. 11,000 years ago at the end of the Ice Age the ocean levels approach what they are today. Where was that water 14,000 years ago, and where did the water 11,000 years ago come from?
I’m not too concerned with the level of the ocean. What should be of concern is what happens to the Atlantic and Japanese currents if they have too much fresh water dumped into them. That -will- change the climate.
it’s not the floating sea ice that’ll cause the oceans to rise it’s 1)the landbound ice in the southpole. and 2)thermal expansion at temperature rise (when you heat water it expands)
I can see the basics of Geolgy have escaped a couple of the FoxFans (Im actually not surprised) The glaciers which these SCIENTISTS are talking about are ON THE LAND, and when they melt the water runs off INTO THE SEA so for you coffee cup analogists…thats what causes the sea level to rise!
Sure, melting floating ice won’t cause water levels to rise. Duh! Now rub a few brain cells together and see if you can think of any huge chunks of ice that AREN’T floating. Sheesh!
i think the whole oceans rising is a load of BS. scientists also said in the year 2000 all computer equipment would have issues b/c on the 00 and the computer would think its 1900. these scientists in Nothern Europe should spend all the tax payers money on helping PEOPLE with AIDS cancer and other deadly things hurting people now, not oceans going up a big 7 inches over 100 years, wow we loss 7 inches of coastline every 100 years so what thats one person not fitting on the beach.
I’m glad to see that people are starting to wake up and realize that this whole “global warming” thing is just a big lie, set out to make other like Al Gore richer and the rest of us poorer.
The Earth has heated up and cooled down many, many times with or without mankinds presence and it will continue to do so. Oceans will also continue to rise and fall as well. It is really pretty stupid for people to think that the Earth doesn’t change, it always has in the past.
What twaddle. Kinda funny how Fox News launched this silly green site at just about the time when global warming dogma is being so thoroughly undermined by more credible science.
There are two positions on global warming and I would like to each one represented equally. The green position has been marketed well but its “scientific position” has a cherry-picked academia. Though the pro-warming argument at times fits the weather patterns after shoveling 3 feet of snow from my roof Christmas day I am a skeptic. Let’s hear equally objective news from each position equally!
These new lights give me a chilled feeling. There is no warmth and sparkle, and they are very dim. The clear looks like blue and hurts my eyes. I like the heat put out by incandescent bulbs. They allow me to keep my heat down a little. A world full of LED and energy efficient bulbs is a cold and dingy world indeed.
Land-based Arctic ice isn’t already in the ocean. Ocean-based Arctic Ice won’t change the sea level, but the land-based Artic Ice is like melting an ice cube and adding that melt to a cup already full of water.
To experiment: freeze some water on a plate — make the plate pretty full if you can, ideally using a deep plate.
Next, take a glass of water about 3/4 full and add enough ice cubes to bring the water level close to the top — within 1/4″.
Finally, melt the plate of ice (microwave it or oven or however, depending on what’s available and whether the plate is safe to use with the method you choose).
When the ice that covered the plate is converted to water, (carefully — ‘cuz it might be hot) pour that water into the glass containing the ice cubes.
It overflows.
Not all Arctic ice is ocean-based, and massive amounts of ice covering Greenland and other land masses are melting at an accelerated rate.
Thus, they will add water to the oceans and the sea level will rise.
Will Thorpe: some glacial growth would be expected. The earth is a dynamic system, not a partly frozen basketball in a box, so changes will include an ebb and flow.
Here’s an article that should help explain it a bit better:
Ray Whitten: What does human activity at the time of prehistoric climate changes have to with the repeatedly proven facts regarding human activity’s impact on the climate and environment now?
That’s a straw-man argument — there’s no connection and no relevance to making that “comparison.”
The 4th grade experiment logic has flaws. Ice goes down in the cup when it melts because it couldn’t spread out before. And the melting ice they are trying to show concern for is all currently on land (Greenland etc.) But I say who cares! The people who care own beachfront property. (Like Manhattan Island and the Florida Penninsula) But given enough time people will just move farther from the beach. And land that was cheap before will suddenly increase in value. Life will go on with new rules. That sounds great to me.
What are these greedy people going to do, take over God’s job? Germany and all these other people of the world that think they can control the weather are deluded by the demons of Greed and Pride.
Global temperature is almost wholly controlled by the amount of solar radiation that the earth receives. Any scientist that supports these greedy politicians are themselves deceived. In fact most real scientist do not support these findings and can prove that greenhouse gases created by man have an extremely small role in temperatures. The sun determines how hot or cold our planet is. Does mankind control the sun?
God has promised as long as the earth exist until Jesus returns, there will be Winter, Spring, Fall, and Summer. Are Germany and Great Britain’s leader’s able to control God and the weather? If they are, we should worship them.
No the real problem with these world leaders is that since they worship demons, they desire more power, money and control over people. It is the same idea as socialism. Give us everything and we will take care of you. However, socialist can only gain power by misrepresentation and falsehoods.
Don’t be fooled! This has nothing to do with global warming and everything to do with power and money!
The folks who are pushing for the U.S. to cut greenhouse gas pollution are most likely the same people who are in no danger of losing their job should our industrial base be saddled with yet more federal regulation. I, for one, would rather have a full belly and a dirty sky than an empty belly and clean sky….
As far as the ice melting in water you guys are completely correct. The Artic ocean melting wont make the seas rise. The reason the sea will rise s that the glaciers in north america, Greenland and Antartica are not in the water, they are on land. That is new water being added to the ocean which makes the water rise. Antartica for example, has ice that is almost 9,000 feet thick in some places. These glaciers ARE melting and the seas WILL rise. I do not doubt that there are new glaciers forming in some places. A better term for Gobal Warming is Global Wierding because of new weather patterns a various temperature changes (but positive and negative) throughout the world. If you think its B.S., take a look at who is paying the nay-saying scientists, its almost always an oil company. I dont know what exaclty will happen and I dont believe in some apocolyptic scenario, but we do need to vasty improve our energy usage, bottom line
About sea levels rising, Jeff of Dec 17th is right in saying ice cubes melting do not add water. This is only true of icebergs, that are already floating in the sea. When glaciers are on top of land, or big pieces fall off to make a new iceberg, this is added water to oceans. The glaciers melting on mountaintops (Himilayans) threatens the main water supply of millions, as this is the source of river water flowing year round. Read more here: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/09/040922072126.htm
I hope Obama has a heart attack or something. We do not need him destroying our economy any more than it already is. If I was the auto industry, I would say screw Cali and all the other states that want to regulate emissions and just not ship their product to those states. Why should everyones prices go up because the fags and libs want stricter standards. Maybe obama can have a heart attack after hearing Cali is in the pacific after the big one.
You must take into account that the melting ice that will raise sea levels is coming from ice melting on land, and then running into the sea. It is not coming from ice that is already in the ocean and is melting. This will raise sea levels.
Just a point of clarification, glaciers are on land, so their melting would cause a rise in sea levels. I stil don’t see how any of this is our fault, just the natural course of things.
Glaciers are not like giant ice cubes. Most glaciers are on land. Some glaciers and snow pack in the Antarctic are hundreds of feet thick. Glaciers in Alaska, Canada, Siberia and Greenland are also on land and in the mountains. When they melt the water runs into the sea and causes the level to rise. This is more like adding water to your glass rather than having ice melt in the glass. Only in the Arctic is most of the ice and snow pack over water so that when it melts there is less effect on the sea level.
Global warming cause by greenhouse emissions is hogwash!!! It is our sun that is responsible for global warming and cooling. Everyone better start thinking nuclear—so we can warm the planet when it turns cold. Proponents of this malarkey are only trying to line their pockets!
LED Christmas lights are great for saving energy. I am all for sustainability and the environment. However, the bright white light they emit is not very pretty, in fact, it’s rather jarring. I hope they will soon have available for purchase LED lights in amber or white ones covered by tinted glass.
I regret to inform those scientists that look at these micro ecological events as something of significance … it’s best to get your heads out of the soil and look up once in a while. When the Yellowstone Caldera blows (within the next 10 days or 100 years) all of your posturing will be for naught. Although, you’ll figure out some way to blame the human race for this natural occurrence. Understand … the earth will “fix” itself when it gets good and ready to do so.
I thought that glaciers were ice that was (at least partially) on land? I guess with all the kitchen experiments, if you took some of the ice out of the cup and melted it the results might be different.
North pole ice melting won’t raise sea level at all, but for glaciers that are attached to land, their melting could cause sea levels to rise. For example, Antarctic glaciers. A better analogy is to place a platform in the glass that is NOT floating, but anchored to the bottom, then place an ice cube on top of it. Naturally as the water melts, it will raise the water level.
Far more troubling than sea levels rising is the change in ocean currents as temperatures change, which will change dramatically with even minor changes.
If you want to see sea level changes you have to look a bit longer term than “the last few years”. It’s only called “global warming” because the /average/ temperature of the Earth will rise, some areas will get much colder, and some will simply see different weather, which is why scientists now prefer the term “climate change” as it’s less misleading.
It seems that most comments on this subject come from people with a fourth grade education and absoloutly no common sense. It is a simple law of physics…for every action there is a REACTION…we cannot continue to pump billions of tons of waste in the air, ground, and water and expect no repercussions. Just because you dont think or want something to happen doesn’t mean it is not happening…We need to pull our heads out of the sand and look at how we are raping this planet. I would guess most commenting do not live in a place where the air is difficult to breathe because of the pollution…
More scare tactics designed to make Elite Eco Activist rich. Hopefully we will get past this just like the flat earth theory that was politically correct a few hundred years ago.
Perhaps burning a few of those perpetrating the global warming fraud at the stake would put and end to this idiocy.
“I call it a fourth grade science experiment. Take a glass, put some ice in it. Put water in it. Mark level where water is. Let it met. After the ice melts, the sea level didn’t go up in your glass of water. It’s called the Archimedes Principle.”
That supposition is true if all the ice that was melting was floating in the water. The statement above looks at what Icebergs do. Let’s look at the definition of Glacier.
gla⋅cier /ˈgleɪʃər/ [gley-sher]
–noun an extended mass of ice formed from snow falling and accumulating over the years and moving very slowly, either descending from high mountains, as in valley glaciers, or moving outward from centers of accumulation, as in continental glaciers.
The water that makes up Glaciers on land is what they are worried about with sea levels rising. Icebergs melting doesn’t matter, except for the fact that it can lower the temperature of water, which can also mess up the flow of water, and as such, the flow of the Jet Streams.
I reviewed my electric and natural gas bills from the last five years (the utility companies have an avg temp for the months over the year on bill) I notice that we have been getting colder over the years according to this. So where the heat?\
That is my scientific study and I have the proof….
ps The forecasted weather for the interior of Alaska this winter is 40-70 BELOW ZERO. Pretty darn hot I think.
The Obama administration is stupid if they think that they can raise emission standards for cars while the industry is in bankruptcy. Meanwhile the rest of us are going to pay for his stupidity as he bankrupts the country with his ridiculous and unproven unscientific ideas about global warming. But then every politician has screwed the economy by pork barrel spending, corrupt CEO’s and politicians.
Melting of ice in the Arctic Ocean will definitely not cause sea level to rise.
BUT, sea level does rise when land-based ice melts (e.g., mainly Greenland and Antarctic ice) – those are the areas of concern and both, especially Greenland, as showing lots of signs of increasing melting.
Sea level also rises as global temperatures increase because water expands slightly as it is heated (and it’s density decreases).
Global warming (meaning an increase in the average global temperature) could potentially cause northern Europe to get colder. If you look at map you will notice that much of northern Europe is at very high latitudes – more northernly than the Hudson’s Bay, which is very cold during the winter. Western Europe is warmer than you would think, if you just looked at its latitude, because the Gulf Stream brings warm water from the Gulf of Mexico and central Atlantic Ocean to high northern latitudes. If that flow of warm water stopped, and there is evidence of this happening in the past, northern Europe would become much colder even as average global temperatures increased.
Old hippies and their brainwashed kids, what will they think of next, vegetarians saying cows pass to much gas and we should reduce the stock, the only real thing is the communists are taking over, that is obvious.
Melting ice in the ocean, if the ice originated in the ocean will not raise sea level. Ice that has formed glaciers on land however, then “flowed” into the oceans, like those in Greenland an antarctica add solid water to the the ocean. Water flowing downhill into the seas from ice melting on mountains also contributes to the total amount of free water in the seas. If you keep adding ice and/or liquid to a container, it will cause the level of liquid o rise.
It is that simple.
Take ice that was once covering Greenlan, Antartica, or mountains and add it to the oceans and he ocean level will rise.
There isn’t any overflow to prevent that.
They work. I started using them for Christmas in 2003 and saved $200 in the first year. I went to LED nets and C-9’s this year and have been satisfied. Another benefit over incadescent lights is that I didn’t have fuses popping nor strands go out. They go for $6.88 at Wal-mMart and $9.98 for icicles and nets.
Jeff… try your experience again, this time starting by holding that same ice cube above the cup until all the ice melted into the cup, the water level would then rise…. the melting ice that affects sea level, rise is not within the ocean, but above it.
Forgive me if I sound stupid. The above argument states “Since glaciers are like giant ice cubes, wouldn’t their melting not affect the ocean levels?”
The reason that this is incorrect is that the the Greenland and Antarctic Ice caps are not floating in the ocean. These 2 huge Ice caps are resting on land dry land withe the exception of a couple of Ice Shelves, therefore if they melt the water is going to pour form the land into the oceans. This is what causes the sea level to rise. Also alpine and tropical glaciers melting adds water to the oceans because the frozen water tied up in the glaciers on these mountains is not currently in the ocean. I hope this makes sense.
Human activity was NOT responsible for rapid climate shift in ancient history. Human population levels were very low. All animal life releases substantial amounts of methane gas. ANIMAL populations were extremely high. Geologic activity may have had sufficient effect to change things dramatically… ie: Volcanos, Rapid release of pockets of “frozen” methane gas held in layers on the ocean floors. This is a result of decomposition of marine life. With global warming running as it is, we run the risk of causing this frozen methane to evaporate quickly,releasing it into the atmosphere. If this were to happen all at once, we could have a planetary firestorm.
You’re not thinking of this correctly. Glaciers are not “giant ice cubes”. Not all of the ice that is melting is floating on the ocean. While it is true that ice melting in water does not change the level of water, ice melting on land and draining into the oceans does. Put a funnel over a glass of water, put an ice cube into the funnel and let it melt, it will overfill the glass.
the ice cube experament only works for glaciers that are floating in the ocean. in places like antartica and greenland where glaciers are sitting on land when thay melt water levels will rise
To answer Jeff, Walter and Paul you are indeed correct but you are all missing the point here… it’s not the sea ice that will be a problem, it’s the glaciers and ice sheets on land melting that will cause sea level to rise. Has anyone heard of Greenland, Antarctica?
Also, ice works as a sort of reflector for the sun’s heat (increases the earth’s albedo), so if sea ice does melt the earth will absorb the heat it would previously have reflected causing more ice to melt, and so on.
Very surprised that fox has jumped on the junk science bandwagon with this green.foxnews.com. And reprinting junk science news articles from all of the world. Where’s the balance ? article on temperatures rises that have already by proven to be inaccurate because of bad science. Water levels rising from ice melts which have no basis in physics. 2008, the coldest year on record in decades.Record snowfalls all over the world.Snow in Malibu, Houston and New Orleans this year. You’re going to discourage your readership base with this nonsense.
Ice that is completely immersed in water would lower the water level slightly when melting because water is denser than ice. Things that are less dense than water will float while things more dense than water will sink…for an object to float, the amount of water it must displace must equal it’s own weight. Since ice is less dense than water, it will displace enough water to match it’s weight. Since ice is less dense, some of the ice will stick out above the water. When it melts, it could potentially raise the water…how high do these glaiciers stick out of the water?
I am not advocating proof that the sea levels are rising or falling, I am simply showing that there are a lot more variables to consider than these green hippies are trying to force scientists to feed to us.
With all the hype that is going on with the media, I was a little OMG at first till I turned off the TV and looked at simple principles. The effects of global warming (if you agree with it or not) say the glaciers are melting and are going to raise sea levels. Well I don’t know how many cubic miles of ice are in antartica etc, but in the N Pole, this is an ocean, the sea level would drop.
I think it is just the standard alarming call to promote action on the subject. Save the polar bears, they are getting stranded on iceburgs etc…
It seems odd that one group shows global warming while other groups show global cooling. Someone needs to lock these idiots (ohh I mean scientists) in a room till they come to a conclusion based on scientifically reliable research and trending.. I mean seriously, DOES GLOBAL WARMING CAUSE SNOWING IN NEW ORLEANS?????
You Shouldn’t be worried about floating ice, but definitely be alert on ice melts over land in Antartica thousands of meters thick and in Artic
area including Northern Asia and Greenland.
Perhaps because when ice melts, it creates a thermal expansion of sea water (i.e. temperature increase = expansion of water and the area it consumes). It’s more than just ice melting and the displacement of water. When something warms up, it expands.
In a cup, the theory is most likely moot. However, when you apply that to approximately 326,000,000,000,000,000,000 gallons of water our Earth holds, it becomes a slightly larger issue, even if it only affects the levels by 0.000001%.
I see what many of you are saying about ice in a cup and the displacement of water. But none of you are taking into consideration the expansion that takes place when it warms.
It’s called the Archimedes principle and in fact floating ice displaces more water then it contains. Though, I’m not sure how much of the world’s ice is already in the water and what percentage is on land. Also water can expand when the temperature rises(Thermal Expansion) causing the sea levels to rise without the help of melting icecaps, but the Oceans are so big that the current temperature has no effect on the current sea-level. The world’s ocean will not show the temperature rise of the 20th Century for at least a few more centuries. So the current rise cannot be do to the present temperature and little to do with ice-caps. Perhaps, what we are experiencing now is a result of the climate of a few hundred years ago, before the time of the SUV.
He may have fancy charts and graphs, but Al Gore trying to explain a scientific process is like Dan Quayle trying to judge a spelling Bee.
Global warming is definitely in part caused by man. Of course we know that there are natural occurrences that seem to contribute as well. For instance exhaling, whether animal or human, if we inhale oxygen we have to exhale carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide leads to global warming. And if we decide to quit exhaling for the cause, well I guess the issue would be moot.
In any case no matter your view on Global Warming I think most reasonable people can agree that moving away from fossil fuels will reduce global warming and that it probably needs to happen faster than it is. And shifting away from oil can more rapidly be achieved by implementing further new incentives on industry to phase into using less toxic forms of energy.
A danger is that with a new highly charged environmentalist leaning US administration, the wrong moves could cause severe hardship for lower middle class working families. Today there is an entire population of baby boomers, many of whom are not going to be able to just glide comfortably through a period of high energy costs and the resulting higher grocery and higher everything costs. Today many people are forced into retirement and then forced to re-enter the workforce in low paying part time jobs just to get by. And this while fighting the affects of age and declining health. Continuously increasing costs, although for good cause only makes sense if it dos not create terrible struggles for survival of increasing portions of our population. For instance, near poverty level families who may not be able to buy a new fuel efficient car perhaps for several years if ever, for what cars cost today. Those who can reduce driving do but many have to drive on the job in their self employed jobs and will get no relief. They will be forced to paying those soon to return $5,6,7 dollar gas rates. Gasoline must be kept reasonably priced. Talk as little as 6 months ago about allowing gas to rise to $10 per gallon will surely be heard again soon but I guess those people will have to ignore the complaints of people who can’t fill their heating oil tank. What arrogance.
THE ANSWER: There is no reason that the greening of America can not be gradual. Ten year greening target dates can still be met with this administration in power. Imagine dramatically reducing foreign oil dependency by shifting the oil source to US. It would eliminate the problem of our US economy’s need for oil feeding power to Russia who when drunk on oil profits begins to threaten world peace, and terrorist nations who are a constant threat to peace and prosperity around the world. I believe that the reasonable, practical, and compassionate approach to Greening America is to Drill Here, Drill Now, and implement policies that allow our citizens to continue to afford the basics. In 10 years we will still be green.
Global warming is not happening. This is a tactic by the United Nations to gain power and control over the world’s economy and human resources as well as run our lives. I am sure Obama will coincide. Too bad. We get clean air in exchange for freedom.
I’ll stick to my traditional Christmas lights, thanks. They look better and I don’t use much power having them on nights for a few hours during December.
Although global warming is totally BS, the money I have saved since switching to CFL and LED lights is AWESOME, and yes they do work and save tons of money!
I changed nearly all my bulbs to CFL and have had some savings in electricity. I did NOT change Christmas lights yet…but as they need replaced, I will seek out LED lights. I saved energy this year by having my outside Christmas lights on between 6 and 9 on weekends…and Christmas Eve…a total of 10 days/30 hrs. “Global Warming” is not an “Inconvenient Truth” but is a pathetic lie…but saving energy and money is truth!
Hey Fox News…why not make your “Green” non-political?
It sure is interesting that all the solutions to “Global Warming” include a fairly substantial bite out of my wallet. What a sham! For Pete’s sake…don’t believe everything you hear and read.
Our family farm has been heating on a free natural gas well since the 70’s. The other ones on the farm are capped…but still could be productive, if tapped. There are tens of thousands of capped wells in Ohio alone.
Wake up America!
Since it has been decided to turn off these devices who is going to spend the time reprograming the devices you deprogram by removing power. Wouldnt it also be a good idea to produce more energy and quit with the green bs.
Thank you, thank you, thank you! I for one had begun to wonder whether everyone was falling for the global warming jedi mind trick and seemingly ignore historical fact—that being that we’ve been warm before, and we had an ice age as well. Kudos for all of the people who point at the UN, power hungry liberal politicians, and the reality that this is nothing but a bunch of Al Gore propagated lies promoted by a Hollywood crowd and liberal media for nothing but power, and more power. When the government regulates cattle emissions…and India and China, as has been pointed out, do nothing…we’re finished. As far as I can tell, by the end of the Obama administration we will be finished. I can only hope the congress with its 10% approval rating does enough to continue its decline in popularity, to have a mass transfusion of sensibility (translate that to mean conservative new blood)…
…they want us to ‘take the lead’ which really means they want us to bankroll it. That is why they want us on board, otherwise they would be trying to get China and India ‘on board’.
I tried them. Very unreliable, they last maybe one season. Failure mode is the wire leads on the LED’s rust and corrode loosing electrical contact when used outdoors. They also get very dim after extended usage. Typical Chinese made crap.
I have heard of some good scams in my time but this is the best ,carbon and c02 is needed for everything on earth to survive ,these radicals should be in prison for fraud science shows it is all nothing but lies and a scam for money so they can control powerm water in the world at a rediculous price and cost ,i guess thats why they are radicals or economic terroists ,c02 is not even a pollutant its essential for all life ,ethanol is dangerous as it puts out poison nitros oxide ,people are so dumb believing this crap.
Carbon neutral my A$$! Not that it really matters, but anyone who makes this statement is an outright fool and any company claiming this impossibility is sorely lacking in good common sense and judgement.
Have to agree with Ed directly above, and others who ‘have heard the truth’….now determined, mankind is NOT responsible for global warming or global freezing, but they are cyclical conditions of earth. What we all, globally can do, to aid one another, is begin to understand the impact and result of all the landfills full of plastics and styafoam ingredients, and the addition of mixed toxic chemicals from household and businesses contaminating our water, our very lives! I once read a book in college, Liberation Ethics, and it basically stated, liberty begins with each of us, right where we are, taking responsibility for what our contribution(s) are whether adding a positive or negative impact on our community and to begin there to correct the problem(s) we see and move forward enlarging our circle, from first our bedroom to then our household, then to our neighborhood and community, and out further….. otherwise, agree with Ed, “a bunch of hacks”!
I am committed to establishing the TRUTH about Carbon Offsets and the pure non-sense of the term Carbon Footprint. Read my blog, understand the use of “guilt” by organizations, be they non-profit or for-profit. http://www.squidoo.com/CARBON-FOOTPRINT-OFFSETS
Dan, Jan 6, 2009
I have to urge the online lighting store I purchased my LEDs from lately. They had neat personalized service (good phone and email support), splendid FAQs so I knew what I needed, very fair prices, and their shipping was fast and the LEDs were just as publicized. http://www.LEDInsider.com. A pleasure to deal with!
Well DUHHHH!!!! It’s about time somebody figured this one out! I usually just unplug things (tv, rechargeable power tools, microwave, etc.) when I leave the house because I know they suck energy and raise my electric bill. If only I had been thinking outside the box then I could have been a contender for a million dollar idea like this! For those of you who don’t want to wait for a gadget to come onto the market here’s a cheap idea for you: Here in the U.S. most rooms have one outlet controlled by a wall switch (it’s usually the upside down outlet). You can use this to power down your tv, vcr, cable box, satellite receiver, or other electricity stealing appliances. Think about it: When you’re sleeping plus the time you’re at work adds up to about 16 hours of electricity usage (times 30 days) that trickle onto your monthly bill. A few dollars here and there adds up to a lot over the months!
I would have to agree with DELL on how it calculates it’s “Carbon Footprint”. If the emissions of thier suppliers are included in DELL’s “Carbon Footprint” calculation then their suppliers would have to reduce their own “Carbon Footprint” calculation by that same amount to prevent double counting those emissions. Also they could then be expected to include their employee’s auto emissions driving back and forth to work and the employees would subtract that from their emissions. IMHO
Government mandating arbitrary mpg numbers is asinine. There are already market pressures to increase mpg numbers which also maintain safety. Only comprehensive consideration of these issues by the experts at the automobile manufacturers in consideration can all important components of automobile manufacturing be achieved.
When the global scientific community says global warming is real, and pseudo-scientific political community says it’s not, leave it to multi-national corporations to further muddy the waters for profit.
In the winter, the “wasted power” from standby appliances turns into heat which helps warm your home. Turn them off and you spend the same amount of money running your furnace.
Vampire power is only important in the summer, when you pay for it twice: once when it runs, then again to pump out the heat.
Don’s tight, and if your house isn’t set up like that, power strips don’t cost very much and allow you to do the same thing. We’ve saved a lt by doing that for our TVs, computers, and home entertainment gadgets.
Don’s *right, and if your house isn’t set up like that, power strips don’t cost very much and allow you to do the same thing. We’ve saved a lt by doing that for our TVs, computers, and home entertainment gadgets.
Excellent! There must be a population of 55 million in these states and that will create a large
market for cleaner gas, better heating oil, cleaner coal, shared electricity and etc.
I applaud these eastern states. I hope it becomes a model for the rest of the country.
What a crock! Even the thugs of the UN say “global warming” has been over since 1998. Of course, if you put your thermometers under A/C exhausts, you can argue for warming, and thus get billions in government grants – instead of having to get a job. Funny how “global warming” directly coincides with sunspot activity. Go hug a tree or something.
climate change is not a scam for money. Brilliant researchers at Yale, Stanford, U. of Michigan, Harvard, Maryland, Cornell, MIT, U. Florida, to name a few, all agree that it is happening before our eyes. We need to redefine our definition of carbon neutrality, but property rights certainly complicate the issue.
Response to Slusher
Been turning off TV stuff and never has to contend with reprogramming each time because the information is already saved indefinitely unless you want to reprogram.
Savings is HUGE! I even turn off computer, printers, everything whenever I go to bed or when I go out for longer than 3 hours.
the savings per month amount to more than 25 dollars a month.
I resent having to pay thousands of dollars in extra taxes just so some environmentalists, or government bureaucrats, can control our economy. Scientists agree that greenhouse gas emissions have no significant effect on climate, and those who say so are lying.
The UN, National, State and Local Governments want to get the trillions of dollars greenhouse gas taxes or cap and trade deals will produce. That is the real reason, climate change is the excuse.
This is insane, the people are about to freeze now and these idiots want to make fuel more expensive. The earth cooled in the last decade despite the press reporting. Another case of liberal fools damaging our nation.
@Hal: Do you run your hot water in your bathtub all the time, just so it’s ready when you feel like taking a bath?
I think the idea behind this is that we want to “conserve energy” which leads to reduced dependence on foreign supplies of fossil fuels, reduces the demand on our own supplies, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, all while decreasing our utility costs.
I am an active promoter of the environment, but some of the things that have society fearing a global catastrophe are scientifically wrong…take a glass, fill it with ice, then fill it to the brim with water. The notion that icebergs melting will raise the water level also states that the ice melting in this cup will make the cup overflow…however, the cup’s water level stays the same…people need to make a conscience effort to reduce vehicle use and power companies need to research alternative energy sources, but we need to spend our money elsewhere, not on subs to research ice shelves. Our time is better spent with alternative energy sources.
These states are intellectually challenged. We must address the root cause and proceed with scientific honesty, not monetary driven ideology (i.e. Y2K syndrome/Global warming). Many of these back east schools produce intellectual pygmies with little chance of intellectual honest results.
The #1 problem: No competition to fossil fuel transportation.
The answer: The only reasonable, immediately available solution is the AFFORDABLE electric commuter vehicle.
The #2 problem: Affordable clean power.
The answer: A proven pebble bed cascading nuclear facility. Proven, affordable, reliable and clean!!
We could lead the world in technology and clean up our filthy cities’ air.
One must look at the forest and not just the foliage (or commonly referred to as the trees).
The total answer must be affordable, efficient and clean….in that order.
Unless your appliance is ACTIVELY drawing power (whether on or in “standby mode”) than it is not drawing much if any electricity. This campaign to unplug your appliances even if they are off is pretty bogus. I talked to a grounding electrician about this issue once and he said that you are not saving any energy unplugging appliances that are already off.
Green me this. Green me that. I’m really getting fed up with the non-stop homage to green that’s being paid by essentially every news outlet from TV to the Internet. Enough already! Do you think it’s going to make me buy your products? Read your junk science? Good grief. Do you not realize that all of this lunacy started over a 1/2 degree temperature variation over 100 years??? That’s 5 one thousandths of a degree per year! Do you not realize that the daily temperature swings in any part of the world are thousands of times greater from noon ’til dusk?
For the most part, I turn off or unplug things when I’m finished using them. My electric bill runs $44/mth. When my husband was alive, the bill ran $84/mth….tv, DVD, VHS, computer/monitor, Nintendo and Play Station.
I’m really getting sick of the global warming hoax!!!! Over 600 world scientists have debunked it. But Al Gore has sweet-talked a bunch of dummies into believing him. Pathetic!
Now that global warming is over and the new worry is a comming ice age, we all need to be using as much power as possible to warm things back up. We need to produce as much CO2 as we can to help replenish our protective greenhouse gasses to keep the planet from freezing.
How much energy is used when the “powered-down” appliances are “powered-up” from a completely cold status? Stand-by mode ususally keeps the tool/appliance “warm” so less energy is used to bring it to complete operational status.
An appliance/tool on stand-by takes less energy to warm to complete ready status than when the item is completely cold.
How much energy (CO2)does it take to bring the item from “cold” to “ready”? It may be more than leaving it on “stand-by”.
I put my chargers and other always-on gadgets on inexpensive power strips (ones with switches.) When I’m done with the gadgets, I switch the power strips off. Simple as that.
I pay for it. If want to leave every light and appliance on in my house 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, then as long as I pay my bill…
… there is absolutely no empirical evidence that proves conclusively that humans burning fossil fuels contributes in any significant way to global warming.
Modern TVs, DVRs, etc., auto-program when they are first plugged in – and again after they have been without power for some period of time.
If this is a consumer product, some people may choose to purchase it. Some will then abandon it. If it is mandated by the government, it will never work:
Unless future electronics come with either nonvolatile memory to store settings and channels, or a backup battery to protect the volatile memory, people will simply come up with ways around the device, including:
1. Turn it on earlier, to allow it to program, and leave it on between “desired” uses
2. Insert a UPS between the vampire-killer and the device
3. Simply never turn the device off
So, a better solution is for the manufacturers to design their devices to preserve settings and fully power off.
I can’t believe you guys at Fox news are doing this. Doesn’t anyone have any brains left. Every study that has been done objectivelyy without having arrived at a conclsuion before being doen has repudiated the whole man-made global warming. Now we are hearing that the earth is on the verge of the next ice age. Face it, the lefties and the religious gurus who worship ‘mother-earth’ instead of the earth’s creator have deceived you and others who buy into this whole notion of global warming.
What they don’t discuss is how much more power it takes to turn the items back on. Standby mode was created to also protect the appliance from energy bursts while it is being turned on and off.
This makes sense for something that is rarely used, it doesn’t make sense for items that are probably used once a day.
If turning the item on/off decreases the life expectancy of the product, then what is the environmental cost on items being thrown into the landfill?
Are you at Fox News nuts? How about fair and balanced….
the ice at the poles has increased to the level seen in the 70s,
How long are you going to perpetuate this hoax?
Menards, Lowes, Home depot already sell this type of device. Its a plug strip that senses standby appliances and shuts them down. leaving only one in powered mode. no resetting clocks or preferences. Its not all your items but better than nothing! and its here now and inexpensive too boot ;-}
If a network (FOX) would go against this crazy green cult and truly be “fair and balanced” their viewership would explode! (FOX) – “the truth IS out there” why don’t you take a stand against this green non-sense
Give me a break. So what if we feel sorry that it is going to cost them 47 million to make new plants to build the efficient cars to make the standards. We, the taxpaying citizens are giving them the money now, and they are getting more every day from Uncle Hank Paulson and the boys on Wall Street. I am tired of their bellyaching. Maybe they do need to go bankrupt and have Chapter 11 take them to profitability.
How many folks will it take to prove that Big Al is a twit ! When I heard that the N.W.Passage was accessabile in the 70’s I thought that was cool.ha.ha . Sub’s breaking ice @ the same time. Polar bears were not as many, go check the stats.Find out other than hype that the world will change & we can’t stop it !Carnivores need food & when it’s scarce, what happen’s ? I don’t need Big Al to let need know’ it’s just common scence,science, knowledge! It’s all to suck the more money out of your pockets!!
To add to my opinion,did’nt they find a mountain under the ice and that’s 2 miles thick. That’s the s.pole?Why not talk about pollution that man being down there causes! The U.S. dumps all kinds of junk & caustic waste into the Antartic Ocean,since it’s not allowed back into this country,it came from somewhere else. The DEP
or otherwise won’t let the stuff come back to the USA. If bring it in, than I bring it out !
The standby mode is a very useful tool in many appliances. Many devices have internal clocks and memory. Every computer I have ever had seems to start up in about 1-2% of the normal start up time if it was left in the standby mode. This made me more willing to shut down to standby mode than to just leave it on for periods when I was not using it. We should look at technological solutions such as memory in appliances that does not require electricity. Flash memory exists, but is not used in many appliances. We can isolate clocks to separate circuits so that they use less power. The best solution is to make the same standby features use less energy rather that scrap the entire concept of standby or to use a whole separate device that will shut systems down more than desired or necessary.
Great idea, but they’re going about it all backwards. The question raised in comment #1 must be addressed first or it will never fly… people will not want something that requires them to reprogram their devices every time they want to use them (let alone PAY for this inconvenience). Think of all the flashing clocks when your power goes off. In some instances, for instance a DVR, it may take 15 minutes before it will rebuild it’s guide so you can see what’s coming on TV. They must FIRST change the appliance and electronics industry to create products that are READY for this technology.. when the transition can be seamless, it will be welcomed with open arms. As it stands now, it will be nothing more than a thorn in the side of the consumer due to what appears to be poor planning.
What happens with the appliances that have failed prematurely due to the constant had on/off? Many household appliances, like TV’s, have the ‘easy on’ feature where they are in standby, because it is harder on the appliances to have them start up from a cold state. Many of the modern LCD’s use this technology now, as well as the older TV’s. They always had a portion of their circuitry on because of the inrush of power causing failures.
Personally, if I have a microwave over my stove, I don’t need a clock on each. One works fine. but those are milliamps of power, just like the LED night light in my kid’s bedroom. Maybe if we started using coal, or, God forbid, started developing our own oil fields or nuclear power plants in America, we wouldn’t have the greenies whining about ‘vampire’ power use.
The night light uses less power in one year than the greenies use in a week documenting wastes of energy… Wise up.
YES… Over a few months you can even buy a cup of coffee with the money saved. Just walk or ride your horse down to the general store next to the blacksmiths shop and trade for a nasty cup of black coffee. Come on people, are these little green dots of light, or even the really bad red ones going to bring us to our knees. Enjoy life. I’ve got money to purchase even more energy if they will produce it.
In order to curb everything the digital readouts would have to be removed form everything we have. Televisions looks off but have the remote control circuit enabled to be able to sense the request to turn on. In order to be dead the whole house would require a lack of remotes, and only battery powered clocks. You COULD use a battery backup for the remote control circuit in a television, but then wackos still claim batteries harm the environment.
While I like the innovation, it’s fast approaching the time we do need to find alternative power sources or usage that have a much more advantage overall for the planet, and people.
Greater science in these areas would by far be better in the long term rather than a stopgap measure for a planet now only starting to understand the problems facing the 21st century.
I think company’s machines fit in with Mr. Bowles objectives. They can clean the air with a microbial technology that is green. Check it out at http://www.biocascade.net
We plug things into power strips, so turning off the power strip kills power to the devices. Organize by usage category (e.g., TV, DVD player, game console all on one strip) and it’s easy to control vampire power. All your electronics should be on some kind of surge protector anyway, so it’s kind of a no-brainer.
Why is it that studies of the Antarctic Ice are only done in the southern hemisphere summer and the Arctic Ice are only done in the northern hemisphere summer? Is it because there is way too much ice in the hemispherical winters to get into these areas to study the ice? I guess all of those summer pictures tell a lot. Especially when the word summer is replaced with winter. It makes better ‘global warming’ propaganda when that change is made. What a crock.
All,
I am an expert in the field of electrity. I can tell you this story has the same merit as Obama telling us that if we air up our tires we can solve the oil dependence problem…Not So!!
Factually he is right, there is some savings but the savings don’t add up to a reduction of oil usage in the US. You could save dollars a year at the most off your electric bill with such a device. Look into how your electric meter works and educate yourselves. Stop listening to the bull! Our government should start giving tax credits for improving the insulation in our homes. This would make more of a difference to save energy. Massive amounts of electric power are lost due to improper home insulation guidelines for construction of new homes. Just turn off the lights when you leave the room and insulate your home. This is a better plan.
I am unconvinced of this huge savings.
If you find that the ice is melting, what are you going to do to stop it? Don’t you think you are wasting the tax payers money. You are worring
about something that might never happen and if it dose you can’t do any thing about it and beside that you won’t be here to see it any way.
Thank You
When are you going to expose the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power on there Destruction of the Mojave Desert???? Get off your Butts and look into this. Please
This is nothing but a ploy for Democrats to control business and grab power. It is the new religion. Truth is climate change happens naturally with or without human impact. We live in a dynamic universe. The earth cools and warms… We strive to understand the pattern and the science behind “Intelligent design”… We, as a lesser intelligence, will never fully understand the universe and the intricate, interworkings of it all.
Climate change by today’s definition is a delusional Democratic dream. Pollution is real, however and another story entirely…
1.”Torch” is the word for a flashlight in England and Australia..probably others.
2 Granted Iceburg melting does not raise ocean levels but land based Glaciers do.
The little yellow submarine will find that a volcano in the area has become more active in the last several decades. Gook gook a joob (sic) This happens every several hundred thousand years as the thickness over the hot spot changes due to continental drift. I am the egg man and the walrus told me it is true.
This is ridiculous, we already have some of the highest tax rates on our fuels in the NorthEast. Now we are going to “create” a market that will do nothing more than waste my money.
Some ideas for energy conservation;
Place cantenary over rail lines with steep decents, the locomotives already have the generation equipment on-board. instead of creating waste heat, pump the power into the grid. While they are at this add a “B” unit full of lithium polymer batteries and regen power into it and use the power for boost up the next hill.
In a somewhat more complicated fasion( magnetic coupling ) do the same thing at all the mountainous interstates and regen power from the trucks rolling down hill.
All the cars at bridge crossings, toll booths etc., install movable plates in the road which will act as air compressors, use the compressed air to make power.
Linear accelerator plates in the runways at airports, All of the above and more could be done for much less money than we are throwing at the losers on Wall Street’
What bunk, increased regulation and increased costs to businesses, as well as increased government spending, and thus higher taxes, will prolong the recession. The reality is that these Congressmen/women are realizing that their opportunity to push through global warming claptrap is rapidly coming to an end as citizens are finally realizing that it’s all a bunch of faith-based lies and distortions. Can someone please as Al Gore how the melting of floating ice can possibly raise sea levels?
Do these idiots not understand that carbon dioxide has nothing to do with climate change? Read the bible. If God wants something to happen then it will happen, we humans have nothing to do with what goes on with our temperature. Last time I checked, we breathe oxygen and we release carbon dioxide. Also last time I checked the trees are taking in that carbon dioxide and turning it into oxygen. That is the way its always been and that is the way it will always be. The idiots that are wanting to play God will have eternity to experience “global warming”, in HELL!!!!!
If the aboriginal people are willing but unable to adapt or change to new conditions, the Austrialian Govt. should make every effort to assist them. If they are unwilling to change, the process of natural selection will take care of the problem.
Going “green crazy” now will help to deepen and broaden the recession. Beyond all the hype and misinformation, and the ice melts on mars, I hope we get this one right. To proceed on a political agenda that cripples business, during a very critical time is dangerous and bordering on madness. If we are wrong about global warming causes, and we begin to auction pollution vouchers for co2, and charge businesses millions on top of what they already pay, we may very well drive our economy into a prolonged, and very hot depression, maybe followed by another dust bowl effect as it contnues to get hooter in spite of our best efforts. Attacking the energy sector is exactly what our economy does not need, so I hope that whatever green policies we enact, are right-minded and extremely well thought-out. While I like the “idea” of going green, I worry that green politics has highjacked the idea, and evolved into yet another excuse for the government to make money off the private sector, and just like if you put a tax on every breathing human that produces co2, you have effectively raised the cost of living, and the cost of doing business in america. Meanwhile, you increase the reasons for american businesses to move abroad, to enjoy as yet relaxed policies on this very contested idea.
I don’t claim to know what is right, as I am blinded by misinformation, hype, and historical reference. I only hope that we do this right.-MJL
Wow, like I don’t have enought to worry about. Now I have to worry about the plight of the Aborigines in Australia. Get a grip people. Change and migration of humanoids has been happening for few million years. Those folks somehow got there from Africa eons ago and maybe it’s time to move on.
As we freeze our butts off with the coldest winter in recent memory, how can they keep pushing this phony concept that we have any major impact on the climate? Blame Sun Spots if you will, but green house gas as an impact is a joke.
It would seem that cars parked on crowded freeways would emit more greenhouse gases than cars that run free on expanded freeways. The less time cars are on the road the more time they are parked equals less greenhouse gases. How long would it take to do the math on that? Tree huggers aren’t too smart anyway or they would not need me to tell them the obvious.
Why do you not spend even one word to address the fallacy of this Global warming hoax. ie. the earth’s average temperature has dropped each of the last 6 years. How inconvenient is that?
do people really trust our this govorment to clean up the environment? they sure fixed social security didnt they? seems like every new problem the govorment tries to fix means more taxes, more regulations, and higher cost for the consumer.
Go ahead and try to pass that cap and trade legislation. When and if you do I will lead a revolution to take back our country. The supporters of this ought to be tried for war crimes. I tell you what Waxman, Pelosi, and the rest of you leftist loons, why dont you get the 32,000 scientists that refute this hoax in front of you in congress and lets see what happens. If you can convince them humans cause global warming then so be it. Otherwise give it up or the people of this great nation will revolt. As Rush would say, Do not doubt me….For those of you great Americans that do not believe this hoax go to http://www.cagwh.com and lets take back our country…
[...] What is the rush congressman? Why the promise of quick action? With all the new evidence and the many scientists that oppose manmade global warming you would think they would want to get it right. The sad thing is they refuse to even have a debate with any of these scientists. Do you congressman think we are that stupid? I will use every resource I have to fight you people. Follow the link for this ridiculous article. http://green.foxnews.com/2009/01/15/key-congressman-promises-quick-action-on-climate/ [...]
The low winter temperature this winter in my neck of the woods in NH was -19. The high temperature was 104 last summer. Ok global warming is going to raise the worlds temperature 2 degrees over the next twenty years. You ask why no one cares…. Be serious. I suggest people who live close to the ocean who fear the ocean is going to rise move. I suggest people who are moving to the over populated south west and running out of water stop moving there. Guess what, during the last ice age people moved south or died out. That’s what will happen during the next ice age as well. Guess what, Billions of years ago, when the earth was a much much warmer place the animals moved to cooler climates or became extinct. Adapt or die. Its that simple.
People in New England deal with wide swings in temperature every year. Why? because they have to if they want to live here.
The C02 craze has nothing to do with global warming even if it is the cause of it. The C02 craze is about someone trying to make money off of the latest FUD craze. People are making money off of what they have always made money off of. FUD = Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. Get people good and scared and there is an opportunity to make money. Two decades or so ago the green movement focused upon getting everyone afraid the world was going to end because of the Ozone hole. Then the environmental movement tried to get everyone scared that the world was going to freeze within a decade due to a horrible ice age. Kudos, to the green movement, they are outstanding propagators of fear and making money off of it.
Not one bit of information explaining HOW climate change will directly affect Aborignal peoples. Just a bunch of keywords descibing how the government and universities need to spend more money on a ‘problem’ that in my opinion is naturally caused. We are still coming out of an ice age, it is only normal for the planet to still be warming.
Global warming in a hoax first put forth at the UNCED confrernce in Rio. Popularized by former Vice-President Al Gore.
The former Governer of Oregan and former member of the AEC and US Bureau of Oceans,Dixy Lee Ray wrote two books debunking global warming, being cause for concern. Why? Oceans absorb CO2. The proof of this is at the bottom of oceans in the form of Coral and Crustacious creatures that use CO2 for their shells.
Checkout the Books by Dixy Lee Ray entitled, Trashing The Planet copyright 1990 and Enviornmental Overkill copywrite 1993 and learn the facts and the truth.
If these congressmen and business men think that by selling and trading the “right” to produce or use carbon is somehow going to change or stop the natural climate variations, they should also begin measures which would allow them to exert control over volcanoes, ocean current circulation patterns and solar activity. What an offensive display of self importance!
We becoming more and more idiotic. People think only money when they doing that. They going to cow every car manufacturers and then us. Thanks ‘green’ lovers!
Tell Mr. Barton that refusal to “do nothing about CO2 increases” will not help us to fix our reliance on foriegn oil. Tell him to join PickensPlan for positive action. If we don’t restore MC jobs in America, there will be no “tax-base” for any government programs or global warming reversal.
Let’s get serious about our real problems, and the stock-market and global Warming and positive action, will take care of itself.
Good. I live in a rural area downwind of Baltimore. I’m sick of breathing in the toxic air from people too lazy to walk a few blocks and must jump in their car instead. Until polluted air and water can be confined to the area of those that create it, government should mandate lower emissions.
These people are all num nuts…and will destroy our economey with there insane quest for more tax dollars. They are just to scared; just to say they want to raise taxes, so they create this bullshit golbal warming bullshit…makes me want to puke….oh that might create carbon release.
Lol…environmentalist, activist, hollywood stars, gays, lesbians, etc. etc. in California STILL cannot figure out why there state is in the hole!!! Geeeeeee, you people are pathetic.
To my knowledge, every one of us on this earth BREATHES AIR, DRINKS WATER, AND EATS FOOD. Whether the earth is getting warmer or colder, whether it’s man-made or not, “green” solutions are good not just for “lefties” or “tree huggers” but there good for all of us. It’s a larger issue than just global warming. When you consider the health price we pay for not only burning oil to heat our homes and drive our cars, but the pollution caused by refining the oil, and also the amount of oil, coal powered electric, and pollution needed to produce the 1000’s of parts that make up a combustion engine powered automobile, the price society as a whole pays for the luxury of this dirty technology is staggering. Consider the direct health effects of the smog cars create or the pollution oil refineries cause:
-http://articles.latimes.com/2008/nov/13/local/me-pollute13 (search for others on google, there are 100’s of them)
These are not just articles with politically motivated rants from “tree huggers” or “lefties”. Burning fossil fuels is just dirty business and isn’t good for our air, food, or water supply. It’s not about whether your liberal or conservative and where you stand on global warming, it’s about protecting the planet that we rely on to survive and not shooting ourselves in our collective foot by polluting the air, land, and water just so we can thrive economically and purchase whatever material item that’s appealing to us, regardless of it’s impact on the environment. Poeple don’t consider pollution unless it directly affects them. If you live in Los Angeles or Delhi, India, YOU GET IT!! If you live in an area where refinery water is discharged and you can’t eat the fish or drink the water due to the chemicals introduced, YOU GET IT!! There has to be a balance between economic benefits and preservation of the environment we rely on to live. Given the fact that electric cars have fewer movable parts, there’s no reason why they can’t be more affordable than gas cars after taking into account economies of scale, but without making the initial investments in clean technologies and spurring the growth of the market, they’ll never become affordable. Consider how expensive flat panel displays for computers were 10 years ago and how much are they are now. When they first came out, we all wanted them, but couldn’t afford them. Now everyone has them and they also save energy. I think we would be doing ourselves, our children, our grandchildren, and our country a favor by stopping the partisan bickering and adopting environmentally clean technology so we can all live healthier, longer, and more prosperous lives.
Environmental laws in this country are insanely ignorant and anti-business, resulting in increases in unemployment due to the resulting cost to companies to meet the liberal Environmental agenda. We cannot compete in a level playing field globally. When you have 2 years of delay with constructing a freeway expansion because an ignorant judge (at the urging of ignorant environmental groups) wants to study the effects of greenhouse gases from adding lanes, this is pure stupidity. Adding more lanes to the freeway will not increase the amount of traffic on the road, it will simply reduce the amount of time existing traffic is congested, thereby actually REDUCING greenhouse gas emissions. Think about it people, since each vehicle will spend less time on the freeway due to improved traffic flow, this results in less fuel burned per trip per vehicle, leading to reduced greenhouse gas emissions. This is not even factoring in the reduced traffic accidents resulting from improved traffic flow efficiency. Each accident results in congested traffic for hours leading to increased greenhouse gas emissions. I see why business is leaving, and continues to leave chaotic California.
We have more idiots in congress than we can possibly handle. Global warming if it exists at all is not caused by mankind nor will it be controlled by congress. This is nothing but a heavy handed way to have the government gain even more control of individuals. We the people will regret these actions.
Alternative Energies are also Destructive and Evil — How can Alternative Energies be good when they require materials that originated from places that all environmentalists say are “evil and destructive”? Alternative Energies require “bad” materials for assembly, such as ceramics, carbons, and metals from Mines, and sometimes plastics and other carbon-based materials, which originate from Oil Wells and Coal mines that environmental groups say are all “evil and destructive”. Even “natural” plant fiber materials require machinery and processing and transportation, which also require metals, ceramics, and carbon.
From where do we get the SOURCE materials for wind mills, fuel cells, hydrogen and other alternative energies? Most solar electric panels require ceramics and special elements, such as gallium, arsenic, germanium, etc., that came from mines and smelters. Windmills require metals (originally from mines and smelters). Passive and active solar ventilation and tubing for houses usually require metals and sometimes ceramics, which came from mines and smelters.
Environmental groups say that ALL Mining and Oil / Gas Wells are “bad” and “evil”, even with full-scale reclamations and restorations. So how can we go to Alternative Energies when these requires materials that are not accepted by the Environmentalists?
Even fuel cells require materials originally from mines and smelters. Fuel cells have to have metals and / or ceramics for the containment, tubing, chemical reactions, etc. The cells, containments and associated materials use materials from mines and oil wells. Think about the engineered things used to even make hydrogen fuel get started for producing energy.
Look at the Periodic Table of all the elements of the earth. Hydrogen (H2) is a usually a gas. When hydrogen is used in a chemical bonding or mixture, it is usually released as a single free ion (H- or H+). Sometimes getters are used to store and transport hydrogen.
It is the cells and containments and associated materials that use materials from mines and oil wells. Go and look at the engineered things used to even make hydrogen get started!
To make Hydrogen “burn” and gain energy from it, there must be the chambers, vessels, tubing, connections and fittings. A characteristic of Hydrogen is that is can embrittle materials over time, especially certain types of metals and steels. Normally stainless steels or other specialty metals are used for most Hydrogen activities. These steels and steels are composed of iron and sometimes chromium and / or nickel to control any corrosion from Hydrogen and also prevent embrittlement as much as possible. The materials for steels ALL come from mines and smelters.
But how is hydrogen (H2 and the H ions) produced from water or other source materials? Either in the reaction apparatus and chambers of the cars or else in processing plants, both of which use metals and ceramics and plastics. If we get H2 from the air, we get it from gas separators which are composed of metals and other “bad” materials.
Environmentalist point to bicycles as environmentally-friendly transportation. To make bicycles, manufacturers must get materials that originated from mining operations (iron, molybdenum, aluminum, ceramics, etc.), oil wells and coal mines for Carbon and plastic materials, and sometime timber for wood. These materials are then processed in plants that also use products from mining and oil wells, and use electricity. How can this be “good” by any environmentalist’s definitions?
Look at how many existing Wilderness Areas have abandoned oil / gas wells and also mining sites within their boundaries. Why is that permissible? How is it that reclamations of well drilling sites are either ignored or denied by the environmental groups now? There have been many private groups in the Pacific Northwest (like my grade school in the 1960’s) that went out and planted trees, grass, and shrubs in the forests. We even saw some of the lumber companies replanting trees and shrubs. But apparently, none of those good efforts count in the mind of the environmental groups, as seen in recent publications and notifications.
Take a deeper look at what really is going on. Natural resources are needed for everything in our lives, even medical items and alternative energies. But when our natural resources are being closed up and as reclamations are either ignored or badmouthed, we are loosing the materials needed for our daily lives, even for the “nice” Alternative Energies. As a final note, my 1990 car gets the same gas mileage GPM as a modern hybrid car. Go figure.
In a publication from early 1992, the Sierra Club in Santa Fe openly announced that oil / gas well drillers were still using lead-based (Pb) lubricants. Never mind that the EPA banned their use several years before in the mid-1980s and that the drilling industry had already switched to biodegradable lubricants even before that. Never mind that law enforcement and the EPA later on checked for compliance in the industry. Also, there is new drilling technology, called Coiled Tubing, that allows certain types of well drilling operations from the back of a pickup, thus less impacts than the vehicles you drive. Why don’t we don’t hear that from the Environmentalists.
Are you familiar with the wilderness near Ruidoso, NM, USA? The wilderness boundaries “captured” some gold and silver / lead mines. The government threatened to sue the mine and claim owners with EPA Superfund status if they did not surrender the land for wilderness designation. Now how is it that places that are supposedly EPA Superfund sites can now be “wilderness” and untouched areas? The 1964 Wilderness Act specified that undeveloped, untouched, and natural areas were to be part of the wilderness areas.
stopping Nature’s own Global Warming — Recently there have been articles and reviews on the melting Arctic ice and the warming temperatures. While we may blame humans for “global warming,” Nature itself has provide a much greater source of greenhouse gases in the form of “Burning Ice” (Methane Hydrates) that in the geological past have outgassed in massive amounts periodically into the atmosphere. I will review the megatons of burning ice later on, but first there is a technical scientific issue to resolve.
The issue of “global warming” brings up the need for good mathematics in analyzing the various data sources to determine the true causes-and-effects (”inputs” and “outputs”) and to filter out those causes that either do not affect the output, or in minor ways, or in combined effects that do not show up until certain conditions are correct. As I have spent time in R&D and also getting my series of degrees, I have found that very few scientists and researchers know how to use statistics properly to be able to filter and view data for the actual, true cause-and-effects. Too many times statistical regression methods are used that assume a direct relationship between the causes and effect, which may not be real. Although there are several books on the market, one of the best books I know of that can help researchers, analysts, and scientists is a book entitled, “Statistics for Experimenters,” by Box, Hunter, and Hunter.
When it comes to global warming, there are more causes than most scientists have considered. For example, the increase in the number and intensity of solar eruptions has a much higher statistical correlation than the other causes/inputs. There are not many web pages that show these in good ways, but here are two articles for present the correlations rather easily.
Although these graphs are from the late 1990s, the use of this type of statistical tool, SPC charting, has hardly ever been used by scientific researchers and investigators. Most of them have used other mathematical methods that assume a direct correlation between greenhouse gases and Global warming, as directed and determined by the process modeler. This traditional “assumption” may not be correct, and in some cases may potentially mislead scientists and modelers. These other tools can allow a scientist to purposely minimize the effects from natural causes and to maximize the effects of human sources.
Some researchers say that they know all the effects that the increased solar flux has on the atmosphere and have included this in their models, and stated that there are no real effects from the solar flux. But then there are other scientists with different theories on the effects of increased flux that present different scenarios for atmospheric reactions, such as the geomagnetic fields and changes, volcanics and their outgassings, etc. You do not hear much in the news about these other scientists and their results.
People should be very cautious about assuming that the global warming “effect” is due solely to “greenhouse” gases. Also, it should be noted that recent satellite data has shown that upper atmosphere is actually
cooling:
Some researchers say that their theory and modeling shows that this cooling should occur, while others show differing effects. We see that there are still not complete agreements on the causes and especially the effects of global warming. Then there are some researchers who have purposely manipulated their models, formulas, and analyses to purposely disregard all other inputs and only tie the temperatures to greenhouse gases.
There is the other issue of how some scientists and researchers can purposely change the structure of the formulas used in their models, the mathematical terms used in the formulas, the parameters and scaling factors in the formulas, and the values of any exponentials so as to obtain predetermined results that the scientists wanted to get anyway.
This allows the scientist to minimize effects from natural causes and to maximize the effects of human sources. This is “tampering” with the formulas so as to get the predetermined results that someone might want to get, no matter what the real processes are.
In my experiences in the scientific / R&D cultures, I have seen this happen several times, even with Peer Reviews. Peer Reviews are “supposed” to catch incorrect things, inconsistencies, and errors. But this does not always occur. In some cases, the scientific peers involved in those Peer Reviews also wanted “certain” results to come out of the modeling and designs that they were reviewing. In other cases, the peers were not paying attention to critical items and issues.
Also the issue of temperature collection has not been properly resolved. Temperatures are taken in cities that have the heat island effect. I have seen several different approached to handling and correcting these heat effects, but these approaches vary and also give various results. Then there is the issue of thermometer calibration. I have observed where some thermometers for city temperatures were not calibrated properly at the required intervals, and some times not calibrated at all. How can we trust the temperature data if there are these variations in the instruments?
When it comes to Nature’s greenhouse generators through the Burning Ice (Methane Hydrates), we soon realize that our gases are very small when compared to the megatons of methane hydrates that are held within our oceans in a manner similar to a bathtub ring. Also the Earth has had major accumulations and releases in its geological past over the eons, some of which scientists now believe may have lead to some great temperature increases in the Earth’s past, long before humans were ever around.
Let me give you some web sites that describe the characteristics and issues with the Earth’s Burning Ice and the natural abundance of methane greenhouse gases:
In the geological records and how dramatically and even violently the climate has changed, long before modern man came around. There is very strong geological and scientific evidence that the massive Extinction in the Permian Era many millions of years ago in the Earth’s geological past was caused both by massive volcanism and by Methane Hydrates. http://www.terradaily.com/news/deepimpact-05r.html
None of the environmentalists or businesses involved in reducing carbon emissions can go and blame massive climate changes in the past on power plants and vehicles!
It is not wise to make international policies on theories that are not agreed upon by the scientists who have been studying these causes and effects. Other scientists have published their works dealing with other causes, but have not been given the publicity such as the US National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) has received.
But if the Solar Sun is the major, primary cause and we are just a minor contributor, then our Governments are imposing on us a major compliance issue that will NOT solve the problem. Control of carbon emissions does NOT equal Control of the Solar Sun and its flux intensities on us.
Several environmental groups have told us and openly admitted at other times that they want to use the idea of human sources in order to shut down industrial activities — their words, not ours.
Retired Univ. of California technical staff member Los Alamos, New Mexico, USA.
Lol…sorry but I cannot help and laugh how you people in California are so damn pathetic. You gays, lesbians, human rights activist, anti-war activist, illegal immigrant supporters, dellusional hollywood stars, anti-american thugs, wanna-be “IT” spotlight freaks, over powering environmentalist, etc. etc. etc. are running down your own state AND the country.
We cannot impact climate change. We have no bearing on it at all. To further destroy our economy in name of Halting global warming is insane. Besides, the planet is getting cooler, which stands to be more dangerous in the long run. This is a money grabbing scam by a few big companies.
I am a hunter and fish also. I want to see a clean landscape, however this Global Warming (and when it’s cold ‘Climate Change’) is foolishness.
Please people do your own research. Google ‘Ice Ages’ and you will learn we have come out of one and no matter what man does, we will head back into another.
1824
Joseph Fourier calculates that the Earth would be far colder if it lacked an atmosphere.
1859
Tyndall discovers that some gases block infrared radiation. He suggests that changes in the concentration of the gases could bring climate change.
1896
Arrhenius publishes first calculation of global warming from human emissions of CO2.
1897
Chamberlin produces a model for global carbon exchange including feedbacks.
1930s
Global warming trend since late 19th century reported.
Milankovitch proposes orbital changes as the cause of ice ages.
1938
Callendar argues that CO2 greenhouse global warming is underway
1956
Plass calculates that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will have a significant effect on the radiation balance.
1957
Revelle finds that CO2 produced by humans will not be readily absorbed by the oceans.
1958
Telescope studies show a greenhouse effect raises temperature of the atmosphere of Venus far above the boiling point of water.
1960
Keeling accurately measures CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere and detects an annual rise. =>CO2 greenhouse The level is 315 ppm. Mean global temperature (five-year average) is 13.9°C.
1963
Calculations suggest that feedback with water vapor could make the climate acutely sensitive to changes in CO2 level.
1966
Emiliani’s analysis of deep-sea cores shows the timing of ice ages was set by small orbital shifts, suggesting that the climate system is sensitive to small changes.
1967
Manabe and Wetherald make a convincing calculation that doubling CO2 would raise world temperatures a couple of degrees. =>Radiation math
1968
Studies suggest a possibility of collapse of Antarctic ice sheets, which would raise sea levels catastrophically.
1969
Budyko and Sellers present models of catastrophic ice-albedo feedbacks.
1972
Ice cores and other evidence show big climate shifts in the past between relatively stable modes in the space of a thousand years or so, especially around 11,000 years ago.
1975
Manabe and collaborators produce complex but plausible computer models which show a temperature rise of several degrees for doubled CO2.
1976
Studies show that CFCs (1975) and also methane and ozone (1976) can make a serious contribution to the greenhouse effect. Deep-sea cores show a dominating influence from 100,000-year Milankovitch orbital changes, emphasizing the role of feedbacks. Eddy shows that there were prolonged periods without sunspots in past centuries, corresponding to cold periods
1979
US National Academy of Sciences report finds it highly credible that doubling CO2 will bring 1.5-4.5°C global warming.
1981
Election of Reagan brings backlash against environmental movement to power. Political conservatism is linked to skepticism about global warming. Hansen and others show that sulfate aerosols can significantly cool the climate, raising confidence in models showing future greenhouse warming. Some scientists predict greenhouse warming “signal” should be visible by about the year 2000.
1982
Greenland ice cores reveal drastic temperature oscillations in the space of a century in the distant past. Strong global warming since mid-1970s is reported, with 1981 the warmest year on record.
1983
Reports from US National Academy of Sciences and Environmental Protection Agency spark conflict, as greenhouse warming becomes prominent in mainstream politics.
1985
Ramanathan and collaborators announce that global warming may come twice as fast as expected, from rise of methane and other trace greenhouse gases.Villach Conference declares consensus among experts that some global warming seems inevitable. .Antarctic ice cores show that CO2 and temperature went up and down together through past ice ages, pointing to powerful biological and geochemical feedbacks. Broecker speculates that a reorganization of North Atlantic Ocean circulation can bring swift and radical climate change.
1988
News media coverage of global warming leaps upward following record heat and droughts plus testimony by Hansen. Toronto conference calls for strict, specific limits on greenhouse gas emissions; UK Prime Minister Thatcher is first major leader to call for action. Ice-core and biology studies confirm living ecosystems give climate feedback by way of methane, which could accelerate global warming.
1989
Fossil-fuel and other U.S. industries form Global Climate Coalition to tell politicians and the public that climate science is too uncertain to justify action.
1990
First IPCC report says world has been warming and future warming seems likely.
1991
Mt. Pinatubo explodes; Hansen predicts cooling pattern, verifying (by 1995) computer models of aerosol effects. Global warming skeptics claim that 20th-century temperature changes followed from solar influences. (The solar-climate correlation would fail in the following decade.) Studies from 55 million years ago show possibility of eruption of methane from the seabed with enormous self-sustained warming.
1992
Conference in Rio de Janeiro produces UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, but US blocks calls for serious action.Study of ancient climates reveals climate sensitivity in same range as predicted independently by computer models.
1993
Greenland ice cores suggest that great climate changes (at least on a regional scale) can occur in the space of a single decade.
1995
Second IPCC report detects “signature” of human-caused greenhouse effect warming, declares that serious warming is likely in the coming century.
Reports of the breaking up of Antarctic ice shelves and other signs of actual current warming in polar regions appear
1998
“Super El Niño” causes weather disasters and warmest year on record (approximately matched by 2005 and 2007). Borehole data confirm extraordinary warming trend.
1999
Criticism that satellite measurements show no warming are dismissed by National Academy Panel.
2000
Global Climate Coalition dissolves as many corporations grapple with threat of warming, but oil lobby convinces US administration to deny problem.
2001
Third IPCC report states baldly that global warming, unprecedented since end of last ice age, is “very likely,” with possible severe surprises. Effective end of debate among all but a few scientists. National Academy panel sees a “paradigm shift” in scientific recognition of the risk of abrupt climate change (decade-scale). Warming observed in ocean basins; match with computer models gives a clear signature of greenhouse effect warming.
2002
Studies find surprisingly strong “global dimming,” due to pollution, has retarded arrival of greenhouse warming, but dimming is now decreasing. The Larsen B ice shelf disintegrates in February
2003
Numerous observations raise concern that collapse of ice sheets (West Antarctica, Greenland) can raise sea levels faster than most had believed. Deadly summer heat wave in Europe accelerates divergence between European and US public opinion.
2005
Kyoto treaty goes into effect, signed by major industrial nations except US. Work to retard emissions accelerates in Japan, Western Europe, US regional governments and corporations. Hurricane Katrina and other major tropical storms spur debate over impact of global warming on storm intensity. Tropical glaciers lose a cumulative 8 meters of thickness since 1960.
2007
Fourth IPCC report warns that serious effects of warming have become evident; cost of reducing emissions would be far less than the damage they will cause. Level of CO2 in the atmosphere reaches 382 ppm. Mean global temperature (five-year average) is 14.5°C, the warmest in hundreds, perhaps thousands of years. Arctic summer ice falls to a record low. The American Association of Petroleum Geologists, the last remaining scientific body of national or international standing known to reject the basic findings of AGW, changes its position.
2008
Antarctica’s Wilkins Ice Shelf erodes at an unforeseen pace. Summer ice in the Arctic declines to second lowest record. Methane is seen bubbling from melting permafrost on the East Siberian Shelf.
There may be a handful of scientists with graduate degrees who totally reject AGW, and maybe a few thousand who disagree over some of the complex details of global warming, greenhouse gases, and the climate models, but NOT ONE of 928 papers on global warming published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 rejected AGW. Nearly everyone who actually understands Global Warming agrees that it is real, and potentially catastrophic.
They might be surprised at what else they find like garbage. I was down in McMurdo in the late 80’s and I saw garbage being piled on the ice pier
which was a large as a football field and turned lose to drift in the Antarctic current. This had been going on for several decades until Al Gore came down for a visit and threw a fit. I’ll bet there are mountains of garbage that might be seen.
Its funny how climate change and the global warming hysteria has become a “matter of fact”. I’d like to see Cong Waxman invite some of the scientists who have now rebuffed their earlier findings, that global warming is man made. You have to hear from both sides of the argument to make an appropriate decision on any issue. Al Gores movie has already been proved to be wrong in reguards to CO2 causing global warming. This is one of the coldest winters on record, but no one seems to want to acknowledge that. Its absurd to think that man can cause the globe to warm, this earth has gone through many warming and cooling fazes long before humans inhabited the it. So what can they say about that? Just a coincidence, I think not !
the economic need of the state far outreaches the environmental issues being protected. However eminent the problem of greenhouse gases, pollution, and environmental deterioration, the timeline for those certain long range problems would not effect the current state of the world. That being said the economic issue could cripple society long before these environmental issues.
Why are all these folks so angry about the global warming scam? Any thing that goes wrong is simply going to be solved by Barrack “Apollo” Obama now. So why worry?
By the way, I’m waiting for my mortgage check from the federal government. Has there been a weather delay with the mail?
By gosh, by golly, why is California 40 billion dolars in dept with more than 8% unemployment?
Answer. The Democratically controled congress can’t do math. You are misusing democracy to destroy California. Any change in the current plans that can created jobs must be stoped. Specifically adding two lanes to a highway will not matter when more fuel efficient cars and green cars start rolling. You also have too much welfare, with not enough inspection to weed out frauds. But then, this might make the frauds unhappy.
A southerner must say that the “Blind” (all politions) leading the “Stupid” (the folks that fall for this nonsence.)Why don’t we all just convert over to the Amish way of life,then there will be no problems.
Hello everyone, global warming is the biggest scam in the history of mankind. Go to http://www.cagwh.com and sign there petition and help support there effort to run a tv ad nationally….
our congressmen and women of our state of california are unfortunately bent on expediently bankrupting our families and business.we shall look forward to doing the same to them.
You’re all a bunch of morons, except for the guy that pointed out that Beijing is 100 miles inland.
If all the ice was in the water already than of course it wouldn’t change if it melted, but it’s not, it’s on land. Try adding chunks of ice to a full cup of water and tell me it doesn’t overflor. It more than physics, it’s common sense…you dolt.
Secondly, they do their research during the summer time because what they really want to study is how much ice stays theres year round. Of course some seasonal snow melt and glaciers recede during summer, but ho much is staying and replenishing what’s there? That’s why they call them ice caps and not snow.
And just f’in where are you getting your data that polar ice has actually increased? Try reading some scientific journals. Just because some prominent individual says it doesn’t make it true. It needs to be backed up by evidence and all the evidence points towards a widespread decrease.
All of you who think this is fearmongering and propoganda can go on believing your whole out of sight out of mind ideas….just please for the sake of this planet quit breeding. If we don’t get more people to actually try to make a difference it’s fools like you that will be our demise.
MR WAXMAN NEEDS TO GO HOME AND WORRY ABOUT CALIFORNIA,WHAT A MESS.THE EARTH IS COOLING,NOT HEATING UP.STEALING MY MONEY FOR YOUR FRIENDS WONT DO A DAM THING.THE EARTH HAS BEEN CHANGING FOR BILLIONS OF YEARS.
It looks like the moderator didnt like my other comment so I will try again, go to http://www.cagwh.com and join the revolution…. There are 32,000 reasons not to buy into manmade global warming.
I still laugh at this global warming stuff. Basic chemistry teaches you that CO2 just doesn’t, as a compound, hold heat very well at all. The water vapor in our atmosphere probably holds more heat than the CO2. I kind of laugh at how we completely ignore the fact that the huge nuclear reaction in the sky (the sun) somehow can’t get warmer or cooler, or the fact that we wobble on our axis, doesn’t account for warming and cooling of our planet…Instead these scare tactics about “global warming” and the new all encompassing term “Climate Change” are used by people like Al Gore.
Incredible. Absolutely incredible. I was a member of the US Navy’s former “Operation Deep Freeze” Antarctic Program, and I currently live in New Zealand, about 10 miles from where Raytheon Polar Services operate the program now. The Navy got out of the Antarctic transportation service in 1998, while I was assigned there. Global warming attributed to or caused by man is a hoax. It simply isn’t true. The planet goes through cooling and warming cycles all the time. Matter of fact, there was a cooling trend in the mid-1800’s that sent a “mini ice age” around the earth. So what if a little ice melts? Humans will move to higher ground, and we might lose some islands in the Pacific, but we’re talking that it’s not going to happen for another hundred years, and that’s plenty of time for people to relocate or build barriers. “Global Warming” is just a buzz word for liberal greed. I know because I have actually been to Antarctica.
Further to the above comment from “Dan” regarding the rubbish at McMurdo, it was removed in 1995 and 1996, and all cleaned up. And yes, British commonwealth countries all refer to a flashlight as a “torch”, but I couldn’t tell you exactly why.
Heaven forbid the Govenator looks at the real problem: illegal immigrants sucking the California economy dry. Once California has fallen, the instigators will move on to green pastures to zap them dry, too. Focusing on the problem, instead of tip-toeing around reality, is the only way California will be able to rebound.
I am also in rd construction business. Unfortuanatly the gov. Is right things need to change now. People need to get back to work.u can’t make everyone happy somtimes you have to just bite the bullet. Maybe suspending for the projects on hand. Time to act people need food on the table too. Sorry about some paperwork that wasn’t done. Get on with it time to act is NOW!!!
Of course he is not going to respond, because it’s not true. Why can’t people accept that the earth is cyclic and that he sheets of ice melting may be due to other factors. On report I saw on CNN said that areas of the polar regions that were once “warm” for arctic standards are now colder and the colder are now warmer. Let use our heads people. The dems accused Bush of using scare tactics on the war on terror, what do you call this? Same thing but just the tree huggers want their way and will use whatever may be happening to the globe to get it. By the way it was 29 degree’s in Florida last night. Need global warming down here with a possiblity of snow believe it or not. Gore lost the election and lost the attention and want’s to use this to be loved again. It’ll never happen. You thought Quale was a clown, the inventor of the internet has him beat hands down.
AL GORE TOLD US IN HIS INCONVENIENT TRUTH THAT FOREST FIRES CONTRIBUTE 30% OF THE CARBON TO THE ATMOSPHERE. HE ALSO SAID THAT IF WE UNDERTAKE ALL THE GREEN INITIATIVES POSSIBLE TO REDUCE MANKIND’S CARBON CONTRIBUTION THEN WE CAN REDUCE THE CARBON LEVEL BY 1%. CLEARLY IF WE WANT TO REDUCE CARBON IN THE ATMOSPHERE THE METHOD WITH THE BIGGEST IMPACT IS TO START FIGHTING FOREST FIRES. CURRENTLY IN THE USA WE ONLY FIGHT 1% OF THE FOREST FIRES. COME ON GREENIES LET’S START FIGHTING THE FOREST FIRES. THIS WILL ACTUALLY STIMULATE THE ECONOMY INSTEAD OF THROTTLING IT.
THE MAN WHO INVENTED THE INTERNET HAS’NT A CLUE.WHEN BIG BROTHER STARTS TAXING US MORE TO HEAT OUR HOMES.HE AND HIS FRIENDS WILL HAVE MORE MONEY TO BUY MORE JETS AND HOUSE BOATS
California is the land of the free. Free food, free housing, free medical free everything! There ane more freeloaders, legal and illegal than there are working people to pay for all of it. I hope that your practices and policies stay in California or better yet let Mexico annex California!! That should solve all of the budget issues.
Dont get mad people, go to http://www.cagwh.com and donate $5, $10, or whatever you can give to expose this lie. Those leftist CON-gressman/women are trying to steal our money. What they are doing is 10 times worse then the Madoff scheme. If everyone contributes and spreads the word to friends, family, and co-workers we will win. CAGWH even offers 2 bumperstickers for $10 or more donations…Get involved today, its time we get off our butts and do something about it. It does not do any good to only write comments on articles, GO TO CAGWH and contribute and I promise we will win…
Will we ever realize that there is no such thing as induced global warning. The planet goes through cycles and at the moment is it entering a cooling phase.
welcome to the end of america where the wants of the de-evolved masses guides us to —>Epic Fail
please all you high rollers who makes over 50k a year and do nothing but type on your computer or pretend like you know what your doing when you really have no idea and pass all responsibility off on your underlings you are the reason for the state of this country. I hope your GOD obama is the second coming, becuase if he isnt things are gonna hit the fan
well if you dont want a food shortage in fairbanks keep al gore far away man he is big. BTW last summer he did leave his excssive 8 pax limo ( a standard town car would have been less of a footprint ) running for 2 hrs so he would not be hot after a rally. he also runs around in private jets AL SHOW SOME LEADERSHIP IF YOU REALLY BELIEVE YOUR OWN CRAP
As a Pickens Plan Delegate, I wih to promote sound ideas for a super-clean environment using intelegent techology similar to that offered by Greenfuel.com.
Let’s go Green with new well-paying jobs for America.
GORE IS A PHONY. THATS WHY HE REFUSES ANY DEBATE.HE HAS BEEN CHALLENGED BY MANY.LORD MONCTON HAS CHALLENGED HIM BUT HE REFUSES BECAUSE HE IS A PHONY
Al Gore has refuse to debate with anyone on global warming. He has pulled out of interviews when he is told they will have a skeptic on with him. He even refused to testify to the US Congress until there was a Democratic majority.
The answer is simple, Gore knows that he is wrong on some things, instead of admitting his errors he refuses to be put in a positions when they could be proven wrong. Obviously he thinks that having global warming hysteria is more important then getting to the real scientific facts. He has said before, he does not see a problem with exaggerating certain facts if it causes people to act.
The “cold, hard” fact about global warming is, there are as many scientist’s cold, to Al’s theories, as there are warm to them. Contrary to Pres. Obama, the verdict is still out. Ironically, should Gore’s crowd lose the debate, his public image may melt away, but his frozen one in Fairbanks, will long atest to his well intention’s, leaving everyone in the cold. Sorry.
So if we are to believe this non-sense, in one hundred years the ocean level will rise 1 inch, or about a foot every 1200 years. Hmmm, let’s spend more money on this, and give the idiot another Nobel.
Brian Dodge, nice summary. You make a great point that while there are plenty of “scientists” in the world that will reject the effects of global climate change by CO2, methane, and other GHGs, no one ever publishes anything with actual data and a non-political, purely scientific, and non-religious assesment that can withstand peer review that refutes the concept.
Andrew (#29) are you referencing heat capacity when you state “holds more heat”? If so, that isn’t the concept of CO2’s effect at all. It is related to the ability of CO2 to absorb IR radiation emitted by the planet (as a result of visible light absorbtion and IR emission) at a greater rate than other gases in the atmosphere. You may want to do a little more research. You are right though that water vapor does have a much greater heat capacity than CO2, and I’d guess, probably every other component of the atmosphere.
This is great, as a scientist and engineer myself, but by no means an expert on this subject, it is great to read these posts. The injection of religion, politics, emotion, anger, and paranoia into this analysis and basically the destruction of the scientific process is really quite fascinating.
I always enjoy how the defense against something that someone doesn’t understand themselves is usually to reference “scientists”, “experts” or “God”. It’s really something that society hasn’t changed at all in thousands of years. Sure everyone has cell phones, other goofy electronic gadgets and modern conveniences, but people are really the same as always. If I didn’t have rights and protections the non-believers would probably be banishing me away for heresy like Galileo.
S-o-o-o much disinformation to refute, so little time!
“Big Al” is right: the facts are in, the time for debate is LONG over. “Global Warming” is real, and it is largely caused by man. All of you contradicting this are either liars, or fools, self-deceived.
Even Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming) got it right: “the overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate change agree with the IPCC’s main conclusions”.
That is, “The scientific consensus is that the increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases due to human activity has caused most of the warming observed since the start of the industrial era, and the observed warming cannot be satisfactorily explained by natural causes alone.”
So just as I said: it is real, it is caused by man. And it threatens to be a major problem.
As the statue melts, people will think of it in exactly the way Compeau did NOT want: they will think of global warming. They will think of it as REAL.
Catherine’s posts are long on links, and overflowing with an abundance of scientific-sounding language, but the unscientific nature of her concerns is revealed by such lines as:
=================
Environmental groups say that ALL Mining and Oil Gas Wells are “bad” and “evil”, even with full-scale reclamations and restorations. So how can we go to Alternative Energies when these requires materials that are not accepted by the Environmentalists?
=================
Which ‘environmental groups’ say THIS? Certainly Al Gore isn’t saying anything so silly. It sounds to me like Catherine is making an elaborate “straw-man” argument, deliberately focusing on the ignorant chatter of a few individual environmentalists, using their ignorance to fool us into believing that all ‘greens’ are this dangerous.
Global warming is real, and it is largely caused by man. The time for debate is over, it is time to reduce “greenhouse gases” before the disaster is too disastrous. Cathering is dithering.
I doubt that adding a lane will cause more cars to be on the road. If anything it will cause a decrease in stop-and-go traffic which would reduce CO2 emissions. These environmental groups are religious fanatics who think their cause trumps all others, including creating jobs and relieving traffic congestion.
I must say though that the reason the environmental review will cause huge delays is because of the broken government and legal system that take forever to get anything done.
I have read that the issue is that seawater is salty and salty water is denser than fresh water. The icebergs being fresh water produce a volume of fresh water greater than the previously displaced volume of sea water. If you try this experiment in your fridges, half fill a glass with cold, salty water. Add a (non-salty) ice cube and mark on the glass where the water is. Then watch where the water is after the ice cube has melted.
Good for him how does Gore from Tenn. know anything this year ,I travel 43000 miles in the last 6months ,I have been in temptures as low as 0to a high of 70 a fewdays in fla. the only warm place is fla. keys and a few days in southern california! He is a none deserving of his awards! He has 20000 sg. house that uses more electric and gas than his whole rich neighborhood and his friends jet and his friend turbo jet the highest fuel sucker along whith his hummer! thanks , I am from north carolina and it has beeen really cold and had more rain this last year than the last two years! Terry Cowboy Carson
Yall don’t get it. Blocking freeway construction is a key element in environmentalists’ agenda. The more congested, the better. Congestion makes for frustrated and angry motorists, so enviros can more easily get mass transit projects approved. It is all about getting people out of their cars, and standing next to strangers on a train. Trains=good, cars=bad. Dontcha know?
.
Never mind that California is spread out and mass transit takes forever to get where you need to go. Your time is only valuable to you, not to the environmentalists.
No Picture!! This would have been worth seeing! Good old AP again, those aggressive journalists. Bet if he did one of Bush they would have flown up there just for the picture.
Anybody notice that the new “stimulus” bill that Congress is working on (another $820 billion) wouldn’t actually have an effect on the economy until 2010 according to the Congressional Budget Committee? Same with any of the environmental stuff. This is a scam to push our children’s money into the Democratic districts that seem to just waste it (and buy votes). There is a reason why Obama is saying it will take a while for the economy to turn around. It’s because they have no intention to really help it (through tax relief) turn around.
What happens in San Fransisco and Los Angeles is going to be what happens across our nation. We should be scared. Maybe the blame goes back to our public education…. no mabye it’s the flouride in the water.
Methane is a much worse Greenhouse gas than CO2. How about filling in all those swamps if you really think there is “Global Warming” It will have a much greater effect than curbing Man-made CO2. Oh and how about building a bunch of nuclear power plants like France did.
Here is something to think about in relation to the Global Warming Hoax. The reason perhaps??
The Russians seem to think there is an Ice Age coming.
There is certainly a grab for control of food since The World Bank, IMF and World Trade Organization are intent on taking over the world food supply by driving peasants off their land (I could write pages on this) see: http://www.fpif.org/outside/commentary
/2002/0202food.htmlhttp://libertyark.net/nais_story.html http://www.doublestandards.org/sap1.html
There is the Seed Banks and Global Diversity treaty for gabbing control of seed : http://www.bioversityinternational.org/publications/pdf/1144.pdf
The housing/banking meltdown driving land prices through the floor and that all makes me very skeptical especially when I read articles like the following:
“….big investors are “hurriedly moving their wealth out of stocks and shares and into farmland….” The Times article suggests that, “Across the world, hedge fund managers, property developers and other investors” are all ready to buy up British farmland. http://www.deepjournal.com/p/7/a/en/1237.html
Barton Briggs, one of Wall Street’s most legendary investment strategists, is advising the rich and powerful to buy up farms and stock them with “seed, fertiliser, canned food. wine, medicine. clothes etc.” (and the “etc” would seem to mean guns to keep away the rest of us…) http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601088&sid=almBVle3OMyo&refer=muse
To get rid of the excess population there are bioweapons and this
“ The Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense have stated that there will be a choice given to Americans about whether they want to be vaccinated “in the first round in which the pandemic has not gotten away from us. In the second round, when it has gotten away from us [note language], there will be no choice and those who refuse vaccination will be quarantined indefinitely.” http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/?p=593
And on top of that the EU wants to move 5 million Africans off that nice warm land.
I wonder if Al Gore, Maurice Strong as well as the Bush family have bought land in South America?
Did Prince Albert bring his statue down here to Florida? I came to visit from MN, only to find freeze warnings all 4 days I was here & Orange crop failures. Given the way God is trying to smack him & the rest of the Green movement over the head with the reality of GLOBAL COOLING everywhere he goes, I wouldn’t be surprised.
Kevin,you are correct in most of your reply, however
to say that the ice caps at the poles are getting smaller is not altogether true. The coverage in the northern hemisphere has grown back to the levels of the 1970’s per NOAA and NASA.
As for Al Gore blaming global warming/climate change completely on mankind, misses another point, the fact that all of the inner planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars) all are experiencing roughly the same amount of warming.
Calling people fools for not following your belief system is also short sighted, and shows a lack of knowledge of the subject you seem to know a little about.
Please consider your words more carefully in the future.
We’re going to be pummeled to death with green everything, threats of heat-death and more over the next four years of the Democratic juggernaut. Kudos to the Alaskans for taking an ice-stand in the war on eco-truth – LOL.
Legislators fiddle while the economy burns. Diverting resources to address a non-problem is idiotic at best, a dishonest power grab at worst. Environmental hypocrites want to divert resources that could be used to address real environmental issues to this hoax. The only “consensus” on man made global warming is that it is a myth.
Global Warming today is following the global cooling of yesterday 1300-1400s to 1940s. Most likely going to go longer so all you idiots that live close to sea level need to make plans to move. This global climate change has happened before, but we never had soo many stupid people populating the coastlines.
You would think the occasional tsunami/huricane would discourage them. Shame on the Goracle for blaming us inlanders for the problem.
Just because we believe that the climate change is natural does not mean we don’t want to keep the planet as clean as possible. But the ultimate clean is only achieved if we mass suicide into predug graves. There must be compromise: Nucs would seem to be an excellant answer, but not a option to the Libs/Greens.
Not to worry. BHO will edict 50mpg town, 100mpg highway and outlaw any vehicle not complying. Instant trashing of all vehicles, kill the economy, make the Greens Happy.
And when the miniscule amount of CO2 and methane in our atmosphere is shown to be totally dominated by water vapor and its constantly changing concentrations, what then.
I’d love to see every card-carrying member of Sierra Club, Wilderness Society, Defenders of the Earth, etc., etc., put on a list – if they go to buy property, build or remodel a home, buy a car, whatever……make them subject to an EIS before they can proceed…..wouldn’t want to be hyporites and do harm to the habitat of the ‘bug-eyed sapsucker wasp’ or some such critter now – would they? See how patient they’d be when their plans are put on hold indefinitely while others are allowed to appeal every plan they make – keeping projects on hold and workers sidelined. Hey – require that they have labor lined up for said project (can’t have any delays if it is approved), on the payroll the entire waiting period. Hmmmmm…… would make them think twice before protesting every potential job-producing, productive, natural resource use or infrastructure effort…….???
Governor Swarzenegger is obviously the Only elected official with enough Intelligence and Fortitude to do “WHATEVER IT TAKES TO GET THE JOB DONE! Evidently the Democrat controlled legislature still doesn’t get it, that the largest Special Interest Group in the State is the voting public. We are tired of Starving to Death, facing Foreclosure & Unemployment. If the Legislature doesn’t follow Swarzenegger’s lead and get us out of the QUICKSAND that THEY have created, they may well find themselves in the UNEMPLOYMENT LINE.
The Environment is like Love, it’s a nice thing to have but you can’t eat it or pay your bills with it. Wake up you JACKASSES!
There was a time before the ice age when the earth was warm and fair. Human ancestry may have gone mostly unclothed during those times. We are still in the final phase of the last ice age — perfectly normal, as I see it.
If past is prologue, it will be several hundred thousand years before we will see extreme warming again. Should we worry?
If politicians were so smart, don’t you think they would have seen this FINANCIAL CRISIS COMING? Obviously this Global Warming Hysteria/Religion is only a ploy by poiticians to bilk us out of more of our hard earned cash. As much as they’ve lied to us in the last 20 years why would anyone believe a word they say NOW? They never give up in their quest for more power and they will do anything for more of it. The only time these ignorant fools will be shaken from where they are is when the people get hungry and turn back into Barbarians. Sadly, Waxman represents the mental retardation of his constituents. Vote the INUMBENTS OUT!
I’d say that the aborigines were there many years before modern man and they will be there many years after, regardless of the money spent. It seems like nobody can just let Nature take it’s course. Looks like these Kooks just want more authority and power over the people.
Thank You to Catherine or Los Alamos, NM, for a great eye opening education on the FACTS. We need more people like her with similar Credentials to speak more openly about the big HOAX of manmade global warming and the idea that there could possibly be anything that mere mortal man could do about it. Nature is still the BOSS.
Brian Dodge wrote:
There may be a handful of scientists . . .who totally reject AGW, and maybe a few thousand who disagree over some of the complex details of global warming . . but NOT ONE of 928 papers on global warming published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 rejected AGW.
————–
Sorry Brian. Just not true. Anyone who looks at the data can conclude that the earth is warming (ever since the last ice age). Almost no one who looks at the data concludes it is driven by man-made processes. The climate alarmists conveniently confuse these two things when they are quoting “scientists”.
Very simply put, the global warming hoax has been perpetuated for many reasons but has many problems:
Over all, this is a socialist inspired movement to take down capitalism and to control all business eventually.
Communism denies private property and free enterprise; socialism allows for this concept but insists on controlling it…completely.
1) Research ’scientists’ get grant money to come up with evidence that supports global warming.
2) The leftist media is completely on board and continues to push it. Pure propaganda.
3) C02, methane (and any other chemical they want to use) is made into a taxable commodity, giving socialists more power and control.
4) Going through the U.N. gives them the power to form a ‘new world order’. Tax money leads to the muscle to enforce their ideology.
The problems are this:
1) The earth is now entering a mini-ice age and is cooling, thus they are using ‘climate change’ increasingly instead of ‘global warming’.
2) Russia, China and some others have already said they will not comply and have debunked the hoax.
3) 3ird world countries (read as Tin Horn Dictators) think they can reap some of our wealth yet are ripe for revolution due to Islamic Fascism and/or chaotic populations that are dirt poor and not being fed except for capitalist generosity.
4) Large numbers or the U.S. population are about ready to revolt and only need a region or state to declare itself in secession.
The old Chinese curse applies: “May you live in interesting times”.
concerned citizen has it right. EXCEPT! the enviromentalists are already running the country. They just now finally got someone in the white house that will sign all their stupid bills and finish killing this country. There is no global warming!! Get real…. nothing man does can change the climate. Until the minority gets together we will be on this downward spiral. These envirolmentalist have so much money they get everything tied up in the courts for years. Soon we will not have any water, energy, housing, etc. Let alone NO JOBS!
i HAVE NEVER HEARD OF SUCH RUBBISH IN ALL MY LIFE ,THEIR LIFE SPAN WAS JUST 35 YRS OLD BEFORE WHITE MAN CAME ,AND THEY NEED CIVILIZING NOT MORE MONEY FOR THIS GREEN SCAM ,ALL THE MODELS HAVE BEEN PROVEN TO BE FALSE ,FOR A START IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANY MODEL OR ANYONE TO PREDICT THE WEATHER CYCLES IN 100YRS OR CHANGE THEM ,ITS ALL ABOUT CONTROL OVER THE POPULATION AND RIPPING TAX PAYERS MONEY FOR ALL THEIR FOLOWERS IN THIS SCAM WHO OWN THE GREEN POWER ETC ,IN 1300 THE TEMP WAS 7%HOTTER THAN NOW THERE WAS NO INDUSTRY THEN ,METHANE IS UBSUSTAINABLE AND IS DESTROYED BY THE SUN WITHIN A YR,AND CONSIDERING THE AMOUNT OF METHANE PRODUCED BY FORESTS IN DECOMPOSITION ,THEY ARE JUST HYPOCRITS ,THIS IS THE WORLDS BIGGEST SCAMS FOR TAXES AND CONTROL ,NOTHING MORE .
The environmentalists’ angle will always be anti-human (pro-abortion, pro-environment, pro-population control, etc). The non-whites will always be anti-white establishement and blame European colonialism. The anit-capitalist will blame modern culture and the free-market. And the pop-libs will be believe anything celebs, MTV and SNL say. So the big question of what is right is this — were these people displaced by the white colonials? even if you can’t prove global warming, you can argue that they may have been exiled to that land, which is becoming less inhabitable. Perhaps then the gov’t should aid – and perhaps either way, since they probably are unable to afford relocation. This kind of thing is in everyone’s history, regardless of origins – we all have someone in our geneology who was victimized or displaced or oppressed – did the Irish get “aid” on migrating to the US? did french protestants get “aid” on fleeing to Great Britain, for example? NO — all sides should be rational — if these low-income folks need help, the high-income should help to a certain degree. The Aussie gov’t will need to do work out a fair solution based on what is right, not based on what Al Gore says about global warming. Global warming is being used as lib propoganda….PERIOD. Remember the boy that cried wolf, Al.
Gore will not speak to a critic. He’s busy flying his private jet to speeches that pay for his utility bill and expensive hair care products (that much hairspray can’t be good for the environment!).
Hi dir of operations,
It is my joy to talk to fox news this afternoon,
i will like to tell you the truth i love you topic. LIVING IN THE GREEN , IS really unintresting with the ecotech, cos it is really hush, but iwill like to ask you a question , i am the sun , moon , the stars , every where i go i find it , is it a crime? where could i work? and what does it mean? i have suffered endlessly for it…. I LOVE YOU AMERICA
Iam talking from NIGERIA, IN THE WEST COAST OF AFRICA,
LMAO…Al Gore used to really tick me off, I do NOT believe in global warming except for whats predicted in Revelations. I love this mans idea! What we need now however is an answer for B. H. Obama who is tearing this country down!
The politicians have no right to meddle in a lawsuit!?! They MAKE the laws, Mr Adams! You are just peeved that they want to end your ridiculous meddling!… People, this is what happens when LAWYERS run politics. They create chaos so that billions of dollars have to be funneled to lawyers… and we just put a lawyer in the White House… Good job America! Go back to your sitcoms and ‘reality’ tv like they want you to… shhh, don’t actually pay attention to what the government does with your money, shhhh…. America, I HOPE for CHANGE in 2010/2012!!!
I have begun to adjust my stance and opinions on global warming theories. Over the past several years, I have encountered much evidence pointing to the fact that man cannot possibly affect climate conditions to the point of changing them. This can only be accomplished by the almighty God. He has created this beautiful earth on which we live and He is the only one who can ( and will in his own time ) destroy it. I apologize for being such a shmuck over the past couple of decades. Thanks to Jesus, I have been saved from such far left wacko liberal notions and no longer pursue such nonsense.
Global warming is always followed by another ice age. It has absolutely nothing to do with human industrial ‘greenhouse’ gases. The true cause is a little-known but persistent 26 thousand year cycle. Just as the tilt of the Earth’s axis gives us summer and winter, spring and fall; the wobble (oscillation) of the axis affects global weather. Plato and other previous to him, noted that the stars appear to “fall back” 1 degree every 72 years (thus making the alignment of any building to the stars impossible) and he divided the “great year” into the 12 Ages of Man. Since the movement is backwards (retrograde), the Precession (also known as the Precession of the Equinoxes) is also the reverse of the solar year horoscope. We are currently in the Age of Pisces, which ends on December 21, 2012, and will enter the Age of Aquarius in just 4 years.
There are clues to this phenomena in the Bible as well. See: Genesis 1:14, and references to the “end of the age”, the “last generation” and so forth. Even Revelation notes that the Sun will scorch the Earth (4th plague of the end-times) before a “new heaven” and a “new earth” are born. The sign of Aquarius is water. Will there be another flood…or another ice age?
I’m no prophet, just a student of the word.
May God bless you!
I forgot to mention the Vostok ice core samples and a 25-year old report done by international scientists that indicates Carbon Dioxide rises for 21,000 years and then stops. Clearly, the wobble of the Earth’s axis causes the oceans to warm up, which releases more carbon dioxide but as we move away from the sun, less C02 is released. Apparently, someone doesn’t want you to know this basic information.
As many of us sit through 0 or below temperatures with 30 or more inches of snow on the ground it’s about time someone said “Phooey” to Al. Guess what, I don’t live in Alaska either.
Now we have a president who in the midst of an economic downturn is raising emission standards that will kill the auto industry. It’s okay that he rides the biggest gas guzzler in the US, just don’t let the surfs interfere with the lords.
We could all quit driving tomorrow and it wouldn’t change the climate changes. Mother Earth will do what she wants regardless.
Wake up, America, before you are all driving matchbox cars!!!
Ask anyone who works in the motorcycle business how Arnie’s environmental policies have impacted their industry and/or their job. Oh, and I guess I should mention the tax dollars that the state didn’t take in as a result of their negative impact on business. Of course, we shouldn’t leave-out the businesses and jobs that suffer when people lose enthusiasm for buying and using motorcycles, should we? One twinkle of light, though. When Mexico finally takes possession of California, it’ll be the cleanest state in their country.
I can write a well thought out comment about how liberal groups will pin this on global warming, how global warming is leftist propoganda and how the Aussie gov’t is legitimately responsible if Euro colonialism displaced the Abs, but what’s the point (and “who cares” maked it through the filter? hmm..)
Either way, the gov’t will have to help any group improverished citizens with health problems, even if global warming is a hoax, created by the left to seize power over, well, every aspect of our lives.
THANK YOU! I live in Western NY, where we are expieriencing 1 of 5 of the coldest years on record, EVER! Global warming is a farce, the earths weather cycles are CYCLICAL! Wake Up Libs!
Wow, this is a case of the nuts (environmentalists) running the nut house (California). They don’t seem to understand that by destroying buisiness and blocking efforts like this road expansion they are hurting the economy, which means there is less money for their environmental agendas. This is just another example of a Liberal “feel-good policy,” i.e. I don’t care about the results as long as it feels good, it must be the right thing to do. For once I hope the Governator actuallys manages to get this through.
As an alaskan I can only wish , mr.gore had a brain,and really explored what we do no about alaska and the global warming….he needs to sing ….if I only had a brain….and do the math…Geez That must be quite the site, watching al gore melt down…..
Folks, don’t be fooled by this “dog and pony” show. The only companies that were invited to the hearing are the one’s that would benefit from the “cap and trade” legislation. For example, Excelon (based out of Obama’s hometown of Chicago) is heavily invested in Nuclear Power. Cap and trade would really only effect coal fired plants since they are the ones producing CO2. The Southern Company is heavily invested in coal fired plants. You don’t see them on the invitation list. GE sells CFLs and wind turbines. Dupont is investing in “Green Technologies”. NRG has is investing into biomass power plants. ConocoPhillips is investing into ethanlol and cellulosic ethanol production.
The enviromentalists are liberal democrats who have blocked every oppurtunity to make gas more accessable,relieve congestion on freeways creating more operation time for our cars creating more polution ,less jobs and more demand for gas. The liberals are now shutting off water to Southern California which will further depress our economy by elimanating any growth and threatening even higher taxes so they can fund unions and abortion and subsidize hollywood so they wont leave for better tax incentives . I thought we had all had to pitch in , apparently not liberals , hollywood or unions who are sueing the people of California!
I think that there might be more to the environmental impact than just greenhouse gas. Runoff from rain with less soil to return rainwater to the watershed. Loss of wetland or habitat. Could also move traffic and exhausts closer to a communities open windows. Transportation policies regarding the environment go further than just greenhouse gases.
THE REAL QUESTIONS THAT SHOULD BE ASKED IS: WHO ARE THE CONGRESSMEN AND WOMEN AND SENATORS WHO ARE INVOLVED WITH THIS? WHO ARE THEY CONNECTED TO? WHAT DO THEY GET OUT OF IT? IF A LAW IS PASSED, LOOK AT IT CAREFULLY TO SEE WHO IT BENEFITS. EXPOSE THEM TO EVERYONE.
There is no counter point to this story, only a scare tactice with ‘facing extinction’ in paranthesis to highlight a stated ‘premise’ even though the article itself doesn’t state extinction is eminent… only an inferential allusion to the rockhopper (not to mention interchanging the terms climate change and global warming to allow reaction to criticism).
So, Joanna Smudgen, please don’t take offense to the criticism… if this is something you truly believe, or if you are just ‘reporting the facts’, then balance the facts with counterarguments to increase/decrease credibility with either side.
Let’s say that the entire global warming issue is false and there isn’t a single shred of truth to it. My question would be this: Why wouldn’t anyone want a cleaner environment, with cleaner air and cleaner water? Regardless of whether Al Gore is right or wrong, isn’t the outcome a benefit to everyone?
What this man did is funny, and important. Maybe he should be given the Nobel Peace Prize. Many scientists question the global warming theory – and “theory” it is. Weather is, as another writer stated, cyclical. Just review our planet’s complete past, unless you’re afraid to find out the truth because you don’t want to know.
Many of us who are enduring more snow, and subfreezing temperatures, ice storms, and the most severe winter weather we have seen in decades are laughing.
This whole thing is like the story of “Emperor Has No Clothes” — when are people going to wake up and admit, out loud, that the emperor has no clothes? The theory gained traction when Mr. Gore teamed with Hollywood and they became the weavers of the invisible thread. It quickly became politically incorrect to admit the obvious, but out of fear of not seeming as smart, or worthy, as others, people began to speak about how beautiful the Emperor’s clothes were – when actually he was wandering around in his underwear. Since no one wants to be regarded as “unworthy” or less intelligent, here we are.
You may read about the ways in which Mr. Gore’s company profits when this artificial science is accepted at http://www.globalwarming.org.
Mr. Gore was able to get the extremely odd Hollywood types to buy in. And, talk about a “bully pulpit”. If anyone has one, it’s Hollywood. So many of our people blindly accept what they see when they experience emotion associated with visual images. Any teacher knows that the more senses a student uses when learning, the better he will “learn”, and that if emotion can be brought into play they are more likely to remember. So Hollywood is now a “teacher” of less than factual information. Hollywood knows they have the power, and forwards their liberal agenda — so the students “learn”.
That Mr. Gore won a Nobel peace prize for this is ludicrous. According Wikipedia: “\’According to Nobel’s will, the Peace Prize should be awarded “to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.”[1]‘
Understanding the purpose of the Nobel Peace Prize, what has Mr. Gore actually done by purporting this “theory” that would fit into the purpose that Mr. Nobel desired?
I did so hope Albert was on to something with his global warming concept, but his global warming has not yet reached Minnesota. My heating costs are higher than ever. Will global warming reach Minnesota by the winter of 2009?? Will I get any financial aid by our new administration?? So many questions.
The winters here in rural Alberta have been getting snowier and colder. We had 9 weeks of tempertures below -40F from mid Nov 2008 till early Jan 2009. I haven’t seen winters with a cold stretch so long before this in my 35 years. I have had so much snow I have 6 feet of it on my deck, twice I have had to dig down at my office building to get to the door lock to get in. Then get a shovel and dig a trench back to the side walk 12′ long and 5′ deep. Our businesses storage yard has an 8′ high fence around it. The top rail of the fence is all that is sticking out of the snow. If I though global warming was real I’d leave my truck running constantly to get a break from all this snow.
Al Gore, winner of the Nobel Prize, inventor of the internet, scam artist extraordinaire! He has the condescending nerve to say the argument is over and as many in this blog have pointed out will not even deign to talk to anyone on the merits of the facts because in his limited capacity “theatre of the mind” he’s too big to fail. What a blowhard.
Al Gore is a fraud. T Boone Pickens is a fraud too. Al Gore says global warming is getting worse. But how come NASA’s research says the opposite. Then Picken’s said he is building this huge wind farm now he is waiting to get it almost paid for by taxpayers to get him even more rich then he is now. Why doesn’t T boone sell his oil reserves and trade it in for Wind farms. T boone along with Al Gore is a joke..
You idiotic, selfish conservatives are just in deep denial! You just want to go on doing whatever you want whenever you want, the environment and the future generations be damned! You lied that “most scientists” questioned global warming when it is just the opposite. Those “scientists” who like you deny that global warming is due to human activities are NOT real scientists but economists and those who are paid by the fossil fuel industries and conservative extremists. Guess what? Even ExxonMobil now admits that the warming is probably caused by humans and pledged to take actions to reduce its carbon footprint. Fortunately, you losers are in a shrinking group.
If Al Gore is so positive about global warming–come and debate it with some anti-global scientists–Prove them wrong and them WE will believe you AL–what have you to lose???
There are so many right wing repubicans on this site it makes me want to puke. Most of you morons wouldn’t know a science fact if it bit you in the face. No wonder you elected Sarah Palin. Is she the best you can come up with? So keep pumping oil, enriching your politician dogs and their oil industry masters and destroying the last great wilderness. Your day is coming soon. One of you turds actually suggested that raising emission standards would kill the auto industry. DipShat! The US auto industry is self-imploding because it hasn’t acted to be competitive with foreign automakers who provide lower emission cars that are better made and have better MPG.
When I was a kid, It was the ice age. Then the depletion of the ozone. Then global warming. Now it is climate change. algore is behind. He needs to either get on the climate change bandwagon or find a new scare. I would suggest a new scare, because the climate change garbage will soon be over.
First, who actually counts these stupid animals?
Second, “400 breading pairs” is a long way from extinction.
Third, how many other stupid animals that have been “extinct”, suddenly create excitement in the “scientific” field by reappearing?
Fourth, if the stupid animal cannot adapt, it deserves to be extinct.
If you all want global warming to stop: 1) do not allow big cities to increase in size 2) Plant more trees, and allow larger open green areas
Just these two steps will help. I believe the worse thing we did was allow our cities to grow…cement walkways and roads causes an increase in temperatures.
Did you ever consider that perhaps there is no counter point? This is not an opinion piece, or a political discussion. These are research-based facts, and if one is interested in counter points to science, and one elects to disregard the findings of science, then one is essentially stuck in a fantasy bubble– be it walled with the Bible or rhetoric.
You can’t effectively argue against it– the other “side” doesn’t exist except in one’s desire to believe otherwise because the facts are uncomfortable. There is no relevant discourse here; fantasy versus science leads us nowhere. People have been watching, documenting, measuring, studying. They’ve considered all the counterpoints in the process of recording the facts.
And furthermore, the notion that this stuff isn’t actually happening, and we shouldn’t bother paying attention to extinction issues and our earth– your assertion that we need to doubt and scrutinize researchers’ findings of these sorts– is plain old selfish and mean.
How does it benefit you, or anyone, to take your stance? Come on, Brian.
Al Gore’s GW claims are disproven with facts. He is an opportunistic alarmist whose companies sell carbon credits. He is a hypocrite who flies in private jets, and tells the rest of us to avoid burning fuels, to change OUR lifestyles, and to buy carbon credits that directly yields profits for him. He is a big fat loser who lost the 200 election because he was too arrogant and too stupid to be elected, despite voter fraud in his favor in multiple states. He is also a traitor who claimed the US did things it did not do in Iraq and other places in the Middle East.
The earth is warming due to the earths’ cycling climate, not man made causes. The only thing AL Gore and the Greens are after, is you money and lots of it.
J
Hello Jason Gurskis:
I enjoyed your article on how green is a scooter. I rode several models for thousands of miles during my youth. My reason for responding? I am curious as to how green is bicycle riding and even walking on streets and roads that lack a wide paved shoulder or designated bike/walking lane. I think it is realistic to assign a miles walked or ridden per gallon of fuel consumption for such activities since most passing vehicles brake (de-accelerate) out of caution as they approach the restriction and then accelerate again to return to their normal driving speed.
Thousands of vehicles perform such bike/pedestrian accelerations daily in my area where the narrow roads are heavily driven by commuters. Riding a bike or walking on narrow roads may not be nearly as green an activity as everyone assumes. I wonder if their 2nd-hand fuel consumption exceeds that of a Vespa.
Thanks,
Ethan Skyler
P.S. Credit for this 2nd hand fuel consumption concern goes to my son, Robert Skyler.
(Please forward my comment to Vespa.)
Can we taxpayers buy a credit to have carbon footprints installed under this statue? Al we sure missed you during the election, but I guess you were smart enough to keep your mouth shut during real debates. A fitting tribute to a man with frozen mental processes.
omg…is there only one side to this web site?…global warming is real, no matter what the cause…have any of you noticed how much warmer our summers have been? do any of you realize that the reason our winters are colder is a direct result of “global warming?”…we have snow here in oregon…on the coast that is sticking!!! do some research for gods sake and wake up and smell the snow!!!it is a sign, and not that WE can do anything about it, it’s here, it’s here to stay (for now)…just prepare, what would it hurt? some of us have bomb shelters, and have for many years, even though the supposed inevitable attack never happened(and dont even go to 9/11), better safe than sorry, I always say.there is a movie(which I rarely use as research) called “The day after after tomorrow” which actually is pretty acurate as to what could happen as a result of global warming….tho a bit dramatized…not so far off the mark!!! another thing, quit picking on al gore?!? he did’nt dream this all up### he is going on the “notion of scientists” who really believe this is happening to our world, man made or not! come on people! something is happening out there, and I really dont think there is not much if anything we can do about it, but that is not a reason to be like the ostrich and pretend that things are’nt just a bit different now….u know they are, I know they are…so just admit it, and own up to the fact that if we do nothing, and just diss those who are trying to educate us, if down the pike things really go BAD, we really cannot say we were’nt warned….dave
They call it climate change more than global warming these days. That pretty well covers anything. More snow than ever? Well, that’s climate change my friend, and its your fault for farting and eating cheeseburgers.
I tend to side with the folks who believe that earths warming or cooling runs in cycles. There appears to be plenty of evidence to support those assertations. Gore’s platform is all about $$$. He hasn’t a real job and if he can get enough people sympathetic to his cause to pay him thousands of dollars to give speeches he won’t have to get one. He’s a flimflam artist. Any of you youngsters don’t know what that is, look it up. Your interest and concern regarding the environment is commendable but you’re being suckered. While we should clean up our environment as much as reasonably possible, our efforts will not amount to much in the long term scheme of things. Carbon footprint taxes, etc are just another way to get into your pocket and promote a selfserving ultra-liberal agenda. Those skeptical of Gore because he will not debate the issue have a right to be disgusted with him. If you are one of those people in Gore’s camp please explain his reluctance to debate the issue on camera.
I am tired of seeing the theory of “global warming” induced by human activity presented as fact. It is not fact yet constantly appears as such just about everywhere. Opinion is not fact. Consult a dictionary if you disagree.
Many if not most motorcycles produced today *do* have sophisticated emissions equipment and are as clean as cars. Anyone who knows anything about motorcycles knows this. I won’t comment about scooters because I don’t know whether scooter manufacturers have followed suit.
Now, Now naysayers! We all should just admit that global warming does exist and it is in fact manmade!!! Hasn’t anyone noticed that as soon as we started putting landers on Mars, it started warming as well! (LOL) Don’t worry, it can be easily fixed. We just all need to stop driving, heating our homes and….Breathing!
Gary Says:
January 29th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
Stupid, self-centered, ignorant conservatives!
Sounds more like we the unknowing lead by the ignorant, Al Gore
Who is to say what is the best temperature for the earth? Why do we assume that it is what we are used to? Why not be able to grow bananas and coconuts in Moscow?
The earth will do what it damn well pleases.
We are insignificant. Some people can’t accept that.
I tend to differ with the comment concerning scooters being too small to have a catalytic converter. My Kymco 150cc scooter gets 55+ mpg AND has a catalytic converter to conform with the California CARB requirements. Yes, it makes for a larger “can” for the muffler assembly, but the smaller overall size of the scooter obviously does not preclude it having a catalytic exhaust system. It’s all up to the manufacturer to design an “eco-friendlier” system for their products.
Alarmist but no scientific balance. They are taking only the worse case IPCC numbers. See Michaels and Balling,in the new book Climate of Extremes and then take the IPCC’s lower estimated sea level increase, 0.30 foot. Not a catastrophe. Even so, Antarctica is colder than ever, and its ice is increasing, not decreasing.
What about the city of the coast of India found at a depth of 120 feet in the Gulf of Cambay. Either the ice melted and the oceans rose to cover the city or the ocean was shallower by at least 120 feet and a great flood covered it.
No facts no proof just more unsubstantiated chicken little “the sky is falling” drivel off of computer models. Ask me what I can do with any computer model that I design. What a waste of space please Fox News you are better than this
Algore is and has always been a loser. He knows it and the American people know it(well, at least those americans who pay taxes and pay their own rent do). This global warming farce that he conjured up is nothing more or less than a means to try and get above this loser tag that haunts him. His balls must be really frosted now that his buddy Obamma doesn’t even acknowledge that he exists and has no plans to offer him a cabinet position. I wonder if his buddies, Hill and Bill, are still in communication with him. Probably not.
Author needs some real experience with motorcycles. period.
I regularly get 125 mpg on a 1986 honda elite 150 scooter that goes 65.
I can get almost 80 mpg on my 600cc 4 cylinder crotch rocket, and its faster than anything on 4 wheels.
Dont comment on motocycles until you actually know yourself.
The internet is about as reliable as a wikipedia when it comes to facts.
Go dig up real data.
As one of the “scientists” who everyone here seems to completely distrust I thought I’d clarify several things. Scientists no longer like the term “global warming”. A better phrase to explain what is happening is “climate change”. Overall there is a warming trend across the earth that is the result of a combination of natural trends AND man-made causes. The earth is a very complex system, and predicting what will happen isn’t always straightforward (think of how often your weatherman is wrong). What we do know is that the trends we are seeing now are not trends that have been seen in the past (over the last tens of thousands of years). Just because you have a few cold days doesn’t mean that climate change isn’t real. As a person who lives in Minnesota I can testify that it is still in fact cold, but that doesn’t negate all of the evidence we have showing us otherwise. The warming of the earth can cause all sorts of unexpected consequences. The melting of polar ice can lead to subtle changes in ocean currents (and therefore weather patterns) which can result in unusual weather phenomena (hot or cold). The fact is that among scientists there is really no debate over whether climate change is real and whether humans are to blame for a significant part of it. Obviously there are scientists who question these findings, but they make up a very small minority of researchers studying these trends. In the end, doesn’t it just come down to the old saying “better safe than sorry?” It is not difficult to make changes that will help minimize the damage to our planet, and in the long run improve our lives as well. Is it really that appealing to keep breathing polluted air and drinking polluted water when we have alternatives that are available and cost-competitive? Civilization has made changes like this in the past, and we need to own up to our actions and recognize their consequences to ensure our way of life can continue.
AL-Fraud should be charged & prosecuted for trying to perpetrate another scam on the citizens. He and his cronies have dreamed up this scam just as the financial shysters. Doesn’t people see that the LEFT (democrats) are always on the wrong side of the issues and invent some kind of crisis to relieve the working folks of their hard-earned money?
It’s great to see such a balanced debate and in-depth discussion of the complexities of the issue in this forum!
Maybe all you Fox ditto-head skeptics about global warming (and, apparently, everything remotely pro-environment) should look up the definition of the word “climate” before acting like expert climatologists. It has little to do with local, short-term weather patterns.
While you’re at it, read about Love Canal. Rainforest destruction. Or the rate of species extinction. Or the effect of air pollution on cancer and asthma.
Of course Gore doesn’t see anything wrong with exaggeration “if it will move people to act.” It is clear some people see Karl Marx’s statement in the Communist Manifesto that “The end justifies the means” as a true statement. As if there were no such thing as right or wrong. Come on, Al. If you can’t see anything but grey, at least stay out of the way. People will stop wasting resources when they see it is in their own best interest to do so. That is, of course, unless some fool comes along and gives them a wad of money to continue “business as usual”.
Okay, assume the penguins die out. I’d feel bad for the penguins, but would any other species benefit?
I’m reminded of the Lake Powell controversy. Damming the river killed an entire ecosystem but formed a new one. Releasing the dam would kill the existing ecosystem and form another one. Which ecosystem is best? Can you answer this question without deciding which species are worth our effort and which ones are not?
I’m not saying humans have caused global warming, but I wonder if any of it really matters from nature’s perspective anyway. Any thoughts?
Actually, no. Dense cities are much more energy efficient per inhabitant than rural communities. Many towns that have implemented “green tree” programs, including mine, where a high percentage of the coverage must remain deciduous have found the Law of Unintended Consequences kicking in. Sprawl, which causes very low adoption of public transportation (can’t make it work if everybody is going in different directions), which leads to long, single driver commutes.
They may look pretty, but per inhabitant are not energy efficient (Las Vegas not included)
The Earth has heated and cooler since its beginnings and species have come and gone. We can not save all the species and I suspect that when humans are extinct the planet will still be heating and cooling. We should be prudent in our use of energy but not foolish in our fears.
Oh, please. The movie went on and on about how many freeze to death in the march and as babies, about how the bitter cold is so treacherous, etc. Also, about how the long march kills many, or that the long wait while mom or dad marches causes many chicks to starve before food arrives. Warmer temps should mean more survive, not less. And less ice means a shorter march, which means food sooner and less starved chicks.
Yes, there are many other factors to consider, but that’s just the point. We can’t *know* exactly how all these many complex factors will interact until we actually *see* some results, so meanwhile we’re basing these “estimates” on incomplete computer models, and they’re not to be trusted without on-the-ground data to back them up. Note that the scientist said “*IF* the future behaves like the model predicts.” They don’t know.
More “the world is going to hell, give us more research money!” scare tactics.
Doesn’t anyone remember that trees feed on carbon dioxide? If we cut all carbon emissions down to a relative zero, it could also have adverse effects on the environment.
And I’d love to know the actual levels of crabon in our atmosphere, as this information is NEVER given out or disclosed in a fact-bound manner. Environemtalists are an interest group, seeking recompense for their “forward-thinking,” and “prescience.” They are no better than oil tycoons, plain and simple.
As noted by others, natural climate shift is inevitable. And even if we were having a big impact, there are still far, far, more pressing issues. We are rapidly overpopulating the earth and at the same time destrying long term abilty to produce food. We need to stop killing our fresh water and oceanic fisheries with pollution and end destructive fishing practices. We need to stop destructive modern “big ag” practices which destroy soil fertility, and animal factorys which radically pollute our waterways. And if we really got it together, we would be serious about ending nuclear proliferation. Worrying about global warming is like worrying about what color to paint the house while it burns down. Al Gore is a moron.
We cannot stop the cyclic warming and cooling of the earth, nor extinctions (Number 6 Upcoming). What little we can control, Cleaner living, responsible population expansion, requires a discipline and price humanity is unwilling to pay.
If you believe the 2012 event where earth, and sun are in center of Universe, where Black Hole is
and Suns 11 year Cycle is near its peak , many feel we are all nearing another extinction. Be it then, or some other day, isn’t the real question
Why can’t Humans overcome their emotions and live responsibly as a unified sentient advanced society ?
Greed, Lies, Arrogance, Selfishness, Ignorance, Anger can be overcome by Love, Intelligence , Awareness of a Higher Global calling… Unfortunately not within the current Global Political/economical landscape, nor any of earths past.
If only Al would melt, that would warm my heart ever so much.
Global Warming my foot. I work at a large university. You would not believe how the director has fallen for this BS. We are having a function in our auditorium this Friday. So he can tout how our school is so green. If I didn’t need my job, I would boycott.
What people who believe in global warming really need to do is kill themselves – HANG WITH ME HERE. This may seem over the top, but think about it. If you want to save mother Earth, you are the one producing all that bad CO2. Every time you breath, drive, or eat vegetables, you are increasing CO2 in the world. Be an example to others. If all the people that believed in global warming were not here, Earth (and everyone not buying this lie) would be better off! It really is a simple solution.
Instead of spending money developing crazy schemes like feeding iron shavings to plankton, why don’t these people spend the money on research and infrastructure for renewable fuels? If we drastically reduced the amount of gasoline fueled vehicles in the next five years and coal burning power plants in the next ten, nature would take care of the CO2.
Since our planet is on the tail end phase of the last ice-age, what would you expect? Shouldnt ice sheets melt? How about all you darwinist folks? Wont the creatures evolve to changing climates like they have for millions of years? Lets put Al Gore down there in Anartica. He can fly down in one of his Lear Jets and build a huge mansion to live in and monitor the situation on PBS.
If the climate in Antarctica were getting warmer, then it would seem that the penguins would actually fare better.
There would not be as many deaths during the long cold winters while the fathers are holding the eggs waiting for the mothers to return. And with less ice to traverse, the penguins would not have to travel as far from the hatching grounds to get to the ocean where they can then swim out to catch fish to eat.
They say the temp may warm 1 degree by the end of the century. I believe the movie said it was 102 below zero, does this mean penguins cannot survive if it is only down to minus 101?
Besides, I believe we are back at 1979 temps, back when the world was ending due to climate freeze.
There’s constantly talk about “Climate Change” and how we have to stop it. But people rarely stop to consider the simple fact that the climate simply changes over time. It’s a complex and dynamic system. Dynamic means “marked by usually continuous activity or change”. Climate is *supposed* to change. The Sahara desert used to be a sea bed. There’s a rainforest growing in Alaska and Canada. Continents drift. We can’t stop climate change. We can only adapt or die.
I may not be a “tree-hugger”, but I will give one an affectionate pat here and there. We *are* better served by being more environmentally concious.
Let’s just not tear down everything in a panic at something that’s supposed to happen.
Alarm over “climate change” is predicated on the notion that the alarmists know what the “correct” temperature of the Earth should be.
Am I the only one who finds this both arrogant and presumptuous?
The truth of the matter– the scientific FACT– is that global climate has varied widely over the course of the Earth’s history, and all this before the invention of the internal combustion engine or the coal-fired generator plant.
Given recent news of glaring errors in the data sets used to argue “climate change,” it is not even certain that the Earth is really warming.
From an engineering standpoint, pollution of any type represents inefficiency. We should always strive to improve the efficiency of our machinery. Yes, I want clean air to breath and clean water to drink.
And if climate change really is occurring, even if through natural processes, it behooves us to plan for the impact these changes will have on our food supply.
This does not, however, mean going off half-cocked by implementing absurd policies to “fix” what is not yet known or accepted to be broken.
By the way, most of us would be far less skeptical of the “global warming” bell-ringers if the high priest of this movement, Al Gore, didn’t live in a 10,000 square foot mansion that consumes electricity at a rate 12 times greater than the average household. Perhaps this is the most “inconvenient truth” of all.
The polar bear population in the north have increased dramatically since the 1970’s. The greenies (communists) have lied so loudly and repeatedly that the lie is now the headliner. They fill our school kids heads with the big lie. Same thing with the penguins. Get your filthy hands off our wildlife! Go back to russia or china you traitors!
Penguins have lived in Antarctica for at least hundreds of thousands of years. They have survived four great Ice Ages, which radically lowered the sea level of the oceans. Is it to be believed that these animals have not faced even more severe climate change in the past, than they do today?
The earth has been both much hotter, and much colder during the last million years, than it is today. Whichever way it changes, this will not be a new event in the world of nature, in the natural world of plants and animals. The animal kingdom has always faced these changes.
It seems presumptous for someone to predict the extinction of a species that has faced worse several times before.
Penguins live on the ice, correct? They hunt underwater, is that also correct? Assuming that these statements are true, I have come to the conclusion that global warming is a good thing for the penguins. The ice caps melt, forcing them to live closer to the sea, a.k.a. their food supply. The extra water in the sea would allow for their food supply to reproduce more readily (more space=more and bigger fish). The coldest days of winter would be fewer, allowing for more baby penguins to survive… If the Global Warming Myth is true, then penguins should be throwing Hawaiian themed parties pretty quickly!
Global warming, what a joke.
They are not “nuke plants”. They are nuclear energy plants. Far fewer lives have been lost to nuclear power disasters than to coal mine collapses and the black lung. If soctors had just given injections of iodine to the people effected by the Chernobyl meltdown, nobody would have died. But anyway. Nuclear plants are highly efficient, renewable resource plants. Go nuclear!
Everytime I see that green and yellow “WM”, I remember being stuck behind one of their trucks for over twenty miles on a narrow, two-lane road. As we drove along, 15 mph below the speed limit, a constant stream of papers, newspapers, boxes, plastic bags and other trash erupted from the top of the truck, redepositing itself all over the road and the ditches on both sides. When I was finally able to pass, I was able to see the operator — scrunched down in the seat, left foot up on the dash, stereo headset covering his ears, large, black sunglasses obscuring his vision, and his rear view mirrors appearing to be adjusted so the only thing he could see — was himself.
How like the pseudo environmental/ecology crowd! Blind to everything but their own political agenda. While some of your concerns have SOME merit, most of your solutions aren’t anywhere near the ballpark of reality, much less in left field.
Global Warming is political agenda with NO basis in fact. The earth continues to get cooler, long term scientific fact. Polar bears are not about to become extinct; there are more than five times as many now as thirty years ago. Most glaciers, and both polar ice caps, continue to grow. Fossil fuels have nothing to do with fossils, and continue to be made as a part of the dynamics of the cooling of the earth’s crust. And Bubba Bill’s gigantic hole in the ozone, which was small compared to previous holes, healed itself and quietly went away: Just as the REAL scientists always said it would.
If you want to really be involved with being a good steward of the planet, get out and buy a hunting license. You don’t need a gun, just go look. But the license pays for everything the PETA types claim to care about, while killing animals with their negligence. Learn about the SUBSTANCE of the planet, and forget the emotional, warm & fuzzy, feel-good garbage designed only to separate your wallet from your money, so the head of the Sierra Club can have a 4th or 5th Suburban or Hummer in their garage.
The answer is simple. They should do nothing, just like they want to. And in 3 years when all the lights turn off they can buy electricity from one of their neighbors at three times the price. That’s been California’s policy and look how good it has worked out for them. Brown outs and sky high energy prices. Destroyed for lack of wisdom.
Green Green Green seems to be the new catch phrase and is fashionable these days, bottom line is the greatest threat to global warming that nobody will say is OVER POPULATION bottom line. Maybe we should put catalytic converters on the leaf blowers too. Next will be a government tax on Beef and other animal foods for the gas they pass.
CO2 is not the problem…methane is the greenhouse gas we should be concerned about, but I don’t see President Obama enforcing carbon capture for cows! The whole thing is just downright silly. The earth has been here for billions of years before humans and will continue to be here billions of years after we are go. Are we, the human race, so egotistical to believe we can have any effect on geological forces?
What about electric and hybrid scooters? An electric produces ZERO emission and costs about 2 cents a mile to operate. The recent advances in Lithium-Ion battery technology have made road-capable electric scooters possible. That same technology is being used on Electric-Gas scooters to cut emissions and deliver well over 100MPG.
Rita, you gave away your level of ignorace as soon as you called a 2 by 4 and a 4 by 4 “planks”. They are framing lumber not planks. There must be a reason that Fox allows women to write for them, but it remains a mystery to me. Bring back CCA wood and screw this “green” crap
Do we have to use metallic iron? It is easier to produce very fine particles of iron oxide. Shortly after arriving in the salt water, the surface of an iron particle would be covered with iron oxide anyway, and eventually the whole particle would be oxidized, just as our cars are. In fact, a standard test for paint for steel is to spray the painted surface with salt water.
All of which does not change the fact that adding many tons of iron to the ocean could have unexpected consequences, as discussed above.
OTOH, congratulations to whomever we have to thank for this idea. IMHO, if we are going to do any good, we will need ideas like this one, outside the box, instead of just exploiting this emergency, like the global economic crisis, to extend government power farther and farther. Times like these are a godsend (whichever god they pray to) for the liberals and statists who don’t trust any of us to live free and prosper. Let’s all think about this and maybe we can come up with something even farther outside the box!
This article is ridiculous and inaccurate. The antartic ice pack is NOT melting, it IS growing. In the last 150 years the antartic snowfall has doubled, 150 foot high Power transmission line towers built in the 1960’s by ITT are almost completely buried in ice due to the accumulation, the Byrd research station is now buried under 50 feet of ice, the current South Pole research station is buried and they are building another one on the ice. The erroneous information being given to us is an attempt to manipulate us and our wallets. The above information can be found at “Ice Age Now” ((reference citation) its not my web site, nor do I get paid for advertising for them).
OK, so it gets locked away for 100 years. What happens at the end of that 100 years? Have you just banked it and then when the mortgage comes due it gets released? Where does it go, what happens to it? Does it change some how? Help me here.
The vast majority of the reported melt is from the arctic icecap. As the ice cap is floating, water levels will drop as the north polar ice melts. The same holds for floating south polar ice off the continental land mass. Floating ice displaces more volume than the same melted ice. This drop in ocean levels would be reversed by the extent of purely land located glacial melt.
Where does that 2 cents per mile of electricity come from to power your eco-scooter? Ever heard of a base load power plant? What about the mining for Lithium-Ion battery raw materials? What about production waste streams for handling light metals? Where to Lithium-Ion batteries go to die? I’ll bet they go where water bottles go…landfills. And don’t tell me solar and wind; same arguments apply toward mining, production, and disposal, as well as storage for cloudy or calm days. There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.
At the rates barraging us through the media, Manhattan should have been swallowed up by the sea.
Stop the insanity — stop reporting this re-re-re-regurgitated crap!
The world now knows that climate change is really about creating the conditions and restrictions that define who makes money and who pays the bill, by writ of law.
Absolute B.S. Like saying death is certain as temps. went up 40 degrees(f), between 6 a.m. and 6 P.M., and concluding within 36 hours everybody will be dead. Comparing satellite data with old tide gauge data. Apples and oranges. What these people are really saying is ” keep the money flowing, as i have a cushy job,pension, travel allowance, etc. Never mind that i don’t produce anything.”
Every form of power generation has drawbacks: oil and coal particulates cause acid rain; windmills are “raptormatics”, killing birds and prone to mechanical breakdowns; solar requires huge amounts of land and glass – glass production being one of the more dangerous industries; hydro floods huge tracts of land, destroying wildlife habitats; ethanol uses up valuable food stores; nuclear fission produces no particulates, but the resulting waste is extremely toxic and long-lived; only nuclear fusion holds promise for a truly clean energy source (assuming we can find a proper neutron-resistant material for the reactor walls).
The real question is this: are we using power intelligently? Why do corporate workers drive to work every day when 90% of what they do in the office could be done virtually from home? Where is the robust video-conferencing software that makes corporate travel for in-person meetings obsolete? Our cultural mindset needs to change rather than simply building more and bigger power plants to continue our wasteful corporate habits.
Sorry Rita, Gardiner missed the point (and apparently alot more), we’re talking wood and plastics here Gardiner, all types of uses, all types of sizes(ie; framing, timbers, planks, siding, you get my point) a rose is a rose.
Wood will always have its place for woodworkers and preferred applications, but at times, I prefer the re-cycled (molded or extruded) plastics to wood. It cuts like wood, its strong like wood, and it replaces old rotted wood in marine application very well but I don’t have to paint it every year like like wood (I like wood but I hate to paint). So for me, I’ll keep using both.
I can’t believe modern nations are basing their energy policies on fraudulent, junk science. For those who haven’t looked at the statistics, the earth has been cooling for 9 years. The AGW scam is destroying the global economy, and will inevitably lead to another world war. Go nuclear power!
JUST MORE MIS-CONSTRUED B.S
IF WE OR OBAMA REALLY WANTED TO HELP THE ENVIR. AND THE US ECONOMY , HE WOULD MAKE IT LAW THAT ALL 18 WHEELERS AND BIG TRUCKS BURN NATURAL GAS BY 2010, AND SPONSER THE CONVERSIONS AND STATION INFRASTRUCTURE WITH GOV. BONDS.THE USA HAS MORE NATURAL GAS THAN WE COULD EVER USE UP, IT’S CHEAP AND WAY CLEANER THAN ANYTHING ELSE.PLUS THE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS WE SEND TO OUR ENEMIES IN THE MIDDLE EAST WOULD STAY HERE IN OUR ECONOMY!
Fill a glass (it matters not what size or shape the glass is is shaved, crushed, cubed, chunked or any other shaped ice (don’t fill the glass with water and freeze it). You want the glass filled with as much ice as it will hold (including some above the rim).
Now fill the glass with water to the rim.
Carefully dry the outer surface of the glass.
Put the glass on a folded napkin. (It is possible
that some water may condense some unrelated water out of the air.)
Report back in twenty four hours exactly how much water overflowed from the glass–be honest about discounting the condensate.
Global Warming..otherwise known as the Scientist Full Employment Act. Goerge Bush had 1,300 of these climate science guys on the federal payroll. He got suckered too.
Does anyone really take these responses seriously? After all we aren’t exactly trained scientists qualified to rebut years of well considered research. It like asking a herd of cows if they are getting nervous about slaughter day.
This is exactly what they’ve been doing for over twenty years now, misrepresenting what the data actually is and what it shows. The world is not going to end but we are going to suffer, not from warmth and rising sea levels, but from food and energy crises caused by trying to prevent that which we cannot.
How does Carbon dioxide (CO2) get into our upper atmosphere when it’s molecular weight is about twice that of water. I don’t need to see the models of how high flying carbon dioxide can affect global temperatures. I’m sure it will affect global temperatures once it gets into the upper atmosphere. I just need to see one computer model or any other kind for model of how carbon dioxide gets into our upper atmosphere.
Remember the molecular weight of carbon dioxide is about 44. The molecular weight of H2O is about 24. Every thing is affected by gravity whether it’s a gas, liquid, or solid. See if anyone can map carbon dioxide coming from a tail pipe and floating into the upper atmosphere when it has the weight is has. If Oxygen can’t float into out upper atmosphere how can Co2 weighing twice as much..
Trees breath carbon dioxide. Don’t trees grow close to the ground?
Frank Lamm
Greenwood IN
If the molecular weight of CO2 is 44 and the weight of O2 is about 22. How can CO2 get into our upper atmosphere? Sea weed breaths CO2, so it must be heavier than water. Plankton, where we get most of our oxygen, breaths CO2. Never saw plankton in our upper atmosphere. It grows in the oceans, beneath the water. We have to carry Oxygen with us when we climb some mountains and it weighs half as much as Co2. Actually CO2 weighs more than H2O, but remains gaseous at normal temperatures.
If CO2 is the problem, the only way we can get it to our upper atmosphere is to fly it up there. And the people who tell us about global warming fly the most. We now have 2,000,000 commercial jet flights a year. And the spike in the one degree C actually occurred after jet air travel.
Yet there is no money in decreasing air travel. There is money buy charging me to drive my Civic and charging farmers for the CO2 coming from their pigs.
There was a big difference in the apostolic temperature, the measurable difference of the day and night temperature during the few days after 9-11, the week we stopped air flight over the US.
Have people watch a camp fire. The smoke goes up because the smoke is heated, then you see it start going horizontal at about 200-300 feet. That’s because the CO2 from a camp fire is heavier that air or O2. How about hot air balloons. Ever see them in our upper atmosphere?
I really don’t believe you guys want this matter to die with facts. I need to know how CO2 gets into our upper atmosphere with out flying it up there. Watch a jet some time. Those com trails you see from the back of them spread out and linger and is carried by the jet streams. The CO2 will come down eventually, but stays in the jet stream much longer. If it’s produced on the ground, co2 would never get into the upper atmosphere.
I say let them go after air travel instead of my car, if they are serious.
More garbage from people who are listening to Al Gore and his own personal vision of an ecological apocalypse.
Climate fluctuates, just like weather. The impact of anything humans do is not relevant on a planetary scale.
Creation “Science,” 9/11 Truther “Science,” and now AGW “Science.”
I realize the AP isn’t going to hire any writers who might rely on and present facts, or reality, or main stream science. But I expect more from Fox News.
I have seen a reduction in fuel consumption in my Lexus on the highway by 24+% and figure I average 17 to 19% with a very significant reduction in emissions by about 75% …. how is that for reducing my Carbon Footprint? What are you doing?
Good for gas, diesel and biofuels and any combustion engine or oil furnace.
I don’t know why more people aren’t looking at this simple to use and money saving ( not a cost bearing product ) …..
Bottom line its good for the environment and your pocket book.
Cities could clean up the air and save tax payers a lot of money.
Regards, and share the word …. clean air and save your money.
Eric Hoot
The sad truth is that the “green” politicians in Australia refused to let people clear brush and fallen wood because it would “ruin pristine nature” and animal habitation. People had been clearing the underbrush for years and keeping the grasses low. Now they were restricted and the entire place became a fire hazard. Now millions of animals are dead, more than 100 people have died, and the politicians can only say, “Sorry.” The green movement is nothing more than a bunch of murdering thugs.
Human activities contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so Dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small – perhaps undetectable – effect on global climate.
There are ALWAYS Positive effects to Change. Has anyone considered the ways Global Warming is Helping Humans? The Over a mile thick Glacier covering Michigan BEFORE the Earth went through its latest warming period, sure would make living tough. THEY say “Man Made Global Warming”, I say “Global Warming Made Man”. Most of These Global Warming Fanatics do not pay attention to the Scientific Method, They act as a CULT.
Stupidity Runs Rampant in America!
“When the Arctic Ocean ice melts, it never raises sea level because floating ice is floating ice, because it’s displacing water,” James O’Brien, an emeritus professor at Florida State University said. “When the ice melts, sea level actually goes down.
“I call it a fourth grade science experiment. Take a glass, put some ice in it. Put water in it. Mark level where water is. Let it met. After the ice melts, the sea level didn’t go up in your glass of water. It’s called the Archimedes Principle.”
We are all scared to death now. It’s like the old Friday night fright night movies they were so hokey you couldn’t keep your eyes off of them but you knew all along nothing you were seeing was real!
Can the writer of this column and put something of consequence and value in its place.
Over the past 40 years, the temp has risen 4.8 degrees? That is not a scientific analysis of climate change. One must go back to first recordings of temperature in north america and that was long before 1969. If it had been studied from 1809 to 2009, the study would carry more weight.
These Global Warming shock stories are un-scientific and only hurt the actual study of climate change.
1/3 of the birds are moving south. 2/3’s of the birds are moving North. How do we know that this doesn’t follow some longer cycle of bird migration? Also, look at the distances measured. Most of the birds are only moving a few miles North and not a vast distance to be attributed to 4.8 degrees in temperature change. Please don’t damage the credibility of the Global Warming community with these silly stories.
It’s amazing how observant and intelligent the readership is. It’s obvious that the gov’ts of the world are using this propaganda to control their citizens. If elected officials had any common sense, they would discover they could use that to lead the world instead of phoney propaganda. Too bad they prefer corruption.
Looks like the “Theory of Evolution” is working out quite well. A changing Climate fits right into the theory, like putting your hand into a glove. On the other hand, everyone knows that Global Warming propaganda is controlled by the cash flow. I would say arson and natural weather events have caused the fires.
When floating ice melts, does the water level rise?
Seed Expert Claude Baudoin writes:
Water expands when it freezes, so you might think that when it melts and reduces in size, the water level will go down. Alternatively, because part of the ice floats the water, you might think that when it melts, the water level will rise.
Neither is true, as explained by Archimedes principles.
When an ice cube (or an iceberg, which is a big ice cube) floats in water, then by definition the weight of the ice cube is exactly equal to the buoyancy force, which is equal to the weight of the displaced water.
When the ice cube melts, its volume changes, but its weight is conserved (law of the conservation of mass). So the melted water from the ice cube has exactly the same weight as the water that was displaced by the ice cube when it was frozen — therefore the volume of melted water fits exactly in the previously displaced volume — and the water level stays the same.
Note that this argument applies only if the ice cube is made of the same water as the water that it is floating in. This is true, for example, with the Arctic ice pack, which is made of frozen sea water. However, it is not true for Antarctic icebergs, which are blocks of fresh-water ice from the continent that are floating in salt-water sea. In this case, we must take into account that the salt water is denser than the fresh water. The fresh-water iceberg still weighs as much as the weight of the displaced salt water, but because of the difference in density, the volume of melted fresh water will be slightly greater than the displaced volume of salt water — so when the iceberg melts, the water level will rise, although the difference is very small.
The Florida Orange and Strawberry growers sure would like some of that global warming. They keep getting pushed further and further south due to increase in cold weather since 1980s.
This and many other facts do not seem to make the news since it does not fit the new UN Obama socioeconomic justice spread the wealth plan.
The Florida Orange and Strawberry growers sure would like some of that global warming. They keep getting pushed further and further south due to increase in cold weather since 1980s.
This and many other facts do not seem to make the news since it does not fit the new UN Obama socioeconomic justice spread the wealth plan.
The Florida Orange and Strawberry growers sure would like some of that global warming. They keep getting pushed further and further south due to increase in cold weather since 1980s.
This and many other facts do not seem to make the news since it does not fit the new UN Obama socioeconomic justice spread the wealth plan.
The Florida Orange and Strawberry growers sure would like some of that global warming. They keep getting pushed further and further south due to increase in cold weather since 1980s.
This and many other facts do not seem to make the news since it does not fit the new UN Obama socioeconomic justice spread the wealth plan.
We all would like to save a little money on our electric bill, but these 17 degree winters in Central Florida are making it difficult.
On average Central Florida households us 35% more KWH of electricity in the winter than they did in 1979. Fifty percent or more of the average households electricity bill is for heating and cooling the home. Guess what, KWH usage is down in the summer in Florida.
The Florida Orange and Strawberry growers sure would like some of that global warming. They keep getting pushed further and further south due to increase in cold weather since 1980s.
This and many other facts do not seem to make the news since it does not fit the new UN Obama socioeconomic justice spread the wealth plan.
40 miles, huh? On the whole, that’s statistically insignificant, considering the ranges involved. What’s more, the study only covered 40 years. If you go back 70 to 100 years, and look in the old encyclopedias (1929 World Book), you’ll find that most of these birds wintered farther north that they do now. The Sandhill Crane, especially, was wintering in Southern Indiana! The purple finch in Maine (where it has been displaced by other finches recently). Studies such as this one are limited in scope and should not be used to paint broad conclusions.
Also notice that 1/4 moved south slightly, 1/2 moved north slightly, 1/4 didn’t move at all. Sounds like 1/2 of them didn’t move north to me.
Did Cazenave’s data include the fact that there is a greater number of people going to the beach swimming now than in the 70’s? World population tripled, increase in number of whales due to the ban on whale hunting, another island pushed up in Hawaii… stuff like that is filling up that beaker, Doc, so of course the measurement would be higher. With each rain storm, another hundred pounds of sediment is washed to sea daily – filling it up. Yes, I’m sure the water is rising but the ice has only been there for 4,400 years – you can’t put all of the blame on ice caps.
Hell, before the flood there was hardly ANY bodies of standing water. I’d like to take you back 5,000 years ago so you could see the trees growing all over the world: Antarctica, Greenland, the low spots between Europe and America (Atlantic Ocean area) and then you could see that with the deflection of the Sun’s harmful UV rays with an additional protective barrier encompassing the world how all the plants and animals would continuously grow to gigantic proportions – a global hyperbaric chamber. Then a cataclysmic flood washing everything together and distributing the contents into piles – Just where did you think all that coal came from or large collections of dinosaurs bones? Yep, left behind like refuse on today’s beaches – all washed up and left in concentrated areas. Ever wonder why things lived for 500-800 hundred years back then but after the flood timeframe things are lucky to see 100? You do know how an X-ray works, right? Billions of tiny holes being shot through your body… imagine not having that happen every single day from the Sun… try this, look at your grass under your trampoline – what? It actually grows higher… why? UV protection. Genius.
Getting back to your Earth shaking story-now in the last 100 years (since we started burning combustion engines all over the world) what did you expect would happen? It doesn’t take a genius to realize that heat melts ice so why are they spending millions of Dollars (Euros) for scientists and their collecting data from satellites when I could have told you that tidbit of information without all that excess spending. Want to throw money away? Give it to me. Want to save the earth? Use that money (you would have saved after you paying me) on finding a replacement for fossil fuels. You should have titled this story “Heat Melts Ice” because that’s the bottom line of your millions spent in research.
Rodger Andersen
Let’s see. 12 Inches divided by 1/8 inch per year = 96 years. 98 Years before the ocean would rise a foot, not 11 feet like Al Bore keeps lying about.
We do not know the weather next week let alone for several years. CO-2 is a weak green house gas. The whole thing is a big scam for big government so it can tsx air. Rebel now before it is too late.
Guy’s,
Climate change, glacier/icecap melt, and rising sea levels are observable facts. They exist and are accelerating. To deny this is like denying the Sun rising in the East.
If you want to argue what the impact will be or that the causes are not man-made, fine. Those are valid points-of-view.
But to argue that climate change is fiction makes you look like the ignorant wanks that you are.
CO-2 is a very weak green house gas. The rate of temperature incresase has not changed since we entered the indusrial age and began burning oil and coalin large amounts. We cannot impact the natural course of climate change by tinkering with a minor variable. What is really going on is an attempt to scare the public into accepting more control over their lives and more taxes this time on Air. As public acceptance of the need to do something now Al Bore and his friends have become more shrill in their baseless demands for limits on CO-2. Who is paying Al?
Such Baloney. I wonder who pays the originator of this “data”. False Premise Argument: The 10% of the atmosphere’s component of CO2 that is generated by Mankind(10% of .038%) is causing the Earth’s climate to become warmer. Therefore, Seas rise, Australia burns, Birds go farther north and so on. There exists no proof through scientific observation that shows CO2 warms the planet, presently or historically. Only conjured extrapolations from computerized climate models.
Socialist’s desire to control and limit capitalism is the true root motive behind this doomsday alarmism. Now many people have been duped by the false premise argument and champion “green” issues honestly. But don’t be fooled. This “Climate Change” falsehood is a major threat to the freedom we enjoy. It is a Socialist subterfuge of the highest order. GREEN is the new RED. As an American, it is my patriotic duty to counter this threat.
Such Baloney. Paragraph four belies the headline. Except for the last sentence, pure conjecture. False Premise Argument: The 10% of the atmosphere’s component of CO2 that is generated by Mankind(10% of .038%) is causing the Earth’s climate to become warmer. Therefore, Seas rise, Australia burns, Birds go farther north and so on. There exists no proof through scientific observation that shows CO2 warms the planet, presently or historically. Only conjured extrapolations from computerized climate models.
Socialist’s desire to control and limit capitalism is the true root motive behind this doomsday alarmism. Now many people have been duped by the false premise argument and champion “green” issues honestly. But don’t be fooled. This “Climate Change” falsehood is a major threat to the freedom we enjoy. It is a Socialist subterfuge of the highest order. GREEN is the new RED. As an American, it is my patriotic duty to counter this threat.
Please note: It is Global Climate change (now that we are actually in a cooling trend) and the Climate has been changing ever since there has been climate. There is nothing we can do to stop, reverse or affect climate change. The earth’s normal climate patterns for the last 65 million years has been ice ages, with brief (10,000) year warm times. We are currently into year 10,500 of our current warm time, so we are overdue for another ice age.
pure malarky refuted by 31,000+ scientists http://www.petitionproject.org/
and that is just in the US. worldwide the number is much higher.
Per NOAA ice is at 1979 levels less 3%. Record cold temps being set all over the world. http://www.iceagenow.com
November 24th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
We need to change this to say, “How stupid are you” instead of how Green. This has to be one of the stupidest ideas I have come across thus far in the history of man kind. Someone explain to me, if evolution exist, then it is most apparent in today’s society where the people are de-evolving into stupid animals or could this be the mixing of the nations as for-told in the Bible.
Go read the Bible, do something productive with your lives.
November 24th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
What’s next? Is Ave Maria U going to measure stool samples to see just how well the body is digesting food. This would further cut down waste as they can force the students to scale back on the amount of fecal matter they create. Team up with Cheryl Crow and you can use one sheet of T.P. to clean-up.
Get serious Greenies
November 24th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
Green used to be my favorite color (I’m Irish…Excuse me… Irish-American) Until the Environuts got a hold of it.
November 24th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
This will not work. Until the unlimited bufet at most college campuses ends, the students will not care because, to be blunt, they student meal plan covers it. However, if they were allotted only so much per week, with the ability to rollover to the following week, for meals at the cafeteria, then they would care. Being a college kid is just like Wall Street, you do not care unless it affects your purse strings.
November 25th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Finally, something is being done about wasted food! God has blessed us abundently and we can thank Him by not wasting His gifts to us. It is a bad habit or is it a sin? And remember “Waste not, Want not” This is an excellent “experiment” in an excellent university. Thanks!
November 26th, 2008 at 11:27 am
We are very fortunate to have all that we have in this country. Including the copious amounts of food that we produce. That others in Africa DON’T have food is NOT our fault, or OUR problem. Think of this a cold if you want, but you also KNOW that it’s true. Aren’t we helping the poor peoples of the Earth? Aren’t we, the United States of America, already doing MORE THAN all the rest of the world combined, to help keep those people from starving? The answer, in case your trying to rationalize yourself a “NO” is
YES. Don’t try and lay a guilt trip on any good citizen because of your own moral misgivings. Another cold hard fact, is that the people in Africa keep having more and more and more children, and they have more and more and more children, and the endless stream of poverty perpetuates itself. Again, not our f-ing fault, or our f-ing problem. When the h-ll will it ever end, and when are we ever going to stop seeing those skinny sick little kids on tv and people whining about helping them. Oh and by the way, I give more money, and a higher percentage of my income to charity than slow Joe Biden.
November 26th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
Just a few years ago I as a parent learned that the technequic my mother used at the dinner table led to obscenity.–”John there are starving kids in China that have no food. You can not leave the table until you eat everything off your plate.”–
Now you want to start it again. How about we lose the liberal teachings at our schools and teach personal responsibility. Then maybe our kids will be more responsible overall. It worked with our parents…
November 26th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
This is a real joke!!!!! The earth’s atmosphere has been changing for millions of year. It will continue to change even after we are long gone.
November 27th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Why the negative comments. What they are doing is a symbolic gesture to draw attention to a real problem. Great going co-eds.
November 29th, 2008 at 6:49 am
Thankyou John B for an extremly rational response.
I dont believe keeping my brain engaged makes me any the less a careing person. It just makes it possible for me to focus my careing on where it will do the most long term good
November 29th, 2008 at 11:03 am
LOOK AT THE MESSAGE PEOPLE, NOT THE UNDERWEAR!! AFTER ALL THEY ARE JUST PIECES OF CLOTHING!! GREAT IDEA KIDS FOR BRINGING AWARENESS TO THIS PROBLEM.
November 29th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Wow. Comments by that other John B are pretty disturbing. Neither the article nor the other bloggers even brought up the topic of Africa. Yet this guy’s expletive-filled rant shows so little empathy, and misses the point of the article. Nothing he says justifies the waste of food. Charity giving and Joe Biden have nothing to do with the article. Republicans like this guy embarrass Republicans like me. What does liberalism or conservatism have to do with this?The student meal plan comments by James Grimes are well taken – all-you-can-eat buffets (contractually due to the food service vendors themselves) contribute to food waste. By the name of this university, I assume it’s probably a private school and most likely Catholic – a lesson in personal responsibility sounds like a great idea for our spoiled younger generation.
John B., M.D.
November 29th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
I’m sure their intentions were good, but isn’t the message basically “Don’t pollute”??? Isn’t hanging socks and bras and underwear all over the place a form of pollution? (Particularly if they don’t go back and clean it up later?)
Good in concept, but they might have thought this one through a bit more.
Jonathan
http://www.GreenJoyment.com
November 29th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
John, did you perhaps mean obesity, rather than obscenity? Then again…………..
November 30th, 2008 at 3:03 am
This is a stupid article.Why give students engaged in such useless activity a platform to stand on? America has ceased to produce intellects,scholars,great men of science, the reason why can be seen in this article as it reflects mens rea of the American scholastic community nation wide
November 30th, 2008 at 9:08 am
John B and John Doe both make excellent points. It is indeed about personal responsibility. College kids waste because they’ve been brought up by parents who allowed them to do so at home. Liberal thinking allows waste and yet it allows guilt over Third Worlders who can’t control themselves. Conservative thinking and Conservative values did indeed make this country strong, and only Conservative values will keep us that way in the face of a Liberal world view and a Liberal United Nations. We, as a nation, have done all we can to help the rest of the world, and now they despise us for still having more than they do because they have no self-control.
November 30th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
Why not instead change how food is served? I’m at a Buffet style university, and if they did something like only give one main meal (out of a choice of three) and two or three sides (out of a choice of five or six) instead of sections of sides and main meals, then more food would be saved.
With this, you can’t start from the bottom and expect the change to happen. You have to start from the top. The students won’t mind much, just let the football players/ sports people go back for 2nds (They need it!)
December 1st, 2008 at 6:17 am
The correct response to the staffer is, “Go wipe some tables, would ya?!?”
December 1st, 2008 at 9:32 am
Are they selling any of them?
December 1st, 2008 at 10:53 am
Humans will not be satisfied until we’re the only living things on this planet. Trying to save food or habitat for other life forms is akin to flogging a dead horse. I have given up.
December 1st, 2008 at 10:01 pm
yeah.. that’s pretty much the most retarded thing I’ve heard all day. Along with the comments of people supporting it.
December 2nd, 2008 at 6:06 am
Honestly, you are full of yourself if you seriously think that how little or much food you waste means one jot to starving people in third world countries. If you feel compassion for them, do something about it. Simply wallowing in guilt is shallow and meaningless.
December 2nd, 2008 at 10:47 am
I think there is something to say for both sides of the argument. Yes, the students are paying for the food they throw away, they are allowed to throw away whatever is theirs, right. But at the same time, teaching conservation is a good thing. I say, let the crazies keep crazying (it’s what balanced the over zealous), but make sure we don’t go too far. Tell kids about the waste, tell them to conserve, but don’t enforce too strict rules.
December 3rd, 2008 at 12:17 pm
What “scientist” came up with this 350 parts per million figure? Why is everything said about this theory taken as fact? This is crazy.
December 4th, 2008 at 9:47 am
What about the food left over after each mealtime is complete?? Does the school invite the homeless and destitute into the cafeteria to eat the rest of it so it doesn’t go to waste?? Or is the food thrown away, like it is at any other institution (sometimes required by law)??
December 4th, 2008 at 10:31 am
I am a single mom & when my daughter was little I had very little money for food. We never had to miss a meal (thank God), but came very close and how precious every morsel becomes is something I think you have to experience to understand.
December 4th, 2008 at 10:56 am
I think what they did was good and completely un-political. Sometimes you just need to see your actions from a different perspective.
Also- our food consumption in the U.S. directly affects other country’s ability to acquire food.
We pay higher prices for more food and poorer people can’t afford to buy. So if we bought less and ate what we needed, the price of food would go down & it would be more affordable for others.
BTW- I am a conservative.
December 4th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Janet, don’t give up!
December 4th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
You would think that they teach us history classes in higher education to learn from the past. The earth’s ecosystems all rely on the most miniscule organsims to survive. When is someone going to realize that once many of the earth’s animals are extinct and plants have been destroyed that it will all come back to bite mankind in the butt? I can almost guarantee that these krill that fisheries are hunting will no doubt affect the ocean’s biggest and smallest creatures. What are those fish eating people going to do when there are no more fish to eat; since all the krill that they eat are extinct?!
December 4th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
Oh pu-leeeze stop whining about damaging the planet. I can’t take it anymore. Maybe instead of using Krill to feed animals/people, the can grind up penguins and seals instead? That takes care of that problem and leaves more krill for the rest of us.
December 4th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
The scale of the carbon fraud is truly frightening.
December 4th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
Avaviel’s got it right here.
Wasting food isn’t the problem exactly. It’s a symptom of the real challenge, which is that people don’t value food.
We’ve gotten so far away from what it actually takes to produce the things we’re putting into our bodies, and that distancing has led to our belief that taking too much and then dumping it later is okay. It’s part of the same reason we’re an obese country. We overeat because we don’t realize the value of food (and I’m not talking about the “value” menu at McDonald’s either).
We start to make changes by changing people’s thoughts. We don’t change people’s thoughts by challenging their behaviors, but rather by finding out what’s important to them, and then helping them understand how their behaviors run contrary to their beliefs.
Interesting experiment, but I don’t think it was a good use of time or money to pay this person to stand by the trash can.
Jonathan
http://www.GreenJoyment.com
December 4th, 2008 at 9:19 pm
[...] Take Off Underwear to Be ‘Green’ Underwear project at Allegheny College Coeds’ Underwear to Send ‘Green’ Message Share and [...]
December 5th, 2008 at 12:14 am
Has anyone actually tried college food? Seriously, the college I went to (like a year ago) had terrible food!! Like we didn’t want to waste the food but at times it would be under cooked or tasted so terrible that you would get sick off it. In fact there were those lovly nights that the restrooms in the dorms would be filled because of the food. I do believe in not wasting food, but on the same hand, I don’t want to get sick off it. Therefore, at my college you needed to pick and choose what to eat. Most times, you can decided what is decent but there are those time that it was bad.
December 5th, 2008 at 8:41 am
im with billy, your all whiners!!!
December 5th, 2008 at 9:51 am
UVM , Champlain College, and others slashed their food waste getting rid of the trays, just a plate. Saved a lot of water and energy not washing trays.
After getting rid of the trays there was much less uneaten food in the compost barrels.
December 5th, 2008 at 9:55 am
hey screw yuo guys with all th negativity!! WTF are you doing to better the world we live in, leaving for our children?? I’ll tell you nothing! Yes the world changes cycle’s all the time but if we keep wasteing resources and brain like u morons than there won’t be a world to live on. now go collect you’r welfare worthless ones. Good job students you got my support!!!
December 5th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Numbers? I see the 400 million metric ton estimate, but how much is being harvested each year? How much krill is reproduced each year? How much do the whales and penguins need? Without numbers this is just propaganda. I’m also a little confused as to why it’s perfectly acceptable for whales and penguins to eat krill but it’s earth-ending for humans to do so. I don’t care how extreme-vegan you are, everything you eat is a potential food source for something else.
December 5th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Billy
You are a complete imbecile! We have to maintain a balance. It is the responsibility of the human race to make sure we manage our resources on this planet. The problem is, most other nations could give a crap about resource management. Humans are killing this planet. We will eventually become extinct and the planet will rejuvenate itself unless we do manage our resources.
December 5th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Cute – college kids do know that sex sells, even in the “global warming” news arena. It’s just sad that these brains full of mush have been taught this hoax of global warming and the fraud of carbon dioxide as a pollutant.
There is not only no scientific consensus on human-caused global warming (regardless of what Al Gore might say), there’s no evidence of it whatsoever. Zilch.
Honestly, if you’re so worried about carbon dioxide in the environment – stop exhaling.
December 5th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
LOL, Billy. I agree. The number of extinct species is far greater than the number of living ones. It’s the natural course of things. I think it naive to think man can alter the course of the earth.
December 5th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
Well, as long as we do not over harvest the krill, no big deal, good source of food for some countries. I’m sure we will over harvest though, it is, after all, the human way, excess.
December 5th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
Unlimited buffet? I’ve been to 3 colleges, and have never seen such a thing.
December 5th, 2008 at 8:51 pm
I’m sure some of the undies were green. Probably some of the students, too.
If you are worried about carbon emissions, don’t exhale.
December 6th, 2008 at 7:18 am
hahaha John Doe – I teach at a university in china and don’t tell your Mom but the students here do the same thing. Only difference is that a guy with a bicycle cart comes by after meals and carries off the drums of yuck. They feel it to pigs.
December 6th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
Why does it matter about food that is wasted? First of all if we pay for it, it is then ours to do what we will with it. Secondly, bringing awareness about “food waste” seems like another way to guilt people into feeling horrible about being American. Just like the people in America who are becoming increasingly ashamed to buy whatever they wish just becuase they can. This guilt is brought on by the media and is only hurting the economy. This is American, if u can afford buy it and then do as you wish with it, like THROW IT AWAY.
December 7th, 2008 at 8:39 am
if doing laundry really increases carbon emissions, then how about committing to creating less dirty laundry by doing away with the underwear altogether? some tree huggers don’t shave, some don’t use deodorant, now we can create less dirty laundry!!! next target: toothpaste. the stupidity of this all, i’ve seen many of these people smoking – which is a definite source of carbon emission.
December 7th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
This is just stupid. Are you serious. As environmental students you can’t think of something better to do that to hang underwear outside. Can’t you find an oil spill or go to a forest where deforesting is threatening a species or something. Honestly, it’s just dumb. And all that talk bout how we’re screwing up the environment, i think it’s pretty arrogant to think that in the eons the earth has evolved that we can have the sole cataclismic changing hand on it’s fate. The world has been super-heated and super-chilled several times in it’s history, and to think we’re going to have any say in the matter is ludicrous.
December 8th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
lol @ billy
December 8th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Nix the buffet and hire lunch ladies to ration the food. That will solve the problem.
December 8th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Boycott GREEN!!!
I will NEVER buy or support anything labeled ‘green’!
“Join me!”
Green = Communism
December 8th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
So no species ever went extinct or was overhunted before mankind arrived? As usual…how do we discern when a species was meant to end prior to our existence? It’s impossible to play this game.
December 8th, 2008 at 8:14 pm
How telling the food minders that it is none of their *&^**@ business, ’cause it isn’t. I am so done with liberal guilt trips and feel good blather. It’s pap for the masses.
December 9th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
What a leech. Maybe I should sue these AGW frauds for pain, suffering, and mental anguish due to the extra stress caused by worrying about non-existent AGW. Maybe some of us can get together and file a class-action suit. Anyone interested???
December 9th, 2008 at 7:09 pm
The will they be reimbursed for the positive effects of global warking. Like, being able to grow crops further north in Canada and Russia? Fewer people being killed in accidents due to less ice and snow fall? If you are going to punish them for the bad effects, then it is not fair to not reward them for the good effects.
December 10th, 2008 at 1:24 am
This is obsurd! This country wonders how we got into a recession and why businesses can’t survive; It’s because everyone and their mother want free money to compensate them for any suffering they have ever endured. We are truly a n ation of powder puffs and we are very lucky to even have a select few with the heart and the courage to defend it. I think anyone who has ever tried suing for human error should probably ask themselves, “Have i ever messed up and hurt another person?”
December 10th, 2008 at 2:32 am
Environmentalism is stupid.
Aside from fish, there is nothing we can eat that does not require either the exploitation of farm animals or the conversion of wilderness to farmland. And we can’t eat fish, we might accidentally kill a dolphin trying to catch a tuna. Thus, we have nothing to eat.
Houses are made from hundreds of non-green materials, wood being the primary material. Even switching to bricks requires burning something to fire the bricks, and thus increases carbon levels. Living in natural shelters (like caves) displaces the delicate ecosystems already present. Thus, our only choice is to sleep outdoors.
Clothing today is mostly made from plastics. Plastics come from oil. Oil is bad for the environment. No suitable replacement for oil is available. Wool and other fibers require either the exploitation of farm animals, the alteration of wilderness areas to farmland, or both. The only acceptable material is no material at all.
There is no fuel available for warmth that does not increase carbon levels, and burning wood to stay warm would require cutting down trees – and obvious no-no, for a green.
Thus, to make the greens happy, we must sit out naked in the rain and snow until we die of exposure or starvation, whichever comes first.
Environmentalism is stupid.
December 10th, 2008 at 9:35 am
This is the absolute stupidest sh!t I think I have ever heard. I work for a power company and now my company could be sued for generating electricity?
December 10th, 2008 at 9:49 am
I would say to that Oxford scientist that the plaintiff in any of these lawsuits will be hard pressed to prove that man is responsible for these so-called global warming deaths and damages. More and more people in the scientific community are coming to the realization that climate change is a naturally occuring event that man has no control over. The science of global warming that Al Gore has become the spokesman for is a seriously flawed and half baked one. The underlying push for this voodoo science is money and nothing else.
December 10th, 2008 at 11:09 am
The climate has been changing for thousands of years and it will contiune to chane for thousand of years. Corn was raised north of the Artic Circle in Finland in the 1500’s but can you raise corn there now? As many scientist can prove the climate in on an approx. 1500 year cycle so in about the year 3000 it will again be warm enough to raise corn in North of the Artic Circle in Finland. I wonder what people are going to say went at sometime in the future there is a sheet of ice over Minnesota, Iowa, the Dakotas and Illinois sometime in the next few hundred years.
December 10th, 2008 at 11:32 am
Cycles is what the earth does, right now we are eating krill, tommarrow we will be eating bacteria.
December 10th, 2008 at 11:39 am
What??? these guys are physicists not lawyers. they know nothing of the law, and sueing a company will only make the situation worse for people. If an energy company is bankrupted by lawsuites then people do not get energy!!!! lets not get stupid about this.
December 10th, 2008 at 11:44 am
Unfair??? When did it become a perfect world??? The poor always fell the brunt, whether or not responsible!! Stupid celebrities who benefit from the poor by charging millions of dollars for acting roles in movies. They also support lawsuits against “poor” people downloading movies. They are idiots and are out of touch with society!
December 10th, 2008 at 11:54 am
Is this Fox Trendy? I love this – An Eco-Crank court will view all the evidence revealing Global Warming as a Fraud and then find the “perpetrators” guilty anyway. The Russians and Chinese are loving this – the West going insane and self destructing and capitulating to Russian redentism in E. Europe and general police state tyranny on the basis of cow flatulence as opposed to an armored invasion. This kind of reporting makes Fox collaborator in the conspiracy. You Fools keep this up and you’ll soon have managed news and be sued on the basis of “speech codes” for reporting obvious eco-criminal fraud. International courts will have the right to remove and replace your “journalists” and editors. I hope to soon see Fox Male Talking Heads wearing Green ribbons in their Pigtails and Man-skirts.
December 10th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
The dark green color at the top may look snazzy, but it makes it impossible to read black lettering. Please change the color of the text so it is readable.
December 10th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Check out “Carolina parakeet” on Wikipedia. This info may add fuel to this spirited debate.
December 10th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
What a load of crap!
December 10th, 2008 at 7:06 pm
You must be kidding me. No, seriously, apart from dubiousness of Man-is-causing-Global-Warming to begin with, you may as well sue the Sun for radiating more heat and Cows for passing gas.
December 11th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
How about buying less junk and turning out the Christmas lights.
December 11th, 2008 at 7:35 pm
“Global Warming” caused by human activity is a hoax being used by the political elites to control us with ridiculous “standards” that cannot be met. This madness must end now or we’ll be relegated to the stone age, living in “harmony with mother nature”, another idiotic catch-phrase.
December 11th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
Set for release this week, a newly updated U.S. Senate Minority Report features the dissenting voices of over 650 international scientists, many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN. How about talking about this.
December 11th, 2008 at 10:50 pm
There’s no doubt that we’re polluting the oceans and atmosphere to death. People pollute and world population is exploding. So, our crooked politicians aren’t going to do anymore than pocket billions for themselves and reduce the average citizen to slave status. read mensunion.org I’ve got my solar panels, greenhouse, wells, horse and wood stove up in the mountains. Good luck, boys. Arson and crime will be rampant in a few more years, due to our crooked politicians with their ineffective and shortsighted policies, causing our rapidly declining economy.
December 12th, 2008 at 10:23 am
I have no problem with this as long as California pays for it itself and doesn’t want our money.
December 12th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
All of this over an issue that does not even exist. I said it! “man made global warming does not exist!” We never hear from the thousands of scientists who concur. Probably, because they’ll lose funding if they don’t go along with the propaganda. 20 years from now we’ll be laughing about this as we are already seeing global temperatures decrease on their own. Remember the 1970’s when scientists warned of the upcoming Ice Age?
December 12th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
There is a new fuel catalyst that is just coming out of Southern Oregon that can reduce emissions by 98% and increase fuel economy by 10 -37% on all fossil fuel vehicles, rather they be land, air or marine; including all two stroke engines.
Coal plants, natural gas, propane and heating oil burn ultra-clean as well.
The catalyst was tested on an used Artic King reefer unit in Salinas Ca. that exceeded CARB emission standards. By using the catalyst, the unit more than passed the CARB standards.
This product was discovered by a man from Cave Junction Or. The test that have been completed can be reviewed by going to e3fuels.com or contacting them. This catalyst has been reviewed by investigative reports on local TV news stories and they have found it to perform as stated. The catalyst is registered with EPA as well.
December 12th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
Lets not forget that human intervention is not the only cause for climate change. Mother Nature herself has proven to be another cause of climate change. We, as the world, are speeding up climate change with the production of green house gasses, but even without those green house gasses being emitted from man-made sources, global warming will happen, even if we ceased all green house gas emmissions. This isn’t the first time earth has gone through climate change. Its basic science.
December 12th, 2008 at 10:11 pm
Hmmm – and NONE of this is statistically significant – particularly when you go back before 1900. “Global warming” is just more political hogwash to milk more money from taxpayers and control the way we live.
By the way – if “global warming” was proven, supporters would not use terms like “concensus” when it came to evaluating scientific data. There is no such thing as “scientific concensus” – you don’t hear anyone saying, “we have a scientific consensus on gravity” – because true science is about proving or disproving.
December 13th, 2008 at 10:12 am
Summary:
The base year for this study is 1895, probably because there are no reliable older statistics. Global warming in North America is taking place in northern Canada and Alaska, but not in the American South, eastern Canada or the American Midwest from the Rockies to the Appalachians. There has been no measurable effect on precipitation. Lots of anolalmous observations, no convincing explaination for the anolamies. Sole effect of global warming in North America is to make the sub-Artic warmer, which may be a bad thing for polar bears. Big deal.
Half the warming is “probably” the result of human activity. Why “probably”? Insufficient data and uncertain methodology.
Given all this, the case for significant global warming could be merely the “sic hic, propter hoc” fallacy – because one thing follows another, does not mean that one caused another.
Far more study is needed before we give politicians and Green activists the power to reorder our society in a manner they find pleasing.
December 13th, 2008 at 11:52 am
Great. If there is a problem we can spend money on fixing it. If there IS no problem, NOAA and others would be looking for a bail-out or a job. KEEP IT UP…AP! Hope you aren’t looking for a job soon, or there will be no one left to remind us how frikn hot it is getting.
December 13th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
You say that
“For the January-November period, the average temperature of 54.9 degrees F was 0.3 degree above the 20th century average.”
and
“temperature has increased at a rate of 0.12 degrees per decade since 1895″
What is the data from the 7th century B.C.? Or the 3rd century? Or the 12th? Or the even the 16th century? If the earth is thousands (you say billions) of years old, isn’t it necessary to look at more data than just the last 150 or so years.
You are drawing conclusions based on a pinhole view of history and are likely making faulty conclusions because of it.
Be careful.
December 13th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
The choice of temperature records is very carefully crafted in the article. In fact the temperatures in most of the US are below average to normal and not near record highs as suggested. See http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/oct/national.html#text
And this is not new. Temperatures worldwide have not been increasing as during the 90s for past 3-5 years but seem to be on a plateau
December 13th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
This is a crock of crap. All this is doing is allowing big money to buy there way to a guilt free life while the little guy goes down the toilet. Our estemed governor could set an example by living in Sacramento during the week instead of flying back and forth every day to work. Oh I forgot, he can just puchase carbon credits. What a scam!!!!!
December 13th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
I have problems when people state such minor changes in temperature. I’m a senior engineering lab technician and the closest I can measure something or otherwise said temperature tolerance is +/- 1.8 degrees F or 1 degree C. So when someone says they can measure 0.12 degrees change over a long period I through up the red flag. These temperature stated are all well within the margin of error for most instruments. Those instruments that are more accurate are very expensive and I don’t think the government would spend this kind of money on a large scale. I do tests involving temperture all the time and depending on how the engineer writes the test plan I can very different results or otherwise said I can take data and make the results say anything I want and prove it. In 1951, instruments were somewhat more accurate than they are now and most data was taken by hand so if a scientist took a measurement with a thermometer that had graduations of 0.5 degrees the most accruate his measurment would be is +/- 0.5 degrees. Now did the scientist roung the measurement off. Now all data is collected via data acquisistion or by computers which allows scientists to collect alot of data but the accuracy is not as good as the hand taken data. So alot of data manipulation is done. Bottom line is it is just a educated guess.
December 13th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
It is very unfortunate the level of politics that is driving the global warming movement. Even the liars propagating this misinformation have redefined the terminology to “climate change” caused by man. This became necessary because in the last ten years the planet has been cooling. Just because these pseudo scientist that intimidate the skeptics with their degrees and flawed computer models say it is so, does not make it so. They always qualify their findings with words like “may be” or “probably”, but none of them can state with scientific certainty that the planet is doing anything it doesn’t normally do, yet we are suppose to accept legislation both nationally and internationally that deals with this invented crisis. Common sense tells you that our climate changes, always has, and always will. Drink another glass of the cool-aid people, and watch your freedom disappear faster then the water on the planet evaporates from all this “warming”. Going green is nothing more then a marketing campaign by retail and government to guilt you out of what they are really after, the green in your wallet.
December 14th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Well, someone needs to identify the location of the temperature monitoring stations used to draw any conclusions about warming or cooling. If the measuring stations are mostly in urban areas you may be only measuring urban warming. I have seen some pictures of measuring stations by air conditioning equipment and by airport concrete runways. Hardly a good place for an accurate neasurement. Plus, data I have seen is that the peak temperture was in 1998. That is ten years without “warming”. It has been reported that Geologists do not agree with the idea that CO-2 is related to global warming at all. Problem is that many of these so-called experts are funded by folks with luddite attitudes. The public needs accurate hard core facts devoid of special interests. The third world guys are just trying to get money from US in the form of a tax on air. Carbon credits are the next great SCAM! they do not actually improve the environment at all. They are not regulated and we have all just seen the consequences of poor regulation whether it be too much or too litte. We are in a passive sun-spot cycle. No sun spots. Global cooling, which is worse than global warming!!!
December 14th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
Paalease!!!
If anyone would stop and do some research they would find that the Earth’s temperature has been DROPPING since 1998. We have NO SUNSPOT ACTIVITY which historically means lower temps! A large majority of the scientists quoted in the U.N. report didn’t agree with the final report.Can you say “cherry picking”? Many Climatoligists agree that we are in the begining of a COOLING PERIOD due to the lack of solar activity. The warmest decade in the 20th centurt wasn’t the 1990s, it was the 1930s! Can any one say “Dust Bowl” or do they even teach that in school any more? Read the “Grapes of Wrath”! We have mindless morons leading us to destruction. By the way, how much money has Al Gore made off of Global Warming and “Carbon Credits” so far? Any guesses? Go to Scienceandpublicpolicy.org. Learn what the politicians aren’t telling you!!! Why was the Earth warmer in the years of 1000 A.D.-1100 A.D.? Why was the Earth in a “Little Ice Age” from about 1200 A.D. to appproximately 1860 A.D. You can’t blame cars or coal fueled powere plants! They didn’t exist! Folks, open your brains! There are 8 billion people more or less that exhale CO2 every second. One last thing, ice core samples show that CO2 increases FOLLOW temperature increases, not the other way around!!!!
December 15th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
Is this for real? Most scientist agree there is no such thing as golbal warming. Why to go Al Gore.
December 15th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
“More than half of the warming averaged over all of North America is probably the result of human activity.” How much more than half? “Probably” the result of human activity? .Classic junk-science AP dreck, meaningless stats and one-liners like,
“However, overall drought impacts over North America have become more severe in recent decades.” What does that mean? More severe than what? More severe than the Dust Bowl? How many decades can be “recent”? Repackaged Weekly Reader articles are hardly a substitute for good reporting and logical writing.
Check junkscience.com for up to the minute global temperature readings and a lesson in critical thinking. Consensus is not science!
December 16th, 2008 at 4:49 am
Global Warming is a fraudulent hoax designed to destroy American jobs, retirement accounts, stock values, and manufacturing base. The media is paid billions to spread this enormous lie as truth in a one sided propaganda campaign. A massive cover up of the truth is necessary to keep America from developing its own natural resources. The Democratic politicians want to keep us completely dependent on foreign oil by blocking US exploration and production.
This hoax is devastating the American way of life as politicians try to switch to expensive, inefficient, and unreliable sources of alternative energy. The government intends to shut down the economy under the guise that fossil fuels are dangerous and are running out. This stupid act will result in a massive flight of jobs to foreign countries. Oil production will exist only in foreign lands. SUV’s will be taxed out of existance. Finally the environment will be damaged as supplies of clean life giving carbon dioxide are destroyed.
It it time to stop the lies of the media and the politicians who are in denial about the damaging environmental and economic effects of the global warming fraud. Only in America would such a massive marketing campaign be conducted to teach false science and scientific hoaxes in our school system.
Politicans who have been involved in the global warming fraud to destroy American industry must be thrown out of office. The financial devastation they have wreaked on the American people is inexcusable.
Windmills and solar panels do not power the transportation industry. Plug in electric vehicles powered by alternative energy will drive up electric rates tenfold. Congressional mandates for electric vehicles and flex fuels are meant to destroy the American Auto industry nothing more. The media is a complete disgrace for covering up the fraud.
Sea level rises when water freezes and declines when the ice melts as evidenced by the glaciers and past ice ages. The hoaxers have it completely backwards in a misinterpretation of physical and chemical laws. The politicians desire to use the global warming fraud to impose massive tax increases and strict government controls over all energy systems.
The only way to stop the fraud is daily coverage of the various aspects of the hoax. The stock market will not recover until the media stops pushing the lie and starts exposing the fraud with as much air time as they have given to create it over the past 2 decades.
December 16th, 2008 at 5:15 am
Cut emmissions to 1990 levels by 2020? This will become an economic disaster as attempts to meet these ridiculous standards will destroy economic growth. The growth in the population will make this an impossible standard to meet without eliminating the ability to provide fuel and electricity to everyone in the state. California is about to self destruct from a budget deficit that has mushroomed during the global warming hoax. It will now wipe out all supplies of fossil fuel energy in a program that will result in blackouts (ala gray Davis), high electricity rates, and $5000 annual taxes on gasoline powered automobiles.
Imagine just how stupid the environmental lawmakers are in California. While creating a $41 billion annual deficit they sit on top of the largest offshore oil reserves in the world. Enough oil to make every California as wealthy as a Saudi prince. Gov. Arnold has blinded himself with the global warming deception. He has lead his state into bankruptcy trying to tax the weather and balance the budget with slot machines and lottery loans. Yes he may actually be a closet Democrat as he is definitely not a Republican.
Sorry California, but your global warming policies will suck cash right out of everyone’s pockets with high energy prices and electric rates that will explode tenfold. Alternative energy is expensive, inefficient, and unreliable. Solar power doesn’t turn on the lights at night and windmills don’t power the transportation industry.
But don’t worry. I hear the feds will bail out everyone for making stupid policies and stupid decisions. Believing politicians can control the climate with mandates and carbon taxes is really really stupid.
December 16th, 2008 at 9:51 am
con game
December 16th, 2008 at 10:05 am
If measures had been in place to control populations we wouldn’t have the extent of warming were experiencing. far more co2 is produced by human and animal respiration, then by industry. untill ther are population controls in place we’ll not only be a warm planet, We,ll be a hungrier, thistery, and poorer planet to boot.
December 16th, 2008 at 10:43 am
You can bet it is uneven as in most cases the earth’s temperature is now in decline..
December 16th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
If Quote: – The largest yearly average regional temperature increases have occurred over Northern and Western North America, with up to 3.6 degrees warming in 56 years over Alaska, the Yukon Territories, Alberta, and Saskatchewan.
These areas are primarily the least populated areas of North America. How do we come to the conclusion, Quoted: – More than half of the warming averaged over all of North America is probably the result of human activity.
December 16th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
If it’s hot -> global warming.
If it’s cold -> global warming.
If it’s dry -> global warming.
If it’s wet -> global warming.
If it’s sunny -> global warming.
If it’s cloudy/foggy -> global warming.
If it’s windy -> global warming.
If it’s calm -> global warming.
So the U.S. has a 1,500 mile wide “hole” in global warming. That sounds more like a 1,500 mile wide “hole” in the theory.
Solar activity and the South Atlantic Anomaly explain global and ocean temperature changes far better than carbon dioxide emissions. We’ve had several monstrous volcanic eruptions spewing more carbon dioxide than all of human production without a rise in global temperatures.
There is global warming on five planets, four of which have no SUV’s.
We had global warming after the last ice age. Who caused that, Fred Flinstone?
We had global warming after the “Little Ice Age”. What caused that, George Washington’s camp fires at Valley Forge?
Here’s a great way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions: Stop talking.
Better yet, stop breathing.
December 16th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
Scientists skeptical of the assertion that climate change is the result of man’s activites are criticizing a recent Associated Press report on global warming, calling it “irrational hysteria,” “horrifically bad” and “incredibly biased.”
They say the report, which was published on Monday, contained sweeping scientific errors and was a one-sided portrayal of a complicated issue.
“If the issues weren’t so serious and the ramifications so profound, I would have to laugh at it,” said David Deming, a geology professor at the University of Oklahoma who has been critical of media reporting on the climate change issue.
In the article, Obama Left with Little Time to Curb Global Warming, AP Science Writer Seth Borenstein wrote that global warming is “a ticking time bomb that President-elect Barack Obama can’t avoid,” and that “global warming is accelerating.”
Deming, in an interview, took issue with Borenstein’s characterization of a problem he says doesn’t exist.
“He says global warming is accelerating. Not only is it continuing, it’s accelerating, and whether it’s continuing that was completely beyond the evidence,” Deming told FOXNews.com.
“The mean global temperature, at least as measured by satellite, is now the same as it was in the year 1980. In the last couple of years sea level has stopped rising. Hurricane and cyclone activity in the northern hemisphere is at a 24-year low and sea ice globally is also the same as it was in 1980.”
Deming said the article is further evidence of the media’s decision to talk about global warming as fact, despite what he says is a lack of evidence.
“Reporters, as I understand reporters, are supposed to report facts,”Deming said. “What he’s doing here is he’s writing a polemic and reporting it as fact, and that’s not right. It’s not reporting. It’s propaganda.
“This reads like a press release for an environmental advocacy group like Greenpeace. It’s not fair and balanced.”
December 16th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
I find it amazing how the “human-caused global warming” cry is continually sounded when the evidence is increasingly contradicting this politically correct claim. Just one example from Fox News web: Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Scientists Call AP Report on Global Warming “Hysteria”
According to David Deming, a geology professor at the University of Oklahoma: “The mean global temperature, at least as measured by satellite, is now the same as it was in the year 1980. In the last couple of years sea level has stopped rising. Hurricane and cyclone activity in the northern hemisphere is at a 24-year low and sea ice globally is also the same as it was in 1980.”
Deming said the article (by Borenstein) is further evidence of the media’s decision to talk about global warming as fact, despite what he says is a lack of evidence.
It is WAY past time to stop parroting the “global warming” mantra when better science has shown the earlier analyses to be incorrect.
December 16th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
Man am I confused. First the article states that ocean tempetures are higher, then it says no significant weather changes have occured in the south east (atlantic ocean, gulf of mexico) and east canada (read North Atlantic). Drought impacts are more severe- well, yes. Poor civil engineering has placed a strain on water supplies. Take for example Las Vegas– did any one perdict what the population explosion out here would do to the surrounding water supply? No, so, this desert city is running dry at the same time the population explodes– coincidence? Not sold yet on this man made global warming, after all, the earth has been warming and the ice caps receeding since– well the last ice age. hmmmm
December 16th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
wake up and smell the BS. Al gore & the rest of the brainwashed are in panic mode. Read further into the BS, the polar bears have grown in # since I was a kid.Porcupine reindeer have grown in # BS has grown in to more of a mess to destroy my country in recent years.Go ride your bike to work & ride your bike to power your lights on some rig you need to power your house ,not mine!The earth is in a ciclacal orbit, sun spots are decreasing and the sky is falling on your head.
December 16th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
What a scam! They will realize their mistakes only after business move to other states, energy prices are astronomical, and jobs are scarce. How about a little intelligence and research!
December 16th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
Dingbats in full bloom! Gawd, I hate this state…
December 16th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
More scare tactics. 0.12 and 0.41 are not degrees.
They are 12 and 41 hundreds of a degree. But those numbers would not scare anyone.
December 16th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
Remember, guys, there are dinosaur fossils in Antarctica that are millions of years old, and frozen plants found in the Arctic circle that are over 10,000 years old.
So,depending on which baseline you use, you could argue that that we are now in a period of Global Cooling, when compared with when plants and animals existed in polar regions.
Lets start a new scare; “Global Gravity Reduction”. The loss of earth’s gravitational pull has caused people to falsely believe they are losing weight because their bathroom scales don’t have as much gravitational pull on them. This causes them to see artificially low weights on the scales, which causes them to eat more, which leads to the problem with obesity that we now have. Please Al Gore, SAVE ME!!!!! And Mr. Gore: please email Chicken Little and inform him the sky is still falling. And see if he is still interested in buying some carbon credits so you can fly around the world again.
December 17th, 2008 at 12:55 am
you guys are pure “nuts”…plant some more trees, open your refrigerators at the same time for some time, breathe less/talk less!! 1.6 degrees since 1951…LOL!!!
December 17th, 2008 at 5:16 am
This is terrible what rich enviromentalists are doing to poor people.
December 17th, 2008 at 6:40 am
I DON’T BELIEVE A THING YOU IDIOTS ARE SAYING ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING.
THE CLIMATE HAS BEEN CHANGING FOR MILLIONS OF YEARS AND WILL CONTINUE TO DO SO. HOW ABOUT THE ICE AGE—–HUH ????????????
TELL AL TO GO GET A REAL JOB.
December 17th, 2008 at 10:34 am
The data is all wrong.
The temp. collection points have become over urbanized creating hot cells from parking lots and lack of natural air movement.
The biggest problem is they have failed to take in the most important variable – the sun.
Going green is great – get back to the basics. But stop the garbage science. The scare tactics will back fire hard. The earth climate will always be changing – even if we remove man from earth.
Is Fox just selling what people want to hear or just ill-informed?
December 17th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Do you guys also believe the world is flat? This is total statistically manipulative un-scientific nonsense. Fortunately, most scientists do not buy into the unethical way in which data is reported.
Unfortunately, most politicians see this as an opportunity to collect money to line their coffers.
December 17th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
I always like reports that read “…government researchers say…” Things are so frequently taken out of context and misrepresented. Where is the actual research data and conclusions?
If you look at the last 10,000 years of history, there were lengthly periods of time with temperatures greater than present. TOTAL sea ice (polar) has not diminished in the last thirty years. The integral earth surface temperature has not increased in thirty years. The earth has seen many heating and cooling spells over the millenia. The alarmist hype is just that, alarmist. We now have the means to track numerous bits of data and draw conclusions. Noting that historically, by polar ice core analysis, C02 levels LAG long term temperature change begs the question that possibly C02 levels may actually be partially an effect of climate change, not a cause. Certainly man made C02 and other green house gas production is significantly on the rise, though it is unclear how much impact this has compared to the orders of magnitude more abundant greenhouse gas heavyweight, water vapor. This is not exactly man made. The scientific world is not in concensus on the cause, effect, nor the time frame for global warming, if this is is a natural phenomena or not. That fact alone should grant us reason to take pause, before action.
Of course we shold always seek to reduce pollution and conserve our natural resources. We should segway society into renewable energy. Not through hysteria and hype, but through aggresive research and developement.
December 17th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
This article is just filled with inconsistencies. In fact the following quote can be found in another article on FOXnews.com “The mean global temperature, at least as measured by satellite, is now the same as it was in the year 1980. In the last couple of years sea level has stopped rising. Hurricane and cyclone activity in the northern hemisphere is at a 24-year low and sea ice globally is also the same as it was in 1980.” This quote can be backed up if you google global temperatures.
December 17th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Well, what will the report for December bring out? Winter has not even started and many people are sick of it. Ice storms, arctic cold fronts, and a blizzard in the northwest already this month. We had an unusually cool summer in the northeast this year, several cold winters in a row and you folks still insist that we have a problem.
To me this has always been a way for government, in this case a world government to fleece the public. I really believe if anything we are headed for a period of global cooling. This would be far more serious. Also those ministers will somehow tie that to human activity as well.
December 17th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
I think California, being the progressive state that it is, is on the right track. This state can take the lead. It has the resources, people, programs and the will to make a difference. There are a lot of non profits, large and small companies, educational institutions,and individuals working on this effort that should collaborate with the state of California to reach the common goal of living within our means.
December 17th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
what a pathetic excuse for a reporter spreading this non accurate crap around.
you know of course its only a matter of time that people who do wrong to others won’t have to face a court, but those they wronged directly and I can tell you, that will be justice!
December 17th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
Please let everyone know that Global Warming can be prevented by hanging a wreath of garlic on your front door ! This is the same cure that has been used for centuries to prevent vampires from entering your home and it has always worked so I know it will work for Global warming.
Actually I prefer getting my science from real scientists not from politicians or politicians pretending to be scientists. When will this global scam to create global taxes and bankrupt the world economy be over?
Anyone who actualy reviews all the scientific data and real science will declare that man made Global Warming is equivilant to thinking the world is FLAT.
December 17th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
“When the Arctic Ocean ice melts, it never raises sea level because floating ice is floating ice, because it’s displacing water. “When the ice melts, sea level actually goes down.
It’s called the Archimedes Principle.”
December 17th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
It continues to amaze me that agencies like NOAA are putting out reports like this. These “sky is falling” reports must be keeping them all in jobs. For a truly scientific repudiation see http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,468084,00.html
December 17th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
What is the mechanism behind sea levels rising? When the ice melts in my cup I don’t get an increase in water level (I measured it). Since glaciers are like giant ice cubes, wouldn’t their melting not affect the ocean levels?
Just curious, really
December 17th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
Here’s a sixth grade Science experiment for you doom and gloomers..1 glass of water 1/2-3/4 full..add ice cubes.. mark water level..when ice is melted..note water level not changing…icebergs displace water and do not add to the raising of sea levels when melted….
December 17th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
I don’t have a lot of education and for sure am not a scientist. I do know however that ice takes up more space than water. So when ice melts, well try it.
December 17th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
Was human activity to blame for the “prehistoric periods when the climate changed dramatically over the course of decades?”
December 17th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
According to 4th grade science, when ice floats, it displaces water, but when ice melts, the water level goes down. Everyone can perform this experiment at home in their kitchen. If that is a true proposition, then why does melting artic ice cause the sea level to rise? Or does it?
December 17th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
BET THIS IS KEEPING AL GORE UP AT NIGHT !!!!
( WHAT AN IDIOT !!! )
December 17th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
I’M 72 YEARS OLD…AND REALLY SCARED !!!
December 17th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
How can you explain backing up your information with theory when using actual proof you can say that the ocean level will NOT rise at all.
James O’Brien, an emeritus professor at Florida State University who studies climate variability and the oceans said recently “When the Arctic Ocean ice melts, it never raises sea level because floating ice is floating ice, because it’s displacing water,” O’Brien said. “When the ice melts, sea level actually goes down.
“I call it a fourth grade science experiment. Take a glass, put some ice in it. Put water in it. Mark level where water is. Let it met. After the ice melts, the sea level didn’t go up in your glass of water. It’s called the Archimedes Principle.”
December 17th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
I am a farmer from Iowa. We have just harvested one of the biggest corn crops in history. I am convinced one of the reasons that it was so big is the extra carbon dioxide in the air. Plants use as much carbon dioxide as they can get.
December 17th, 2008 at 11:35 pm
There are positive results of having more carbon dioxide in the air.
December 18th, 2008 at 1:39 am
Complete and total rubbish.
See:
http://atangledweb.squarespace.com/httpatangledwebsquarespace/ipcc-sea-level-rise-claim-is-a-fraud.html
December 18th, 2008 at 10:00 am
Just more hysteria! Stop it! How do you people sleep at night? Humans have nothing to do with climate change and you should know it. Who burnt coal and drove cars in prehistoric and medeival times?
The earth’s cycles will happen regardless of our presence on it. You people are just opportunists!
December 18th, 2008 at 10:51 am
So what about the hundreds of other scientists in norhtern europe who are talking glaciers reforming in other places?
December 18th, 2008 at 10:53 am
So what about the hundreds of other scientists in northern Europe who are talking about glaciers reforming in other places?
December 18th, 2008 at 11:08 am
Seas are not rising at all last few years. What about that? More lies.
December 18th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
heLLOOooo… a lot of the ice is on LAND. duh. When the ice that is over land melts, where do you suppose it goes.
December 18th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Why will sea levels rise if the glaciers melt?
Because they are ABOVE the water, you dummies!
Personally, I feel the world is doomed, not because of environmental problems, but because of really stupid people. People asking questions such as: Why would sea levels rise? We are speaking of Glaciers, not icebergs!
December 18th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
What a crock! Seas will rise and the IQ of those predicting it will drop. Perhaps this is the only job these jokers can get given their inability to understand science. What a waste.
December 18th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Other planets have been shown that their temp is also rising. I am pretty sure we have no humans on other planets causing this. Yes there have always been greenhouse gases whether it was fires from millions of persons before electricity. Volcanic eruptions. Asteroids hitting earth. Sun’s activity.
The problem with this global warming talk is that it stems from greed. Search around and see which scientists are screaming about it and also want that extra grant for more research. It’s a money game thats it..So many persons are suckered into thinking its a man-made thing..just so they can collect grant dollars to fund their other activities.
December 18th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
1. Not all ice is floating. Lot of it is stuck on the rocks, and ice sometimes is even 3 km thick. When this ice melts it is flowing to the ocean, and this is rising sea level.
2. Gravity is stronger at equator. When it is ice, it is stuck at the poles, but when it melts it will flow to the equator and rise water level around equator, while previously as ice it was stuck on poles.
3. There is lot of ice on the land and mountains. With global worming it will melt and go into the sea. Eart is not a cup of water.
4. This explanation is similar to one when people were giving explanation that Earth is flat. Having a silly proof is comforting, by for such characters there is always reckoning point at which “REALITY BITES”
So long …
December 18th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Go get yourselves informed and avoid relying upon news media. It is grossly inadequate in the grand scheme of things.
December 18th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Relax, it’s just green-scare again. It’s the same ol’ same ol’. They don’t realize that the public has moved on, and the same old scare tactics don’t work anymore. They gotta come up with something new.
Here’s something that will scare the greenies: Europe has had Cap&Trade for several years now, but it has not created any green jobs. Instead, once people pay their green taxes, they don’t feel guilty anymore and consumerism skyrockets, which actually creates more manufacturing jobs! Ha! That’s why Obama wants to bring in Cap&Trade, because it creates jobs but the grrenies will be left out of the payday. I love it! USA! USA!
December 18th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Ok let’s get real for a moment. Let’s remember who started all this rubbish – Al Gore. And guess what he is – a liberal democrat! And guess what liberals and all the greedy, power-hungry guys in government try to do to the people of our country – scare them enough to make changes that will get them to inevitably give the government more….. you guessed it, MONEY!!! This is all just ANOTHER Money-Making Scheme! Analog TV’s anyone??
December 18th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Global warming huh? How do you explain the 3 inches of snow in Las Vegas? Some people are ridiculous!
December 18th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
An ice cube floating in a glass of water will not raise the level in the glass as it melts. Was Archimedes a 4th grade science teacher? Perhaps he should have failed the grade. What do you think will happen when the mile thick (or whatever) sheet of ice covering Greenland melts? It’s not sea ice. It’s built up on land and will flow into the sea. Try cutting a hole in a board and suspending a glass of water underneath with a funnel attached to the hole. Now cover the board with ice and let it melt. Assuming all the water flows into the glass, will the level rise? Maybe you should try it with a bucket instead. I’m not a scientist, but I did pass the 4th grade.
December 18th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Floating is is not the issue, it is the large blocks on ice on the surfaces of areas like Greenland or the Antarctic. This ice is not floating and WILL raise the sea levels significantly if this melts. Forget the 4th grade experiments.
December 18th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
You’d never guess from this collection of comments that this was Foxnews!
Whether it is accelerated by human activity or not isn’t even the question. A meteor isn’t man made, but if one is large enough it will kill every one of us. It makes thinking of ways around such an event something of a priority.
Not that your amateur experiments with kitchen ice cubes aren’t convincing, but I’ll defer to organizations like NASA on this one:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/gornitz_09/
December 18th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
To clarify: The Arctic icecap is floating in the Arctic ocean. If it melts, there would be no significant change in ocean levels. On the other hand Greenland and Antarctica have ice sheets sitting on top of land. If these melt, these waters are added to the oceans resulting in rising ocean levels. The same is true of glaciers.
December 18th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
The gobal warming scare is the biggest con of the 21st Century….bigger than the housing and banking fraud.
December 18th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
Isn’t it more likely that the Sun is the biggest driver of our climate?
Our climate is constantly changing. It’s never static.
I’ve been saying for 30 years we’re probably overdue for an Ice Age. Last one ended 15-20,000 years ago. That’s pretty typical for an interstitial period.
December 18th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
That may be true, but consider all the ice in Antarctica which is a continent. When it melts it will end up in the sea.
Further water is the densest at 4 degrees Celsius. When the average temperature of the water increases, its volume will increase.
December 18th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
You folks are correct about the glass of water experiment. It’s called Alcamedes’ Principal. Water level decreases because ice has air in it. So, if the ice caps melt, guess what? We have MORE FRESH OXYGEN. Btw, the ice caps have INCREASED in size, no decreased.
Ocean level have gone DOWN an inch in the last 20 years, not up. Global tempuratures have also gone down, by 1/3 degree f.
December 18th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Hmmmm….snowfall in Vegas. Global warming..yeah right!
December 18th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
Does the ice in your experiments sit atop the water as does the polar ice sheets and glaciers – I think not… Let’s repeat your experiment in a more realistic setting. put a half inch of water in a tin-foil pan and put enough ice just on one side so that it reaches the top of the pan….
I think you will find as the ice on the one side melts – the water level on the opposite side rises…
This is the reality of Global Warming and a much more apples vs apples test as opposed to your apples vs oranges testing….
December 18th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
In response to Jeff, Walter and Paul…
Many of the world’s glacier packs and ice sheets, particularly in the Southern Hemisphere, are currently on land, not floating on the water. When they melt, the water will seek the lowest point (generally the ocean). James O’ Brian missed the point, as he only focused on the ice at the North Pole.
December 18th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
Glaciers are not floating ice. The melting of floating ice will not affect sea level, but the melting of glaciers will. The important thing to understand is that most of today’s alpine glaciers formed during the Little Ice Age. The glaciers in Glacier National Park, for example, are mostly 500 to 800 years old. Look it up. Nothing is wrong with our climate, it is just going through natural cycles related to the Sun’s electromagnetic field output.
December 18th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
Water melting off the sea may not rise the sea level, what is worrisome then, is ice on land melting (like in Greenland). Science has been able to show that sea levels in the past went up and down, allowing the Bering strait to be crossed by animals and humans alike.
December 18th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
When the Ice that is melting is on land and melts it goes into the sea, thus rising.
December 18th, 2008 at 7:14 pm
I don’t believe those jerks and I don’t trust the UN at all.
December 18th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
The only thing that will rise the ocean level is if we dumped all the political bullcrap in it, then it will rise to record highs
December 18th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
What a load of crock this is just the media teaming up to “scare you”
December 18th, 2008 at 9:38 pm
Wow, I’m surprised to see so many commenters who disbelieve or refute the reality unfolding before us. For those of you just asking about the “4th grade ice melting experiment,” there are two factors you didn’t take into account. One is that much of the ice is ON TOP of land. It melts INTO the ocean. Secondly, the glaciers are composed of FRESH water, not salt water. Due to the density difference, the floating fresh water glaciers’ melting into the ocean will raise the ocean levels. The following site provides further clarification on this:
http://www.physorg.com/news5619.html
Still not convinced? Then I suggest you retry your experiment with fresh water ice melting into salt water.
December 18th, 2008 at 9:39 pm
Temperatures vary in cycles. Dr. Spencer of Univ. of Al. has shown that we are most likely at the top of a 30 year warming trend, and cooler temps are most likely in the next 30 years.
December 18th, 2008 at 11:44 pm
Floating ice, melts = no sea level change. 4th grade science.
Ice *on LAND* (e.g., glaciers, icecaps) melts = the COAST is TOAST.
If *all* the ice ON LAND melted, sea level rises >300 feet.
Wake up, sleepyheads. Time to sell your waterfront property, before the bottom drops out of the market. Really.
Actually, don’t sell. Then the rest of us *will laugh at you.*
December 18th, 2008 at 11:50 pm
Let’s build coal-fired power plants all along the upwind edge of Greenland. Massive powerlines to get the electricity to whomever pays the most. That’ll sprinkle coal dust all over Greenland. Cover it completely, get all that ice real warm. You don’t care? Fine. You *keep* your beach houses. Buy more, even. We get to watch your investments sink under the waves. Ha-ha.
You. Conservatives. Keep all your waterfront properties. PLEASE.
December 19th, 2008 at 12:12 am
You people are confusing glaciers with icebergs. A glacier is a large mass of snow that has melted and reformed as ice, on land, not in the water.
An iceberg is a piece of that glacier that has broken off into the water.
So if all, or many, large glaciers did melt, it is possible to have a rise in sea level.
Try filling your glass almost full of water and putting your ice cubes on a plate that is tilted so that the melting ice cubes run into the glass and it will overflow.
December 19th, 2008 at 12:17 am
Now we are compariong temperature increses to the
December 19th, 2008 at 12:21 am
Now we are comparing temperature increses to the AVERAGE TEMPATURE. These increses are slight and fall within the high/low area of the AVERAGE. Another way to twist data to reflect what you want it to.
December 19th, 2008 at 12:33 am
Hmm… The glaciers are melting and sea levels are rising. Why are they rising? Not because of melting glaciers. A 3rd grade science experiment could prove that. Get a glass of salt water (sea water preferable) put in a couple of ice cubes and mark the glass at water level. After the ice melts the water level should not have risen.
As for global warming, that’s a natural process of our planet as is global cooling. In fact according to almost every credible university in the world the average global temperature hasn’t risen in over 30 years.
When people read about temperatures and sea levels rising they really need to look into who is writing the article they are reading. Man made global warming is a politically motivated science. “Science” being loosely used.
Although a “green” economy is in the long run a good idea, it is far too expensive to try and achieve under normal circumstances. In the end if you follow the money… well… try it sometime.
December 19th, 2008 at 1:07 am
The reasoning is not that the floating ice will cause the sea to rise but that glaciers on land will melt and run off into the ocean.
That said, based on reading both sides of the debate, I think that if the climate is getting warmer that there will be more moisture in the air and that will cause more precipitation that will fall as snow in a feedback mechanism balancing the trend of melting glaciers.
Also, I have no doubt that somewhere between 45 parts of CO2 per million (earth) and 970,000 parts per million (venus) that a greenhouse will be created. I don’t believe that we’re anywhere near that threshold and that human activity is not causing climate change. Read up on your own and draw your own conclusions. Don’t buy the line about no debate.
December 19th, 2008 at 1:12 am
Wow, if I read one more statement by a person bringing up the fact that ice floats i’m gonna lose it. Haven’t any of you genius’ given any thought at all to the idea that there is huge amounts of ice and snow (miles deep in some places) that is sitting on Greenland and Antartica (Not to mention northern Canada and Russia. What happens when you take an ice cube from off of your solid hand and place it in your glass of water. Wow…the water rises…imagine that.
December 19th, 2008 at 1:19 am
The problem with melting ice is that most of it is NOT already sitting IN the water. Much of it is on land so when it melts it is adding water to the sea level.
December 19th, 2008 at 1:46 am
Your right, Ice does displaces water. But a glacier is a mass of ice that is on land. Thus it is not displacing Water at all. such as greenland, which is covered in a lot of ice, when the ice that is already in the oceans melts, then the water does not rise, but when water melts off of the mainland, then it does rise. And ice also reflects heat, so when the ice melts, more heat is absorbed into the water, thus increasing the rate of melting on other ice. It then becomes a large circle
December 19th, 2008 at 1:50 am
Most of the arctic ice is on land. When that ice melts, the runoff is into the lowest geographic point, which is the oceans basin. That additional water will cause a sea level to rise.
December 19th, 2008 at 2:28 am
The theory is that the melting ice will cause the land based glaciers (on Greenland, for example) to slide into the ocean. Where the theory falls flat is that these projections are all based on COMPUTER MODELS, not empirical evidence. These same models have not been correct in any of their dire predictions. The facts are that the planet has been cooling since 2002, antarctic ice is thickening and that glaciers in Norway and Alaska are growing.
December 19th, 2008 at 2:29 am
…yes, and Doubt is absolutely correct, sea levels have not risen for the last 2 years.
December 19th, 2008 at 2:33 am
Follow the money guys, Follow the money. Yours and mine going up in this global scam
December 19th, 2008 at 2:34 am
It’s all about money and the great “Agenda.” We need to scare the hell out of the masses so we can get more research money. We scared you in the 1970’s. Remember? There was going to be an ice age. Don’t you remember? Of course you probably don’t because you are a typical American – half moron and half idiot. While you play your video games, watch TV, play and watch sports, we plot on how to eliminate you. Now one of our geniuses came up with a fantastic idea that we could spin the whole global warming thing by saying that global warming will cause a new ice age that way we can go either way. You know in case it gets colder before we get our “Agenda” accomplished.
By now you must really want to know about our “Agenda.” Well, it is socialism and some communism. We want to destroy the US economy first be destroying its ability to get enough energy, then the US will become weak and ripe for revolution so we can take it over. We constantly tell you no drilling for oil, no nukes, no coal and now one of our geniuses came up with a great idea to stop wind power – it kills birds and the power lines look ugly. You Americans are the most stupid people on earth because you just suck that stuff up. What will end your freedom and kill you, you embrace. Why? Because you have the brains of worms! No bacteria! Next we want to enslave the doers and makers and take what they make and give it to us lazy a$#@s. We need a little communism because of our final solution – according to Bill Ayers (one of our great leaders) we will need to exterminate the capitalists. He says about 25 million, but we also need to get rid of the Christians too so most of us say about 200 million. Were going to take all of your bodies to northern Canada and freeze them so that we can slowly use you as food mostly to pay off the Chinese and Russians, but man we are going to have some fun barbecues too!
Our great Messiah Obama will show you soon the great things to come. One world socialist government mixed with some great communism so we can exterminate the masses that aren’t Marxist or very strong socialists. Oh it is going to be so glorious. No more poverty, wars, and diseases will be eliminated. Oh yes, we will resume the drilling of oil because we need the oil for other products than just gasoline, hahahahahaha.
Death to America. Death to America.
Obama is the new GOD. The GREAT MARXIST GOD!
Marxist John
December 19th, 2008 at 2:37 am
Its all about control, of you and me and my money. Love it when these guys lie trying to justify there jobs. Trying to scare everyone simple amazing
December 19th, 2008 at 2:42 am
Its all about controlling us they can pass what ever they want and expect us to live up to there demands. I don’t know how much the common man will put up with for much longer. They are passing laws that affect everyone of our lives and we don’t have a say in it. Unproven science, used to control everyone
December 19th, 2008 at 2:48 am
glaciers are on land not floating on the ocean.anyone that doesnt believe in global warming is a braindead idiot.
December 19th, 2008 at 7:56 am
very interesting. keep the controvery going and maybe kearning will take place!
December 19th, 2008 at 9:20 am
What I have read the agreement is so weak with so many loopholes that EU will be lucky to get a 4% reduction. Germany, Itali, Poland, and other western EU countries stopped the agreement from being anything other than fluf.
December 19th, 2008 at 9:41 am
Its all a scam and the sad part is that a lot of people belive it. Whats next, a committe to stop the sun from going super nova.
December 19th, 2008 at 10:50 am
Just the science.
The theory is that the miles of ice on top of Greenland and Antarctica are not floating in the ocean. If they melt, then it will directly add to the sea level. Ice in the Artic, if it melts will only minutely lower the ocean level.
December 19th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
most of the talk has been about arctice ice, and when that melts, sea level will decrease. in the Antarctic, we are getting more ice and snow, but if that melts, most of it on land, then presumably the sea levels would rise, but the problem is that what melts is that which is already at sea, as the glaciers press outward. people were worried when 15B broke off the Ross Ice Shelf, but it was already in the water, and when it melts, it won’t affect anything. however, if the sea level does rise 7 inches, who cares. Do you live 7 inches above sea level?
December 19th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
so, a “warming hole” exists right where most power plants burn coal? Interesting. We burn coal for electricity, and our temperatures are not rising. (Rockies to Appalachians) Out west, power is hydroelectric. somebody tell me how using coal is causing global warming? Of course, since most liberals live on the east and west coasts, and that, apparently, is where the temperatures are rising, the primary cause of warming is people talking too much without saying anything important.
December 19th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Concerning the responses up there about ice melting in water, not causing the water level to rise….
I would assume they’re talking about huge ice sheets and glaciers melting that are on LAND (upper Canada, Greenland, Himalayas, Antarctica, etc, etc, etc), thus it would be additional water entering the oceans.
December 19th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
When Ice is on land and melts into the sea the melt-water will be added to the total volume of the sea. Fourth grade science won’t cut it any more, take some responsibility people. We can not continue to use the current energy solutions and expect no problems in the future for our posterity.
December 19th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
When Greenland was actually green in the dark ages, the ocean level was about the same as it is now. That period was about 7 degrees WARMER than it is now. During the mini ice age that followed that lasted until 1830’s, the ocean level was about the same as it is now. Where do these ’scientists’ come from?
December 19th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
Hey fourth-grade experimenters,have you overlooked the fact that the ice that’s melting is not only sea-ice, but land-based glaciers as well?(anyone ever heard of Greenland?) If you pile a bunch of ice-cubes on a plaform (Land) next to your glass and let the run-off drain into your glass (Sea) will it not then overflow ?
Just saying…….
December 19th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
So good to see some people starting to think things through for themselves.
Melting arctic ice will not change the level of the oceans. Deal with it.
You doomsayers need to get your facts straight. Not going to be easy due to your complete lack of them.
December 19th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
Because there was climate change before, that means that we can do no wrong, and we are doing absolutely nothing to speed up the process. Just ask any Republican. I live in Florida, and there are sharks teeth all over the whole state, it was underwater once, and it will be again. This is natural, there is no such thing as ozone depletion. Pollution complaining is socialist. – yes I am being very sarcastic.
December 19th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
Water levels are also prdicted to rise in the New York sewer system on Jan 1 2009..!
December 19th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
Thank god for global warming! What would it be like now if it weren’t getting so hot? I think I’ll throw couple of more logs on the fire; the earth needs a bit more CO2.
December 19th, 2008 at 11:11 pm
There a whole continent cover in at least 1000 feet of Ice that will melt and ADD water to the oceans that wasnt displacing anything. So when you add water to a full cup waht happens? This is something you can do at home too!
December 19th, 2008 at 11:15 pm
Alot of the ice is on land, not in the water. Ice melts on land level goes up. Denying the fact the we caused this isn’t going to make it go away.
December 19th, 2008 at 11:56 pm
Let’s see now. There’s a temperature rise on the entire continent except for a ‘hole’ between the Rockies and the Appalachians? Isn’t that about 3/4’s of the country?? What a joke. These people will stop at nothing. Probably some of the same people who said we were entering an ice age back in the 70’s.
December 20th, 2008 at 12:52 am
Hysteria is correct.Glacial advance and retreat has been one of a number of major factors in global temperature.Man’s role ( if any ) would
have little impact.I think certain people are
trying to create a for profit ” green industry”
December 20th, 2008 at 3:04 am
Never underestimate these five things:
1. the insatiable greed of billionaires;
2. the willingness of their purchased politicians
to please them;
3. the duplicity of rented lackeys in ‘academia’
and ‘the media’;
4. the mindless fanatic zeal of earth-worshippers;
5. the gullible stupidity of comfortable, busy
Americans.
It’s all about the hidden taxes of Cap and Trade!!! If there wasn’t any more money to be squeezed out of taxpayers, No one would care about the sky falling! Hoax of the millennia!
December 20th, 2008 at 5:06 am
Why is it that they started their warming trend right after one of the earths coldest decades ever recorded? I can only wonder.
December 20th, 2008 at 6:40 am
Changes in climate over the course of Earth’s history are a normative event.
The rate of warming occuring now is manmade. Compared to historical climate studies.
Man has been pumping huge amounts of heat into the oceans from nuclear plants engineering, cooling paradigm. Moreover the amount of heat from all of our activities from the first industrial age, slash and burn farming, wars, current industry, auto’s, air travel and such is enourmas and culmative. CO2 is a great way to force the issue of global warming to one suspect. The truth of the matter is all the crap and heat we put into a closed system,over the last 150 years. Man has turned our Garden of Eden into a polluted and heated cesspool. Like a ballon, sooner or later, global warming gases are going to effect the atmosphere. Heating it up in record time and as we further destroy the natural mechinisms, that can no longer deal with our pollutants and industry. And the massive culmulative heat we pour into the ballon.
For all you naysayers, a degree of heating per fifty years is huge. Unprecedented, with significant ramifications.
Gone is summer skiing in France and Italy due to global warming at record rates. The African continent and American West are undergoing record drought. We have lost record ice in Greenland, Iceland,Northern Canada and Alaska. The currents that flow to Antartica at 3000–8000 feet. Have never warmed so quickly.
In your search engines look at the comparisons of glacial retreat from fity years ago until now. Their is nothing in the geologic and ice records, going back hundreds of thousands of years. That equal the warming happening now.
The planet offered man all he needed. Instead we have destroyed our Earth. With a foolish economy based on consumerism, war, enviormental destruction and hunting animals to exstinction and razing our biosphere.
If one does not believe the planet is undergoing manmade global warming and record heating and pollution. That shows you know nothing about the research or science involved.
Go to some science and glacier sites with data. Then find the sites with then and now picture sites of the worlds glaciers. Of which over 90% are in retreat.
If global pollution and warming do not bite you it will kill your children.
WILDCAT!!!!!
December 20th, 2008 at 8:22 am
This is a message for Jeff. Jeff, like many Fox News viewers (as above) and contributors -such as Sean Hannity- you use the correct argument that melting ice doesn’t raise water levels as it’s already immersed in water. However the majority of ice melt will come from land resting glaciers in places like Greenland and Antartica where the melting ice is flowing into the oceans. As for Glaciers reforming- not correct. Glaciers that are tens of thousands of years old are now disappearing at a dramitic rate. I’ve visited many of them myself but don’t take my word for it- visit some scientific websites which monitor global ice levels.
December 20th, 2008 at 8:26 am
Message for Ray- no human activity wasn’t. However previous climate change occurred over a period of hundreds if not thousands of years. Human induced climate change is forcing the climate to change in a few tens of years. It’s going to do tremendous damage to the species sharing this planet with us. We’re already well into one of the greatest mass extinctions cause directly by humanity. Climate change will add to it.
December 20th, 2008 at 10:32 am
OK, kids, here’s how it works. If the ice is floating, of course, there in no effective change in sea level. But, and here is where the light should go on to brighten up your dim little minds, if the ice is on land and melts, it adds to the volume of water in the oceans and raises sea level. And, when floating ice melts, the sea surface reflects less heat than the ice and the water warms quicker. Stop finding ways to confront science with faith and blindness.
December 20th, 2008 at 10:59 am
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=541
December 20th, 2008 at 11:48 am
Forget it. Herb, Harry, Mike et al. Your comments are falling on deaf ears.
The climate has been going through periods of warming and cooling for eons, before SUVs, before Coal fired plants, before humans were in the equation.
The most recent period of global warming began around 790 AD and lasted until about 1300. The next big change is called the “Little Ice Age”, starting in 1300, with increased glaciations, and building of the Arctic ice pack. The impact on humans was dramatic, with population loss in many areas of the northern hemisphere. It did not end until around 1860. We are now in the recovery period from that Ice Age.
Well, here I am using empirical data against something that was “discovered” by a politician, and is being touted by the media. As long as they can make money off this piece of fiction, they will keep it going.
December 20th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Sounds like some more Al Gore fantasy to me.
December 20th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Would fox news please get these guys to put their data up on the web. Whenever, their data sets are seen by the public, errors show up that they have overlooked. According to correct data,the last 8 years has been cooling not warming. Also, the method of calculating a “global temperature” does not exist by anyone’s standard. Satellites as a sensor has drift in its data just as do temperature meters.
December 20th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
This is a political issue, not a scientific issue. Those in power or wishing to be in power need a way to promise something to those they wish to control. If a proposed impending global problem cannot be made into a man-caused problem, then those mere men making the proposals cannot convince others they can stop it. If those power-mongers can convince others it is man-caused then they can also impose their financial controls like Kyoto on others for even more long-lasting control, under the guise of saving their complacent sheep-like followers from themselves.
Humans and our greatest effors are but puny ants and ant piles relative to the climate effects of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases emitted naturally and the solar heating effects related to the Earth’s axis tilt, orbit shape, solar activity, etc., and it is nothing but huge egos gone amuck to believe otherwise.
December 20th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
question for the moderators. Do you people deny all comments in support of the world scientific consensus or just mine? If the opposition, like your collection of like minded knuckle draggers here, is right then no one loses. Some scientists lose face. If the National Academy of Science is right then civilization will be hard pressed to survive and you guys (fox) should feel great about yourselves for pushing us toward that eventuality. Congrats.
December 21st, 2008 at 9:00 am
THIS IS THE BIGGEST HOAX SINCE ORSEN WELLES SCARED EVERYONE ABOUT AN ATTACK FROM MARS.
WEATHER IS CYCLICAL, IT WAS JUST A FEW YEARS BACK THAT WE WERE HEADED TOWARDS FROZEN TUNDRA.
THERE IS MORE TRUTH IN FICTION THAN THERE IS IN SCIENCE!
December 21st, 2008 at 12:37 pm
So what about the glaciers that is over land? Don’t know how much there is, but I guess it could make the difference.
December 21st, 2008 at 1:09 pm
I HAVE LIVED ON THE GULF OF MEXICO FOR TEN YEARS THE WATER HAS NOT RISEN A SINGLE BIT NONE!! NOTHING NADA!!!
December 21st, 2008 at 1:37 pm
The Archimedes Principle would be true if you were only referring to sea born glaciers. If the land based glaciers melted the sea levels would HAVE to go up. Go back to fourth grade science!
December 21st, 2008 at 4:33 pm
It is true that ice does displace water and that, therefore, as ice melts it will not cause a rise in water levels. However, the kitchen experiment of watching ice cubes melt in a glass of water is not good science. It fails to account for the ice that is above the waterline. A smaller proportion of a glacier is above the waterline, however, it is a significant percentage of the total mass and would create a certain amount of rise.
December 21st, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Ice that melts over land, in places like Greenland and Antarctica will raise the sea level. It is my understanding that most of the ice in the world is over land, not floating in the oceans. But there are a lot of other factors that I know I don’t have the answers for.
For example, Antarctica is not flat. Much of the ice is on mountains. The same is true for Greenland. Will that snow melt as fast the ice floating in the Arctic? Probably not.
We know that glaciers in some areas are receding rapidly, growing elsewhere. Do the models use an average over the world, or do they use thousands of data points?
Given that tides and storm cause way more variation than the rise that is predicted, is it even significant? (Probably for the Maldive islands but who else?)
Without knowing a lot more about the study, the biases of the participants, and their funding, it is impossible to know the likelyhood of their models being correct.
December 21st, 2008 at 5:30 pm
Glaciers are not on the water floating…they are large masses of ice sitting on top of land. As they melt the water makes its way back to the ocean.
It’s absurd how many people do not believe in climate change. It’s a part of Earth’s natural evoultion. Parts of Texas near San Antonio use to at one time be UNDER the ocean. You can find coral shells in cliff faces.
Sea ice melting will not cause the ocean to rise because it is already floating around in the water. However anything on land that makes it’s way into the water will raise ocean levels. It is simple physics.
8 ounces of water becomes 9 ounces if you add another ounce…
December 21st, 2008 at 8:29 pm
Any increase in sea levels would only come from melting, land-based glaciers, as these are not currently affecting sea levels. The primary concern then would be the Greenland and Antarctic glacial masses. The difficulty here SEEMS to be that neither are melting all that quickly, according to some information sources cited by Michael Crichton in “State of Fear”.
Having said that, history shows how quickly climatic systems can alter. Thus, the most pragmatic course, while ignoring the man-made climate change hysteria, is to look at plans to deal with the possible results of whatever change might come.
That would truly be a progressive move.
December 22nd, 2008 at 10:17 am
Arrogant bunch of …
This is the new way of controlling how people will live
December 22nd, 2008 at 10:29 am
Why does ice float? When water gets cold, it ’sinks’ and just before it freezes, it ‘rises’ to the surface. Thats why lakes can be frozen, and fish and other creatures still survive underneath- they aren’t frozen in the water.
Now think about that: the density of water(frozen) is less than the density of water(liquid). Thats why ice floats, it is less dense. Even though it occupies more volume, it is less dense.
Now to get to your “experiments” and the so called extra research you’ve done: When your ice cube melts in your cup, where is the ice cube?
…
…
You have it submerged in the water.
Polar ice caps are only partially submerged in water. Remember that earth has a process that returns moisture to the surface i.e. snowing. Polar ice caps are many many layers of frozen moisture. When it melts (returns to liquid), it DOES take up less space as a liquid, but it wasnt on the surface (of the ocean) before; it was a layer on top of the glacier.
Ice floats, it can penetrate the surface (of the ocean); it builds up (vertically)
Sorry if this sounds confusing, just wanted to help clarify the conclusions that every scientist makes re: polar ice melting
I dont know if anyone takes wikipedia as an authority:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise
December 22nd, 2008 at 11:46 am
Seas rise because the ice is not all floating, it is over land in canada, greenland, and antarctica. Since most of the ice discussed is over land, it currently is not displacing water. Redo the ice in the glass experiment by placing the ice above the water on a filter, then, as it melts, it WILL raise water levels.
December 22nd, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Such rubbish. Are these so called experts trying to scare everyone. In the past when the weather changed they did not have factories, cars etc. What caused the weather to change. The scientists have had their five minutes, get a life. Stop trying to justify getting more money from the government and other sources. Get a real job and make a honest living.
December 22nd, 2008 at 1:06 pm
More Lies and deceit from Hansen and his merry men
December 22nd, 2008 at 1:24 pm
I measured, three times, the melting of ice in a cup and the water level dropped slightly. And there has been precious little discussion of the past climate warmings (known as the climate optimum) in the dire warnings of these so-called “scientists” who are really politicians in disguise.
If you ask me, this entire global warming thing is a socialist experiment and land grab with the goal of scaring people.
This global warming crowd is pushing the worst kind of science and deserve no consideration from the people of this country.
December 22nd, 2008 at 1:39 pm
They are not talking about ocean ice melting and raising water levels. They are talking about the land bound glaciers melting ie: Greenland, Arctic (ice nearly 2 miles deep) that ice melting WILL rasie levels considerably.
December 22nd, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Agreed
December 22nd, 2008 at 2:57 pm
IT’S ALL A BIG SCAM-HOW MUCH MONEY IS BEING MADE
IN THE EFFORT TO GO GREEN?
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Hey, ice cube guys, the melting ice that will make the oceans rise is on… HELLO! LAND!
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Just to calibrate the level of commmentary on this blog: 3 out of the 9 posts are about sea levels not rising when sea ice melts. Absolutely true, and completely irrelevant!
The concern is about the vast ice sheets of Antarctica and, to a lesser extent, Greenland, all of which are resting on solid land. If they melt, the melt water will flow from the land into the ocean, increasing the volume of water in the ocean, and raising the sea level. More catastrophically, because quicker, they could even slide, as ice, into the sea before they’ve had a chance to melt.
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Glaciers are on land not in the sea, if it is in the sea it is called an iceberg. Therefore, when a glacier melts it is water on land that flows into the sea, raising the level. That is simple 3rd grade learning there folks. I think most of you could not get past the second grade on “Smarter Than a 5th Grader”.
December 22nd, 2008 at 4:13 pm
Junk science at its worst. Garbage in, garbage out. NASA reports that other planets in our solar system are warming also due probably to solar activity. Or are Americans off-roading in their SUV’s there also. There have been periods in the earth’s past when carbon dioxide levels have been 3 times what they are now with temperate temperatures at the poles. Al Gore not only invented the internet, he also invented a phony climate crisis. He is probably getting rich off of suckers buying carbon credits from him.
December 22nd, 2008 at 6:01 pm
Sorry guys but glaciers are not ice cubes. They are like a river of ice that moves slowly over land. They do eventally make it to water and break off into the ocean and cause ice burgs. see also continental ice sheet; does anyone here even have a college education? Highschool?
December 22nd, 2008 at 6:31 pm
ok all i have to say is that you all are idiots!! yes when ice melts in a glass the water level goes down but we are not talking about ice melting in the ocean we are talking about glacers and ice sheets on land that are melting which is causing sea levels to rise. GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT BEFORE YOU TRY TO DISCREDIT SCIENTISTS.
December 23rd, 2008 at 1:53 am
why is such a monumental event reported on with such a small blurb?
We could have an informed populous if you put more energy into reporting on events such as the EU meeting, instead you give sparse information and leave people uninformed.
December 23rd, 2008 at 7:31 am
well lets see, if we go by this nov. were were 5 degrees below normal and so is december. I guess Al baby had better turn on more lights so he can buy carbon credits from his company.
December 23rd, 2008 at 7:31 am
It WILL rise, I’m telling you.
for I know.
I am the great Oz…
er….. Gore….
December 23rd, 2008 at 9:26 am
I wonder if these “sceintist” have looked at the weather in the past two years. There have been record “lows” that have not been seen in over 40 years and just walk out your door right now and tell me where the global warming is affecting because I’m sure the people in the midwest and northeast would love some global warming right now. Does some adverse affect of global warming cause it to snow in Las Vegas? I live in Alabama and it didn’t get above 40 here yesterday, another record low. El Nino is what caused a warmer increase in tempatures over a period of time but that affect is gone now and will cycle back through every so often, using true science and having an honest unbiased agenda, you can see this evidence. Ignorance causes fear.
December 23rd, 2008 at 9:51 am
What caused the end of the Ice Age? To my knowledge there were no humans or SUV’s roaming the frozen surface. Anyone can pick and chose numbers to make it look anyway they wish and I don’t see anywhere stating that this is proven to be the cause of anything. The word “probably” is used way too many times in the article. “Probably”, “unlikely”, and “likely” are not scientific fact but a hypothesis. If it is “global warming” doesn’t that imply the whole globe, not just selective parts having increase in temperature. I live in the South where they state the temperature has not increased (as dramatically as they hoped for) but of course they can explain that away. Tell me how living near a large, warm body of water like the ocean, which they say those temperatures are rising and we have people and SUV’s just like everyone else and yet our temperature isn’t changing like everyone else? Is global warming being selective or just inconsistent with observable facts and data?
December 23rd, 2008 at 10:53 am
Sea levels will fall. Water expands and becomes less dense when it freezes – that why it floats. Sea levels should drop as the result of melting polar icecaps – putting more fresh water in circulation, leading to more evaporation leading to drought mitigation. Hoorah for global warming – whatever is causing it.
December 23rd, 2008 at 11:07 am
Glaciers are sheets of ice….most are not just floating around in the water like the icebergs are….Greenland is an island covered in ice…so when it melts it would be like pouring water into your cup that is already full.
December 23rd, 2008 at 11:12 am
It is funny how so many people are doing all they can to dismiss what is really happening. What is so wrong with finding alternate fuel and energy sources? Why not make things better for the environment? A lot of people are so much against “global warming”, I have to ask, why? It doesnt really matter if you believe in GW or not, is it right to dump trash in the ocean? Is it not better for all of us to breath cleaner air? I mean seriously people why are you so resistant to making a few Changes in your personal habits? Why are you so resistant to new ideas and new things? Even if Global Warming isnt as catastrophic as all these Scientists make it out to be, what is so wrong with doing things better, cleaner and smarter?
December 23rd, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Floating ice when it melts will not raise ocean levels – this is correct and taken into account by the models. Thus,this is NOT the ice they are refering to when discussing ocean levels. The ice that matters is on land and there is more of that than currently floating.
The earth does naturally warm and cool and we are in a natural warming period – that is also correct. However, mankind can now speed that process along. Is it smart to take a process that would have taken hundreds of thousands of years and make it happen in our lifetimes?
America needs to take the lead on green technologies. It will make the US stronger economically and more secure. Do you really want to keep funding nations that hate you? Is that smart?
December 23rd, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Big Algore, the self-serving pied piper of the environuts is making his fortune hyping global warming just as Jesse Jackson makes his money promoting racism. Global warming may indeed be
happening and man may indeed be making some contribution but man will adapt and we will be fine..The sky is not falling and chicken little need not fear. The frozen tundras of Siberia, Alaska, Canada etc. etc. will make great places to grow wheat. If the sea rises, man can simply move to higher ground. The seas have risen hundreds of feet since the last ice age.
I don’t care about global warming. I will be fine.
December 23rd, 2008 at 12:47 pm
The seas have risen well over a hundred feet since
the last ice age. So What ? Man will adapt and will be just fine. The sky is not falling and chicken little need not fear. Just move to higher ground.
Climate changes. Look at the positive aspects.
An unfrozen arctic ocean offers many positive opportunities. The frozen tundra of Siberia, Alaska, Canada etc. would make great places to grow wheat & corn..Man will adapt and we will be just fine..I am not worried about climate change and do not care.
December 23rd, 2008 at 12:52 pm
The rise in sea level is because warmer water takes up more room than colder water, which makes sea levels go up, a process known as thermal expansion.
December 23rd, 2008 at 2:16 pm
the math doesnt even work out in this. if the temperature increased .12 degrees every decade for 11 decades(1.32 degrees), but in the last 5 decades it has increased .41 degrees per decade (2.05 degrees), where is the other .73 degrees coming from? either the temperature decreased since the industrial revolution began or someone made up numbers trying to make an argument.
December 23rd, 2008 at 3:48 pm
What’s the earth’s temperature RIGHT NOW? You can’t just add up all the temperature measurements we collect.
We have lots of weather stations in the US and western Europe, not so much in Russia or China, only a few hundred in the oceans (though that’s 2/3 of the surface). Satellites do not measure TEMPERATURE, they measure radiation or other parameters and infer the temperature based on another model.
But it’s winter in the southern hemisphere, and a storm front is crossing Nebraska, and it’s night time on half the planet, and the orbit eccentric, and the sun is oscillating, and sunspots are up this year! So these guys use models of seasonal variations and weather norms to correct for these patterns to infer an “average temperature”. For the missing data they make “reasonable scientific assumptions”. (But when the results are unreasonable, what makes you think the assumptions are?)
Then use the model-corrected data to validate the models.
We can’t predict the temperature and wind effects on a hurricane five days ahead. How do we validate a model that predicts years ahead? Or centuries?
That’s the root problem with all these reports. It’s always based on someone’s model that is difficult to validate. The models do not agree in any valid detail, but we don’t hear about the disagreements. And they have never published a analysis for any of the dozen models of their sensitivity to variations in their assumptions.
As a theoretical physicist, I can create a model that will match any set of data. And have to re-do its assumptions as soon as any new data shows up; give me a few minutes.
Mose of this is blather to draw politically-motivates research funding. This round started in the Carter administration when an atmospheric scientist joined OSTP (Office of Science and Technology Policy – the president’s science advisor) with the stated intention to increase funding for atmospheric science by making it a political and policy issue.
There may be something here. After all, 70,000 years ago there was 2,000 feet of ice over Manhattan Island, and 6,000 feet over the Rockies – that’s how those glacial valleys and the Great Lakes were carved. Grinell Glacier in Montana is barely 200 feet thick and will disappear this century; it’s been warming up for most of those 70,000 years.
But the honest science has been overwhelmed by the politics and media blather.
December 23rd, 2008 at 4:10 pm
and how did oil get on this planet??? Oh that’s right from previous periods of global warming. So I guess we just haven’t found the automobiles they used billions of years ago that caused that. maybe soon we can discover those.
These people really are morons there is no other way to describe them.
December 23rd, 2008 at 4:24 pm
I believe the issue is the Ice Sheets that are melting on land masses like Antartica and Greenland. These ice sheets are melting and flowing off the land into the water.
I’m not a man made global warming fan….but natural cycles do happen. What will be will be.
December 23rd, 2008 at 5:52 pm
About 70% of the earth are oceans, containing over 1.3 billion cubic kilometers of water. How much water would you have to add to this massive “Pool” to raise the level worldwide one inch, let alone several feet? Where is this extra water coming from that will raise it any level? There’s only so much water on earth. Nothing but a hoax, pure and simple.
December 23rd, 2008 at 6:00 pm
Harry the Farmer. So you agree man has been adding more Carbon Dioxide into the atmosphere? Hmmm? Your larger crops certainly couldn’t be attributed to improved farming methods, irrigation, fertilizers or genetically altered or hybrid plants now could it. Let’s immediately go to climate change.
December 23rd, 2008 at 6:26 pm
Just read to interesting things this past fall that have nothing to do with “scientific” study…
1. “The Sagas of the Ice Landers” – in it the stories allude to the Viking Settlers stopping their migrations to Greenland because of … ummm… ICE. So do I assume there was LESS ICE when they began to settle Greenland?
2. In a magazine article a discussion about a Spanish Pearl Ship left in what was formerly a LAKE in the California Desert. Apparently they sailed up the Gulf of California, into this lake from the Colorado River and in the year this lake apparently dried up the Ship (or was it Ships) could not get out. So… how did there become a lake there less than 500 years ago? Was the ocean higher then? Hmmmm…
We have the mini Ice Age of the Middle Ages which explains the Viking abandonment of exploring Greenland…. we have a Spanish Ship in the mid-1500s stuck in a drying up lake in California and we have a bunch of morons so stuck on their ’science’ they cannot fathom (pun intended) a history written in books being printed to this very day.
And you know what is really sad? These guys are our ‘leaders’… the people forming the minds of the future and they don’t have a thimble full of common sense. Scary ain’t it?
December 23rd, 2008 at 8:43 pm
One more time the greenie weenies are endeavoring to mislead the public and it is notable that Fox News goes along with the “Man is at fault” crowd as they simply post this nonsense.
December 23rd, 2008 at 11:53 pm
Without expressing any opinion on the claims of global warming or its causes and effects, there is something misunderstood in much of this discussion:
When ice is floating in a glass and it melts, the water level may not rise. The same can be said of pack ice floating in the Arctic.
However, glacial ice is not floating in the ocean. It is sliding down the mountains above them. Most of the ice in Greenland and Antarctica is sitting on land, not floating in the ocean.
When you let an ice cube slide down the side of a glass into the water, the water level does rise. If you let the cube melt over the glass, the water level rises.
That rise may or may not be offset by other effects, but melting glacial ice and melting floating ice do have different effects on sea levels.
December 24th, 2008 at 12:15 am
It is true that when ice that is floating in water melts, the water level stays the same (more or less — water is actually most dense at 4 degrees Celcius).
But much of the ice that is melting (e.g. glaciers in the Rocky Mountains, Greenland, etc.) is not floating in water — they’re on land. So all that water adds to the water in the sea.
The other thing is that as water heats up, even though it is still liquid, it expands.
December 24th, 2008 at 12:24 am
Seems to me that reality is getting in the way of romance with regard to this poorly planned “Green” plan that uses top-down thinking rather than bottom-up incentives for people to want to treat the environment better.
One does wonder at the cost-benefit analysis that each project has had before being adopted out of romantic sentiments rather than hard-nosed business and project management views. If governments got out of the way and businesses were given tax-breaks to do cleanups with profits that embrace capitalistic ideals, then there would be more enthusiasm for this stuff. Instead, it’s going to be more dismal failures, abandonments and outright refusals by smart leaders who see failure in the stars with the current poor planning and execution.
This should be a warning to the U.S. – Too bad our leaders are falling down the same rabbit hole.
December 24th, 2008 at 12:45 am
The ice has all melted before and it will again. However, the sea levels rising is a myth. A scare tactic. I guess a good example is to fill a glass with ice and then fill with water and mark the water level. Let the ice melt. You will then notice that the water level is actually lower. Give it a try.
December 24th, 2008 at 12:57 am
It’s not the melting of icebergs that’s the issue, it’s glaciers that are on land, which melt and run off into the sea.
December 24th, 2008 at 9:34 am
The glaciers are on land (not floating on water)– so their melting will cause ocean levels to rise.
December 24th, 2008 at 11:36 am
News flash!! Glaciers are land based! They melt into the ocean and increase the water volume. o_O
December 24th, 2008 at 11:45 am
Floating ice displaces water equal to its weight, and therefore its melting does not increase the height of the water. Ice on land (i.e. the antarctic but not the arctic ice) will transform to water and then flow into the ocean, adding to its total volume (and therefore height).
Apparently 4th grade science class did not include geology.
December 24th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Jeff, Walter and Paul
Do you not realize that most of the ice is not in the water but on land, Look at a map of Antartica and Greenland, Thats land buried under miles of ice in most areas thousands of feet deep thats discharging its melt water into the oceans of the world. 836,109 square miles for Greenland and 5,297,321 square miles of ice covered land for Antarctica, Fill your bathtub up to the top and pour a bucket of water into it, tell me what happens, Oh Yeaaaa, it raises the water level and floods.
December 24th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
We are undeniably using up resources, putting moxious chemicals in the air and food that are not healthy. I’m not one to say it’s all our fualt the earth’s climate is changing, it’s scientific fact it’s gone through these kinds of changes before. But look at a crowded city skyline, see that layer of thick brown muck? Sorry friends, there’s no way you can tell me that breathing that in everyday is great for you.
Nor is it any good for the food we grown, animal and plant alike… to use the growth hormones we do. Nor is it healthy to eat food packed with preservatives .. becuase the market cares more about shelf life of taste than our well being. No theory is perfect, but we definately need to take a look at these unhealthy habits we’ve gained. So whether driving that Hummer or other rediculous SUV to work every day is cuasing polar ice caps to melt, is irrelevent. It’s gluttonous, and ruining our air quality without question.
December 24th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Way to go Foxnews. Global warming junk science needs another media outlet. You guys can’t seem to figure out when to go for the truth, or to go with the crowd.
December 24th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
@Paul, You are right that sea levels won’t rice when the Arctic ice melts. It will rise when the ice on Greenland and the ice in the ANTarctic. Those Ice sheets are on land and do not currently float on the surface of the water.
When thousands of good and honest scientists are saying something is a problem, you should listen.
December 24th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Do you guys realize that even Sarah Palin believes in Global Warming. Do you guys not realize that tulips will begin budding in DC in February? Yes, there have been several instances of climate change in the past, but if you had any concept of chemistry at all you would understand how that carbon dioxide (and methane, water vapor, and a host of other chemicals) absorbs heat and warms up the Earth. That Carbon dioxide came from Humans. The methane came from our cows.
Conservatives talk all the time about responsibility. We should be responsible for our own actions. We shouldn’t make excuses. We shouldn’t blame others. Man up and take responsibility! Our actions caused this. Sorry, but driving the Hummer two blocks to pick your kid up a big mac was a bad thing to do! Make the kid walk or ride his bike for crying out loud. Why can’t YOU take responsibility and take the spec out of YOUR OWN eye. My wife are down to one car. We Now car pool and take public trans where we go. We are taking our own responsibility. Probably not enough, but we are trying. YOU should too!
December 24th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Extreme warming has occurred often in the past – where do we think all the oil and coal, gas and fossils come from? The earth does as it wants and man (puny man) can’t change it. Most likely we will warm for some time. Who knows? But just as surely there will be another ice age in our future.
December 24th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
There are a significant number of famous glaciers that are dramatically receding. These melt and increase the flow of water from mountains to the ocean through the rivers they feed. If anybody is having difficulty believing this, a quick trip to google earth with the climate awareness layers enabled will show them all the changes our planet is undergoing right now. Simply enable the UNEP: Atlas of Our Changing Planet layer under the Global Awareness layers tab. You can look at glaciers in greenland and read about how quickly things are changing there. The Kangerdlugssuaq Glacier’s rate of flow has “more than doubled between 2000 and 2005.”
Of course you could just think your 4th grade science experiment serves as proper climactic evidence of whatever you want it to prove. Perhaps somebody could publish your findings in a journal of science? Maybe you might become the next famous scientist who showed the world’s scientists how wrong they were with your glass of ice water.
December 24th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
While it is technically true that melting sea ice does not increase sea levels, LAND ICE does. Sea ice not only reflects heat and slows warming, but it also slows the migration of land ice. Once sea ice has melted, land ice speeds its migration into the oceans. Greenland is already losing huge amounts of land ice.
Think of the sea ice as the canary in the mine. Once its gone, things really start to get bad rapidly.
December 24th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
Has anyone heard of Arcimedes? he has some interesting “PRINCIPLES”.
December 24th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
This is crazy, you people are nuts and guess who is paying for all this! “We the tax payers” Someone needs to put A STOP to all this and refocus thier energy to solving the Hungry! Just would seem more practicle. Have you nopt learned to NOT FOOL WITH MOTHER NATURE!!!!
December 24th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
Ahhh, global warming. Even NASA’s Dr. Hansen(Algore’s top advisor on global warming) admits he exagerated the effects of AGW in order to “Get your attention”. All this nonesense is about power and the acquisition thereof. NO SCIENCE NEEDED.
December 24th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
The fact is in spite of so called global warming over the last hundred years, sea levels have not risen during the last hundred years. Beach houses on both coasts have the same amount of real estate, absent sand removal and replacement from storms.
December 24th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
“More than two trillion tons of land ice in Greenland, Antarctica and Alaska have melted since 2003, according to new NASA satellite data…” and the rate appears to be accelerating. This is ice on land, not floating in the ocean.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/12/17/america/climate.php
December 24th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
Some of the rise in sea level is due to melting of the non-floating ice, i.e. the glaciers sitting on top of rock. Consider the Greenland ice — when it melts, the water will run down to the sea. And there is a lot of water tied up in glaciers in Antarctica, Greenland, other northern lands, etc. The effect of the melting northern sea ice is to make it easier for the land-bound glaciers to slide faster into the sea, where they will melt faster as they float south (the sea ice pack often acts as a barrier to the land-bound glaciers). If you don’t believe this, please move to south Florida or the gulf coast.
December 24th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
The Archimedes principle certainly applies for icebergs that are in water. But Glaciers that are land-based would add to the total volume of water in the oceans. The other thing to note, however, is that when water freezes it expands thus displacing more ocean water than the water returned to the oceans when the iceburgs melt. Also, when Icebergs melt they do not crack but they do crack if they are growing. Check it out.
December 24th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
Yea terrible those rich environmentalists that probably helped get those poor countries some financial aide
December 24th, 2008 at 10:24 pm
Caleb has it right.
December 24th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
Basically if the weight of the water needed to occupy the same volume as an object is more than the weight of the object, the object will float. Since a rock weighs more than the same volume of water, it sinks. Water actually expands as it freezes so it occupies a greater volume as ice than it does when it is water so it floats. Any object that floats, displaces a volume of water equal to its weight. So, when ice is floating in water (ice cubes, icebergs and the ice in the Artic Ocean), it has already displaced a volume of water equal to its weight. This displacement shows up as a rise in sea level. As the ice melts, the ice gradually changes to water, but the total weight is the same, just some is now water and the rest is ice. So, as the ice melts, the sea level will basically not change. However, if as the ice melts, some of it evaporates and say forms clouds, then the sea level would actually drop a tiny bit since the sea is no longer supporting the weight of the water that evaporated.
Now ice that has its weight supported by land does not raise the level of the sea (glaciers, the ice on Greenland, the ice on Antartica, etc.). When this ice melts and if its water flows to the ocean, the sea level rises since the sea is not supporting the original weight of the ice but now gains the weight (and volume) of the water from the melting ice.
So, the loss of ice in the Artic Ocean may be a sign that the weather at the North Pole is warmer, but the sea level has not changed because of it. However, the ice in the world’s glaciers, Greenland and Antartica is also melting and it will raise the level of the sea and these sources have a lot of ice.
December 25th, 2008 at 1:13 am
How much do we pay these “scientists”? They have carved out a secure niche for themselves as part of the 150 years of alarmist reporting about warming or cooling.
Even grade-school science tells us the freezing of water increases its volume by 10% (and thereby bursts its containers). Does it not therefore stand to reason the oceans’ levels could DECREASE dramatically with large-scale melting?
If their premise is correct that widespread warming will melt polar regions, the results would be cold water flowing toward the tropics, causing cooling.
Natural climactic cycles have resulted in cooling since 1998; all warming of the past 20 years to 1998 has been erased by the cooling of the past 10 years, and yet these scientists seem to be dreadfully unaware.
December 25th, 2008 at 2:17 am
If the ice is higher than sea level, and is not displacing water (eg. in Antarctica, it’s held up by land), when it melts, there will be more water. The north pole probably won’t have this effect though. Either way I doubt the amount of added water would be significant enough to raise the sea level much.
December 25th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
So Foxnews has finally been cowed by advertisers into starting up a “green” website. I knew you were fickle but this is ridiculous. Now I suppose your news stories will be green slanted from now on. Money talks Foxnews eh?
December 26th, 2008 at 12:02 am
It’s funny how we have been listening to these global warming / climate change threats from Al Gore’s Company of Clowns and yet nothing happens. Where are all of the hurricanes? Earthquakes? Why are the poles actually freezing up thicker and sooner than predicted, as well as compared to historic events?
How long is it going to take people to wise up and see Al Gore, Bill Ritter, and the rest of these people for the charlatans they are? Has anyone figured out how much money these global warming kooks have made since they went on their bandwagon, sky-is-falling parade of fear mongering? I’ll bet they have put more dollars in their pockets than facts produced to prove them right.
Gardie
December 26th, 2008 at 11:45 am
You know, there’s more to Global warming than you Scientists own. As much as the people cause pollution on this planet, it has no effect to the extent it causes Global Warming. The whole Solar System is involved. Maybe it is the miming effect for the other planets involved. The rest of them are jealous Earth is getting all the attention. =-)
But, you gotta give them something or than lose hope and panic.
December 26th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
This “ice cubes in my cup don’t raise the level” garbage is the latest ruse climate change deniers are tossing around. The ice that will raise the ocean levels isn’t “inside the cup.” It’s above sea level. Try filling your fast-food drink with ice from the machine. Under this cockamamie theory, you could fill your cup with ice to infinity and the drink level would never change. Try it. But make sure you have lots of napkins around.
Global warming is real, and it’s coming soon to a location near you. Deny it or not, it’s coming, and you’re being unbelievably dense to pretend it won’t affect. Conservatives tend to operate out of fear. This is you. Fear won’t work. Action will work.
December 26th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
The problem is an out-of-control human population explosion. A good long war, famine, pestilince will take care of that. Remember it was the Black Plague that brought the end of serfdom and increase wages of freemen. FDR’s New Deal didn’t break the stranglehold of the Great Depression – World War II did. Need more examples?
December 27th, 2008 at 6:21 am
1) they talked about glaciers melting… not sea ice…
2) there are no “new glaciers” forming… tropical zone ones are nearly gone and all temperate zone glaciers are retreating (melting).
3) The primary reason for the rise in ocean levels is due to the thermal co-efficient of water: a warm water takes up more room than cold water.
4) the threat in the northern hemisphere is the dilution of sea water in the North Atlantic with melted polar ice: the fresh water “floats” and is carried by the Gulf Steam… because it is less dense than sea water it does not sink once cooled to return to the mid-south atlantic and recharge the gulf steam. Result: relatively warm N. Europe looses the gulf effect, becomes like labrador… equals a collapse of the Euro-temperate zone… eg; new ice age.
5) historic ice age events were not caused by man, true. Just as prehistoric forest fires were not (typically) caused by man… but that doesn’t keep man’s current activity from causing fires, or an ice age.
Only “Fact” that I can support: you can not release a 500 million year accretion of carbon in 100 years without some profound effect.
December 27th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Some of these comments must have been left by complete idiots. Yes, melted sea ice will not cause the oceans to rise, but the ice on Greenland and Antartica is not sea ice, it is on land. Melt a piece of ice OVER a cup of water, letting the melted ice drip into the cup, then measure the water level in the cup. Even a 4th grader can tell you what will happen. Next time, don’t make an arguement without checking out all the facts first.
December 27th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
The ice that is worrisome is not the ice floating in the oceans. It is the ice sheets that cover arctic land in Canada, Greenland, Antarctica, and on mountains throughout the world. Don’t fool yourself–as those ice sheets melt and flow into the ocean the seas will rise.
December 27th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
Why do a lot of Americans insist global warming is a conspiracy? Do you think the world’s most emminent scientists would agree man made global is a fact when it isn’t? Why can’t you accept scientific evidence?
December 27th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
The reality is that no one can say for sure what will happen when all this ice melts.
14,000 years ago the ocean level was 300 feet lower than today. 11,000 years ago at the end of the Ice Age the ocean levels approach what they are today. Where was that water 14,000 years ago, and where did the water 11,000 years ago come from?
I’m not too concerned with the level of the ocean. What should be of concern is what happens to the Atlantic and Japanese currents if they have too much fresh water dumped into them. That -will- change the climate.
December 27th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
it’s not the floating sea ice that’ll cause the oceans to rise it’s 1)the landbound ice in the southpole. and 2)thermal expansion at temperature rise (when you heat water it expands)
December 29th, 2008 at 10:53 am
I can see the basics of Geolgy have escaped a couple of the FoxFans (Im actually not surprised) The glaciers which these SCIENTISTS are talking about are ON THE LAND, and when they melt the water runs off INTO THE SEA so for you coffee cup analogists…thats what causes the sea level to rise!
December 29th, 2008 at 11:35 am
Sure, melting floating ice won’t cause water levels to rise. Duh! Now rub a few brain cells together and see if you can think of any huge chunks of ice that AREN’T floating. Sheesh!
December 29th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
i think the whole oceans rising is a load of BS. scientists also said in the year 2000 all computer equipment would have issues b/c on the 00 and the computer would think its 1900. these scientists in Nothern Europe should spend all the tax payers money on helping PEOPLE with AIDS cancer and other deadly things hurting people now, not oceans going up a big 7 inches over 100 years, wow we loss 7 inches of coastline every 100 years so what thats one person not fitting on the beach.
December 30th, 2008 at 9:05 am
I’m glad to see that people are starting to wake up and realize that this whole “global warming” thing is just a big lie, set out to make other like Al Gore richer and the rest of us poorer.
The Earth has heated up and cooled down many, many times with or without mankinds presence and it will continue to do so. Oceans will also continue to rise and fall as well. It is really pretty stupid for people to think that the Earth doesn’t change, it always has in the past.
December 30th, 2008 at 9:53 am
What twaddle. Kinda funny how Fox News launched this silly green site at just about the time when global warming dogma is being so thoroughly undermined by more credible science.
December 30th, 2008 at 11:52 am
There are two positions on global warming and I would like to each one represented equally. The green position has been marketed well but its “scientific position” has a cherry-picked academia. Though the pro-warming argument at times fits the weather patterns after shoveling 3 feet of snow from my roof Christmas day I am a skeptic. Let’s hear equally objective news from each position equally!
December 30th, 2008 at 11:56 am
These new lights give me a chilled feeling. There is no warmth and sparkle, and they are very dim. The clear looks like blue and hurts my eyes. I like the heat put out by incandescent bulbs. They allow me to keep my heat down a little. A world full of LED and energy efficient bulbs is a cold and dingy world indeed.
December 30th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
To Jeff, and for Paul Grimard:
Land-based Arctic ice isn’t already in the ocean. Ocean-based Arctic Ice won’t change the sea level, but the land-based Artic Ice is like melting an ice cube and adding that melt to a cup already full of water.
To experiment: freeze some water on a plate — make the plate pretty full if you can, ideally using a deep plate.
Next, take a glass of water about 3/4 full and add enough ice cubes to bring the water level close to the top — within 1/4″.
Finally, melt the plate of ice (microwave it or oven or however, depending on what’s available and whether the plate is safe to use with the method you choose).
When the ice that covered the plate is converted to water, (carefully — ‘cuz it might be hot) pour that water into the glass containing the ice cubes.
It overflows.
Not all Arctic ice is ocean-based, and massive amounts of ice covering Greenland and other land masses are melting at an accelerated rate.
Thus, they will add water to the oceans and the sea level will rise.
December 30th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
To “Doubt” — sea levels have indeed been rising the last few years.
Here are several links to science-based publications and articles:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/02/060217091552.htm
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/gornitz_09/
http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1748-9326/2/2/024002/erl7_2_024002.html
Simply making a statement as though it is fact doesn’t help — the facts are readily available.
December 30th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Will Thorpe: some glacial growth would be expected. The earth is a dynamic system, not a partly frozen basketball in a box, so changes will include an ebb and flow.
Here’s an article that should help explain it a bit better:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060911-growing-glaciers.html
Hope that helps.
December 30th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
Loren: “A Tangled Web” — heh, interesting.
Particularly the source name.
“Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.” — Sir Walter Scott (Marmion, 1808)
December 30th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
Ray Whitten: What does human activity at the time of prehistoric climate changes have to with the repeatedly proven facts regarding human activity’s impact on the climate and environment now?
That’s a straw-man argument — there’s no connection and no relevance to making that “comparison.”
December 30th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
The 4th grade experiment logic has flaws. Ice goes down in the cup when it melts because it couldn’t spread out before. And the melting ice they are trying to show concern for is all currently on land (Greenland etc.) But I say who cares! The people who care own beachfront property. (Like Manhattan Island and the Florida Penninsula) But given enough time people will just move farther from the beach. And land that was cheap before will suddenly increase in value. Life will go on with new rules. That sounds great to me.
December 30th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
What are these greedy people going to do, take over God’s job? Germany and all these other people of the world that think they can control the weather are deluded by the demons of Greed and Pride.
Global temperature is almost wholly controlled by the amount of solar radiation that the earth receives. Any scientist that supports these greedy politicians are themselves deceived. In fact most real scientist do not support these findings and can prove that greenhouse gases created by man have an extremely small role in temperatures. The sun determines how hot or cold our planet is. Does mankind control the sun?
God has promised as long as the earth exist until Jesus returns, there will be Winter, Spring, Fall, and Summer. Are Germany and Great Britain’s leader’s able to control God and the weather? If they are, we should worship them.
No the real problem with these world leaders is that since they worship demons, they desire more power, money and control over people. It is the same idea as socialism. Give us everything and we will take care of you. However, socialist can only gain power by misrepresentation and falsehoods.
Don’t be fooled! This has nothing to do with global warming and everything to do with power and money!
December 30th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
DUMB ASSES!! GLACIERS ARE LAND BOUND AND ALOT OF LARGE ICE SHEETS ARE ALSO. MOST OF THE ICE IN ANARTICA IS LAND BOUD, AS IS GREENLAND, ICELAND, ETC.
December 30th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
The folks who are pushing for the U.S. to cut greenhouse gas pollution are most likely the same people who are in no danger of losing their job should our industrial base be saddled with yet more federal regulation. I, for one, would rather have a full belly and a dirty sky than an empty belly and clean sky….
December 30th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
As far as the ice melting in water you guys are completely correct. The Artic ocean melting wont make the seas rise. The reason the sea will rise s that the glaciers in north america, Greenland and Antartica are not in the water, they are on land. That is new water being added to the ocean which makes the water rise. Antartica for example, has ice that is almost 9,000 feet thick in some places. These glaciers ARE melting and the seas WILL rise. I do not doubt that there are new glaciers forming in some places. A better term for Gobal Warming is Global Wierding because of new weather patterns a various temperature changes (but positive and negative) throughout the world. If you think its B.S., take a look at who is paying the nay-saying scientists, its almost always an oil company. I dont know what exaclty will happen and I dont believe in some apocolyptic scenario, but we do need to vasty improve our energy usage, bottom line
December 30th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
About sea levels rising, Jeff of Dec 17th is right in saying ice cubes melting do not add water. This is only true of icebergs, that are already floating in the sea. When glaciers are on top of land, or big pieces fall off to make a new iceberg, this is added water to oceans. The glaciers melting on mountaintops (Himilayans) threatens the main water supply of millions, as this is the source of river water flowing year round. Read more here:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/09/040922072126.htm
December 30th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
I hope Obama has a heart attack or something. We do not need him destroying our economy any more than it already is. If I was the auto industry, I would say screw Cali and all the other states that want to regulate emissions and just not ship their product to those states. Why should everyones prices go up because the fags and libs want stricter standards. Maybe obama can have a heart attack after hearing Cali is in the pacific after the big one.
December 30th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
You must take into account that the melting ice that will raise sea levels is coming from ice melting on land, and then running into the sea. It is not coming from ice that is already in the ocean and is melting. This will raise sea levels.
December 30th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Just a point of clarification, glaciers are on land, so their melting would cause a rise in sea levels. I stil don’t see how any of this is our fault, just the natural course of things.
December 30th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
re.jeff
most of that ice isnt in water most of its on dirt and soil which can be found 14000 ft underneth the ice
December 30th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
Glaciers are not like giant ice cubes. Most glaciers are on land. Some glaciers and snow pack in the Antarctic are hundreds of feet thick. Glaciers in Alaska, Canada, Siberia and Greenland are also on land and in the mountains. When they melt the water runs into the sea and causes the level to rise. This is more like adding water to your glass rather than having ice melt in the glass. Only in the Arctic is most of the ice and snow pack over water so that when it melts there is less effect on the sea level.
December 30th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
Global warming cause by greenhouse emissions is hogwash!!! It is our sun that is responsible for global warming and cooling. Everyone better start thinking nuclear—so we can warm the planet when it turns cold. Proponents of this malarkey are only trying to line their pockets!
December 30th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
LED Christmas lights are great for saving energy. I am all for sustainability and the environment. However, the bright white light they emit is not very pretty, in fact, it’s rather jarring. I hope they will soon have available for purchase LED lights in amber or white ones covered by tinted glass.
December 30th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
I regret to inform those scientists that look at these micro ecological events as something of significance … it’s best to get your heads out of the soil and look up once in a while. When the Yellowstone Caldera blows (within the next 10 days or 100 years) all of your posturing will be for naught. Although, you’ll figure out some way to blame the human race for this natural occurrence. Understand … the earth will “fix” itself when it gets good and ready to do so.
December 30th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
I thought that glaciers were ice that was (at least partially) on land? I guess with all the kitchen experiments, if you took some of the ice out of the cup and melted it the results might be different.
December 30th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
North pole ice melting won’t raise sea level at all, but for glaciers that are attached to land, their melting could cause sea levels to rise. For example, Antarctic glaciers. A better analogy is to place a platform in the glass that is NOT floating, but anchored to the bottom, then place an ice cube on top of it. Naturally as the water melts, it will raise the water level.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070731164236AABIA74
Far more troubling than sea levels rising is the change in ocean currents as temperatures change, which will change dramatically with even minor changes.
If you want to see sea level changes you have to look a bit longer term than “the last few years”. It’s only called “global warming” because the /average/ temperature of the Earth will rise, some areas will get much colder, and some will simply see different weather, which is why scientists now prefer the term “climate change” as it’s less misleading.
Hope that clarifies a bit:-)
Alex
December 30th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
It seems that most comments on this subject come from people with a fourth grade education and absoloutly no common sense. It is a simple law of physics…for every action there is a REACTION…we cannot continue to pump billions of tons of waste in the air, ground, and water and expect no repercussions. Just because you dont think or want something to happen doesn’t mean it is not happening…We need to pull our heads out of the sand and look at how we are raping this planet. I would guess most commenting do not live in a place where the air is difficult to breathe because of the pollution…
December 30th, 2008 at 7:34 pm
More scare tactics designed to make Elite Eco Activist rich. Hopefully we will get past this just like the flat earth theory that was politically correct a few hundred years ago.
Perhaps burning a few of those perpetrating the global warming fraud at the stake would put and end to this idiocy.
December 30th, 2008 at 9:44 pm
“I call it a fourth grade science experiment. Take a glass, put some ice in it. Put water in it. Mark level where water is. Let it met. After the ice melts, the sea level didn’t go up in your glass of water. It’s called the Archimedes Principle.”
That supposition is true if all the ice that was melting was floating in the water. The statement above looks at what Icebergs do. Let’s look at the definition of Glacier.
gla⋅cier /ˈgleɪʃər/ [gley-sher]
–noun an extended mass of ice formed from snow falling and accumulating over the years and moving very slowly, either descending from high mountains, as in valley glaciers, or moving outward from centers of accumulation, as in continental glaciers.
The water that makes up Glaciers on land is what they are worried about with sea levels rising. Icebergs melting doesn’t matter, except for the fact that it can lower the temperature of water, which can also mess up the flow of water, and as such, the flow of the Jet Streams.
December 30th, 2008 at 10:51 pm
Without China and India onboard following THE SAME GUIDELINES, it is pointless for the USA to act.
December 30th, 2008 at 10:56 pm
I reviewed my electric and natural gas bills from the last five years (the utility companies have an avg temp for the months over the year on bill) I notice that we have been getting colder over the years according to this. So where the heat?\
That is my scientific study and I have the proof….
ps The forecasted weather for the interior of Alaska this winter is 40-70 BELOW ZERO. Pretty darn hot I think.
December 30th, 2008 at 11:23 pm
The Obama administration is stupid if they think that they can raise emission standards for cars while the industry is in bankruptcy. Meanwhile the rest of us are going to pay for his stupidity as he bankrupts the country with his ridiculous and unproven unscientific ideas about global warming. But then every politician has screwed the economy by pork barrel spending, corrupt CEO’s and politicians.
December 31st, 2008 at 12:03 am
Melting of ice in the Arctic Ocean will definitely not cause sea level to rise.
BUT, sea level does rise when land-based ice melts (e.g., mainly Greenland and Antarctic ice) – those are the areas of concern and both, especially Greenland, as showing lots of signs of increasing melting.
Sea level also rises as global temperatures increase because water expands slightly as it is heated (and it’s density decreases).
Global warming (meaning an increase in the average global temperature) could potentially cause northern Europe to get colder. If you look at map you will notice that much of northern Europe is at very high latitudes – more northernly than the Hudson’s Bay, which is very cold during the winter. Western Europe is warmer than you would think, if you just looked at its latitude, because the Gulf Stream brings warm water from the Gulf of Mexico and central Atlantic Ocean to high northern latitudes. If that flow of warm water stopped, and there is evidence of this happening in the past, northern Europe would become much colder even as average global temperatures increased.
December 31st, 2008 at 12:20 am
Old hippies and their brainwashed kids, what will they think of next, vegetarians saying cows pass to much gas and we should reduce the stock, the only real thing is the communists are taking over, that is obvious.
December 31st, 2008 at 1:05 am
Melting ice in the ocean, if the ice originated in the ocean will not raise sea level. Ice that has formed glaciers on land however, then “flowed” into the oceans, like those in Greenland an antarctica add solid water to the the ocean. Water flowing downhill into the seas from ice melting on mountains also contributes to the total amount of free water in the seas. If you keep adding ice and/or liquid to a container, it will cause the level of liquid o rise.
It is that simple.
Take ice that was once covering Greenlan, Antartica, or mountains and add it to the oceans and he ocean level will rise.
There isn’t any overflow to prevent that.
December 31st, 2008 at 1:10 am
They work. I started using them for Christmas in 2003 and saved $200 in the first year. I went to LED nets and C-9’s this year and have been satisfied. Another benefit over incadescent lights is that I didn’t have fuses popping nor strands go out. They go for $6.88 at Wal-mMart and $9.98 for icicles and nets.
December 31st, 2008 at 7:41 am
Jeff… try your experience again, this time starting by holding that same ice cube above the cup until all the ice melted into the cup, the water level would then rise…. the melting ice that affects sea level, rise is not within the ocean, but above it.
December 31st, 2008 at 8:32 am
Forgive me if I sound stupid. The above argument states “Since glaciers are like giant ice cubes, wouldn’t their melting not affect the ocean levels?”
The reason that this is incorrect is that the the Greenland and Antarctic Ice caps are not floating in the ocean. These 2 huge Ice caps are resting on land dry land withe the exception of a couple of Ice Shelves, therefore if they melt the water is going to pour form the land into the oceans. This is what causes the sea level to rise. Also alpine and tropical glaciers melting adds water to the oceans because the frozen water tied up in the glaciers on these mountains is not currently in the ocean. I hope this makes sense.
Tommy
December 31st, 2008 at 10:35 am
Water borne/supported ice melt will not raise sea levels.
Ice melt from LAND supported ice WILL raise sea levels!
December 31st, 2008 at 10:51 am
Human activity was NOT responsible for rapid climate shift in ancient history. Human population levels were very low. All animal life releases substantial amounts of methane gas. ANIMAL populations were extremely high. Geologic activity may have had sufficient effect to change things dramatically… ie: Volcanos, Rapid release of pockets of “frozen” methane gas held in layers on the ocean floors. This is a result of decomposition of marine life. With global warming running as it is, we run the risk of causing this frozen methane to evaporate quickly,releasing it into the atmosphere. If this were to happen all at once, we could have a planetary firestorm.
December 31st, 2008 at 11:27 am
… Over the next hundred years? 2 Feet? OMG! Panic! How will people ever get out of the way in time!
More fearmongering by the mainstream media. Its a shame its Fox this time.
December 31st, 2008 at 12:19 pm
You’re not thinking of this correctly. Glaciers are not “giant ice cubes”. Not all of the ice that is melting is floating on the ocean. While it is true that ice melting in water does not change the level of water, ice melting on land and draining into the oceans does. Put a funnel over a glass of water, put an ice cube into the funnel and let it melt, it will overfill the glass.
December 31st, 2008 at 12:40 pm
The reason the sea level with rise isn’t from melting floating ice such as north polar cap and icebergs…
It is because of landlocked ice such as glaciers and south polar cap ice.
That WILL increase the sea level.
December 31st, 2008 at 1:47 pm
the ice cube experament only works for glaciers that are floating in the ocean. in places like antartica and greenland where glaciers are sitting on land when thay melt water levels will rise
December 31st, 2008 at 1:51 pm
To answer Jeff, Walter and Paul you are indeed correct but you are all missing the point here… it’s not the sea ice that will be a problem, it’s the glaciers and ice sheets on land melting that will cause sea level to rise. Has anyone heard of Greenland, Antarctica?
Also, ice works as a sort of reflector for the sun’s heat (increases the earth’s albedo), so if sea ice does melt the earth will absorb the heat it would previously have reflected causing more ice to melt, and so on.
December 31st, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Very surprised that fox has jumped on the junk science bandwagon with this green.foxnews.com. And reprinting junk science news articles from all of the world. Where’s the balance ? article on temperatures rises that have already by proven to be inaccurate because of bad science. Water levels rising from ice melts which have no basis in physics. 2008, the coldest year on record in decades.Record snowfalls all over the world.Snow in Malibu, Houston and New Orleans this year. You’re going to discourage your readership base with this nonsense.
December 31st, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Ice that is completely immersed in water would lower the water level slightly when melting because water is denser than ice. Things that are less dense than water will float while things more dense than water will sink…for an object to float, the amount of water it must displace must equal it’s own weight. Since ice is less dense than water, it will displace enough water to match it’s weight. Since ice is less dense, some of the ice will stick out above the water. When it melts, it could potentially raise the water…how high do these glaiciers stick out of the water?
I am not advocating proof that the sea levels are rising or falling, I am simply showing that there are a lot more variables to consider than these green hippies are trying to force scientists to feed to us.
December 31st, 2008 at 3:18 pm
With all the hype that is going on with the media, I was a little OMG at first till I turned off the TV and looked at simple principles. The effects of global warming (if you agree with it or not) say the glaciers are melting and are going to raise sea levels. Well I don’t know how many cubic miles of ice are in antartica etc, but in the N Pole, this is an ocean, the sea level would drop.
I think it is just the standard alarming call to promote action on the subject. Save the polar bears, they are getting stranded on iceburgs etc…
It seems odd that one group shows global warming while other groups show global cooling. Someone needs to lock these idiots (ohh I mean scientists) in a room till they come to a conclusion based on scientifically reliable research and trending.. I mean seriously, DOES GLOBAL WARMING CAUSE SNOWING IN NEW ORLEANS?????
December 31st, 2008 at 3:25 pm
You Shouldn’t be worried about floating ice, but definitely be alert on ice melts over land in Antartica thousands of meters thick and in Artic
area including Northern Asia and Greenland.
December 31st, 2008 at 5:15 pm
Perhaps because when ice melts, it creates a thermal expansion of sea water (i.e. temperature increase = expansion of water and the area it consumes). It’s more than just ice melting and the displacement of water. When something warms up, it expands.
In a cup, the theory is most likely moot. However, when you apply that to approximately 326,000,000,000,000,000,000 gallons of water our Earth holds, it becomes a slightly larger issue, even if it only affects the levels by 0.000001%.
I see what many of you are saying about ice in a cup and the displacement of water. But none of you are taking into consideration the expansion that takes place when it warms.
December 31st, 2008 at 5:29 pm
It’s called the Archimedes principle and in fact floating ice displaces more water then it contains. Though, I’m not sure how much of the world’s ice is already in the water and what percentage is on land. Also water can expand when the temperature rises(Thermal Expansion) causing the sea levels to rise without the help of melting icecaps, but the Oceans are so big that the current temperature has no effect on the current sea-level. The world’s ocean will not show the temperature rise of the 20th Century for at least a few more centuries. So the current rise cannot be do to the present temperature and little to do with ice-caps. Perhaps, what we are experiencing now is a result of the climate of a few hundred years ago, before the time of the SUV.
He may have fancy charts and graphs, but Al Gore trying to explain a scientific process is like Dan Quayle trying to judge a spelling Bee.
December 31st, 2008 at 7:27 pm
Al Gore wants to make a lot of money on this scam . Let’s not help him .
December 31st, 2008 at 7:51 pm
NOBODY knows and that includes the man that invented the internet, Al G.
January 1st, 2009 at 12:38 pm
Global warming is definitely in part caused by man. Of course we know that there are natural occurrences that seem to contribute as well. For instance exhaling, whether animal or human, if we inhale oxygen we have to exhale carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide leads to global warming. And if we decide to quit exhaling for the cause, well I guess the issue would be moot.
In any case no matter your view on Global Warming I think most reasonable people can agree that moving away from fossil fuels will reduce global warming and that it probably needs to happen faster than it is. And shifting away from oil can more rapidly be achieved by implementing further new incentives on industry to phase into using less toxic forms of energy.
A danger is that with a new highly charged environmentalist leaning US administration, the wrong moves could cause severe hardship for lower middle class working families. Today there is an entire population of baby boomers, many of whom are not going to be able to just glide comfortably through a period of high energy costs and the resulting higher grocery and higher everything costs. Today many people are forced into retirement and then forced to re-enter the workforce in low paying part time jobs just to get by. And this while fighting the affects of age and declining health. Continuously increasing costs, although for good cause only makes sense if it dos not create terrible struggles for survival of increasing portions of our population. For instance, near poverty level families who may not be able to buy a new fuel efficient car perhaps for several years if ever, for what cars cost today. Those who can reduce driving do but many have to drive on the job in their self employed jobs and will get no relief. They will be forced to paying those soon to return $5,6,7 dollar gas rates. Gasoline must be kept reasonably priced. Talk as little as 6 months ago about allowing gas to rise to $10 per gallon will surely be heard again soon but I guess those people will have to ignore the complaints of people who can’t fill their heating oil tank. What arrogance.
THE ANSWER: There is no reason that the greening of America can not be gradual. Ten year greening target dates can still be met with this administration in power. Imagine dramatically reducing foreign oil dependency by shifting the oil source to US. It would eliminate the problem of our US economy’s need for oil feeding power to Russia who when drunk on oil profits begins to threaten world peace, and terrorist nations who are a constant threat to peace and prosperity around the world. I believe that the reasonable, practical, and compassionate approach to Greening America is to Drill Here, Drill Now, and implement policies that allow our citizens to continue to afford the basics. In 10 years we will still be green.
January 1st, 2009 at 3:53 pm
Proof Global Warming is a Lie:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=5ef55aa3-802a-23ad-4ce4-89c4f49995d2
January 2nd, 2009 at 1:28 am
Global warming is not happening. This is a tactic by the United Nations to gain power and control over the world’s economy and human resources as well as run our lives. I am sure Obama will coincide. Too bad. We get clean air in exchange for freedom.
January 2nd, 2009 at 4:44 pm
Why do you insist on propagating the Lie of “Global Warming”? Have you seen the weather around the USA lately? you are a bunch of hacks
January 2nd, 2009 at 4:52 pm
I’ll stick to my traditional Christmas lights, thanks. They look better and I don’t use much power having them on nights for a few hours during December.
January 2nd, 2009 at 5:57 pm
Although global warming is totally BS, the money I have saved since switching to CFL and LED lights is AWESOME, and yes they do work and save tons of money!
January 2nd, 2009 at 10:18 pm
I changed nearly all my bulbs to CFL and have had some savings in electricity. I did NOT change Christmas lights yet…but as they need replaced, I will seek out LED lights. I saved energy this year by having my outside Christmas lights on between 6 and 9 on weekends…and Christmas Eve…a total of 10 days/30 hrs. “Global Warming” is not an “Inconvenient Truth” but is a pathetic lie…but saving energy and money is truth!
Hey Fox News…why not make your “Green” non-political?
January 2nd, 2009 at 11:56 pm
It sure is interesting that all the solutions to “Global Warming” include a fairly substantial bite out of my wallet. What a sham! For Pete’s sake…don’t believe everything you hear and read.
Our family farm has been heating on a free natural gas well since the 70’s. The other ones on the farm are capped…but still could be productive, if tapped. There are tens of thousands of capped wells in Ohio alone.
Wake up America!
January 3rd, 2009 at 7:53 pm
Since it has been decided to turn off these devices who is going to spend the time reprograming the devices you deprogram by removing power. Wouldnt it also be a good idea to produce more energy and quit with the green bs.
January 4th, 2009 at 11:01 pm
Thank you, thank you, thank you! I for one had begun to wonder whether everyone was falling for the global warming jedi mind trick and seemingly ignore historical fact—that being that we’ve been warm before, and we had an ice age as well. Kudos for all of the people who point at the UN, power hungry liberal politicians, and the reality that this is nothing but a bunch of Al Gore propagated lies promoted by a Hollywood crowd and liberal media for nothing but power, and more power. When the government regulates cattle emissions…and India and China, as has been pointed out, do nothing…we’re finished. As far as I can tell, by the end of the Obama administration we will be finished. I can only hope the congress with its 10% approval rating does enough to continue its decline in popularity, to have a mass transfusion of sensibility (translate that to mean conservative new blood)…
January 5th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
…they want us to ‘take the lead’ which really means they want us to bankroll it. That is why they want us on board, otherwise they would be trying to get China and India ‘on board’.
January 5th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
I tried them. Very unreliable, they last maybe one season. Failure mode is the wire leads on the LED’s rust and corrode loosing electrical contact when used outdoors. They also get very dim after extended usage. Typical Chinese made crap.
January 5th, 2009 at 7:24 pm
I have heard of some good scams in my time but this is the best ,carbon and c02 is needed for everything on earth to survive ,these radicals should be in prison for fraud science shows it is all nothing but lies and a scam for money so they can control powerm water in the world at a rediculous price and cost ,i guess thats why they are radicals or economic terroists ,c02 is not even a pollutant its essential for all life ,ethanol is dangerous as it puts out poison nitros oxide ,people are so dumb believing this crap.
January 5th, 2009 at 7:49 pm
Carbon neutral my A$$! Not that it really matters, but anyone who makes this statement is an outright fool and any company claiming this impossibility is sorely lacking in good common sense and judgement.
January 6th, 2009 at 4:53 am
…not to mention the fact that major name brand computers are really just cheap disposables. how “green” is that?
January 6th, 2009 at 10:59 am
Have to agree with Ed directly above, and others who ‘have heard the truth’….now determined, mankind is NOT responsible for global warming or global freezing, but they are cyclical conditions of earth. What we all, globally can do, to aid one another, is begin to understand the impact and result of all the landfills full of plastics and styafoam ingredients, and the addition of mixed toxic chemicals from household and businesses contaminating our water, our very lives! I once read a book in college, Liberation Ethics, and it basically stated, liberty begins with each of us, right where we are, taking responsibility for what our contribution(s) are whether adding a positive or negative impact on our community and to begin there to correct the problem(s) we see and move forward enlarging our circle, from first our bedroom to then our household, then to our neighborhood and community, and out further….. otherwise, agree with Ed, “a bunch of hacks”!
January 6th, 2009 at 6:03 pm
LED Holliday lights? What are they for? Let me know when they come out with LED Christmas lights, I’ll be sure to pick some up!
January 6th, 2009 at 6:21 pm
I am committed to establishing the TRUTH about Carbon Offsets and the pure non-sense of the term Carbon Footprint. Read my blog, understand the use of “guilt” by organizations, be they non-profit or for-profit. http://www.squidoo.com/CARBON-FOOTPRINT-OFFSETS
Dan, Jan 6, 2009
January 6th, 2009 at 11:53 pm
I have to urge the online lighting store I purchased my LEDs from lately. They had neat personalized service (good phone and email support), splendid FAQs so I knew what I needed, very fair prices, and their shipping was fast and the LEDs were just as publicized. http://www.LEDInsider.com. A pleasure to deal with!
January 7th, 2009 at 3:47 am
I bought a string of LED lights last Christmas and this year half the string did not work even with new fuses. So how much money did I save?
January 7th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
Well DUHHHH!!!! It’s about time somebody figured this one out! I usually just unplug things (tv, rechargeable power tools, microwave, etc.) when I leave the house because I know they suck energy and raise my electric bill. If only I had been thinking outside the box then I could have been a contender for a million dollar idea like this! For those of you who don’t want to wait for a gadget to come onto the market here’s a cheap idea for you: Here in the U.S. most rooms have one outlet controlled by a wall switch (it’s usually the upside down outlet). You can use this to power down your tv, vcr, cable box, satellite receiver, or other electricity stealing appliances. Think about it: When you’re sleeping plus the time you’re at work adds up to about 16 hours of electricity usage (times 30 days) that trickle onto your monthly bill. A few dollars here and there adds up to a lot over the months!
January 8th, 2009 at 3:50 am
how longs it take to get a response published around here???
January 8th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
I would have to agree with DELL on how it calculates it’s “Carbon Footprint”. If the emissions of thier suppliers are included in DELL’s “Carbon Footprint” calculation then their suppliers would have to reduce their own “Carbon Footprint” calculation by that same amount to prevent double counting those emissions. Also they could then be expected to include their employee’s auto emissions driving back and forth to work and the employees would subtract that from their emissions. IMHO
January 8th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
!
January 9th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
The increase in CO2 emissions attributed to mankind is so infinitesimally small that it couldn’t result in global warming. Do some research.
January 9th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
Government mandating arbitrary mpg numbers is asinine. There are already market pressures to increase mpg numbers which also maintain safety. Only comprehensive consideration of these issues by the experts at the automobile manufacturers in consideration can all important components of automobile manufacturing be achieved.
January 9th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
When the global scientific community says global warming is real, and pseudo-scientific political community says it’s not, leave it to multi-national corporations to further muddy the waters for profit.
January 9th, 2009 at 7:33 pm
In the winter, the “wasted power” from standby appliances turns into heat which helps warm your home. Turn them off and you spend the same amount of money running your furnace.
Vampire power is only important in the summer, when you pay for it twice: once when it runs, then again to pump out the heat.
January 9th, 2009 at 8:03 pm
Oh goody. As if electricity and fuel weren’t expensive enough already, all on account of these deluded green numskulls.
Cheers -
Mike C
Rockville MD
January 9th, 2009 at 8:56 pm
Don’s tight, and if your house isn’t set up like that, power strips don’t cost very much and allow you to do the same thing. We’ve saved a lt by doing that for our TVs, computers, and home entertainment gadgets.
January 9th, 2009 at 9:00 pm
Don’s *right, and if your house isn’t set up like that, power strips don’t cost very much and allow you to do the same thing. We’ve saved a lt by doing that for our TVs, computers, and home entertainment gadgets.
January 10th, 2009 at 8:45 am
Excellent! There must be a population of 55 million in these states and that will create a large
market for cleaner gas, better heating oil, cleaner coal, shared electricity and etc.
I applaud these eastern states. I hope it becomes a model for the rest of the country.
Way to go!
January 10th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
What a crock! Even the thugs of the UN say “global warming” has been over since 1998. Of course, if you put your thermometers under A/C exhausts, you can argue for warming, and thus get billions in government grants – instead of having to get a job. Funny how “global warming” directly coincides with sunspot activity. Go hug a tree or something.
January 10th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
If Bush would have put the ruling into effect, the media would have critisized him for adding more costs to an already ailing auto industry.
January 10th, 2009 at 7:26 pm
Great news! Love the every ready bunny concept & fact we are looking for information to help us all change the world – one yellow submarine at a time…
January 10th, 2009 at 9:40 pm
climate change is not a scam for money. Brilliant researchers at Yale, Stanford, U. of Michigan, Harvard, Maryland, Cornell, MIT, U. Florida, to name a few, all agree that it is happening before our eyes. We need to redefine our definition of carbon neutrality, but property rights certainly complicate the issue.
January 11th, 2009 at 2:25 am
Response to Slusher
Been turning off TV stuff and never has to contend with reprogramming each time because the information is already saved indefinitely unless you want to reprogram.
Savings is HUGE! I even turn off computer, printers, everything whenever I go to bed or when I go out for longer than 3 hours.
the savings per month amount to more than 25 dollars a month.
January 11th, 2009 at 2:36 am
I plug my gadgets into a power bar and only let them have power when I use the appliance. I have noticed smaller kwh usage.
January 11th, 2009 at 4:04 am
5,000 batteries of the kind used to power torches
A torch is powered by propane or gasoline and etc.
January 11th, 2009 at 11:55 am
I resent having to pay thousands of dollars in extra taxes just so some environmentalists, or government bureaucrats, can control our economy. Scientists agree that greenhouse gas emissions have no significant effect on climate, and those who say so are lying.
The UN, National, State and Local Governments want to get the trillions of dollars greenhouse gas taxes or cap and trade deals will produce. That is the real reason, climate change is the excuse.
January 11th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
This is insane, the people are about to freeze now and these idiots want to make fuel more expensive. The earth cooled in the last decade despite the press reporting. Another case of liberal fools damaging our nation.
January 11th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
how these green house effect the people living in the world.
January 11th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
@Hal: Do you run your hot water in your bathtub all the time, just so it’s ready when you feel like taking a bath?
I think the idea behind this is that we want to “conserve energy” which leads to reduced dependence on foreign supplies of fossil fuels, reduces the demand on our own supplies, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, all while decreasing our utility costs.
January 11th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
I am an active promoter of the environment, but some of the things that have society fearing a global catastrophe are scientifically wrong…take a glass, fill it with ice, then fill it to the brim with water. The notion that icebergs melting will raise the water level also states that the ice melting in this cup will make the cup overflow…however, the cup’s water level stays the same…people need to make a conscience effort to reduce vehicle use and power companies need to research alternative energy sources, but we need to spend our money elsewhere, not on subs to research ice shelves. Our time is better spent with alternative energy sources.
January 11th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
These states are intellectually challenged. We must address the root cause and proceed with scientific honesty, not monetary driven ideology (i.e. Y2K syndrome/Global warming). Many of these back east schools produce intellectual pygmies with little chance of intellectual honest results.
The #1 problem: No competition to fossil fuel transportation.
The answer: The only reasonable, immediately available solution is the AFFORDABLE electric commuter vehicle.
The #2 problem: Affordable clean power.
The answer: A proven pebble bed cascading nuclear facility. Proven, affordable, reliable and clean!!
We could lead the world in technology and clean up our filthy cities’ air.
One must look at the forest and not just the foliage (or commonly referred to as the trees).
The total answer must be affordable, efficient and clean….in that order.
January 11th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
We should just burn Green-Nazis for more power and the problem would be solved.
January 11th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
Unless your appliance is ACTIVELY drawing power (whether on or in “standby mode”) than it is not drawing much if any electricity. This campaign to unplug your appliances even if they are off is pretty bogus. I talked to a grounding electrician about this issue once and he said that you are not saving any energy unplugging appliances that are already off.
January 11th, 2009 at 7:47 pm
Green me this. Green me that. I’m really getting fed up with the non-stop homage to green that’s being paid by essentially every news outlet from TV to the Internet. Enough already! Do you think it’s going to make me buy your products? Read your junk science? Good grief. Do you not realize that all of this lunacy started over a 1/2 degree temperature variation over 100 years??? That’s 5 one thousandths of a degree per year! Do you not realize that the daily temperature swings in any part of the world are thousands of times greater from noon ’til dusk?
January 11th, 2009 at 8:34 pm
For the most part, I turn off or unplug things when I’m finished using them. My electric bill runs $44/mth. When my husband was alive, the bill ran $84/mth….tv, DVD, VHS, computer/monitor, Nintendo and Play Station.
I’m really getting sick of the global warming hoax!!!! Over 600 world scientists have debunked it. But Al Gore has sweet-talked a bunch of dummies into believing him. Pathetic!
January 12th, 2009 at 1:40 am
Now that global warming is over and the new worry is a comming ice age, we all need to be using as much power as possible to warm things back up. We need to produce as much CO2 as we can to help replenish our protective greenhouse gasses to keep the planet from freezing.
January 12th, 2009 at 7:00 am
How much energy is used when the “powered-down” appliances are “powered-up” from a completely cold status? Stand-by mode ususally keeps the tool/appliance “warm” so less energy is used to bring it to complete operational status.
January 12th, 2009 at 7:10 am
An appliance/tool on stand-by takes less energy to warm to complete ready status than when the item is completely cold.
How much energy (CO2)does it take to bring the item from “cold” to “ready”? It may be more than leaving it on “stand-by”.
January 12th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
“Territo said it will cost the industry an estimated $47 billion to comply with the new standards.”
Will consumers continue purchasing gas-guzzling monstrosities, that’s the question Territo needs to be asking himself.
If Detroit doesn’t meet the demand for fuel-efficient cars, will they sell enough to continue their existence?
January 12th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
I put my chargers and other always-on gadgets on inexpensive power strips (ones with switches.) When I’m done with the gadgets, I switch the power strips off. Simple as that.
January 12th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
I pay for it. If want to leave every light and appliance on in my house 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, then as long as I pay my bill…
… there is absolutely no empirical evidence that proves conclusively that humans burning fossil fuels contributes in any significant way to global warming.
January 12th, 2009 at 5:32 pm
Expanding on Hal’s comment:
Modern TVs, DVRs, etc., auto-program when they are first plugged in – and again after they have been without power for some period of time.
If this is a consumer product, some people may choose to purchase it. Some will then abandon it. If it is mandated by the government, it will never work:
Unless future electronics come with either nonvolatile memory to store settings and channels, or a backup battery to protect the volatile memory, people will simply come up with ways around the device, including:
1. Turn it on earlier, to allow it to program, and leave it on between “desired” uses
2. Insert a UPS between the vampire-killer and the device
3. Simply never turn the device off
So, a better solution is for the manufacturers to design their devices to preserve settings and fully power off.
January 12th, 2009 at 5:33 pm
I can’t believe you guys at Fox news are doing this. Doesn’t anyone have any brains left. Every study that has been done objectivelyy without having arrived at a conclsuion before being doen has repudiated the whole man-made global warming. Now we are hearing that the earth is on the verge of the next ice age. Face it, the lefties and the religious gurus who worship ‘mother-earth’ instead of the earth’s creator have deceived you and others who buy into this whole notion of global warming.
January 13th, 2009 at 8:55 am
What they don’t discuss is how much more power it takes to turn the items back on. Standby mode was created to also protect the appliance from energy bursts while it is being turned on and off.
This makes sense for something that is rarely used, it doesn’t make sense for items that are probably used once a day.
If turning the item on/off decreases the life expectancy of the product, then what is the environmental cost on items being thrown into the landfill?
January 13th, 2009 at 10:53 am
Are you at Fox News nuts? How about fair and balanced….
the ice at the poles has increased to the level seen in the 70s,
How long are you going to perpetuate this hoax?
January 13th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
I’ve been to Antarctic in 2005… amazing place! Good luck yellow submarine…
January 13th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
When will the states stop penalizing their residents. Maryland is just another corrupt state run by liberals.
January 13th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
Menards, Lowes, Home depot already sell this type of device. Its a plug strip that senses standby appliances and shuts them down. leaving only one in powered mode. no resetting clocks or preferences. Its not all your items but better than nothing! and its here now and inexpensive too boot ;-}
January 13th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
If a network (FOX) would go against this crazy green cult and truly be “fair and balanced” their viewership would explode! (FOX) – “the truth IS out there” why don’t you take a stand against this green non-sense
January 13th, 2009 at 6:03 pm
Give me a break. So what if we feel sorry that it is going to cost them 47 million to make new plants to build the efficient cars to make the standards. We, the taxpaying citizens are giving them the money now, and they are getting more every day from Uncle Hank Paulson and the boys on Wall Street. I am tired of their bellyaching. Maybe they do need to go bankrupt and have Chapter 11 take them to profitability.
January 13th, 2009 at 8:04 pm
How many folks will it take to prove that Big Al is a twit ! When I heard that the N.W.Passage was accessabile in the 70’s I thought that was cool.ha.ha . Sub’s breaking ice @ the same time. Polar bears were not as many, go check the stats.Find out other than hype that the world will change & we can’t stop it !Carnivores need food & when it’s scarce, what happen’s ? I don’t need Big Al to let need know’ it’s just common scence,science, knowledge! It’s all to suck the more money out of your pockets!!
January 13th, 2009 at 8:21 pm
To add to my opinion,did’nt they find a mountain under the ice and that’s 2 miles thick. That’s the s.pole?Why not talk about pollution that man being down there causes! The U.S. dumps all kinds of junk & caustic waste into the Antartic Ocean,since it’s not allowed back into this country,it came from somewhere else. The DEP
or otherwise won’t let the stuff come back to the USA. If bring it in, than I bring it out !
January 13th, 2009 at 10:01 pm
The standby mode is a very useful tool in many appliances. Many devices have internal clocks and memory. Every computer I have ever had seems to start up in about 1-2% of the normal start up time if it was left in the standby mode. This made me more willing to shut down to standby mode than to just leave it on for periods when I was not using it. We should look at technological solutions such as memory in appliances that does not require electricity. Flash memory exists, but is not used in many appliances. We can isolate clocks to separate circuits so that they use less power. The best solution is to make the same standby features use less energy rather that scrap the entire concept of standby or to use a whole separate device that will shut systems down more than desired or necessary.
January 14th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
The Russians claim an ice age is coming. Al Gore says global warming. Between the two, I’d choose the Russians based solely on credibility.
The stupidity of the politicians and electorate of the states of the Northeast appear to be without bounds.
January 14th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
Great idea, but they’re going about it all backwards. The question raised in comment #1 must be addressed first or it will never fly… people will not want something that requires them to reprogram their devices every time they want to use them (let alone PAY for this inconvenience). Think of all the flashing clocks when your power goes off. In some instances, for instance a DVR, it may take 15 minutes before it will rebuild it’s guide so you can see what’s coming on TV. They must FIRST change the appliance and electronics industry to create products that are READY for this technology.. when the transition can be seamless, it will be welcomed with open arms. As it stands now, it will be nothing more than a thorn in the side of the consumer due to what appears to be poor planning.
January 14th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
What happens with the appliances that have failed prematurely due to the constant had on/off? Many household appliances, like TV’s, have the ‘easy on’ feature where they are in standby, because it is harder on the appliances to have them start up from a cold state. Many of the modern LCD’s use this technology now, as well as the older TV’s. They always had a portion of their circuitry on because of the inrush of power causing failures.
Personally, if I have a microwave over my stove, I don’t need a clock on each. One works fine. but those are milliamps of power, just like the LED night light in my kid’s bedroom. Maybe if we started using coal, or, God forbid, started developing our own oil fields or nuclear power plants in America, we wouldn’t have the greenies whining about ‘vampire’ power use.
The night light uses less power in one year than the greenies use in a week documenting wastes of energy… Wise up.
—>Rob
January 14th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
Liberals Unite!
January 15th, 2009 at 1:35 am
YES… Over a few months you can even buy a cup of coffee with the money saved. Just walk or ride your horse down to the general store next to the blacksmiths shop and trade for a nasty cup of black coffee. Come on people, are these little green dots of light, or even the really bad red ones going to bring us to our knees. Enjoy life. I’ve got money to purchase even more energy if they will produce it.
January 15th, 2009 at 3:41 am
In order to curb everything the digital readouts would have to be removed form everything we have. Televisions looks off but have the remote control circuit enabled to be able to sense the request to turn on. In order to be dead the whole house would require a lack of remotes, and only battery powered clocks. You COULD use a battery backup for the remote control circuit in a television, but then wackos still claim batteries harm the environment.
January 15th, 2009 at 7:05 am
While I like the innovation, it’s fast approaching the time we do need to find alternative power sources or usage that have a much more advantage overall for the planet, and people.
Greater science in these areas would by far be better in the long term rather than a stopgap measure for a planet now only starting to understand the problems facing the 21st century.
January 15th, 2009 at 7:17 am
If the greenies REALLY wanted to reduce CO2 they would push for more nuclear power plants.
January 15th, 2009 at 7:39 am
Why don’t they just stop putting the little lights on equipment? that’s the easiest thing
January 15th, 2009 at 8:54 am
The article said “coastal cities from Beijing to New York.” Beijing is over a 100 miles inland.
January 15th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
You need to take a look at this website.
showerminder.com Western states are running out of WATER.
January 15th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
I think company’s machines fit in with Mr. Bowles objectives. They can clean the air with a microbial technology that is green. Check it out at http://www.biocascade.net
January 15th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
We plug things into power strips, so turning off the power strip kills power to the devices. Organize by usage category (e.g., TV, DVD player, game console all on one strip) and it’s easy to control vampire power. All your electronics should be on some kind of surge protector anyway, so it’s kind of a no-brainer.
January 15th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
Why is it that studies of the Antarctic Ice are only done in the southern hemisphere summer and the Arctic Ice are only done in the northern hemisphere summer? Is it because there is way too much ice in the hemispherical winters to get into these areas to study the ice? I guess all of those summer pictures tell a lot. Especially when the word summer is replaced with winter. It makes better ‘global warming’ propaganda when that change is made. What a crock.
January 15th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
All,
I am an expert in the field of electrity. I can tell you this story has the same merit as Obama telling us that if we air up our tires we can solve the oil dependence problem…Not So!!
Factually he is right, there is some savings but the savings don’t add up to a reduction of oil usage in the US. You could save dollars a year at the most off your electric bill with such a device. Look into how your electric meter works and educate yourselves. Stop listening to the bull! Our government should start giving tax credits for improving the insulation in our homes. This would make more of a difference to save energy. Massive amounts of electric power are lost due to improper home insulation guidelines for construction of new homes. Just turn off the lights when you leave the room and insulate your home. This is a better plan.
I am unconvinced of this huge savings.
January 15th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
If you find that the ice is melting, what are you going to do to stop it? Don’t you think you are wasting the tax payers money. You are worring
about something that might never happen and if it dose you can’t do any thing about it and beside that you won’t be here to see it any way.
Thank You
January 15th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
If carbon emisssions continue to go up by 1% a year, then why is the average global temperature dropping?
January 15th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
When are you going to expose the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power on there Destruction of the Mojave Desert???? Get off your Butts and look into this. Please
January 15th, 2009 at 5:56 pm
This is nothing but a ploy for Democrats to control business and grab power. It is the new religion. Truth is climate change happens naturally with or without human impact. We live in a dynamic universe. The earth cools and warms… We strive to understand the pattern and the science behind “Intelligent design”… We, as a lesser intelligence, will never fully understand the universe and the intricate, interworkings of it all.
Climate change by today’s definition is a delusional Democratic dream. Pollution is real, however and another story entirely…
January 15th, 2009 at 6:37 pm
1.”Torch” is the word for a flashlight in England and Australia..probably others.
2 Granted Iceburg melting does not raise ocean levels but land based Glaciers do.
January 15th, 2009 at 6:53 pm
The little yellow submarine will find that a volcano in the area has become more active in the last several decades. Gook gook a joob (sic) This happens every several hundred thousand years as the thickness over the hot spot changes due to continental drift. I am the egg man and the walrus told me it is true.
January 15th, 2009 at 6:58 pm
This is ridiculous, we already have some of the highest tax rates on our fuels in the NorthEast. Now we are going to “create” a market that will do nothing more than waste my money.
January 15th, 2009 at 7:00 pm
C02 is critical for photosynthesis, the reason greenhouses pump it in. If you really want a “GREEN” planet, make more CO2.
January 15th, 2009 at 7:11 pm
Some ideas for energy conservation;
Place cantenary over rail lines with steep decents, the locomotives already have the generation equipment on-board. instead of creating waste heat, pump the power into the grid. While they are at this add a “B” unit full of lithium polymer batteries and regen power into it and use the power for boost up the next hill.
In a somewhat more complicated fasion( magnetic coupling ) do the same thing at all the mountainous interstates and regen power from the trucks rolling down hill.
All the cars at bridge crossings, toll booths etc., install movable plates in the road which will act as air compressors, use the compressed air to make power.
Linear accelerator plates in the runways at airports, All of the above and more could be done for much less money than we are throwing at the losers on Wall Street’
January 15th, 2009 at 9:15 pm
What bunk, increased regulation and increased costs to businesses, as well as increased government spending, and thus higher taxes, will prolong the recession. The reality is that these Congressmen/women are realizing that their opportunity to push through global warming claptrap is rapidly coming to an end as citizens are finally realizing that it’s all a bunch of faith-based lies and distortions. Can someone please as Al Gore how the melting of floating ice can possibly raise sea levels?
January 15th, 2009 at 11:11 pm
They mean torch in the British sense, what we would call a flashlight.
January 15th, 2009 at 11:22 pm
This piece goes to prove that listening to environmental groups usually means higher costs.
January 15th, 2009 at 11:24 pm
Its -20 and some pig headed congressman thinks it is caused by global warming!
January 15th, 2009 at 11:57 pm
Will somebody stop these assholes before we freeze to death!
January 16th, 2009 at 12:14 am
Mr. Babcock:
Some countries refer to flashlights as “torches”
therefore batteries are used.
I’ve Got to go, the lift to my flat is here, did you encounter a terrible diversion on the motorway today as I did?
January 16th, 2009 at 2:02 am
I am amazed with it. It is a good thing for my research. Thanks
January 16th, 2009 at 8:57 am
Do these idiots not understand that carbon dioxide has nothing to do with climate change? Read the bible. If God wants something to happen then it will happen, we humans have nothing to do with what goes on with our temperature. Last time I checked, we breathe oxygen and we release carbon dioxide. Also last time I checked the trees are taking in that carbon dioxide and turning it into oxygen. That is the way its always been and that is the way it will always be. The idiots that are wanting to play God will have eternity to experience “global warming”, in HELL!!!!!
January 16th, 2009 at 10:16 am
If the aboriginal people are willing but unable to adapt or change to new conditions, the Austrialian Govt. should make every effort to assist them. If they are unwilling to change, the process of natural selection will take care of the problem.
January 16th, 2009 at 10:30 am
Who cares???
January 16th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
They’d better hurry! That ice shelf is growing larger every day.
January 16th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
Going “green crazy” now will help to deepen and broaden the recession. Beyond all the hype and misinformation, and the ice melts on mars, I hope we get this one right. To proceed on a political agenda that cripples business, during a very critical time is dangerous and bordering on madness. If we are wrong about global warming causes, and we begin to auction pollution vouchers for co2, and charge businesses millions on top of what they already pay, we may very well drive our economy into a prolonged, and very hot depression, maybe followed by another dust bowl effect as it contnues to get hooter in spite of our best efforts. Attacking the energy sector is exactly what our economy does not need, so I hope that whatever green policies we enact, are right-minded and extremely well thought-out. While I like the “idea” of going green, I worry that green politics has highjacked the idea, and evolved into yet another excuse for the government to make money off the private sector, and just like if you put a tax on every breathing human that produces co2, you have effectively raised the cost of living, and the cost of doing business in america. Meanwhile, you increase the reasons for american businesses to move abroad, to enjoy as yet relaxed policies on this very contested idea.
I don’t claim to know what is right, as I am blinded by misinformation, hype, and historical reference. I only hope that we do this right.-MJL
January 16th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
Wow, like I don’t have enought to worry about. Now I have to worry about the plight of the Aborigines in Australia. Get a grip people. Change and migration of humanoids has been happening for few million years. Those folks somehow got there from Africa eons ago and maybe it’s time to move on.
January 16th, 2009 at 4:37 pm
Isn’t the “torch” the Brit refers to what we Americans call a flashlight?
January 16th, 2009 at 6:54 pm
As we freeze our butts off with the coldest winter in recent memory, how can they keep pushing this phony concept that we have any major impact on the climate? Blame Sun Spots if you will, but green house gas as an impact is a joke.
January 17th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
It would seem that cars parked on crowded freeways would emit more greenhouse gases than cars that run free on expanded freeways. The less time cars are on the road the more time they are parked equals less greenhouse gases. How long would it take to do the math on that? Tree huggers aren’t too smart anyway or they would not need me to tell them the obvious.
January 17th, 2009 at 8:35 pm
Why do you not spend even one word to address the fallacy of this Global warming hoax. ie. the earth’s average temperature has dropped each of the last 6 years. How inconvenient is that?
January 17th, 2009 at 8:37 pm
Global Warming is a hoax!
January 18th, 2009 at 1:41 am
do people really trust our this govorment to clean up the environment? they sure fixed social security didnt they? seems like every new problem the govorment tries to fix means more taxes, more regulations, and higher cost for the consumer.
January 18th, 2009 at 2:57 am
Go ahead and try to pass that cap and trade legislation. When and if you do I will lead a revolution to take back our country. The supporters of this ought to be tried for war crimes. I tell you what Waxman, Pelosi, and the rest of you leftist loons, why dont you get the 32,000 scientists that refute this hoax in front of you in congress and lets see what happens. If you can convince them humans cause global warming then so be it. Otherwise give it up or the people of this great nation will revolt. As Rush would say, Do not doubt me….For those of you great Americans that do not believe this hoax go to http://www.cagwh.com and lets take back our country…
January 18th, 2009 at 3:14 am
[...] What is the rush congressman? Why the promise of quick action? With all the new evidence and the many scientists that oppose manmade global warming you would think they would want to get it right. The sad thing is they refuse to even have a debate with any of these scientists. Do you congressman think we are that stupid? I will use every resource I have to fight you people. Follow the link for this ridiculous article. http://green.foxnews.com/2009/01/15/key-congressman-promises-quick-action-on-climate/ [...]
January 18th, 2009 at 8:33 am
Congress can solve a problem? What a novel idea.
January 18th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
The low winter temperature this winter in my neck of the woods in NH was -19. The high temperature was 104 last summer. Ok global warming is going to raise the worlds temperature 2 degrees over the next twenty years. You ask why no one cares…. Be serious. I suggest people who live close to the ocean who fear the ocean is going to rise move. I suggest people who are moving to the over populated south west and running out of water stop moving there. Guess what, during the last ice age people moved south or died out. That’s what will happen during the next ice age as well. Guess what, Billions of years ago, when the earth was a much much warmer place the animals moved to cooler climates or became extinct. Adapt or die. Its that simple.
People in New England deal with wide swings in temperature every year. Why? because they have to if they want to live here.
The C02 craze has nothing to do with global warming even if it is the cause of it. The C02 craze is about someone trying to make money off of the latest FUD craze. People are making money off of what they have always made money off of. FUD = Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. Get people good and scared and there is an opportunity to make money. Two decades or so ago the green movement focused upon getting everyone afraid the world was going to end because of the Ozone hole. Then the environmental movement tried to get everyone scared that the world was going to freeze within a decade due to a horrible ice age. Kudos, to the green movement, they are outstanding propagators of fear and making money off of it.
January 18th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
Not one bit of information explaining HOW climate change will directly affect Aborignal peoples. Just a bunch of keywords descibing how the government and universities need to spend more money on a ‘problem’ that in my opinion is naturally caused. We are still coming out of an ice age, it is only normal for the planet to still be warming.
January 18th, 2009 at 6:11 pm
Global warming in a hoax first put forth at the UNCED confrernce in Rio. Popularized by former Vice-President Al Gore.
The former Governer of Oregan and former member of the AEC and US Bureau of Oceans,Dixy Lee Ray wrote two books debunking global warming, being cause for concern. Why? Oceans absorb CO2. The proof of this is at the bottom of oceans in the form of Coral and Crustacious creatures that use CO2 for their shells.
Checkout the Books by Dixy Lee Ray entitled, Trashing The Planet copyright 1990 and Enviornmental Overkill copywrite 1993 and learn the facts and the truth.
January 19th, 2009 at 12:34 am
If these congressmen and business men think that by selling and trading the “right” to produce or use carbon is somehow going to change or stop the natural climate variations, they should also begin measures which would allow them to exert control over volcanoes, ocean current circulation patterns and solar activity. What an offensive display of self importance!
January 19th, 2009 at 2:10 am
We becoming more and more idiotic. People think only money when they doing that. They going to cow every car manufacturers and then us. Thanks ‘green’ lovers!
January 19th, 2009 at 9:33 am
Tell Mr. Barton that refusal to “do nothing about CO2 increases” will not help us to fix our reliance on foriegn oil. Tell him to join PickensPlan for positive action. If we don’t restore MC jobs in America, there will be no “tax-base” for any government programs or global warming reversal.
Let’s get serious about our real problems, and the stock-market and global Warming and positive action, will take care of itself.
Karl Mayr
January 19th, 2009 at 9:39 am
The best way for the greenies to reduce CO2 emissions is for them to quit breathing and leave the rest of us alone.
January 19th, 2009 at 9:44 am
Good. I live in a rural area downwind of Baltimore. I’m sick of breathing in the toxic air from people too lazy to walk a few blocks and must jump in their car instead. Until polluted air and water can be confined to the area of those that create it, government should mandate lower emissions.
January 19th, 2009 at 11:44 am
These people are all num nuts…and will destroy our economey with there insane quest for more tax dollars. They are just to scared; just to say they want to raise taxes, so they create this bullshit golbal warming bullshit…makes me want to puke….oh that might create carbon release.
January 19th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
Lol…environmentalist, activist, hollywood stars, gays, lesbians, etc. etc. in California STILL cannot figure out why there state is in the hole!!! Geeeeeee, you people are pathetic.
January 19th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
To my knowledge, every one of us on this earth BREATHES AIR, DRINKS WATER, AND EATS FOOD. Whether the earth is getting warmer or colder, whether it’s man-made or not, “green” solutions are good not just for “lefties” or “tree huggers” but there good for all of us. It’s a larger issue than just global warming. When you consider the health price we pay for not only burning oil to heat our homes and drive our cars, but the pollution caused by refining the oil, and also the amount of oil, coal powered electric, and pollution needed to produce the 1000’s of parts that make up a combustion engine powered automobile, the price society as a whole pays for the luxury of this dirty technology is staggering. Consider the direct health effects of the smog cars create or the pollution oil refineries cause:
-http://articles.latimes.com/2008/nov/13/local/me-pollute13 (search for others on google, there are 100’s of them)
-http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/environment/july-dec07/oil_09-19.html
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_pollution
These are not just articles with politically motivated rants from “tree huggers” or “lefties”. Burning fossil fuels is just dirty business and isn’t good for our air, food, or water supply. It’s not about whether your liberal or conservative and where you stand on global warming, it’s about protecting the planet that we rely on to survive and not shooting ourselves in our collective foot by polluting the air, land, and water just so we can thrive economically and purchase whatever material item that’s appealing to us, regardless of it’s impact on the environment. Poeple don’t consider pollution unless it directly affects them. If you live in Los Angeles or Delhi, India, YOU GET IT!! If you live in an area where refinery water is discharged and you can’t eat the fish or drink the water due to the chemicals introduced, YOU GET IT!! There has to be a balance between economic benefits and preservation of the environment we rely on to live. Given the fact that electric cars have fewer movable parts, there’s no reason why they can’t be more affordable than gas cars after taking into account economies of scale, but without making the initial investments in clean technologies and spurring the growth of the market, they’ll never become affordable. Consider how expensive flat panel displays for computers were 10 years ago and how much are they are now. When they first came out, we all wanted them, but couldn’t afford them. Now everyone has them and they also save energy. I think we would be doing ourselves, our children, our grandchildren, and our country a favor by stopping the partisan bickering and adopting environmentally clean technology so we can all live healthier, longer, and more prosperous lives.
January 19th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
Environmental laws in this country are insanely ignorant and anti-business, resulting in increases in unemployment due to the resulting cost to companies to meet the liberal Environmental agenda. We cannot compete in a level playing field globally. When you have 2 years of delay with constructing a freeway expansion because an ignorant judge (at the urging of ignorant environmental groups) wants to study the effects of greenhouse gases from adding lanes, this is pure stupidity. Adding more lanes to the freeway will not increase the amount of traffic on the road, it will simply reduce the amount of time existing traffic is congested, thereby actually REDUCING greenhouse gas emissions. Think about it people, since each vehicle will spend less time on the freeway due to improved traffic flow, this results in less fuel burned per trip per vehicle, leading to reduced greenhouse gas emissions. This is not even factoring in the reduced traffic accidents resulting from improved traffic flow efficiency. Each accident results in congested traffic for hours leading to increased greenhouse gas emissions. I see why business is leaving, and continues to leave chaotic California.
January 19th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
We have more idiots in congress than we can possibly handle. Global warming if it exists at all is not caused by mankind nor will it be controlled by congress. This is nothing but a heavy handed way to have the government gain even more control of individuals. We the people will regret these actions.
January 19th, 2009 at 9:52 pm
Alternative Energies are also Destructive and Evil — How can Alternative Energies be good when they require materials that originated from places that all environmentalists say are “evil and destructive”? Alternative Energies require “bad” materials for assembly, such as ceramics, carbons, and metals from Mines, and sometimes plastics and other carbon-based materials, which originate from Oil Wells and Coal mines that environmental groups say are all “evil and destructive”. Even “natural” plant fiber materials require machinery and processing and transportation, which also require metals, ceramics, and carbon.
From where do we get the SOURCE materials for wind mills, fuel cells, hydrogen and other alternative energies? Most solar electric panels require ceramics and special elements, such as gallium, arsenic, germanium, etc., that came from mines and smelters. Windmills require metals (originally from mines and smelters). Passive and active solar ventilation and tubing for houses usually require metals and sometimes ceramics, which came from mines and smelters.
Environmental groups say that ALL Mining and Oil / Gas Wells are “bad” and “evil”, even with full-scale reclamations and restorations. So how can we go to Alternative Energies when these requires materials that are not accepted by the Environmentalists?
Even fuel cells require materials originally from mines and smelters. Fuel cells have to have metals and / or ceramics for the containment, tubing, chemical reactions, etc. The cells, containments and associated materials use materials from mines and oil wells. Think about the engineered things used to even make hydrogen fuel get started for producing energy.
Look at the Periodic Table of all the elements of the earth. Hydrogen (H2) is a usually a gas. When hydrogen is used in a chemical bonding or mixture, it is usually released as a single free ion (H- or H+). Sometimes getters are used to store and transport hydrogen.
It is the cells and containments and associated materials that use materials from mines and oil wells. Go and look at the engineered things used to even make hydrogen get started!
To make Hydrogen “burn” and gain energy from it, there must be the chambers, vessels, tubing, connections and fittings. A characteristic of Hydrogen is that is can embrittle materials over time, especially certain types of metals and steels. Normally stainless steels or other specialty metals are used for most Hydrogen activities. These steels and steels are composed of iron and sometimes chromium and / or nickel to control any corrosion from Hydrogen and also prevent embrittlement as much as possible. The materials for steels ALL come from mines and smelters.
But how is hydrogen (H2 and the H ions) produced from water or other source materials? Either in the reaction apparatus and chambers of the cars or else in processing plants, both of which use metals and ceramics and plastics. If we get H2 from the air, we get it from gas separators which are composed of metals and other “bad” materials.
Environmentalist point to bicycles as environmentally-friendly transportation. To make bicycles, manufacturers must get materials that originated from mining operations (iron, molybdenum, aluminum, ceramics, etc.), oil wells and coal mines for Carbon and plastic materials, and sometime timber for wood. These materials are then processed in plants that also use products from mining and oil wells, and use electricity. How can this be “good” by any environmentalist’s definitions?
Look at how many existing Wilderness Areas have abandoned oil / gas wells and also mining sites within their boundaries. Why is that permissible? How is it that reclamations of well drilling sites are either ignored or denied by the environmental groups now? There have been many private groups in the Pacific Northwest (like my grade school in the 1960’s) that went out and planted trees, grass, and shrubs in the forests. We even saw some of the lumber companies replanting trees and shrubs. But apparently, none of those good efforts count in the mind of the environmental groups, as seen in recent publications and notifications.
Take a deeper look at what really is going on. Natural resources are needed for everything in our lives, even medical items and alternative energies. But when our natural resources are being closed up and as reclamations are either ignored or badmouthed, we are loosing the materials needed for our daily lives, even for the “nice” Alternative Energies. As a final note, my 1990 car gets the same gas mileage GPM as a modern hybrid car. Go figure.
In a publication from early 1992, the Sierra Club in Santa Fe openly announced that oil / gas well drillers were still using lead-based (Pb) lubricants. Never mind that the EPA banned their use several years before in the mid-1980s and that the drilling industry had already switched to biodegradable lubricants even before that. Never mind that law enforcement and the EPA later on checked for compliance in the industry. Also, there is new drilling technology, called Coiled Tubing, that allows certain types of well drilling operations from the back of a pickup, thus less impacts than the vehicles you drive. Why don’t we don’t hear that from the Environmentalists.
Are you familiar with the wilderness near Ruidoso, NM, USA? The wilderness boundaries “captured” some gold and silver / lead mines. The government threatened to sue the mine and claim owners with EPA Superfund status if they did not surrender the land for wilderness designation. Now how is it that places that are supposedly EPA Superfund sites can now be “wilderness” and untouched areas? The 1964 Wilderness Act specified that undeveloped, untouched, and natural areas were to be part of the wilderness areas.
January 19th, 2009 at 9:53 pm
stopping Nature’s own Global Warming — Recently there have been articles and reviews on the melting Arctic ice and the warming temperatures. While we may blame humans for “global warming,” Nature itself has provide a much greater source of greenhouse gases in the form of “Burning Ice” (Methane Hydrates) that in the geological past have outgassed in massive amounts periodically into the atmosphere. I will review the megatons of burning ice later on, but first there is a technical scientific issue to resolve.
The issue of “global warming” brings up the need for good mathematics in analyzing the various data sources to determine the true causes-and-effects (”inputs” and “outputs”) and to filter out those causes that either do not affect the output, or in minor ways, or in combined effects that do not show up until certain conditions are correct. As I have spent time in R&D and also getting my series of degrees, I have found that very few scientists and researchers know how to use statistics properly to be able to filter and view data for the actual, true cause-and-effects. Too many times statistical regression methods are used that assume a direct relationship between the causes and effect, which may not be real. Although there are several books on the market, one of the best books I know of that can help researchers, analysts, and scientists is a book entitled, “Statistics for Experimenters,” by Box, Hunter, and Hunter.
When it comes to global warming, there are more causes than most scientists have considered. For example, the increase in the number and intensity of solar eruptions has a much higher statistical correlation than the other causes/inputs. There are not many web pages that show these in good ways, but here are two articles for present the correlations rather easily.
http://www.qualitydigest.com/mar98/html/spctool.html
http://www.qualitydigest.com/april98/html/spctool.html
Although these graphs are from the late 1990s, the use of this type of statistical tool, SPC charting, has hardly ever been used by scientific researchers and investigators. Most of them have used other mathematical methods that assume a direct correlation between greenhouse gases and Global warming, as directed and determined by the process modeler. This traditional “assumption” may not be correct, and in some cases may potentially mislead scientists and modelers. These other tools can allow a scientist to purposely minimize the effects from natural causes and to maximize the effects of human sources.
Mars also has Global Warming (and from the Solar Sun, NOT human-causes) http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming030207.htm
http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/legislative_issues/federal_issues/hot_issues_in_congress/energy/Al-Gore-Scours-for-Extraterrestrial-SUVs.htm
Some researchers say that they know all the effects that the increased solar flux has on the atmosphere and have included this in their models, and stated that there are no real effects from the solar flux. But then there are other scientists with different theories on the effects of increased flux that present different scenarios for atmospheric reactions, such as the geomagnetic fields and changes, volcanics and their outgassings, etc. You do not hear much in the news about these other scientists and their results.
People should be very cautious about assuming that the global warming “effect” is due solely to “greenhouse” gases. Also, it should be noted that recent satellite data has shown that upper atmosphere is actually
cooling:
http://www.lanl.gov/orgs/pa/News/121699text.html
http://ees5-www.lanl.gov/IGPP/Debate2.html
(some of these links may not be working due to computer changes since 9-11)
Some researchers say that their theory and modeling shows that this cooling should occur, while others show differing effects. We see that there are still not complete agreements on the causes and especially the effects of global warming. Then there are some researchers who have purposely manipulated their models, formulas, and analyses to purposely disregard all other inputs and only tie the temperatures to greenhouse gases.
There is the other issue of how some scientists and researchers can purposely change the structure of the formulas used in their models, the mathematical terms used in the formulas, the parameters and scaling factors in the formulas, and the values of any exponentials so as to obtain predetermined results that the scientists wanted to get anyway.
This allows the scientist to minimize effects from natural causes and to maximize the effects of human sources. This is “tampering” with the formulas so as to get the predetermined results that someone might want to get, no matter what the real processes are.
In my experiences in the scientific / R&D cultures, I have seen this happen several times, even with Peer Reviews. Peer Reviews are “supposed” to catch incorrect things, inconsistencies, and errors. But this does not always occur. In some cases, the scientific peers involved in those Peer Reviews also wanted “certain” results to come out of the modeling and designs that they were reviewing. In other cases, the peers were not paying attention to critical items and issues.
Also the issue of temperature collection has not been properly resolved. Temperatures are taken in cities that have the heat island effect. I have seen several different approached to handling and correcting these heat effects, but these approaches vary and also give various results. Then there is the issue of thermometer calibration. I have observed where some thermometers for city temperatures were not calibrated properly at the required intervals, and some times not calibrated at all. How can we trust the temperature data if there are these variations in the instruments?
When it comes to Nature’s greenhouse generators through the Burning Ice (Methane Hydrates), we soon realize that our gases are very small when compared to the megatons of methane hydrates that are held within our oceans in a manner similar to a bathtub ring. Also the Earth has had major accumulations and releases in its geological past over the eons, some of which scientists now believe may have lead to some great temperature increases in the Earth’s past, long before humans were ever around.
Let me give you some web sites that describe the characteristics and issues with the Earth’s Burning Ice and the natural abundance of methane greenhouse gases:
General information on chemistry and biology of Methane Hydrates:
–> http://www.at-sea.org/missions/extremes/preview.html
–> http://www-ocean.tamu.edu/Quarterdeck/QD5.3/sassen.html
–> http://ench1.ench.ucalgary.ca/~hydrates/
–> http://fossil.energy.gov/programs/oilgas/hydrates/
–> http://www.mbari.org/ghgases/
–> http://www.mbari.org/ghgases/geochem/gas_hydrates.htm
–> http://www.mbari.org/volcanism/Margin/Marg-Hydrates.htm
–> http://www.netl.doe.gov/scngo/NaturalGas/hydrates/index.html
U. S. Geological Survey (USGS) fact sheets:
–> http://walrus.wr.usgs.gov/hydrates/
–> http://marine.usgs.gov/fact-sheets/gas-hydrates/title.html
–> http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs021-01/
–> http://woodshole.er.usgs.gov/project-pages/hydrates/
Germany’s research:
–> http://www.mpi-bremen.de/deutsch/biogeo/mumm2.html
–> http://www.gashydrate.de/
In the geological records and how dramatically and even violently the climate has changed, long before modern man came around. There is very strong geological and scientific evidence that the massive Extinction in the Permian Era many millions of years ago in the Earth’s geological past was caused both by massive volcanism and by Methane Hydrates.
http://www.terradaily.com/news/deepimpact-05r.html
Climate models overheat Antarctica incorrectly http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Climate_Models_Overheat_Antarctica_999.html
Shame on those computer models!
Study breaks ice on ancient Arctic thaw:
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Study_Breaks_Ice_On_Ancient_Arctic_Thaw_999.html
(previous periods of global warming)
And then there is the aspect of climate change from meteors:
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/climate-05zzzzo.html
Outgassing of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) from volcanoes:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs172-96/
Inaccuracies in measurements of climates:
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Antarctic_Snow_Inaccurate_Temperature_Archive.html
Ancient Climate Studies Suggest Earth On Fast Track To Global Warming http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Ancient_Climate_Studies_Suggest_Earth_On_Fast_Track_To_Global_Warming.html
Green plants also cause Global Warming:
http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/22944/
http://www.germany-info.org/relaunch/info/publications/week/2006/060113/e-list.html#Wi1
http://www.terradaily.com/news/The_Forgotten_Methane_Source.html
http://www.terradaily.com/news/Could_Forests_Worsen_Global_Warming.html
http://www.terradaily.com/news/Extinctions_Linked_To_Climate_Change.html
Farming Provides Wildlife Habitat And Reduces Global Warming http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Farming_Provides_Wildlife_Habitat_And_Reduces_Global_Warming.html
Prehistoric warming helped preserve fossils:
http://www.terradaily.com/news/climate-05zzzzzi.html
Ancient tropical warming and nature’s greenhouse gases http://www.terradaily.com/news/climate-05zzzzzj.html
Volcanic impacts on ocean levels:
http://www.terradaily.com/news/oceans-05y.html
Climate change and massive flooding:
http://www.terradaily.com/news/The_Role_Of_Massive_Floods_In_Climate_Change.html
Late Pleistocene Americans Faced Chaotic Climate Change Environments:
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Late_Pleistocene_Americans_Faced_Chaotic_Climate_Change_Environments.html
Global Warming evidence from 55 million years ago:
http://www.terradaily.com/news/climate-05zzzzzzb.html
Tropical ice cores shows two abrupt Global Climate shifts:
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Tropical_Ice_Cores_Shows_Two_Abrupt_Global_Climate_Shifts_999.html
How continental splits resulted in global cooling:
http://www.terradaily.com/news/antarctic-05q.html
Earth’s burping from wobbling also affects climate:
http://www.terradaily.com/news/climate-05zzzzt.html
Geomagnetism as one factor in rain / weather:
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Magnets_Help_Explain_Rain_Patterns.html
None of the environmentalists or businesses involved in reducing carbon emissions can go and blame massive climate changes in the past on power plants and vehicles!
It is not wise to make international policies on theories that are not agreed upon by the scientists who have been studying these causes and effects. Other scientists have published their works dealing with other causes, but have not been given the publicity such as the US National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) has received.
But if the Solar Sun is the major, primary cause and we are just a minor contributor, then our Governments are imposing on us a major compliance issue that will NOT solve the problem. Control of carbon emissions does NOT equal Control of the Solar Sun and its flux intensities on us.
Several environmental groups have told us and openly admitted at other times that they want to use the idea of human sources in order to shut down industrial activities — their words, not ours.
Retired Univ. of California technical staff member Los Alamos, New Mexico, USA.
January 19th, 2009 at 10:43 pm
Lol…sorry but I cannot help and laugh how you people in California are so damn pathetic. You gays, lesbians, human rights activist, anti-war activist, illegal immigrant supporters, dellusional hollywood stars, anti-american thugs, wanna-be “IT” spotlight freaks, over powering environmentalist, etc. etc. etc. are running down your own state AND the country.
January 20th, 2009 at 7:48 am
We cannot impact climate change. We have no bearing on it at all. To further destroy our economy in name of Halting global warming is insane. Besides, the planet is getting cooler, which stands to be more dangerous in the long run. This is a money grabbing scam by a few big companies.
January 20th, 2009 at 11:02 am
I am a hunter and fish also. I want to see a clean landscape, however this Global Warming (and when it’s cold ‘Climate Change’) is foolishness.
Please people do your own research. Google ‘Ice Ages’ and you will learn we have come out of one and no matter what man does, we will head back into another.
January 20th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
1824
Joseph Fourier calculates that the Earth would be far colder if it lacked an atmosphere.
1859
Tyndall discovers that some gases block infrared radiation. He suggests that changes in the concentration of the gases could bring climate change.
1896
Arrhenius publishes first calculation of global warming from human emissions of CO2.
1897
Chamberlin produces a model for global carbon exchange including feedbacks.
1930s
Global warming trend since late 19th century reported.
Milankovitch proposes orbital changes as the cause of ice ages.
1938
Callendar argues that CO2 greenhouse global warming is underway
1956
Plass calculates that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will have a significant effect on the radiation balance.
1957
Revelle finds that CO2 produced by humans will not be readily absorbed by the oceans.
1958
Telescope studies show a greenhouse effect raises temperature of the atmosphere of Venus far above the boiling point of water.
1960
Keeling accurately measures CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere and detects an annual rise. =>CO2 greenhouse The level is 315 ppm. Mean global temperature (five-year average) is 13.9°C.
1963
Calculations suggest that feedback with water vapor could make the climate acutely sensitive to changes in CO2 level.
1966
Emiliani’s analysis of deep-sea cores shows the timing of ice ages was set by small orbital shifts, suggesting that the climate system is sensitive to small changes.
1967
Manabe and Wetherald make a convincing calculation that doubling CO2 would raise world temperatures a couple of degrees. =>Radiation math
1968
Studies suggest a possibility of collapse of Antarctic ice sheets, which would raise sea levels catastrophically.
1969
Budyko and Sellers present models of catastrophic ice-albedo feedbacks.
1972
Ice cores and other evidence show big climate shifts in the past between relatively stable modes in the space of a thousand years or so, especially around 11,000 years ago.
1975
Manabe and collaborators produce complex but plausible computer models which show a temperature rise of several degrees for doubled CO2.
1976
Studies show that CFCs (1975) and also methane and ozone (1976) can make a serious contribution to the greenhouse effect. Deep-sea cores show a dominating influence from 100,000-year Milankovitch orbital changes, emphasizing the role of feedbacks. Eddy shows that there were prolonged periods without sunspots in past centuries, corresponding to cold periods
1979
US National Academy of Sciences report finds it highly credible that doubling CO2 will bring 1.5-4.5°C global warming.
1981
Election of Reagan brings backlash against environmental movement to power. Political conservatism is linked to skepticism about global warming. Hansen and others show that sulfate aerosols can significantly cool the climate, raising confidence in models showing future greenhouse warming. Some scientists predict greenhouse warming “signal” should be visible by about the year 2000.
1982
Greenland ice cores reveal drastic temperature oscillations in the space of a century in the distant past. Strong global warming since mid-1970s is reported, with 1981 the warmest year on record.
1983
Reports from US National Academy of Sciences and Environmental Protection Agency spark conflict, as greenhouse warming becomes prominent in mainstream politics.
1985
Ramanathan and collaborators announce that global warming may come twice as fast as expected, from rise of methane and other trace greenhouse gases.Villach Conference declares consensus among experts that some global warming seems inevitable. .Antarctic ice cores show that CO2 and temperature went up and down together through past ice ages, pointing to powerful biological and geochemical feedbacks. Broecker speculates that a reorganization of North Atlantic Ocean circulation can bring swift and radical climate change.
1988
News media coverage of global warming leaps upward following record heat and droughts plus testimony by Hansen. Toronto conference calls for strict, specific limits on greenhouse gas emissions; UK Prime Minister Thatcher is first major leader to call for action. Ice-core and biology studies confirm living ecosystems give climate feedback by way of methane, which could accelerate global warming.
1989
Fossil-fuel and other U.S. industries form Global Climate Coalition to tell politicians and the public that climate science is too uncertain to justify action.
1990
First IPCC report says world has been warming and future warming seems likely.
1991
Mt. Pinatubo explodes; Hansen predicts cooling pattern, verifying (by 1995) computer models of aerosol effects. Global warming skeptics claim that 20th-century temperature changes followed from solar influences. (The solar-climate correlation would fail in the following decade.) Studies from 55 million years ago show possibility of eruption of methane from the seabed with enormous self-sustained warming.
1992
Conference in Rio de Janeiro produces UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, but US blocks calls for serious action.Study of ancient climates reveals climate sensitivity in same range as predicted independently by computer models.
1993
Greenland ice cores suggest that great climate changes (at least on a regional scale) can occur in the space of a single decade.
1995
Second IPCC report detects “signature” of human-caused greenhouse effect warming, declares that serious warming is likely in the coming century.
Reports of the breaking up of Antarctic ice shelves and other signs of actual current warming in polar regions appear
1998
“Super El Niño” causes weather disasters and warmest year on record (approximately matched by 2005 and 2007). Borehole data confirm extraordinary warming trend.
1999
Criticism that satellite measurements show no warming are dismissed by National Academy Panel.
2000
Global Climate Coalition dissolves as many corporations grapple with threat of warming, but oil lobby convinces US administration to deny problem.
2001
Third IPCC report states baldly that global warming, unprecedented since end of last ice age, is “very likely,” with possible severe surprises. Effective end of debate among all but a few scientists. National Academy panel sees a “paradigm shift” in scientific recognition of the risk of abrupt climate change (decade-scale). Warming observed in ocean basins; match with computer models gives a clear signature of greenhouse effect warming.
2002
Studies find surprisingly strong “global dimming,” due to pollution, has retarded arrival of greenhouse warming, but dimming is now decreasing. The Larsen B ice shelf disintegrates in February
2003
Numerous observations raise concern that collapse of ice sheets (West Antarctica, Greenland) can raise sea levels faster than most had believed. Deadly summer heat wave in Europe accelerates divergence between European and US public opinion.
2005
Kyoto treaty goes into effect, signed by major industrial nations except US. Work to retard emissions accelerates in Japan, Western Europe, US regional governments and corporations. Hurricane Katrina and other major tropical storms spur debate over impact of global warming on storm intensity. Tropical glaciers lose a cumulative 8 meters of thickness since 1960.
2007
Fourth IPCC report warns that serious effects of warming have become evident; cost of reducing emissions would be far less than the damage they will cause. Level of CO2 in the atmosphere reaches 382 ppm. Mean global temperature (five-year average) is 14.5°C, the warmest in hundreds, perhaps thousands of years. Arctic summer ice falls to a record low. The American Association of Petroleum Geologists, the last remaining scientific body of national or international standing known to reject the basic findings of AGW, changes its position.
2008
Antarctica’s Wilkins Ice Shelf erodes at an unforeseen pace. Summer ice in the Arctic declines to second lowest record. Methane is seen bubbling from melting permafrost on the East Siberian Shelf.
There may be a handful of scientists with graduate degrees who totally reject AGW, and maybe a few thousand who disagree over some of the complex details of global warming, greenhouse gases, and the climate models, but NOT ONE of 928 papers on global warming published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 rejected AGW. Nearly everyone who actually understands Global Warming agrees that it is real, and potentially catastrophic.
January 20th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
They might be surprised at what else they find like garbage. I was down in McMurdo in the late 80’s and I saw garbage being piled on the ice pier
which was a large as a football field and turned lose to drift in the Antarctic current. This had been going on for several decades until Al Gore came down for a visit and threw a fit. I’ll bet there are mountains of garbage that might be seen.
January 20th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
Its funny how climate change and the global warming hysteria has become a “matter of fact”. I’d like to see Cong Waxman invite some of the scientists who have now rebuffed their earlier findings, that global warming is man made. You have to hear from both sides of the argument to make an appropriate decision on any issue. Al Gores movie has already been proved to be wrong in reguards to CO2 causing global warming. This is one of the coldest winters on record, but no one seems to want to acknowledge that. Its absurd to think that man can cause the globe to warm, this earth has gone through many warming and cooling fazes long before humans inhabited the it. So what can they say about that? Just a coincidence, I think not !
January 20th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
the economic need of the state far outreaches the environmental issues being protected. However eminent the problem of greenhouse gases, pollution, and environmental deterioration, the timeline for those certain long range problems would not effect the current state of the world. That being said the economic issue could cripple society long before these environmental issues.
January 20th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
Tough times require tough decisions. You do what you can when you can, simple as that!
January 20th, 2009 at 8:02 pm
Lorne Babcock:
The “torches” referred to in this article are known in the US as “flashlights”. This article must have been written by a non-American.
January 20th, 2009 at 8:23 pm
Pelosi and Waxman are California hoaxes.
January 20th, 2009 at 9:46 pm
Why are all these folks so angry about the global warming scam? Any thing that goes wrong is simply going to be solved by Barrack “Apollo” Obama now. So why worry?
By the way, I’m waiting for my mortgage check from the federal government. Has there been a weather delay with the mail?
January 20th, 2009 at 10:18 pm
By gosh, by golly, why is California 40 billion dolars in dept with more than 8% unemployment?
Answer. The Democratically controled congress can’t do math. You are misusing democracy to destroy California. Any change in the current plans that can created jobs must be stoped. Specifically adding two lanes to a highway will not matter when more fuel efficient cars and green cars start rolling. You also have too much welfare, with not enough inspection to weed out frauds. But then, this might make the frauds unhappy.
January 20th, 2009 at 10:25 pm
A southerner must say that the “Blind” (all politions) leading the “Stupid” (the folks that fall for this nonsence.)Why don’t we all just convert over to the Amish way of life,then there will be no problems.
January 20th, 2009 at 11:59 pm
Hello everyone, global warming is the biggest scam in the history of mankind. Go to http://www.cagwh.com and sign there petition and help support there effort to run a tv ad nationally….
January 21st, 2009 at 12:13 am
I think we should let the envirommentalists run the country then our country can be the greatest failure as is the state of california.
January 21st, 2009 at 12:38 am
our congressmen and women of our state of california are unfortunately bent on expediently bankrupting our families and business.we shall look forward to doing the same to them.
January 21st, 2009 at 12:19 pm
You’re all a bunch of morons, except for the guy that pointed out that Beijing is 100 miles inland.
If all the ice was in the water already than of course it wouldn’t change if it melted, but it’s not, it’s on land. Try adding chunks of ice to a full cup of water and tell me it doesn’t overflor. It more than physics, it’s common sense…you dolt.
Secondly, they do their research during the summer time because what they really want to study is how much ice stays theres year round. Of course some seasonal snow melt and glaciers recede during summer, but ho much is staying and replenishing what’s there? That’s why they call them ice caps and not snow.
And just f’in where are you getting your data that polar ice has actually increased? Try reading some scientific journals. Just because some prominent individual says it doesn’t make it true. It needs to be backed up by evidence and all the evidence points towards a widespread decrease.
All of you who think this is fearmongering and propoganda can go on believing your whole out of sight out of mind ideas….just please for the sake of this planet quit breeding. If we don’t get more people to actually try to make a difference it’s fools like you that will be our demise.
January 21st, 2009 at 1:29 pm
MR WAXMAN NEEDS TO GO HOME AND WORRY ABOUT CALIFORNIA,WHAT A MESS.THE EARTH IS COOLING,NOT HEATING UP.STEALING MY MONEY FOR YOUR FRIENDS WONT DO A DAM THING.THE EARTH HAS BEEN CHANGING FOR BILLIONS OF YEARS.
January 21st, 2009 at 1:31 pm
It looks like the moderator didnt like my other comment so I will try again, go to http://www.cagwh.com and join the revolution…. There are 32,000 reasons not to buy into manmade global warming.
January 21st, 2009 at 1:36 pm
I still laugh at this global warming stuff. Basic chemistry teaches you that CO2 just doesn’t, as a compound, hold heat very well at all. The water vapor in our atmosphere probably holds more heat than the CO2. I kind of laugh at how we completely ignore the fact that the huge nuclear reaction in the sky (the sun) somehow can’t get warmer or cooler, or the fact that we wobble on our axis, doesn’t account for warming and cooling of our planet…Instead these scare tactics about “global warming” and the new all encompassing term “Climate Change” are used by people like Al Gore.
January 21st, 2009 at 2:45 pm
Incredible. Absolutely incredible. I was a member of the US Navy’s former “Operation Deep Freeze” Antarctic Program, and I currently live in New Zealand, about 10 miles from where Raytheon Polar Services operate the program now. The Navy got out of the Antarctic transportation service in 1998, while I was assigned there. Global warming attributed to or caused by man is a hoax. It simply isn’t true. The planet goes through cooling and warming cycles all the time. Matter of fact, there was a cooling trend in the mid-1800’s that sent a “mini ice age” around the earth. So what if a little ice melts? Humans will move to higher ground, and we might lose some islands in the Pacific, but we’re talking that it’s not going to happen for another hundred years, and that’s plenty of time for people to relocate or build barriers. “Global Warming” is just a buzz word for liberal greed. I know because I have actually been to Antarctica.
January 21st, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Further to the above comment from “Dan” regarding the rubbish at McMurdo, it was removed in 1995 and 1996, and all cleaned up. And yes, British commonwealth countries all refer to a flashlight as a “torch”, but I couldn’t tell you exactly why.
January 21st, 2009 at 3:01 pm
Excellent!
January 21st, 2009 at 3:23 pm
idiot
January 21st, 2009 at 4:06 pm
Heaven forbid the Govenator looks at the real problem: illegal immigrants sucking the California economy dry. Once California has fallen, the instigators will move on to green pastures to zap them dry, too. Focusing on the problem, instead of tip-toeing around reality, is the only way California will be able to rebound.
January 21st, 2009 at 4:23 pm
This story is worthless without pictures!
January 21st, 2009 at 4:33 pm
I am also in rd construction business. Unfortuanatly the gov. Is right things need to change now. People need to get back to work.u can’t make everyone happy somtimes you have to just bite the bullet. Maybe suspending for the projects on hand. Time to act people need food on the table too. Sorry about some paperwork that wasn’t done. Get on with it time to act is NOW!!!
January 21st, 2009 at 5:43 pm
Of course he is not going to respond, because it’s not true. Why can’t people accept that the earth is cyclic and that he sheets of ice melting may be due to other factors. On report I saw on CNN said that areas of the polar regions that were once “warm” for arctic standards are now colder and the colder are now warmer. Let use our heads people. The dems accused Bush of using scare tactics on the war on terror, what do you call this? Same thing but just the tree huggers want their way and will use whatever may be happening to the globe to get it. By the way it was 29 degree’s in Florida last night. Need global warming down here with a possiblity of snow believe it or not. Gore lost the election and lost the attention and want’s to use this to be loved again. It’ll never happen. You thought Quale was a clown, the inventor of the internet has him beat hands down.
January 21st, 2009 at 5:48 pm
AL GORE TOLD US IN HIS INCONVENIENT TRUTH THAT FOREST FIRES CONTRIBUTE 30% OF THE CARBON TO THE ATMOSPHERE. HE ALSO SAID THAT IF WE UNDERTAKE ALL THE GREEN INITIATIVES POSSIBLE TO REDUCE MANKIND’S CARBON CONTRIBUTION THEN WE CAN REDUCE THE CARBON LEVEL BY 1%. CLEARLY IF WE WANT TO REDUCE CARBON IN THE ATMOSPHERE THE METHOD WITH THE BIGGEST IMPACT IS TO START FIGHTING FOREST FIRES. CURRENTLY IN THE USA WE ONLY FIGHT 1% OF THE FOREST FIRES. COME ON GREENIES LET’S START FIGHTING THE FOREST FIRES. THIS WILL ACTUALLY STIMULATE THE ECONOMY INSTEAD OF THROTTLING IT.
January 21st, 2009 at 5:59 pm
THE MAN WHO INVENTED THE INTERNET HAS’NT A CLUE.WHEN BIG BROTHER STARTS TAXING US MORE TO HEAT OUR HOMES.HE AND HIS FRIENDS WILL HAVE MORE MONEY TO BUY MORE JETS AND HOUSE BOATS
January 21st, 2009 at 6:58 pm
California is the land of the free. Free food, free housing, free medical free everything! There ane more freeloaders, legal and illegal than there are working people to pay for all of it. I hope that your practices and policies stay in California or better yet let Mexico annex California!! That should solve all of the budget issues.
January 21st, 2009 at 9:01 pm
Dont get mad people, go to http://www.cagwh.com and donate $5, $10, or whatever you can give to expose this lie. Those leftist CON-gressman/women are trying to steal our money. What they are doing is 10 times worse then the Madoff scheme. If everyone contributes and spreads the word to friends, family, and co-workers we will win. CAGWH even offers 2 bumperstickers for $10 or more donations…Get involved today, its time we get off our butts and do something about it. It does not do any good to only write comments on articles, GO TO CAGWH and contribute and I promise we will win…
January 21st, 2009 at 9:44 pm
This Congressman is loose cannon. He needs to be sent home to CA.
January 21st, 2009 at 9:48 pm
Will we ever realize that there is no such thing as induced global warning. The planet goes through cycles and at the moment is it entering a cooling phase.
January 21st, 2009 at 9:51 pm
Only algore is ignorant and arrogant enough to believe in induced global warming.
January 21st, 2009 at 11:03 pm
welcome to the end of america where the wants of the de-evolved masses guides us to —>Epic Fail
please all you high rollers who makes over 50k a year and do nothing but type on your computer or pretend like you know what your doing when you really have no idea and pass all responsibility off on your underlings you are the reason for the state of this country. I hope your GOD obama is the second coming, becuase if he isnt things are gonna hit the fan
January 21st, 2009 at 11:58 pm
well if you dont want a food shortage in fairbanks keep al gore far away man he is big. BTW last summer he did leave his excssive 8 pax limo ( a standard town car would have been less of a footprint ) running for 2 hrs so he would not be hot after a rally. he also runs around in private jets AL SHOW SOME LEADERSHIP IF YOU REALLY BELIEVE YOUR OWN CRAP
January 22nd, 2009 at 7:55 am
As a Pickens Plan Delegate, I wih to promote sound ideas for a super-clean environment using intelegent techology similar to that offered by Greenfuel.com.
Let’s go Green with new well-paying jobs for America.
best
Karl Mayr
January 22nd, 2009 at 8:56 am
GORE IS A PHONY. THATS WHY HE REFUSES ANY DEBATE.HE HAS BEEN CHALLENGED BY MANY.LORD MONCTON HAS CHALLENGED HIM BUT HE REFUSES BECAUSE HE IS A PHONY
Al Gore has refuse to debate with anyone on global warming. He has pulled out of interviews when he is told they will have a skeptic on with him. He even refused to testify to the US Congress until there was a Democratic majority.
The answer is simple, Gore knows that he is wrong on some things, instead of admitting his errors he refuses to be put in a positions when they could be proven wrong. Obviously he thinks that having global warming hysteria is more important then getting to the real scientific facts. He has said before, he does not see a problem with exaggerating certain facts if it causes people to act.
January 22nd, 2009 at 9:27 am
The “cold, hard” fact about global warming is, there are as many scientist’s cold, to Al’s theories, as there are warm to them. Contrary to Pres. Obama, the verdict is still out. Ironically, should Gore’s crowd lose the debate, his public image may melt away, but his frozen one in Fairbanks, will long atest to his well intention’s, leaving everyone in the cold. Sorry.
January 22nd, 2009 at 12:58 pm
So if we are to believe this non-sense, in one hundred years the ocean level will rise 1 inch, or about a foot every 1200 years. Hmmm, let’s spend more money on this, and give the idiot another Nobel.
January 22nd, 2009 at 1:59 pm
Brian Dodge, nice summary. You make a great point that while there are plenty of “scientists” in the world that will reject the effects of global climate change by CO2, methane, and other GHGs, no one ever publishes anything with actual data and a non-political, purely scientific, and non-religious assesment that can withstand peer review that refutes the concept.
Andrew (#29) are you referencing heat capacity when you state “holds more heat”? If so, that isn’t the concept of CO2’s effect at all. It is related to the ability of CO2 to absorb IR radiation emitted by the planet (as a result of visible light absorbtion and IR emission) at a greater rate than other gases in the atmosphere. You may want to do a little more research. You are right though that water vapor does have a much greater heat capacity than CO2, and I’d guess, probably every other component of the atmosphere.
This is great, as a scientist and engineer myself, but by no means an expert on this subject, it is great to read these posts. The injection of religion, politics, emotion, anger, and paranoia into this analysis and basically the destruction of the scientific process is really quite fascinating.
I always enjoy how the defense against something that someone doesn’t understand themselves is usually to reference “scientists”, “experts” or “God”. It’s really something that society hasn’t changed at all in thousands of years. Sure everyone has cell phones, other goofy electronic gadgets and modern conveniences, but people are really the same as always. If I didn’t have rights and protections the non-believers would probably be banishing me away for heresy like Galileo.
January 22nd, 2009 at 2:07 pm
S-o-o-o much disinformation to refute, so little time!
“Big Al” is right: the facts are in, the time for debate is LONG over. “Global Warming” is real, and it is largely caused by man. All of you contradicting this are either liars, or fools, self-deceived.
Even Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming) got it right: “the overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate change agree with the IPCC’s main conclusions”.
That is, “The scientific consensus is that the increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases due to human activity has caused most of the warming observed since the start of the industrial era, and the observed warming cannot be satisfactorily explained by natural causes alone.”
So just as I said: it is real, it is caused by man. And it threatens to be a major problem.
January 22nd, 2009 at 2:12 pm
As the statue melts, people will think of it in exactly the way Compeau did NOT want: they will think of global warming. They will think of it as REAL.
January 22nd, 2009 at 2:23 pm
Catherine’s posts are long on links, and overflowing with an abundance of scientific-sounding language, but the unscientific nature of her concerns is revealed by such lines as:
=================
Environmental groups say that ALL Mining and Oil Gas Wells are “bad” and “evil”, even with full-scale reclamations and restorations. So how can we go to Alternative Energies when these requires materials that are not accepted by the Environmentalists?
=================
Which ‘environmental groups’ say THIS? Certainly Al Gore isn’t saying anything so silly. It sounds to me like Catherine is making an elaborate “straw-man” argument, deliberately focusing on the ignorant chatter of a few individual environmentalists, using their ignorance to fool us into believing that all ‘greens’ are this dangerous.
Global warming is real, and it is largely caused by man. The time for debate is over, it is time to reduce “greenhouse gases” before the disaster is too disastrous. Cathering is dithering.
January 22nd, 2009 at 3:48 pm
I doubt that adding a lane will cause more cars to be on the road. If anything it will cause a decrease in stop-and-go traffic which would reduce CO2 emissions. These environmental groups are religious fanatics who think their cause trumps all others, including creating jobs and relieving traffic congestion.
I must say though that the reason the environmental review will cause huge delays is because of the broken government and legal system that take forever to get anything done.
January 22nd, 2009 at 5:49 pm
I have read that the issue is that seawater is salty and salty water is denser than fresh water. The icebergs being fresh water produce a volume of fresh water greater than the previously displaced volume of sea water. If you try this experiment in your fridges, half fill a glass with cold, salty water. Add a (non-salty) ice cube and mark on the glass where the water is. Then watch where the water is after the ice cube has melted.
January 22nd, 2009 at 6:02 pm
Good for him how does Gore from Tenn. know anything this year ,I travel 43000 miles in the last 6months ,I have been in temptures as low as 0to a high of 70 a fewdays in fla. the only warm place is fla. keys and a few days in southern california! He is a none deserving of his awards! He has 20000 sg. house that uses more electric and gas than his whole rich neighborhood and his friends jet and his friend turbo jet the highest fuel sucker along whith his hummer! thanks , I am from north carolina and it has beeen really cold and had more rain this last year than the last two years! Terry Cowboy Carson
January 22nd, 2009 at 6:44 pm
Great idea. I bet Al won’t show up.
January 22nd, 2009 at 7:06 pm
I think your blog need a new wordpress template. Downalod it from http://genericwpthemes.com . The site has nice and unique wordpress templates.
January 22nd, 2009 at 8:13 pm
Yall don’t get it. Blocking freeway construction is a key element in environmentalists’ agenda. The more congested, the better. Congestion makes for frustrated and angry motorists, so enviros can more easily get mass transit projects approved. It is all about getting people out of their cars, and standing next to strangers on a train. Trains=good, cars=bad. Dontcha know?
.
Never mind that California is spread out and mass transit takes forever to get where you need to go. Your time is only valuable to you, not to the environmentalists.
January 22nd, 2009 at 9:00 pm
No Picture!! This would have been worth seeing! Good old AP again, those aggressive journalists. Bet if he did one of Bush they would have flown up there just for the picture.
January 22nd, 2009 at 9:05 pm
Anybody notice that the new “stimulus” bill that Congress is working on (another $820 billion) wouldn’t actually have an effect on the economy until 2010 according to the Congressional Budget Committee? Same with any of the environmental stuff. This is a scam to push our children’s money into the Democratic districts that seem to just waste it (and buy votes). There is a reason why Obama is saying it will take a while for the economy to turn around. It’s because they have no intention to really help it (through tax relief) turn around.
January 22nd, 2009 at 9:08 pm
What happens in San Fransisco and Los Angeles is going to be what happens across our nation. We should be scared. Maybe the blame goes back to our public education…. no mabye it’s the flouride in the water.
January 23rd, 2009 at 1:18 am
Methane is a much worse Greenhouse gas than CO2. How about filling in all those swamps if you really think there is “Global Warming” It will have a much greater effect than curbing Man-made CO2. Oh and how about building a bunch of nuclear power plants like France did.
Here is something to think about in relation to the Global Warming Hoax. The reason perhaps??
The Russians seem to think there is an Ice Age coming.
There is certainly a grab for control of food since The World Bank, IMF and World Trade Organization are intent on taking over the world food supply by driving peasants off their land (I could write pages on this) see: http://www.fpif.org/outside/commentary
/2002/0202food.htmlhttp://libertyark.net/nais_story.html
http://www.doublestandards.org/sap1.html
There is the Seed Banks and Global Diversity treaty for gabbing control of seed : http://www.bioversityinternational.org/publications/pdf/1144.pdf
The housing/banking meltdown driving land prices through the floor and that all makes me very skeptical especially when I read articles like the following:
“….big investors are “hurriedly moving their wealth out of stocks and shares and into farmland….” The Times article suggests that, “Across the world, hedge fund managers, property developers and other investors” are all ready to buy up British farmland. http://www.deepjournal.com/p/7/a/en/1237.html
Barton Briggs, one of Wall Street’s most legendary investment strategists, is advising the rich and powerful to buy up farms and stock them with “seed, fertiliser, canned food. wine, medicine. clothes etc.” (and the “etc” would seem to mean guns to keep away the rest of us…)
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601088&sid=almBVle3OMyo&refer=muse
To get rid of the excess population there are bioweapons and this
“ The Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense have stated that there will be a choice given to Americans about whether they want to be vaccinated “in the first round in which the pandemic has not gotten away from us. In the second round, when it has gotten away from us [note language], there will be no choice and those who refuse vaccination will be quarantined indefinitely.” http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/?p=593
And on top of that the EU wants to move 5 million Africans off that nice warm land.
I wonder if Al Gore, Maurice Strong as well as the Bush family have bought land in South America?
January 23rd, 2009 at 3:51 am
It was -52F here in North Pole, AK when they carved out Al. Brrr!
January 23rd, 2009 at 8:49 am
Did Prince Albert bring his statue down here to Florida? I came to visit from MN, only to find freeze warnings all 4 days I was here & Orange crop failures. Given the way God is trying to smack him & the rest of the Green movement over the head with the reality of GLOBAL COOLING everywhere he goes, I wouldn’t be surprised.
January 23rd, 2009 at 9:54 am
Kevin,you are correct in most of your reply, however
to say that the ice caps at the poles are getting smaller is not altogether true. The coverage in the northern hemisphere has grown back to the levels of the 1970’s per NOAA and NASA.
As for Al Gore blaming global warming/climate change completely on mankind, misses another point, the fact that all of the inner planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars) all are experiencing roughly the same amount of warming.
Calling people fools for not following your belief system is also short sighted, and shows a lack of knowledge of the subject you seem to know a little about.
Please consider your words more carefully in the future.
January 23rd, 2009 at 12:28 pm
Man Made Global Warming HOAX! Al Gore is the worst kind of hypocrite. Like the pigs in George Orwell’s Animal Farm, “do as I say, not as I do”.
January 23rd, 2009 at 12:31 pm
He didn’t use “Green” ice?
We’re going to be pummeled to death with green everything, threats of heat-death and more over the next four years of the Democratic juggernaut. Kudos to the Alaskans for taking an ice-stand in the war on eco-truth – LOL.
January 23rd, 2009 at 12:37 pm
Legislators fiddle while the economy burns. Diverting resources to address a non-problem is idiotic at best, a dishonest power grab at worst. Environmental hypocrites want to divert resources that could be used to address real environmental issues to this hoax. The only “consensus” on man made global warming is that it is a myth.
January 23rd, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Great! So where’s the picture?
January 23rd, 2009 at 2:17 pm
It’s all natural. It’s happened before several times. Part of huge cycle(s) that take tens of thousands of years to happen.
We’ve now altered the current cycle. We pollute way too much. That’s the way we are. Get over it.
OK, So we’ll go extinct. That’s it. End of story.
Eventually the tectonic plates will scrape the continents clean of most of our crap. Some sort of life will go on without us. Happy now?
(Hey ape children, Go kill/rape/smash something and eat/grope/hump it already.)
January 23rd, 2009 at 3:38 pm
Global Warming today is following the global cooling of yesterday 1300-1400s to 1940s. Most likely going to go longer so all you idiots that live close to sea level need to make plans to move. This global climate change has happened before, but we never had soo many stupid people populating the coastlines.
You would think the occasional tsunami/huricane would discourage them. Shame on the Goracle for blaming us inlanders for the problem.
January 23rd, 2009 at 4:01 pm
Just because we believe that the climate change is natural does not mean we don’t want to keep the planet as clean as possible. But the ultimate clean is only achieved if we mass suicide into predug graves. There must be compromise: Nucs would seem to be an excellant answer, but not a option to the Libs/Greens.
January 23rd, 2009 at 4:05 pm
Not to worry. BHO will edict 50mpg town, 100mpg highway and outlaw any vehicle not complying. Instant trashing of all vehicles, kill the economy, make the Greens Happy.
Happy days are here again!!!
January 23rd, 2009 at 4:13 pm
And when the miniscule amount of CO2 and methane in our atmosphere is shown to be totally dominated by water vapor and its constantly changing concentrations, what then.
January 23rd, 2009 at 4:38 pm
be “represented” by lawyers, if they don’t want to end up as chicken nuggets and big macks.
January 23rd, 2009 at 4:39 pm
#22
It is impossible to get a critical paper juried due to the group hug mentality of AGW proponents and their control of purse strings.
January 23rd, 2009 at 7:48 pm
I wonder how long it will be before al gore melts.
January 24th, 2009 at 9:59 am
I’d love to see every card-carrying member of Sierra Club, Wilderness Society, Defenders of the Earth, etc., etc., put on a list – if they go to buy property, build or remodel a home, buy a car, whatever……make them subject to an EIS before they can proceed…..wouldn’t want to be hyporites and do harm to the habitat of the ‘bug-eyed sapsucker wasp’ or some such critter now – would they? See how patient they’d be when their plans are put on hold indefinitely while others are allowed to appeal every plan they make – keeping projects on hold and workers sidelined. Hey – require that they have labor lined up for said project (can’t have any delays if it is approved), on the payroll the entire waiting period. Hmmmmm…… would make them think twice before protesting every potential job-producing, productive, natural resource use or infrastructure effort…….???
January 24th, 2009 at 11:25 am
Governor Swarzenegger is obviously the Only elected official with enough Intelligence and Fortitude to do “WHATEVER IT TAKES TO GET THE JOB DONE! Evidently the Democrat controlled legislature still doesn’t get it, that the largest Special Interest Group in the State is the voting public. We are tired of Starving to Death, facing Foreclosure & Unemployment. If the Legislature doesn’t follow Swarzenegger’s lead and get us out of the QUICKSAND that THEY have created, they may well find themselves in the UNEMPLOYMENT LINE.
The Environment is like Love, it’s a nice thing to have but you can’t eat it or pay your bills with it. Wake up you JACKASSES!
January 24th, 2009 at 11:47 am
Al Gore probably won’t be going to Alaska very soon. He’s got to know that Alaskans won’t have any trouble spotting a Gray Wolf in Sheeps Clothing.
January 24th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
There was a time before the ice age when the earth was warm and fair. Human ancestry may have gone mostly unclothed during those times. We are still in the final phase of the last ice age — perfectly normal, as I see it.
If past is prologue, it will be several hundred thousand years before we will see extreme warming again. Should we worry?
January 24th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
If politicians were so smart, don’t you think they would have seen this FINANCIAL CRISIS COMING? Obviously this Global Warming Hysteria/Religion is only a ploy by poiticians to bilk us out of more of our hard earned cash. As much as they’ve lied to us in the last 20 years why would anyone believe a word they say NOW? They never give up in their quest for more power and they will do anything for more of it. The only time these ignorant fools will be shaken from where they are is when the people get hungry and turn back into Barbarians. Sadly, Waxman represents the mental retardation of his constituents. Vote the INUMBENTS OUT!
January 24th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
Your website at
http://green.foxnews.com/2009/01/21/frozen-al-gore-unveiled-by-critic-in-alaska/
is nearly unreadable . The black print on the dark green near the top of the page is BAD design.
January 24th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
Please show me a picture of it! After all, one picture is worth 1000 words.
Thanks,
Larry
January 24th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
I’d say that the aborigines were there many years before modern man and they will be there many years after, regardless of the money spent. It seems like nobody can just let Nature take it’s course. Looks like these Kooks just want more authority and power over the people.
Thank You to Catherine or Los Alamos, NM, for a great eye opening education on the FACTS. We need more people like her with similar Credentials to speak more openly about the big HOAX of manmade global warming and the idea that there could possibly be anything that mere mortal man could do about it. Nature is still the BOSS.
January 24th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
Brian Dodge wrote:
There may be a handful of scientists . . .who totally reject AGW, and maybe a few thousand who disagree over some of the complex details of global warming . . but NOT ONE of 928 papers on global warming published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 rejected AGW.
————–
Sorry Brian. Just not true. Anyone who looks at the data can conclude that the earth is warming (ever since the last ice age). Almost no one who looks at the data concludes it is driven by man-made processes. The climate alarmists conveniently confuse these two things when they are quoting “scientists”.
January 24th, 2009 at 10:15 pm
Very simply put, the global warming hoax has been perpetuated for many reasons but has many problems:
Over all, this is a socialist inspired movement to take down capitalism and to control all business eventually.
Communism denies private property and free enterprise; socialism allows for this concept but insists on controlling it…completely.
1) Research ’scientists’ get grant money to come up with evidence that supports global warming.
2) The leftist media is completely on board and continues to push it. Pure propaganda.
3) C02, methane (and any other chemical they want to use) is made into a taxable commodity, giving socialists more power and control.
4) Going through the U.N. gives them the power to form a ‘new world order’. Tax money leads to the muscle to enforce their ideology.
The problems are this:
1) The earth is now entering a mini-ice age and is cooling, thus they are using ‘climate change’ increasingly instead of ‘global warming’.
2) Russia, China and some others have already said they will not comply and have debunked the hoax.
3) 3ird world countries (read as Tin Horn Dictators) think they can reap some of our wealth yet are ripe for revolution due to Islamic Fascism and/or chaotic populations that are dirt poor and not being fed except for capitalist generosity.
4) Large numbers or the U.S. population are about ready to revolt and only need a region or state to declare itself in secession.
The old Chinese curse applies: “May you live in interesting times”.
January 24th, 2009 at 11:22 pm
concerned citizen has it right. EXCEPT! the enviromentalists are already running the country. They just now finally got someone in the white house that will sign all their stupid bills and finish killing this country. There is no global warming!! Get real…. nothing man does can change the climate. Until the minority gets together we will be on this downward spiral. These envirolmentalist have so much money they get everything tied up in the courts for years. Soon we will not have any water, energy, housing, etc. Let alone NO JOBS!
January 25th, 2009 at 1:41 am
i HAVE NEVER HEARD OF SUCH RUBBISH IN ALL MY LIFE ,THEIR LIFE SPAN WAS JUST 35 YRS OLD BEFORE WHITE MAN CAME ,AND THEY NEED CIVILIZING NOT MORE MONEY FOR THIS GREEN SCAM ,ALL THE MODELS HAVE BEEN PROVEN TO BE FALSE ,FOR A START IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANY MODEL OR ANYONE TO PREDICT THE WEATHER CYCLES IN 100YRS OR CHANGE THEM ,ITS ALL ABOUT CONTROL OVER THE POPULATION AND RIPPING TAX PAYERS MONEY FOR ALL THEIR FOLOWERS IN THIS SCAM WHO OWN THE GREEN POWER ETC ,IN 1300 THE TEMP WAS 7%HOTTER THAN NOW THERE WAS NO INDUSTRY THEN ,METHANE IS UBSUSTAINABLE AND IS DESTROYED BY THE SUN WITHIN A YR,AND CONSIDERING THE AMOUNT OF METHANE PRODUCED BY FORESTS IN DECOMPOSITION ,THEY ARE JUST HYPOCRITS ,THIS IS THE WORLDS BIGGEST SCAMS FOR TAXES AND CONTROL ,NOTHING MORE .
January 25th, 2009 at 10:27 am
The environmentalists’ angle will always be anti-human (pro-abortion, pro-environment, pro-population control, etc). The non-whites will always be anti-white establishement and blame European colonialism. The anit-capitalist will blame modern culture and the free-market. And the pop-libs will be believe anything celebs, MTV and SNL say. So the big question of what is right is this — were these people displaced by the white colonials? even if you can’t prove global warming, you can argue that they may have been exiled to that land, which is becoming less inhabitable. Perhaps then the gov’t should aid – and perhaps either way, since they probably are unable to afford relocation. This kind of thing is in everyone’s history, regardless of origins – we all have someone in our geneology who was victimized or displaced or oppressed – did the Irish get “aid” on migrating to the US? did french protestants get “aid” on fleeing to Great Britain, for example? NO — all sides should be rational — if these low-income folks need help, the high-income should help to a certain degree. The Aussie gov’t will need to do work out a fair solution based on what is right, not based on what Al Gore says about global warming. Global warming is being used as lib propoganda….PERIOD. Remember the boy that cried wolf, Al.
January 25th, 2009 at 10:36 am
Gore will not speak to a critic. He’s busy flying his private jet to speeches that pay for his utility bill and expensive hair care products (that much hairspray can’t be good for the environment!).
January 25th, 2009 at 10:40 am
If Algore shows up, how will they tell him apart from the ice sculpture?
January 25th, 2009 at 11:47 am
Hi dir of operations,
It is my joy to talk to fox news this afternoon,
i will like to tell you the truth i love you topic. LIVING IN THE GREEN , IS really unintresting with the ecotech, cos it is really hush, but iwill like to ask you a question , i am the sun , moon , the stars , every where i go i find it , is it a crime? where could i work? and what does it mean? i have suffered endlessly for it…. I LOVE YOU AMERICA
Iam talking from NIGERIA, IN THE WEST COAST OF AFRICA,
January 26th, 2009 at 11:06 am
LMAO…Al Gore used to really tick me off, I do NOT believe in global warming except for whats predicted in Revelations. I love this mans idea! What we need now however is an answer for B. H. Obama who is tearing this country down!
January 26th, 2009 at 11:28 am
Let Arnold do ( fast ) what is needed and not what the Liberal Left want to satisfy their own Leftist principles !!
January 26th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
The politicians have no right to meddle in a lawsuit!?! They MAKE the laws, Mr Adams! You are just peeved that they want to end your ridiculous meddling!… People, this is what happens when LAWYERS run politics. They create chaos so that billions of dollars have to be funneled to lawyers… and we just put a lawyer in the White House… Good job America! Go back to your sitcoms and ‘reality’ tv like they want you to… shhh, don’t actually pay attention to what the government does with your money, shhhh…. America, I HOPE for CHANGE in 2010/2012!!!
January 26th, 2009 at 5:49 pm
I have begun to adjust my stance and opinions on global warming theories. Over the past several years, I have encountered much evidence pointing to the fact that man cannot possibly affect climate conditions to the point of changing them. This can only be accomplished by the almighty God. He has created this beautiful earth on which we live and He is the only one who can ( and will in his own time ) destroy it. I apologize for being such a shmuck over the past couple of decades. Thanks to Jesus, I have been saved from such far left wacko liberal notions and no longer pursue such nonsense.
~ Al Gore
January 27th, 2009 at 12:09 am
Global warming is always followed by another ice age. It has absolutely nothing to do with human industrial ‘greenhouse’ gases. The true cause is a little-known but persistent 26 thousand year cycle. Just as the tilt of the Earth’s axis gives us summer and winter, spring and fall; the wobble (oscillation) of the axis affects global weather. Plato and other previous to him, noted that the stars appear to “fall back” 1 degree every 72 years (thus making the alignment of any building to the stars impossible) and he divided the “great year” into the 12 Ages of Man. Since the movement is backwards (retrograde), the Precession (also known as the Precession of the Equinoxes) is also the reverse of the solar year horoscope. We are currently in the Age of Pisces, which ends on December 21, 2012, and will enter the Age of Aquarius in just 4 years.
There are clues to this phenomena in the Bible as well. See: Genesis 1:14, and references to the “end of the age”, the “last generation” and so forth. Even Revelation notes that the Sun will scorch the Earth (4th plague of the end-times) before a “new heaven” and a “new earth” are born. The sign of Aquarius is water. Will there be another flood…or another ice age?
I’m no prophet, just a student of the word.
May God bless you!
January 27th, 2009 at 12:12 am
I forgot to mention the Vostok ice core samples and a 25-year old report done by international scientists that indicates Carbon Dioxide rises for 21,000 years and then stops. Clearly, the wobble of the Earth’s axis causes the oceans to warm up, which releases more carbon dioxide but as we move away from the sun, less C02 is released. Apparently, someone doesn’t want you to know this basic information.
January 27th, 2009 at 1:27 am
Hooray for Craig!
As many of us sit through 0 or below temperatures with 30 or more inches of snow on the ground it’s about time someone said “Phooey” to Al. Guess what, I don’t live in Alaska either.
Now we have a president who in the midst of an economic downturn is raising emission standards that will kill the auto industry. It’s okay that he rides the biggest gas guzzler in the US, just don’t let the surfs interfere with the lords.
We could all quit driving tomorrow and it wouldn’t change the climate changes. Mother Earth will do what she wants regardless.
Wake up, America, before you are all driving matchbox cars!!!
January 27th, 2009 at 3:03 am
Ask anyone who works in the motorcycle business how Arnie’s environmental policies have impacted their industry and/or their job. Oh, and I guess I should mention the tax dollars that the state didn’t take in as a result of their negative impact on business. Of course, we shouldn’t leave-out the businesses and jobs that suffer when people lose enthusiasm for buying and using motorcycles, should we? One twinkle of light, though. When Mexico finally takes possession of California, it’ll be the cleanest state in their country.
January 27th, 2009 at 8:41 am
I can write a well thought out comment about how liberal groups will pin this on global warming, how global warming is leftist propoganda and how the Aussie gov’t is legitimately responsible if Euro colonialism displaced the Abs, but what’s the point (and “who cares” maked it through the filter? hmm..)
Either way, the gov’t will have to help any group improverished citizens with health problems, even if global warming is a hoax, created by the left to seize power over, well, every aspect of our lives.
January 27th, 2009 at 9:45 am
THANK YOU! I live in Western NY, where we are expieriencing 1 of 5 of the coldest years on record, EVER! Global warming is a farce, the earths weather cycles are CYCLICAL! Wake Up Libs!
January 27th, 2009 at 10:41 am
Wow, this is a case of the nuts (environmentalists) running the nut house (California). They don’t seem to understand that by destroying buisiness and blocking efforts like this road expansion they are hurting the economy, which means there is less money for their environmental agendas. This is just another example of a Liberal “feel-good policy,” i.e. I don’t care about the results as long as it feels good, it must be the right thing to do. For once I hope the Governator actuallys manages to get this through.
January 27th, 2009 at 11:29 am
As an alaskan I can only wish , mr.gore had a brain,and really explored what we do no about alaska and the global warming….he needs to sing ….if I only had a brain….and do the math…Geez That must be quite the site, watching al gore melt down…..
January 27th, 2009 at 11:30 am
Folks, don’t be fooled by this “dog and pony” show. The only companies that were invited to the hearing are the one’s that would benefit from the “cap and trade” legislation. For example, Excelon (based out of Obama’s hometown of Chicago) is heavily invested in Nuclear Power. Cap and trade would really only effect coal fired plants since they are the ones producing CO2. The Southern Company is heavily invested in coal fired plants. You don’t see them on the invitation list. GE sells CFLs and wind turbines. Dupont is investing in “Green Technologies”. NRG has is investing into biomass power plants. ConocoPhillips is investing into ethanlol and cellulosic ethanol production.
January 27th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
This is hilarious!!!! Maybe Al Gore will fly his Gulf Stream jet up there, give a speech and sell some books.
January 28th, 2009 at 7:57 am
That’s why they call it denial.
January 28th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
Great idea! Al Gore has earned $100 million on his Global Warming hoax.
January 28th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
The enviromentalists are liberal democrats who have blocked every oppurtunity to make gas more accessable,relieve congestion on freeways creating more operation time for our cars creating more polution ,less jobs and more demand for gas. The liberals are now shutting off water to Southern California which will further depress our economy by elimanating any growth and threatening even higher taxes so they can fund unions and abortion and subsidize hollywood so they wont leave for better tax incentives . I thought we had all had to pitch in , apparently not liberals , hollywood or unions who are sueing the people of California!
January 28th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
oh no!
January 28th, 2009 at 6:01 pm
I think that there might be more to the environmental impact than just greenhouse gas. Runoff from rain with less soil to return rainwater to the watershed. Loss of wetland or habitat. Could also move traffic and exhausts closer to a communities open windows. Transportation policies regarding the environment go further than just greenhouse gases.
January 29th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
THE REAL QUESTIONS THAT SHOULD BE ASKED IS: WHO ARE THE CONGRESSMEN AND WOMEN AND SENATORS WHO ARE INVOLVED WITH THIS? WHO ARE THEY CONNECTED TO? WHAT DO THEY GET OUT OF IT? IF A LAW IS PASSED, LOOK AT IT CAREFULLY TO SEE WHO IT BENEFITS. EXPOSE THEM TO EVERYONE.
January 29th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
Stupid, self-centered, ignorant conservatives!
January 29th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
There is no counter point to this story, only a scare tactice with ‘facing extinction’ in paranthesis to highlight a stated ‘premise’ even though the article itself doesn’t state extinction is eminent… only an inferential allusion to the rockhopper (not to mention interchanging the terms climate change and global warming to allow reaction to criticism).
So, Joanna Smudgen, please don’t take offense to the criticism… if this is something you truly believe, or if you are just ‘reporting the facts’, then balance the facts with counterarguments to increase/decrease credibility with either side.
January 29th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
GLOBAL WARMING IS A FANTASY AND A SILLY MYTH AT BEST. STEP INTO REALITY WITH THE REST OF THE WORLD.
January 29th, 2009 at 6:51 pm
I agree; We Want Pictures! Give us photos!
January 29th, 2009 at 11:15 pm
Here’s the link to the sculpture…quite the resemblence…and a happy al gore
http://www.newsminer.com/news/2009/jan/19/al-gore-ice-sculpture-unveiled-fairbanks-invitatio/
January 30th, 2009 at 2:57 am
Let’s say that the entire global warming issue is false and there isn’t a single shred of truth to it. My question would be this: Why wouldn’t anyone want a cleaner environment, with cleaner air and cleaner water? Regardless of whether Al Gore is right or wrong, isn’t the outcome a benefit to everyone?
January 30th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
What this man did is funny, and important. Maybe he should be given the Nobel Peace Prize. Many scientists question the global warming theory – and “theory” it is. Weather is, as another writer stated, cyclical. Just review our planet’s complete past, unless you’re afraid to find out the truth because you don’t want to know.
Many of us who are enduring more snow, and subfreezing temperatures, ice storms, and the most severe winter weather we have seen in decades are laughing.
This whole thing is like the story of “Emperor Has No Clothes” — when are people going to wake up and admit, out loud, that the emperor has no clothes? The theory gained traction when Mr. Gore teamed with Hollywood and they became the weavers of the invisible thread. It quickly became politically incorrect to admit the obvious, but out of fear of not seeming as smart, or worthy, as others, people began to speak about how beautiful the Emperor’s clothes were – when actually he was wandering around in his underwear. Since no one wants to be regarded as “unworthy” or less intelligent, here we are.
You may read about the ways in which Mr. Gore’s company profits when this artificial science is accepted at http://www.globalwarming.org.
Mr. Gore was able to get the extremely odd Hollywood types to buy in. And, talk about a “bully pulpit”. If anyone has one, it’s Hollywood. So many of our people blindly accept what they see when they experience emotion associated with visual images. Any teacher knows that the more senses a student uses when learning, the better he will “learn”, and that if emotion can be brought into play they are more likely to remember. So Hollywood is now a “teacher” of less than factual information. Hollywood knows they have the power, and forwards their liberal agenda — so the students “learn”.
That Mr. Gore won a Nobel peace prize for this is ludicrous. According Wikipedia: “\’According to Nobel’s will, the Peace Prize should be awarded “to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.”[1]‘
Understanding the purpose of the Nobel Peace Prize, what has Mr. Gore actually done by purporting this “theory” that would fit into the purpose that Mr. Nobel desired?
January 30th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
For picture – http://www.newsminer.com/photos/2009/jan/19/6734/
January 30th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
I did so hope Albert was on to something with his global warming concept, but his global warming has not yet reached Minnesota. My heating costs are higher than ever. Will global warming reach Minnesota by the winter of 2009?? Will I get any financial aid by our new administration?? So many questions.
January 30th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
Go to this site – you’ll see the picture of the frozen al gore.
January 30th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
The Alcicle! ha.
January 30th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
I’m not sure if the site got published, so here it is again.
http://www.compeaus.com/
See the alcicle for yourself.
January 30th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
The winters here in rural Alberta have been getting snowier and colder. We had 9 weeks of tempertures below -40F from mid Nov 2008 till early Jan 2009. I haven’t seen winters with a cold stretch so long before this in my 35 years. I have had so much snow I have 6 feet of it on my deck, twice I have had to dig down at my office building to get to the door lock to get in. Then get a shovel and dig a trench back to the side walk 12′ long and 5′ deep. Our businesses storage yard has an 8′ high fence around it. The top rail of the fence is all that is sticking out of the snow. If I though global warming was real I’d leave my truck running constantly to get a break from all this snow.
January 30th, 2009 at 4:37 pm
Al Gore, winner of the Nobel Prize, inventor of the internet, scam artist extraordinaire! He has the condescending nerve to say the argument is over and as many in this blog have pointed out will not even deign to talk to anyone on the merits of the facts because in his limited capacity “theatre of the mind” he’s too big to fail. What a blowhard.
January 30th, 2009 at 8:40 pm
Al Gore is a fraud. T Boone Pickens is a fraud too. Al Gore says global warming is getting worse. But how come NASA’s research says the opposite. Then Picken’s said he is building this huge wind farm now he is waiting to get it almost paid for by taxpayers to get him even more rich then he is now. Why doesn’t T boone sell his oil reserves and trade it in for Wind farms. T boone along with Al Gore is a joke..
January 30th, 2009 at 11:15 pm
You idiotic, selfish conservatives are just in deep denial! You just want to go on doing whatever you want whenever you want, the environment and the future generations be damned! You lied that “most scientists” questioned global warming when it is just the opposite. Those “scientists” who like you deny that global warming is due to human activities are NOT real scientists but economists and those who are paid by the fossil fuel industries and conservative extremists. Guess what? Even ExxonMobil now admits that the warming is probably caused by humans and pledged to take actions to reduce its carbon footprint. Fortunately, you losers are in a shrinking group.
January 31st, 2009 at 2:16 am
He went to College to make money(GREEN) and he is not interested in America, only Al Gore Green ,Right Art, Right Everybody.
January 31st, 2009 at 2:59 am
If Al Gore is so positive about global warming–come and debate it with some anti-global scientists–Prove them wrong and them WE will believe you AL–what have you to lose???
January 31st, 2009 at 10:15 am
There are so many right wing repubicans on this site it makes me want to puke. Most of you morons wouldn’t know a science fact if it bit you in the face. No wonder you elected Sarah Palin. Is she the best you can come up with? So keep pumping oil, enriching your politician dogs and their oil industry masters and destroying the last great wilderness. Your day is coming soon. One of you turds actually suggested that raising emission standards would kill the auto industry. DipShat! The US auto industry is self-imploding because it hasn’t acted to be competitive with foreign automakers who provide lower emission cars that are better made and have better MPG.
January 31st, 2009 at 1:38 pm
When I was a kid, It was the ice age. Then the depletion of the ozone. Then global warming. Now it is climate change. algore is behind. He needs to either get on the climate change bandwagon or find a new scare. I would suggest a new scare, because the climate change garbage will soon be over.
January 31st, 2009 at 1:51 pm
First, who actually counts these stupid animals?
Second, “400 breading pairs” is a long way from extinction.
Third, how many other stupid animals that have been “extinct”, suddenly create excitement in the “scientific” field by reappearing?
Fourth, if the stupid animal cannot adapt, it deserves to be extinct.
January 31st, 2009 at 6:08 pm
Amazing; Big Al was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his “documentary” movie.
Mother Teresa was “acknowledged” by the Nobel Prize Committee for her contributions to mankind.
What’s wrong with this picture?
January 31st, 2009 at 6:10 pm
‘Looks like the Nobel Prize Committee may be just a little to the left of left.
February 1st, 2009 at 9:57 am
If you all want global warming to stop: 1) do not allow big cities to increase in size 2) Plant more trees, and allow larger open green areas
Just these two steps will help. I believe the worse thing we did was allow our cities to grow…cement walkways and roads causes an increase in temperatures.
February 1st, 2009 at 11:29 am
Did you ever consider that perhaps there is no counter point? This is not an opinion piece, or a political discussion. These are research-based facts, and if one is interested in counter points to science, and one elects to disregard the findings of science, then one is essentially stuck in a fantasy bubble– be it walled with the Bible or rhetoric.
You can’t effectively argue against it– the other “side” doesn’t exist except in one’s desire to believe otherwise because the facts are uncomfortable. There is no relevant discourse here; fantasy versus science leads us nowhere. People have been watching, documenting, measuring, studying. They’ve considered all the counterpoints in the process of recording the facts.
And furthermore, the notion that this stuff isn’t actually happening, and we shouldn’t bother paying attention to extinction issues and our earth– your assertion that we need to doubt and scrutinize researchers’ findings of these sorts– is plain old selfish and mean.
How does it benefit you, or anyone, to take your stance? Come on, Brian.
February 1st, 2009 at 12:54 pm
Al Gore’s GW claims are disproven with facts. He is an opportunistic alarmist whose companies sell carbon credits. He is a hypocrite who flies in private jets, and tells the rest of us to avoid burning fuels, to change OUR lifestyles, and to buy carbon credits that directly yields profits for him. He is a big fat loser who lost the 200 election because he was too arrogant and too stupid to be elected, despite voter fraud in his favor in multiple states. He is also a traitor who claimed the US did things it did not do in Iraq and other places in the Middle East.
February 2nd, 2009 at 7:39 am
The earth is warming due to the earths’ cycling climate, not man made causes. The only thing AL Gore and the Greens are after, is you money and lots of it.
J
February 2nd, 2009 at 2:59 pm
Hello Jason Gurskis:
I enjoyed your article on how green is a scooter. I rode several models for thousands of miles during my youth. My reason for responding? I am curious as to how green is bicycle riding and even walking on streets and roads that lack a wide paved shoulder or designated bike/walking lane. I think it is realistic to assign a miles walked or ridden per gallon of fuel consumption for such activities since most passing vehicles brake (de-accelerate) out of caution as they approach the restriction and then accelerate again to return to their normal driving speed.
Thousands of vehicles perform such bike/pedestrian accelerations daily in my area where the narrow roads are heavily driven by commuters. Riding a bike or walking on narrow roads may not be nearly as green an activity as everyone assumes. I wonder if their 2nd-hand fuel consumption exceeds that of a Vespa.
Thanks,
Ethan Skyler
P.S. Credit for this 2nd hand fuel consumption concern goes to my son, Robert Skyler.
(Please forward my comment to Vespa.)
February 2nd, 2009 at 5:00 pm
Can we taxpayers buy a credit to have carbon footprints installed under this statue? Al we sure missed you during the election, but I guess you were smart enough to keep your mouth shut during real debates. A fitting tribute to a man with frozen mental processes.
February 2nd, 2009 at 5:03 pm
I hope he uses a baseball bat to get rid of it in March.
Or a flamethrower.
February 2nd, 2009 at 5:28 pm
omg…is there only one side to this web site?…global warming is real, no matter what the cause…have any of you noticed how much warmer our summers have been? do any of you realize that the reason our winters are colder is a direct result of “global warming?”…we have snow here in oregon…on the coast that is sticking!!! do some research for gods sake and wake up and smell the snow!!!it is a sign, and not that WE can do anything about it, it’s here, it’s here to stay (for now)…just prepare, what would it hurt? some of us have bomb shelters, and have for many years, even though the supposed inevitable attack never happened(and dont even go to 9/11), better safe than sorry, I always say.there is a movie(which I rarely use as research) called “The day after after tomorrow” which actually is pretty acurate as to what could happen as a result of global warming….tho a bit dramatized…not so far off the mark!!! another thing, quit picking on al gore?!? he did’nt dream this all up### he is going on the “notion of scientists” who really believe this is happening to our world, man made or not! come on people! something is happening out there, and I really dont think there is not much if anything we can do about it, but that is not a reason to be like the ostrich and pretend that things are’nt just a bit different now….u know they are, I know they are…so just admit it, and own up to the fact that if we do nothing, and just diss those who are trying to educate us, if down the pike things really go BAD, we really cannot say we were’nt warned….dave
February 2nd, 2009 at 6:58 pm
They call it climate change more than global warming these days. That pretty well covers anything. More snow than ever? Well, that’s climate change my friend, and its your fault for farting and eating cheeseburgers.
February 2nd, 2009 at 8:52 pm
I tend to side with the folks who believe that earths warming or cooling runs in cycles. There appears to be plenty of evidence to support those assertations. Gore’s platform is all about $$$. He hasn’t a real job and if he can get enough people sympathetic to his cause to pay him thousands of dollars to give speeches he won’t have to get one. He’s a flimflam artist. Any of you youngsters don’t know what that is, look it up. Your interest and concern regarding the environment is commendable but you’re being suckered. While we should clean up our environment as much as reasonably possible, our efforts will not amount to much in the long term scheme of things. Carbon footprint taxes, etc are just another way to get into your pocket and promote a selfserving ultra-liberal agenda. Those skeptical of Gore because he will not debate the issue have a right to be disgusted with him. If you are one of those people in Gore’s camp please explain his reluctance to debate the issue on camera.
February 3rd, 2009 at 10:09 am
I am tired of seeing the theory of “global warming” induced by human activity presented as fact. It is not fact yet constantly appears as such just about everywhere. Opinion is not fact. Consult a dictionary if you disagree.
February 3rd, 2009 at 10:13 am
Many if not most motorcycles produced today *do* have sophisticated emissions equipment and are as clean as cars. Anyone who knows anything about motorcycles knows this. I won’t comment about scooters because I don’t know whether scooter manufacturers have followed suit.
February 3rd, 2009 at 12:55 pm
Now, Now naysayers! We all should just admit that global warming does exist and it is in fact manmade!!! Hasn’t anyone noticed that as soon as we started putting landers on Mars, it started warming as well! (LOL) Don’t worry, it can be easily fixed. We just all need to stop driving, heating our homes and….Breathing!
February 3rd, 2009 at 4:15 pm
Gary Says:
January 29th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
Stupid, self-centered, ignorant conservatives!
Sounds more like we the unknowing lead by the ignorant, Al Gore
February 3rd, 2009 at 4:26 pm
Who is to say what is the best temperature for the earth? Why do we assume that it is what we are used to? Why not be able to grow bananas and coconuts in Moscow?
The earth will do what it damn well pleases.
We are insignificant. Some people can’t accept that.
February 3rd, 2009 at 4:48 pm
Your article says it was 22 degrees, it was actually negative 22 degrees.
February 3rd, 2009 at 6:48 pm
I tend to differ with the comment concerning scooters being too small to have a catalytic converter. My Kymco 150cc scooter gets 55+ mpg AND has a catalytic converter to conform with the California CARB requirements. Yes, it makes for a larger “can” for the muffler assembly, but the smaller overall size of the scooter obviously does not preclude it having a catalytic exhaust system. It’s all up to the manufacturer to design an “eco-friendlier” system for their products.
February 3rd, 2009 at 7:28 pm
Alarmist but no scientific balance. They are taking only the worse case IPCC numbers. See Michaels and Balling,in the new book Climate of Extremes and then take the IPCC’s lower estimated sea level increase, 0.30 foot. Not a catastrophe. Even so, Antarctica is colder than ever, and its ice is increasing, not decreasing.
February 3rd, 2009 at 8:13 pm
If you want to see Al Gore’s frozen sculpture, visit Compeau’s website online. http://www.compeaus.com
February 3rd, 2009 at 8:52 pm
What about the city of the coast of India found at a depth of 120 feet in the Gulf of Cambay. Either the ice melted and the oceans rose to cover the city or the ocean was shallower by at least 120 feet and a great flood covered it.
February 3rd, 2009 at 9:37 pm
No facts no proof just more unsubstantiated chicken little “the sky is falling” drivel off of computer models. Ask me what I can do with any computer model that I design. What a waste of space please Fox News you are better than this
February 3rd, 2009 at 9:57 pm
Algore is and has always been a loser. He knows it and the American people know it(well, at least those americans who pay taxes and pay their own rent do). This global warming farce that he conjured up is nothing more or less than a means to try and get above this loser tag that haunts him. His balls must be really frosted now that his buddy Obamma doesn’t even acknowledge that he exists and has no plans to offer him a cabinet position. I wonder if his buddies, Hill and Bill, are still in communication with him. Probably not.
February 3rd, 2009 at 9:58 pm
Author needs some real experience with motorcycles. period.
I regularly get 125 mpg on a 1986 honda elite 150 scooter that goes 65.
I can get almost 80 mpg on my 600cc 4 cylinder crotch rocket, and its faster than anything on 4 wheels.
Dont comment on motocycles until you actually know yourself.
The internet is about as reliable as a wikipedia when it comes to facts.
Go dig up real data.
February 4th, 2009 at 12:23 am
As one of the “scientists” who everyone here seems to completely distrust I thought I’d clarify several things. Scientists no longer like the term “global warming”. A better phrase to explain what is happening is “climate change”. Overall there is a warming trend across the earth that is the result of a combination of natural trends AND man-made causes. The earth is a very complex system, and predicting what will happen isn’t always straightforward (think of how often your weatherman is wrong). What we do know is that the trends we are seeing now are not trends that have been seen in the past (over the last tens of thousands of years). Just because you have a few cold days doesn’t mean that climate change isn’t real. As a person who lives in Minnesota I can testify that it is still in fact cold, but that doesn’t negate all of the evidence we have showing us otherwise. The warming of the earth can cause all sorts of unexpected consequences. The melting of polar ice can lead to subtle changes in ocean currents (and therefore weather patterns) which can result in unusual weather phenomena (hot or cold). The fact is that among scientists there is really no debate over whether climate change is real and whether humans are to blame for a significant part of it. Obviously there are scientists who question these findings, but they make up a very small minority of researchers studying these trends. In the end, doesn’t it just come down to the old saying “better safe than sorry?” It is not difficult to make changes that will help minimize the damage to our planet, and in the long run improve our lives as well. Is it really that appealing to keep breathing polluted air and drinking polluted water when we have alternatives that are available and cost-competitive? Civilization has made changes like this in the past, and we need to own up to our actions and recognize their consequences to ensure our way of life can continue.
February 4th, 2009 at 12:49 am
AL-Fraud should be charged & prosecuted for trying to perpetrate another scam on the citizens. He and his cronies have dreamed up this scam just as the financial shysters. Doesn’t people see that the LEFT (democrats) are always on the wrong side of the issues and invent some kind of crisis to relieve the working folks of their hard-earned money?
February 4th, 2009 at 2:11 am
It’s great to see such a balanced debate and in-depth discussion of the complexities of the issue in this forum!
Maybe all you Fox ditto-head skeptics about global warming (and, apparently, everything remotely pro-environment) should look up the definition of the word “climate” before acting like expert climatologists. It has little to do with local, short-term weather patterns.
While you’re at it, read about Love Canal. Rainforest destruction. Or the rate of species extinction. Or the effect of air pollution on cancer and asthma.
February 4th, 2009 at 2:20 am
Of course Gore doesn’t see anything wrong with exaggeration “if it will move people to act.” It is clear some people see Karl Marx’s statement in the Communist Manifesto that “The end justifies the means” as a true statement. As if there were no such thing as right or wrong. Come on, Al. If you can’t see anything but grey, at least stay out of the way. People will stop wasting resources when they see it is in their own best interest to do so. That is, of course, unless some fool comes along and gives them a wad of money to continue “business as usual”.
February 4th, 2009 at 2:24 am
Okay, assume the penguins die out. I’d feel bad for the penguins, but would any other species benefit?
I’m reminded of the Lake Powell controversy. Damming the river killed an entire ecosystem but formed a new one. Releasing the dam would kill the existing ecosystem and form another one. Which ecosystem is best? Can you answer this question without deciding which species are worth our effort and which ones are not?
I’m not saying humans have caused global warming, but I wonder if any of it really matters from nature’s perspective anyway. Any thoughts?
February 4th, 2009 at 3:35 am
I would have to say that the global warming epidemic is one of the worlds biggest lies, next to Jesus Christ.
February 4th, 2009 at 8:55 am
Julia:
Actually, no. Dense cities are much more energy efficient per inhabitant than rural communities. Many towns that have implemented “green tree” programs, including mine, where a high percentage of the coverage must remain deciduous have found the Law of Unintended Consequences kicking in. Sprawl, which causes very low adoption of public transportation (can’t make it work if everybody is going in different directions), which leads to long, single driver commutes.
They may look pretty, but per inhabitant are not energy efficient (Las Vegas not included)
February 4th, 2009 at 9:50 am
Here’s the picture everyone is asking for. http://www.newsminer.com/photos/2009/jan/19/6733/
If you’re looking for some really good info on man made global warming and the possibilities of climate change, then this is a really good video done by the BBC.
http://www.garagetv.be/video-galerij/blancostemrecht/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle_Documentary_Film.aspx
February 4th, 2009 at 11:48 am
The Earth has heated and cooler since its beginnings and species have come and gone. We can not save all the species and I suspect that when humans are extinct the planet will still be heating and cooling. We should be prudent in our use of energy but not foolish in our fears.
February 4th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
Oh, please. The movie went on and on about how many freeze to death in the march and as babies, about how the bitter cold is so treacherous, etc. Also, about how the long march kills many, or that the long wait while mom or dad marches causes many chicks to starve before food arrives. Warmer temps should mean more survive, not less. And less ice means a shorter march, which means food sooner and less starved chicks.
Yes, there are many other factors to consider, but that’s just the point. We can’t *know* exactly how all these many complex factors will interact until we actually *see* some results, so meanwhile we’re basing these “estimates” on incomplete computer models, and they’re not to be trusted without on-the-ground data to back them up. Note that the scientist said “*IF* the future behaves like the model predicts.” They don’t know.
More “the world is going to hell, give us more research money!” scare tactics.
February 4th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
Just for the sake of thought…
If Global Warming becomes “accepted science” and Al Gore does indeed lead an effective movement to reverse it…
AND “THEY” END UP BEING WRONG…
Will AL Gore get credit for triggering the next ICE AGE?
Maybe Global Warming is our friend.
Just a thought!
February 4th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
Doesn’t anyone remember that trees feed on carbon dioxide? If we cut all carbon emissions down to a relative zero, it could also have adverse effects on the environment.
And I’d love to know the actual levels of crabon in our atmosphere, as this information is NEVER given out or disclosed in a fact-bound manner. Environemtalists are an interest group, seeking recompense for their “forward-thinking,” and “prescience.” They are no better than oil tycoons, plain and simple.
February 4th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Headline: Emperor penguins facing extinction
Story: One colony might decline if a climate model from a seriously biased entity holds true
That’s some great reporting there.
February 4th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
As noted by others, natural climate shift is inevitable. And even if we were having a big impact, there are still far, far, more pressing issues. We are rapidly overpopulating the earth and at the same time destrying long term abilty to produce food. We need to stop killing our fresh water and oceanic fisheries with pollution and end destructive fishing practices. We need to stop destructive modern “big ag” practices which destroy soil fertility, and animal factorys which radically pollute our waterways. And if we really got it together, we would be serious about ending nuclear proliferation. Worrying about global warming is like worrying about what color to paint the house while it burns down. Al Gore is a moron.
February 4th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
We cannot stop the cyclic warming and cooling of the earth, nor extinctions (Number 6 Upcoming). What little we can control, Cleaner living, responsible population expansion, requires a discipline and price humanity is unwilling to pay.
If you believe the 2012 event where earth, and sun are in center of Universe, where Black Hole is
and Suns 11 year Cycle is near its peak , many feel we are all nearing another extinction. Be it then, or some other day, isn’t the real question
Why can’t Humans overcome their emotions and live responsibly as a unified sentient advanced society ?
Greed, Lies, Arrogance, Selfishness, Ignorance, Anger can be overcome by Love, Intelligence , Awareness of a Higher Global calling… Unfortunately not within the current Global Political/economical landscape, nor any of earths past.
Experiment Earth Has Failed
Bye Bye
February 4th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
If only Al would melt, that would warm my heart ever so much.
Global Warming my foot. I work at a large university. You would not believe how the director has fallen for this BS. We are having a function in our auditorium this Friday. So he can tout how our school is so green. If I didn’t need my job, I would boycott.
February 4th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
What people who believe in global warming really need to do is kill themselves – HANG WITH ME HERE. This may seem over the top, but think about it. If you want to save mother Earth, you are the one producing all that bad CO2. Every time you breath, drive, or eat vegetables, you are increasing CO2 in the world. Be an example to others. If all the people that believed in global warming were not here, Earth (and everyone not buying this lie) would be better off! It really is a simple solution.
February 4th, 2009 at 6:28 pm
Instead of spending money developing crazy schemes like feeding iron shavings to plankton, why don’t these people spend the money on research and infrastructure for renewable fuels? If we drastically reduced the amount of gasoline fueled vehicles in the next five years and coal burning power plants in the next ten, nature would take care of the CO2.
February 4th, 2009 at 7:28 pm
Since our planet is on the tail end phase of the last ice-age, what would you expect? Shouldnt ice sheets melt? How about all you darwinist folks? Wont the creatures evolve to changing climates like they have for millions of years? Lets put Al Gore down there in Anartica. He can fly down in one of his Lear Jets and build a huge mansion to live in and monitor the situation on PBS.
February 4th, 2009 at 7:30 pm
If the climate in Antarctica were getting warmer, then it would seem that the penguins would actually fare better.
There would not be as many deaths during the long cold winters while the fathers are holding the eggs waiting for the mothers to return. And with less ice to traverse, the penguins would not have to travel as far from the hatching grounds to get to the ocean where they can then swim out to catch fish to eat.
February 5th, 2009 at 5:59 am
[...] How Green » Blog Archive » Wood-Boring Marine Bug Aids Biofuel Research. [...]
February 5th, 2009 at 6:41 am
And don’t forget the most important thing to slow global warming, keep Al Gore out of his plane or his vehicles!!!
February 5th, 2009 at 11:02 am
They say the temp may warm 1 degree by the end of the century. I believe the movie said it was 102 below zero, does this mean penguins cannot survive if it is only down to minus 101?
Besides, I believe we are back at 1979 temps, back when the world was ending due to climate freeze.
February 5th, 2009 at 11:34 am
There’s constantly talk about “Climate Change” and how we have to stop it. But people rarely stop to consider the simple fact that the climate simply changes over time. It’s a complex and dynamic system. Dynamic means “marked by usually continuous activity or change”. Climate is *supposed* to change. The Sahara desert used to be a sea bed. There’s a rainforest growing in Alaska and Canada. Continents drift. We can’t stop climate change. We can only adapt or die.
I may not be a “tree-hugger”, but I will give one an affectionate pat here and there. We *are* better served by being more environmentally concious.
Let’s just not tear down everything in a panic at something that’s supposed to happen.
February 5th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
Alarm over “climate change” is predicated on the notion that the alarmists know what the “correct” temperature of the Earth should be.
Am I the only one who finds this both arrogant and presumptuous?
The truth of the matter– the scientific FACT– is that global climate has varied widely over the course of the Earth’s history, and all this before the invention of the internal combustion engine or the coal-fired generator plant.
Given recent news of glaring errors in the data sets used to argue “climate change,” it is not even certain that the Earth is really warming.
From an engineering standpoint, pollution of any type represents inefficiency. We should always strive to improve the efficiency of our machinery. Yes, I want clean air to breath and clean water to drink.
And if climate change really is occurring, even if through natural processes, it behooves us to plan for the impact these changes will have on our food supply.
This does not, however, mean going off half-cocked by implementing absurd policies to “fix” what is not yet known or accepted to be broken.
By the way, most of us would be far less skeptical of the “global warming” bell-ringers if the high priest of this movement, Al Gore, didn’t live in a 10,000 square foot mansion that consumes electricity at a rate 12 times greater than the average household. Perhaps this is the most “inconvenient truth” of all.
February 5th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
The polar bear population in the north have increased dramatically since the 1970’s. The greenies (communists) have lied so loudly and repeatedly that the lie is now the headliner. They fill our school kids heads with the big lie. Same thing with the penguins. Get your filthy hands off our wildlife! Go back to russia or china you traitors!
February 5th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
has any one researched the effect this increase in iron will have on whales and the food chain?
February 5th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
So, exactly how did they survive the Middle Ages which were much warmer than current temperatures?
The alarmists have also been pounding the story that polar bears are in danger too – more alarmist lies.
It’s not about the climate for many of them anyway, it’s about agendas of anti-capitalism, anti-government (pick your radical cause).
February 5th, 2009 at 7:25 pm
Penguins have lived in Antarctica for at least hundreds of thousands of years. They have survived four great Ice Ages, which radically lowered the sea level of the oceans. Is it to be believed that these animals have not faced even more severe climate change in the past, than they do today?
The earth has been both much hotter, and much colder during the last million years, than it is today. Whichever way it changes, this will not be a new event in the world of nature, in the natural world of plants and animals. The animal kingdom has always faced these changes.
It seems presumptous for someone to predict the extinction of a species that has faced worse several times before.
February 7th, 2009 at 11:52 am
I think the point is the cut down the amount, not bring it to zero. I agree about the amounts of iron.
February 7th, 2009 at 11:53 am
Well I would hope!
February 7th, 2009 at 12:06 pm
Penguins live on the ice, correct? They hunt underwater, is that also correct? Assuming that these statements are true, I have come to the conclusion that global warming is a good thing for the penguins. The ice caps melt, forcing them to live closer to the sea, a.k.a. their food supply. The extra water in the sea would allow for their food supply to reproduce more readily (more space=more and bigger fish). The coldest days of winter would be fewer, allowing for more baby penguins to survive… If the Global Warming Myth is true, then penguins should be throwing Hawaiian themed parties pretty quickly!
Global warming, what a joke.
February 7th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
They are not “nuke plants”. They are nuclear energy plants. Far fewer lives have been lost to nuclear power disasters than to coal mine collapses and the black lung. If soctors had just given injections of iodine to the people effected by the Chernobyl meltdown, nobody would have died. But anyway. Nuclear plants are highly efficient, renewable resource plants. Go nuclear!
February 7th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
This is a typical “green religion” article. Full of the writer’s opinion and totally lacking in facts.
February 7th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
Public Schools = people who think global warming is real….
For every light bulb you turn off I burn a tire in my back yard
February 7th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
Ok you convenced people about the nuclear boogie man now deal with your foolishness
February 7th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
When do we realize this is all about money and control. I an gonna start a pig farm.
February 7th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
Everytime I see that green and yellow “WM”, I remember being stuck behind one of their trucks for over twenty miles on a narrow, two-lane road. As we drove along, 15 mph below the speed limit, a constant stream of papers, newspapers, boxes, plastic bags and other trash erupted from the top of the truck, redepositing itself all over the road and the ditches on both sides. When I was finally able to pass, I was able to see the operator — scrunched down in the seat, left foot up on the dash, stereo headset covering his ears, large, black sunglasses obscuring his vision, and his rear view mirrors appearing to be adjusted so the only thing he could see — was himself.
How like the pseudo environmental/ecology crowd! Blind to everything but their own political agenda. While some of your concerns have SOME merit, most of your solutions aren’t anywhere near the ballpark of reality, much less in left field.
Global Warming is political agenda with NO basis in fact. The earth continues to get cooler, long term scientific fact. Polar bears are not about to become extinct; there are more than five times as many now as thirty years ago. Most glaciers, and both polar ice caps, continue to grow. Fossil fuels have nothing to do with fossils, and continue to be made as a part of the dynamics of the cooling of the earth’s crust. And Bubba Bill’s gigantic hole in the ozone, which was small compared to previous holes, healed itself and quietly went away: Just as the REAL scientists always said it would.
If you want to really be involved with being a good steward of the planet, get out and buy a hunting license. You don’t need a gun, just go look. But the license pays for everything the PETA types claim to care about, while killing animals with their negligence. Learn about the SUBSTANCE of the planet, and forget the emotional, warm & fuzzy, feel-good garbage designed only to separate your wallet from your money, so the head of the Sierra Club can have a 4th or 5th Suburban or Hummer in their garage.
February 7th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
The answer is simple. They should do nothing, just like they want to. And in 3 years when all the lights turn off they can buy electricity from one of their neighbors at three times the price. That’s been California’s policy and look how good it has worked out for them. Brown outs and sky high energy prices. Destroyed for lack of wisdom.
February 7th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
Green Green Green seems to be the new catch phrase and is fashionable these days, bottom line is the greatest threat to global warming that nobody will say is OVER POPULATION bottom line. Maybe we should put catalytic converters on the leaf blowers too. Next will be a government tax on Beef and other animal foods for the gas they pass.
February 7th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
CO2 is not the problem…methane is the greenhouse gas we should be concerned about, but I don’t see President Obama enforcing carbon capture for cows! The whole thing is just downright silly. The earth has been here for billions of years before humans and will continue to be here billions of years after we are go. Are we, the human race, so egotistical to believe we can have any effect on geological forces?
February 7th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
What about electric and hybrid scooters? An electric produces ZERO emission and costs about 2 cents a mile to operate. The recent advances in Lithium-Ion battery technology have made road-capable electric scooters possible. That same technology is being used on Electric-Gas scooters to cut emissions and deliver well over 100MPG.
February 7th, 2009 at 5:42 pm
This scare story has already been discredited by real scientist. Anartica is getting colder and the ice levels are at record highs.
February 7th, 2009 at 7:28 pm
Rita, you gave away your level of ignorace as soon as you called a 2 by 4 and a 4 by 4 “planks”. They are framing lumber not planks. There must be a reason that Fox allows women to write for them, but it remains a mystery to me. Bring back CCA wood and screw this “green” crap
Gardiner L .Schneider
February 8th, 2009 at 12:24 am
Do we have to use metallic iron? It is easier to produce very fine particles of iron oxide. Shortly after arriving in the salt water, the surface of an iron particle would be covered with iron oxide anyway, and eventually the whole particle would be oxidized, just as our cars are. In fact, a standard test for paint for steel is to spray the painted surface with salt water.
All of which does not change the fact that adding many tons of iron to the ocean could have unexpected consequences, as discussed above.
OTOH, congratulations to whomever we have to thank for this idea. IMHO, if we are going to do any good, we will need ideas like this one, outside the box, instead of just exploiting this emergency, like the global economic crisis, to extend government power farther and farther. Times like these are a godsend (whichever god they pray to) for the liberals and statists who don’t trust any of us to live free and prosper. Let’s all think about this and maybe we can come up with something even farther outside the box!
February 8th, 2009 at 9:51 am
This article is ridiculous and inaccurate. The antartic ice pack is NOT melting, it IS growing. In the last 150 years the antartic snowfall has doubled, 150 foot high Power transmission line towers built in the 1960’s by ITT are almost completely buried in ice due to the accumulation, the Byrd research station is now buried under 50 feet of ice, the current South Pole research station is buried and they are building another one on the ice. The erroneous information being given to us is an attempt to manipulate us and our wallets. The above information can be found at “Ice Age Now” ((reference citation) its not my web site, nor do I get paid for advertising for them).
February 8th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
OK, so it gets locked away for 100 years. What happens at the end of that 100 years? Have you just banked it and then when the mortgage comes due it gets released? Where does it go, what happens to it? Does it change some how? Help me here.
February 9th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
ha ha ha ha
February 9th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
The vast majority of the reported melt is from the arctic icecap. As the ice cap is floating, water levels will drop as the north polar ice melts. The same holds for floating south polar ice off the continental land mass. Floating ice displaces more volume than the same melted ice. This drop in ocean levels would be reversed by the extent of purely land located glacial melt.
February 9th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
Where does that 2 cents per mile of electricity come from to power your eco-scooter? Ever heard of a base load power plant? What about the mining for Lithium-Ion battery raw materials? What about production waste streams for handling light metals? Where to Lithium-Ion batteries go to die? I’ll bet they go where water bottles go…landfills. And don’t tell me solar and wind; same arguments apply toward mining, production, and disposal, as well as storage for cloudy or calm days. There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.
February 9th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
At the rates barraging us through the media, Manhattan should have been swallowed up by the sea.
Stop the insanity — stop reporting this re-re-re-regurgitated crap!
The world now knows that climate change is really about creating the conditions and restrictions that define who makes money and who pays the bill, by writ of law.
It’s become quite boring. Please, stop it.
February 9th, 2009 at 7:17 pm
Absolute B.S. Like saying death is certain as temps. went up 40 degrees(f), between 6 a.m. and 6 P.M., and concluding within 36 hours everybody will be dead. Comparing satellite data with old tide gauge data. Apples and oranges. What these people are really saying is ” keep the money flowing, as i have a cushy job,pension, travel allowance, etc. Never mind that i don’t produce anything.”
February 10th, 2009 at 12:06 am
oh my god!!!! 1/8th inch per year!!!! head for high ground!!! you retards!
February 10th, 2009 at 12:09 am
Who cares?
February 10th, 2009 at 5:38 am
Reason rears it’s ugly head, over there in land of the blonde pretty people. Just before the wind stops blowing.
February 10th, 2009 at 9:43 am
Every form of power generation has drawbacks: oil and coal particulates cause acid rain; windmills are “raptormatics”, killing birds and prone to mechanical breakdowns; solar requires huge amounts of land and glass – glass production being one of the more dangerous industries; hydro floods huge tracts of land, destroying wildlife habitats; ethanol uses up valuable food stores; nuclear fission produces no particulates, but the resulting waste is extremely toxic and long-lived; only nuclear fusion holds promise for a truly clean energy source (assuming we can find a proper neutron-resistant material for the reactor walls).
The real question is this: are we using power intelligently? Why do corporate workers drive to work every day when 90% of what they do in the office could be done virtually from home? Where is the robust video-conferencing software that makes corporate travel for in-person meetings obsolete? Our cultural mindset needs to change rather than simply building more and bigger power plants to continue our wasteful corporate habits.
February 10th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
Sorry Rita, Gardiner missed the point (and apparently alot more), we’re talking wood and plastics here Gardiner, all types of uses, all types of sizes(ie; framing, timbers, planks, siding, you get my point) a rose is a rose.
Wood will always have its place for woodworkers and preferred applications, but at times, I prefer the re-cycled (molded or extruded) plastics to wood. It cuts like wood, its strong like wood, and it replaces old rotted wood in marine application very well but I don’t have to paint it every year like like wood (I like wood but I hate to paint). So for me, I’ll keep using both.
February 10th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
I can’t believe modern nations are basing their energy policies on fraudulent, junk science. For those who haven’t looked at the statistics, the earth has been cooling for 9 years. The AGW scam is destroying the global economy, and will inevitably lead to another world war. Go nuclear power!
February 10th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
Wow Rachel! I guess you’ve found a cure for deadly radiation exposure!! Good for you girl!!!
February 10th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
Apparently no tragedy is off-limits from exploitation when it comes to global warm…er, climate change.
Pathetic.
February 10th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
“water expands as it warms”. Is that the same as water expands as it freezes?
Got to get published so that the crazies will keep sending grant money.
February 10th, 2009 at 5:59 pm
JUST MORE MIS-CONSTRUED B.S
IF WE OR OBAMA REALLY WANTED TO HELP THE ENVIR. AND THE US ECONOMY , HE WOULD MAKE IT LAW THAT ALL 18 WHEELERS AND BIG TRUCKS BURN NATURAL GAS BY 2010, AND SPONSER THE CONVERSIONS AND STATION INFRASTRUCTURE WITH GOV. BONDS.THE USA HAS MORE NATURAL GAS THAN WE COULD EVER USE UP, IT’S CHEAP AND WAY CLEANER THAN ANYTHING ELSE.PLUS THE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS WE SEND TO OUR ENEMIES IN THE MIDDLE EAST WOULD STAY HERE IN OUR ECONOMY!
February 10th, 2009 at 7:43 pm
Try a dangerous experiment:
Fill a glass (it matters not what size or shape the glass is is shaved, crushed, cubed, chunked or any other shaped ice (don’t fill the glass with water and freeze it). You want the glass filled with as much ice as it will hold (including some above the rim).
Now fill the glass with water to the rim.
Carefully dry the outer surface of the glass.
Put the glass on a folded napkin. (It is possible
that some water may condense some unrelated water out of the air.)
Report back in twenty four hours exactly how much water overflowed from the glass–be honest about discounting the condensate.
February 10th, 2009 at 9:29 pm
Global Warming..otherwise known as the Scientist Full Employment Act. Goerge Bush had 1,300 of these climate science guys on the federal payroll. He got suckered too.
February 10th, 2009 at 10:58 pm
Paging King Canute, paging King Canute, you’re needed to stop imminent sea level rise.
February 10th, 2009 at 11:58 pm
Does anyone really take these responses seriously? After all we aren’t exactly trained scientists qualified to rebut years of well considered research. It like asking a herd of cows if they are getting nervous about slaughter day.
February 11th, 2009 at 4:44 am
This is exactly what they’ve been doing for over twenty years now, misrepresenting what the data actually is and what it shows. The world is not going to end but we are going to suffer, not from warmth and rising sea levels, but from food and energy crises caused by trying to prevent that which we cannot.
February 11th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
How does Carbon dioxide (CO2) get into our upper atmosphere when it’s molecular weight is about twice that of water. I don’t need to see the models of how high flying carbon dioxide can affect global temperatures. I’m sure it will affect global temperatures once it gets into the upper atmosphere. I just need to see one computer model or any other kind for model of how carbon dioxide gets into our upper atmosphere.
Remember the molecular weight of carbon dioxide is about 44. The molecular weight of H2O is about 24. Every thing is affected by gravity whether it’s a gas, liquid, or solid. See if anyone can map carbon dioxide coming from a tail pipe and floating into the upper atmosphere when it has the weight is has. If Oxygen can’t float into out upper atmosphere how can Co2 weighing twice as much..
Trees breath carbon dioxide. Don’t trees grow close to the ground?
Frank Lamm
Greenwood IN
February 11th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
If the molecular weight of CO2 is 44 and the weight of O2 is about 22. How can CO2 get into our upper atmosphere? Sea weed breaths CO2, so it must be heavier than water. Plankton, where we get most of our oxygen, breaths CO2. Never saw plankton in our upper atmosphere. It grows in the oceans, beneath the water. We have to carry Oxygen with us when we climb some mountains and it weighs half as much as Co2. Actually CO2 weighs more than H2O, but remains gaseous at normal temperatures.
If CO2 is the problem, the only way we can get it to our upper atmosphere is to fly it up there. And the people who tell us about global warming fly the most. We now have 2,000,000 commercial jet flights a year. And the spike in the one degree C actually occurred after jet air travel.
Yet there is no money in decreasing air travel. There is money buy charging me to drive my Civic and charging farmers for the CO2 coming from their pigs.
There was a big difference in the apostolic temperature, the measurable difference of the day and night temperature during the few days after 9-11, the week we stopped air flight over the US.
Have people watch a camp fire. The smoke goes up because the smoke is heated, then you see it start going horizontal at about 200-300 feet. That’s because the CO2 from a camp fire is heavier that air or O2. How about hot air balloons. Ever see them in our upper atmosphere?
I really don’t believe you guys want this matter to die with facts. I need to know how CO2 gets into our upper atmosphere with out flying it up there. Watch a jet some time. Those com trails you see from the back of them spread out and linger and is carried by the jet streams. The CO2 will come down eventually, but stays in the jet stream much longer. If it’s produced on the ground, co2 would never get into the upper atmosphere.
I say let them go after air travel instead of my car, if they are serious.
February 11th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
1. There has been NO net global warming since
1998.
2. The Southern ice cap has been INCREASING its
mass for years.
We need morre science and less ‘agenda’.
February 11th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
obama will take care of us all..come hell or high water???
February 11th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
More garbage from people who are listening to Al Gore and his own personal vision of an ecological apocalypse.
Climate fluctuates, just like weather. The impact of anything humans do is not relevant on a planetary scale.
February 11th, 2009 at 5:42 pm
Absolute B.S. (bad science)
February 11th, 2009 at 6:02 pm
*crickets*
February 11th, 2009 at 6:49 pm
Creation “Science,” 9/11 Truther “Science,” and now AGW “Science.”
I realize the AP isn’t going to hire any writers who might rely on and present facts, or reality, or main stream science. But I expect more from Fox News.
February 11th, 2009 at 9:17 pm
I have seen a reduction in fuel consumption in my Lexus on the highway by 24+% and figure I average 17 to 19% with a very significant reduction in emissions by about 75% …. how is that for reducing my Carbon Footprint? What are you doing?
Good for gas, diesel and biofuels and any combustion engine or oil furnace.
I don’t know why more people aren’t looking at this simple to use and money saving ( not a cost bearing product ) …..
Bottom line its good for the environment and your pocket book.
Cities could clean up the air and save tax payers a lot of money.
Regards, and share the word …. clean air and save your money.
Eric Hoot
February 11th, 2009 at 9:44 pm
The sad truth is that the “green” politicians in Australia refused to let people clear brush and fallen wood because it would “ruin pristine nature” and animal habitation. People had been clearing the underbrush for years and keeping the grasses low. Now they were restricted and the entire place became a fire hazard. Now millions of animals are dead, more than 100 people have died, and the politicians can only say, “Sorry.” The green movement is nothing more than a bunch of murdering thugs.
February 11th, 2009 at 9:45 pm
For more information on the fires from people who LIVE there, rather than “experts” nowhere near Australia, read THIS telling article:
http://www.theage.com.au/national/angry-survivors-blame-council-green-policy-20090211-83p0.html
February 12th, 2009 at 12:45 am
Human activities contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so Dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small – perhaps undetectable – effect on global climate.
February 12th, 2009 at 12:51 am
There are ALWAYS Positive effects to Change. Has anyone considered the ways Global Warming is Helping Humans? The Over a mile thick Glacier covering Michigan BEFORE the Earth went through its latest warming period, sure would make living tough. THEY say “Man Made Global Warming”, I say “Global Warming Made Man”. Most of These Global Warming Fanatics do not pay attention to the Scientific Method, They act as a CULT.
February 12th, 2009 at 1:17 am
Stupidity Runs Rampant in America!
“When the Arctic Ocean ice melts, it never raises sea level because floating ice is floating ice, because it’s displacing water,” James O’Brien, an emeritus professor at Florida State University said. “When the ice melts, sea level actually goes down.
“I call it a fourth grade science experiment. Take a glass, put some ice in it. Put water in it. Mark level where water is. Let it met. After the ice melts, the sea level didn’t go up in your glass of water. It’s called the Archimedes Principle.”
February 12th, 2009 at 1:41 am
You ask in a banner headline: HOW GREEN?
I suggest NOT very!
We are all scared to death now. It’s like the old Friday night fright night movies they were so hokey you couldn’t keep your eyes off of them but you knew all along nothing you were seeing was real!
Can the writer of this column and put something of consequence and value in its place.
February 12th, 2009 at 3:04 am
Now instead of 32 miles from the ocean I will be 31.999 miles in just 10 years!
February 12th, 2009 at 5:34 am
So I imagine they all flew to the meeting in their “green” jumbo or lear jets. Good job guys way to make a difference.
February 12th, 2009 at 5:50 am
Over the past 40 years, the temp has risen 4.8 degrees? That is not a scientific analysis of climate change. One must go back to first recordings of temperature in north america and that was long before 1969. If it had been studied from 1809 to 2009, the study would carry more weight.
These Global Warming shock stories are un-scientific and only hurt the actual study of climate change.
1/3 of the birds are moving south. 2/3’s of the birds are moving North. How do we know that this doesn’t follow some longer cycle of bird migration? Also, look at the distances measured. Most of the birds are only moving a few miles North and not a vast distance to be attributed to 4.8 degrees in temperature change. Please don’t damage the credibility of the Global Warming community with these silly stories.
February 12th, 2009 at 8:50 am
It’s amazing how observant and intelligent the readership is. It’s obvious that the gov’ts of the world are using this propaganda to control their citizens. If elected officials had any common sense, they would discover they could use that to lead the world instead of phoney propaganda. Too bad they prefer corruption.
February 12th, 2009 at 9:08 am
Looks like the “Theory of Evolution” is working out quite well. A changing Climate fits right into the theory, like putting your hand into a glove. On the other hand, everyone knows that Global Warming propaganda is controlled by the cash flow. I would say arson and natural weather events have caused the fires.
February 12th, 2009 at 9:19 am
When floating ice melts, does water level rise?
When floating ice melts, does the water level rise?
Seed Expert Claude Baudoin writes:
Water expands when it freezes, so you might think that when it melts and reduces in size, the water level will go down. Alternatively, because part of the ice floats the water, you might think that when it melts, the water level will rise.
Neither is true, as explained by Archimedes principles.
When an ice cube (or an iceberg, which is a big ice cube) floats in water, then by definition the weight of the ice cube is exactly equal to the buoyancy force, which is equal to the weight of the displaced water.
When the ice cube melts, its volume changes, but its weight is conserved (law of the conservation of mass). So the melted water from the ice cube has exactly the same weight as the water that was displaced by the ice cube when it was frozen — therefore the volume of melted water fits exactly in the previously displaced volume — and the water level stays the same.
Note that this argument applies only if the ice cube is made of the same water as the water that it is floating in. This is true, for example, with the Arctic ice pack, which is made of frozen sea water. However, it is not true for Antarctic icebergs, which are blocks of fresh-water ice from the continent that are floating in salt-water sea. In this case, we must take into account that the salt water is denser than the fresh water. The fresh-water iceberg still weighs as much as the weight of the displaced salt water, but because of the difference in density, the volume of melted fresh water will be slightly greater than the displaced volume of salt water — so when the iceberg melts, the water level will rise, although the difference is very small.
February 12th, 2009 at 9:42 am
The Florida Orange and Strawberry growers sure would like some of that global warming. They keep getting pushed further and further south due to increase in cold weather since 1980s.
This and many other facts do not seem to make the news since it does not fit the new UN Obama socioeconomic justice spread the wealth plan.
February 12th, 2009 at 9:44 am
The Florida Orange and Strawberry growers sure would like some of that global warming. They keep getting pushed further and further south due to increase in cold weather since 1980s.
This and many other facts do not seem to make the news since it does not fit the new UN Obama socioeconomic justice spread the wealth plan.
February 12th, 2009 at 9:45 am
The Florida Orange and Strawberry growers sure would like some of that global warming. They keep getting pushed further and further south due to increase in cold weather since 1980s.
This and many other facts do not seem to make the news since it does not fit the new UN Obama socioeconomic justice spread the wealth plan.
February 12th, 2009 at 9:46 am
The Florida Orange and Strawberry growers sure would like some of that global warming. They keep getting pushed further and further south due to increase in cold weather since 1980s.
This and many other facts do not seem to make the news since it does not fit the new UN Obama socioeconomic justice spread the wealth plan.
February 12th, 2009 at 9:51 am
We all would like to save a little money on our electric bill, but these 17 degree winters in Central Florida are making it difficult.
On average Central Florida households us 35% more KWH of electricity in the winter than they did in 1979. Fifty percent or more of the average households electricity bill is for heating and cooling the home. Guess what, KWH usage is down in the summer in Florida.
The Florida Orange and Strawberry growers sure would like some of that global warming. They keep getting pushed further and further south due to increase in cold weather since 1980s.
This and many other facts do not seem to make the news since it does not fit the new UN Obama socioeconomic justice spread the wealth plan.
February 12th, 2009 at 10:25 am
40 miles, huh? On the whole, that’s statistically insignificant, considering the ranges involved. What’s more, the study only covered 40 years. If you go back 70 to 100 years, and look in the old encyclopedias (1929 World Book), you’ll find that most of these birds wintered farther north that they do now. The Sandhill Crane, especially, was wintering in Southern Indiana! The purple finch in Maine (where it has been displaced by other finches recently). Studies such as this one are limited in scope and should not be used to paint broad conclusions.
Also notice that 1/4 moved south slightly, 1/2 moved north slightly, 1/4 didn’t move at all. Sounds like 1/2 of them didn’t move north to me.
February 12th, 2009 at 10:52 am
Did Cazenave’s data include the fact that there is a greater number of people going to the beach swimming now than in the 70’s? World population tripled, increase in number of whales due to the ban on whale hunting, another island pushed up in Hawaii… stuff like that is filling up that beaker, Doc, so of course the measurement would be higher. With each rain storm, another hundred pounds of sediment is washed to sea daily – filling it up. Yes, I’m sure the water is rising but the ice has only been there for 4,400 years – you can’t put all of the blame on ice caps.
Hell, before the flood there was hardly ANY bodies of standing water. I’d like to take you back 5,000 years ago so you could see the trees growing all over the world: Antarctica, Greenland, the low spots between Europe and America (Atlantic Ocean area) and then you could see that with the deflection of the Sun’s harmful UV rays with an additional protective barrier encompassing the world how all the plants and animals would continuously grow to gigantic proportions – a global hyperbaric chamber. Then a cataclysmic flood washing everything together and distributing the contents into piles – Just where did you think all that coal came from or large collections of dinosaurs bones? Yep, left behind like refuse on today’s beaches – all washed up and left in concentrated areas. Ever wonder why things lived for 500-800 hundred years back then but after the flood timeframe things are lucky to see 100? You do know how an X-ray works, right? Billions of tiny holes being shot through your body… imagine not having that happen every single day from the Sun… try this, look at your grass under your trampoline – what? It actually grows higher… why? UV protection. Genius.
Getting back to your Earth shaking story-now in the last 100 years (since we started burning combustion engines all over the world) what did you expect would happen? It doesn’t take a genius to realize that heat melts ice so why are they spending millions of Dollars (Euros) for scientists and their collecting data from satellites when I could have told you that tidbit of information without all that excess spending. Want to throw money away? Give it to me. Want to save the earth? Use that money (you would have saved after you paying me) on finding a replacement for fossil fuels. You should have titled this story “Heat Melts Ice” because that’s the bottom line of your millions spent in research.
Rodger Andersen
February 12th, 2009 at 11:16 am
Let’s see. 12 Inches divided by 1/8 inch per year = 96 years. 98 Years before the ocean would rise a foot, not 11 feet like Al Bore keeps lying about.
We do not know the weather next week let alone for several years. CO-2 is a weak green house gas. The whole thing is a big scam for big government so it can tsx air. Rebel now before it is too late.
February 12th, 2009 at 11:18 am
Why do you moderate, censor comments?
If is is not laced with bad words thoughts should not be “moderated” or you become the enemy of free speech.
February 12th, 2009 at 11:27 am
Guy’s,
Climate change, glacier/icecap melt, and rising sea levels are observable facts. They exist and are accelerating. To deny this is like denying the Sun rising in the East.
If you want to argue what the impact will be or that the causes are not man-made, fine. Those are valid points-of-view.
But to argue that climate change is fiction makes you look like the ignorant wanks that you are.
Regards and best wishes,
Steve
February 12th, 2009 at 11:28 am
complete crap
February 12th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
CO-2 is a very weak green house gas. The rate of temperature incresase has not changed since we entered the indusrial age and began burning oil and coalin large amounts. We cannot impact the natural course of climate change by tinkering with a minor variable. What is really going on is an attempt to scare the public into accepting more control over their lives and more taxes this time on Air. As public acceptance of the need to do something now Al Bore and his friends have become more shrill in their baseless demands for limits on CO-2. Who is paying Al?
February 12th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
I live in Florida and nobody has noticed any change soooo hummmmm I dunno.
February 12th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
Such Baloney. I wonder who pays the originator of this “data”. False Premise Argument: The 10% of the atmosphere’s component of CO2 that is generated by Mankind(10% of .038%) is causing the Earth’s climate to become warmer. Therefore, Seas rise, Australia burns, Birds go farther north and so on. There exists no proof through scientific observation that shows CO2 warms the planet, presently or historically. Only conjured extrapolations from computerized climate models.
Socialist’s desire to control and limit capitalism is the true root motive behind this doomsday alarmism. Now many people have been duped by the false premise argument and champion “green” issues honestly. But don’t be fooled. This “Climate Change” falsehood is a major threat to the freedom we enjoy. It is a Socialist subterfuge of the highest order. GREEN is the new RED. As an American, it is my patriotic duty to counter this threat.
February 12th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
Such Baloney. Paragraph four belies the headline. Except for the last sentence, pure conjecture. False Premise Argument: The 10% of the atmosphere’s component of CO2 that is generated by Mankind(10% of .038%) is causing the Earth’s climate to become warmer. Therefore, Seas rise, Australia burns, Birds go farther north and so on. There exists no proof through scientific observation that shows CO2 warms the planet, presently or historically. Only conjured extrapolations from computerized climate models.
Socialist’s desire to control and limit capitalism is the true root motive behind this doomsday alarmism. Now many people have been duped by the false premise argument and champion “green” issues honestly. But don’t be fooled. This “Climate Change” falsehood is a major threat to the freedom we enjoy. It is a Socialist subterfuge of the highest order. GREEN is the new RED. As an American, it is my patriotic duty to counter this threat.
February 12th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
Please note: It is Global Climate change (now that we are actually in a cooling trend) and the Climate has been changing ever since there has been climate. There is nothing we can do to stop, reverse or affect climate change. The earth’s normal climate patterns for the last 65 million years has been ice ages, with brief (10,000) year warm times. We are currently into year 10,500 of our current warm time, so we are overdue for another ice age.
February 12th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
hmm thats strange i had a great snowy owl on my farm in lower central new york why would they come south if its warming ??
oh other reason hmm i wonder if there are other reasons why they go north
no other reason only work for going south not north
February 12th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
Who comes up with this gibberish, why isn’t it verified, and what is the purpose behind the disinformation campaign that leads to articles like this?
The above article is thoroughly debunked:
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/the_worlds_oceans_are_rising_more_than_twice_as_fast_as_they_were_in_the_19/
February 12th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
Looking at the data, it’s immediately obvious that sea-level is rising at a rate of about 3.4 mm (1/8 inch) per year:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Rising_Sea_Level.jpg
Note to FOXNews consumers: scientists and “the media” aren’t the ones causing rising sea-levels, so stop blaming them.
February 12th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
pure malarky refuted by 31,000+ scientists
http://www.petitionproject.org/
and that is just in the US. worldwide the number is much higher.
Per NOAA ice is at 1979 levels less 3%. Record cold temps being set all over the world.
http://www.iceagenow.com
Enough with the glo-bull warming manure
February 12th, 2009 at 5:55 pm
I second all of the above. If Gore would turn off all of his lights in his home then I would think he is really concerned.
February 13th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
Oh no! 3.4mm a year. How will we ever survive?
February 13th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
These idiots apparently aren’t aware that “greenhouse gasses” (i.e. CO2) are after effects of earth’s warming. I’ll go slow: C O 2 C o m e s