Jump to content
GaryC

Has global warming stopped?

 Share

142 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Filed: K-1 Visa Country: Philippines
Timeline

"Nobody is talking about destroying the economy. Europe is making good headway with the transition to cleaner and renewable energy and is leading the next industrial transition. Environmentally friendly economies are the economies of the future. We'll eventually depend on foreign technologies rather than taking the lead we could and should take on this inevitable transition. This "destroying economy" talk is nonsense." you say?

Europe is on the way to becoming a third world countries on their own. They agree to these unreachable Co2 emission limits that they never meet only to pay fines and fees to the European union. Ripping off the taxpayers of these countries. We should sign up for such things? what a joke! Meanwhile, China and India, who by the way are NEVER going to agree to limit anything are going to bury them one by one. They are doomed.

Kyoto is a total joke!

Bali conference was full of a bunch of hypocrites who fly their private jets down there, While spewing tons of the very thing they are trying to limit. Meanwhile there is not enough room at the airport that they had to land at so the dead head to another islands airport spewing even more gases into the atmosphere. Only to dead head back to pick up these elitist socialist global warming freaks who could care less about the environment. And are really out to control others lives while not sacrificing anything of their living standard.

Edited by Don_Joy's Prince

My beloved Joy is here, married and pregnant!

Baby due March 28, 2009

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 141
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

What a JOKE! Biotchin about global warming. EVERYTHING in your home BURNED something to make! Its the WANTING to be HOLY ####### and wanting to be on the GOOD side of the issue. If you are for the enviroment so much sell your house,shite in a hole,walk to work,dont wrap your presents with printed paper,no bottled water,make grass skirts,the roof over your head I'm sure is made of wood.

Get fukin real! If you want more I can help you out.

"I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."- Ayn Rand

“Your freedom to be you includes my freedom to be free from you.”

― Andrew Wilkow

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: K-1 Visa Country: Philippines
Timeline
What a JOKE! Biotchin about global warming. EVERYTHING in your home BURNED something to make! Its the WANTING to be HOLY ####### and wanting to be on the GOOD side of the issue. If you are for the enviroment so much sell your house,shite in a hole,walk to work,dont wrap your presents with printed paper,no bottled water,make grass skirts,the roof over your head I'm sure is made of wood.

Get fukin real! If you want more I can help you out.

Took me a second to figure out what you were saying, but right on Carlos! you ROCK!

My beloved Joy is here, married and pregnant!

Baby due March 28, 2009

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a JOKE! Biotchin about global warming. EVERYTHING in your home BURNED something to make! Its the WANTING to be HOLY ####### and wanting to be on the GOOD side of the issue. If you are for the enviroment so much sell your house,shite in a hole,walk to work,dont wrap your presents with printed paper,no bottled water,make grass skirts,the roof over your head I'm sure is made of wood.

Get fukin real! If you want more I can help you out.

Took me a second to figure out what you were saying, but right on Carlos! you ROCK!

Yeah I have been critisized for my puncuation :lol:

The I love the planet in words, all the while burnin the earths shite crowd PISS me off!

My emotions get my articulation all messed up!

Edited by CarolsMarc

"I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."- Ayn Rand

“Your freedom to be you includes my freedom to be free from you.”

― Andrew Wilkow

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: Timeline
"Nobody is talking about destroying the economy. Europe is making good headway with the transition to cleaner and renewable energy and is leading the next industrial transition. Environmentally friendly economies are the economies of the future. We'll eventually depend on foreign technologies rather than taking the lead we could and should take on this inevitable transition. This "destroying economy" talk is nonsense." you say?

Europe is on the way to becoming a third world countries on their own. They agree to these unreachable Co2 emission limits that they never meet only to pay fines and fees to the European union. Ripping off the taxpayers of these countries. We should sign up for such things? what a joke! Meanwhile, China and India, who by the way are NEVER going to agree to limit anything are going to bury them one by one. They are doomed.

Can you back up your ridiculous assertion that Europe is heading to be a group of third world countries? Or is that just something you like to tell yourself?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: Country: United Kingdom
Timeline
Destroying our whole economy and civilization for something that will never be in our control is foolhardy at best.

Nobody is talking about destroying the economy. Europe is making good headway with the transition to cleaner and renewable energy and is leading the next industrial transition. Environmentally friendly economies are the economies of the future. We'll eventually depend on foreign technologies rather than taking the lead we could and should take on this inevitable transition. This "destroying economy" talk is nonsense.

Speaking of Europe and destroying the economy....

Germany attacks car emissions target

Germany on Wednesday condemned plans to cut pollution from cars in Europe that would

add €1,300 ($1,865; £933) to the price of the average model as “harmful” and “wrong”,

setting the stage for a divisive fight between European Union members over climate change.

The European Commission on Wednesday outlined targets to ensure the EU fleet’s combined

engines emitted an average of 130g of carbon per kilometre by 2012, down from 160g today.

It outlined financial penalties for those that fall short, rising to €95 per gram a car from 2016.

While heavier cars would receive a higher target, up to 200g maximum, manufacturers

would still have to make the biggest effort on these vehicles.

Stavros Dimas, the environment commissioner, said it was vital for the EU’s credibility that

it act and that consumers would save billions on fuel from more efficient engines. “This sends

a strong signal to the world about the determination of the EU to take concrete steps to tackle

climate change.”

However, the message was immediately blurred as Germany squared up for a fight with

France and Italy, which produce smaller cars and which will have fewer cuts to make under

the proposal.

Angela Merkel, German chancellor, said: “We believe that this path is not economically

favourable. We think, therefore, that industrial policy is being made here which burdens

Germany and German carmakers.”

Sigmar Gabriel, the combative German environment minister, told German television:

“There’s no way that German carmakers are soon going to be required to make payments

to Italian and French companies that make smaller cars.” He was referring to a pooling

system under which companies set to overshoot targets can join with those beating them.

They would pay the other manufacturer for the privilege to avoid fines.

Niche producers manufacturing less than 10,000 models annually could join a pool or

apply for a “reasonable” target specific to them. The provision covers sports carmakers

such as Morgan in the UK.

Volkswagen, Europe’s largest carmaker, said the German car industry’s ability to innovate

would be “hindered by unacceptable burdens”. It called the proposals “a long distance

from what an efficient and economically operational CO2 reduction strategy would be”.

Porsche, which would be most affected, needing an average cut of 138g per car, said

only that it was “studying the proposals”. If approved, they would be likely to spur

Porsche to take over VW, where it owns a 31 per cent. “Such a move would not help the

environment one jot but would protect us largely,” said a Porsche executive.

The legislation must be approved by member states and the European parliament, where

Germans are the biggest group. It has previously backed a delay until 2015. Mr Dimas

said the plan was balanced and Commission officials said the weight-based system itself

was a concession to Germany. It would cut the EU’s fast-rising transport emissions by

a fifth by 2020.

Acea, the European carmakers’ industry body, said it was “extremely disappointed” with

the “unbalanced” proposals that would treat carmakers differently to other industries.

Investors appeared confident Germany could dilute the proposals. Shares in its carmakers

were largely unaffected, and in some cases were higher.

The Financial Times

biden_pinhead.jpgspace.gifrolling-stones-american-flag-tongue.jpgspace.gifinside-geico.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: Timeline
USHCN.2005vs1999.gif

How is that graph on the left in particular (with both land & ocean) not rising? It goes to 2005, BTW.

It goes to 2006, actually. The 2001 and 2002 dots are just awefully close together.

The data says thru 2005, tho. I added the blue dates to show the dating on the graph - since it seems hard to grasp for some. ;)

USHCN2005vs1999lrg-1.jpg

Edited by devilette
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, the fact that the North West passage, heavily iced since records began, is now 'plain sailing' isn't of any concern because the earth isn't really any warmer? The fact that from space the ice caps are visibily shrinking prooves nothing?

I don't know, but clear evidence of dramatic change of this nature seems rather disturbing to me.

Refusing to use the spellchick!

I have put you on ignore. No really, I have, but you are still ruining my enjoyment of this site. .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: Timeline
Destroying our whole economy and civilization for something that will never be in our control is foolhardy at best.
Nobody is talking about destroying the economy. Europe is making good headway with the transition to cleaner and renewable energy and is leading the next industrial transition. Environmentally friendly economies are the economies of the future. We'll eventually depend on foreign technologies rather than taking the lead we could and should take on this inevitable transition. This "destroying economy" talk is nonsense.
Speaking of Europe and destroying the economy....

Germany attacks car emissions target

Germany on Wednesday condemned plans to cut pollution from cars in Europe that would

add €1,300 ($1,865; £933) to the price of the average model as “harmful†and “wrongâ€,

setting the stage for a divisive fight between European Union members over climate change.

The European Commission on Wednesday outlined targets to ensure the EU fleet’s combined

engines emitted an average of 130g of carbon per kilometre by 2012, down from 160g today.

It outlined financial penalties for those that fall short, rising to €95 per gram a car from 2016.

While heavier cars would receive a higher target, up to 200g maximum, manufacturers

would still have to make the biggest effort on these vehicles.

Stavros Dimas, the environment commissioner, said it was vital for the EU’s credibility that

it act and that consumers would save billions on fuel from more efficient engines. “This sends

a strong signal to the world about the determination of the EU to take concrete steps to tackle

climate change.â€

However, the message was immediately blurred as Germany squared up for a fight with

France and Italy, which produce smaller cars and which will have fewer cuts to make under

the proposal.

Angela Merkel, German chancellor, said: “We believe that this path is not economically

favourable. We think, therefore, that industrial policy is being made here which burdens

Germany and German carmakers.â€

Sigmar Gabriel, the combative German environment minister, told German television:

“There’s no way that German carmakers are soon going to be required to make payments

to Italian and French companies that make smaller cars.†He was referring to a pooling

system under which companies set to overshoot targets can join with those beating them.

They would pay the other manufacturer for the privilege to avoid fines.

Niche producers manufacturing less than 10,000 models annually could join a pool or

apply for a “reasonable†target specific to them. The provision covers sports carmakers

such as Morgan in the UK.

Volkswagen, Europe’s largest carmaker, said the German car industry’s ability to innovate

would be “hindered by unacceptable burdensâ€. It called the proposals “a long distance

from what an efficient and economically operational CO2 reduction strategy would beâ€.

Porsche, which would be most affected, needing an average cut of 138g per car, said

only that it was “studying the proposalsâ€. If approved, they would be likely to spur

Porsche to take over VW, where it owns a 31 per cent. “Such a move would not help the

environment one jot but would protect us largely,†said a Porsche executive.

The legislation must be approved by member states and the European parliament, where

Germans are the biggest group. It has previously backed a delay until 2015. Mr Dimas

said the plan was balanced and Commission officials said the weight-based system itself

was a concession to Germany. It would cut the EU’s fast-rising transport emissions by

a fifth by 2020.

Acea, the European carmakers’ industry body, said it was “extremely disappointed†with

the “unbalanced†proposals that would treat carmakers differently to other industries.

Investors appeared confident Germany could dilute the proposals. Shares in its carmakers

were largely unaffected, and in some cases were higher.

The Financial Times

The European Commission is always running against walls. In the automotive industry that wall is Germany. Germans like their performance vehicles even at $7.00 a gallon or whatever it is they pay for gas these days. There are a few things that Germans hold very dear. That said, BMW, for example, has been working on fuel cell technology for quite a long time. If pushed enough, and if it seems marketable and hence profitable they will bring it to market in no time. Engineering and innovation is what has made Germany what it is economically.

Edited by Mr. Big Dog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has anyone went back 2000 years? The little red and blue lines dont mean squat. However, they might if you had records from the begining! Of course thats impossible. The fact is none of us no shite. Eating whats spoon fed to you must taste good from a washed-up, FAT, Failed politician that lives in a house bigger than your fukin neighborhood! Now that you bought the bullshite you cant let go of it.

"I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."- Ayn Rand

“Your freedom to be you includes my freedom to be free from you.”

― Andrew Wilkow

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: Other Country: United Kingdom
Timeline
"Nobody is talking about destroying the economy. Europe is making good headway with the transition to cleaner and renewable energy and is leading the next industrial transition. Environmentally friendly economies are the economies of the future. We'll eventually depend on foreign technologies rather than taking the lead we could and should take on this inevitable transition. This "destroying economy" talk is nonsense." you say?

Europe is on the way to becoming a third world countries on their own. They agree to these unreachable Co2 emission limits that they never meet only to pay fines and fees to the European union. Ripping off the taxpayers of these countries. We should sign up for such things? what a joke! Meanwhile, China and India, who by the way are NEVER going to agree to limit anything are going to bury them one by one. They are doomed.

Kyoto is a total joke!

Bali conference was full of a bunch of hypocrites who fly their private jets down there, While spewing tons of the very thing they are trying to limit. Meanwhile there is not enough room at the airport that they had to land at so the dead head to another islands airport spewing even more gases into the atmosphere. Only to dead head back to pick up these elitist socialist global warming freaks who could care less about the environment. And are really out to control others lives while not sacrificing anything of their living standard.

I hope that was a typo and not a Kelly Pickler...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please show me where the temps are rising after 2000. They are not. This is the composite data that takes the entire planet into consideration. This just shows how badly you WANT GW to be real. The facts are right in front of you and you still deny it.

Fig.C.lrg.gif

But in the end it will not matter. This is all smoke and mirrors. The USA will never sign onto any GW pact and if we do it will be ignored.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998

By Bob Carter

Last Updated: 12:01am BST 09/04/2006

For many years now, human-caused climate change has been viewed as a large and urgent problem. In truth, however, the biggest part of the problem is neither environmental nor scientific, but a self-created political fiasco. Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).

Yes, you did read that right. And also, yes, this eight-year period of temperature stasis did coincide with society's continued power station and SUV-inspired pumping of yet more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

In response to these facts, a global warming devotee will chuckle and say "how silly to judge climate change over such a short period". Yet in the next breath, the same person will assure you that the 28-year-long period of warming which occurred between 1970 and 1998 constitutes a dangerous (and man-made) warming. Tosh. Our devotee will also pass by the curious additional facts that a period of similar warming occurred between 1918 and 1940, well prior to the greatest phase of world industrialisation, and that cooling occurred between 1940 and 1965, at precisely the time that human emissions were increasing at their greatest rate.

advertisement

Does something not strike you as odd here? That industrial carbon dioxide is not the primary cause of earth's recent decadal-scale temperature changes doesn't seem at all odd to many thousands of independent scientists. They have long appreciated - ever since the early 1990s, when the global warming bandwagon first started to roll behind the gravy train of the UN Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - that such short-term climate fluctuations are chiefly of natural origin. Yet the public appears to be largely convinced otherwise. How is this possible?

Since the early 1990s, the columns of many leading newspapers and magazines, worldwide, have carried an increasing stream of alarmist letters and articles on hypothetical, human-caused climate change. Each such alarmist article is larded with words such as "if", "might", "could", "probably", "perhaps", "expected", "projected" or "modelled" - and many involve such deep dreaming, or ignorance of scientific facts and principles, that they are akin to nonsense.

The problem here is not that of climate change per se, but rather that of the sophisticated scientific brainwashing that has been inflicted on the public, bureaucrats and politicians alike. Governments generally choose not to receive policy advice on climate from independent scientists. Rather, they seek guidance from their own self-interested science bureaucracies and senior advisers, or from the IPCC itself. No matter how accurate it may be, cautious and politically non-correct science advice is not welcomed in Westminster, and nor is it widely reported.

Marketed under the imprimatur of the IPCC, the bladder-trembling and now infamous hockey-stick diagram that shows accelerating warming during the 20th century - a statistical construct by scientist Michael Mann and co-workers from mostly tree ring records - has been a seminal image of the climate scaremongering campaign. Thanks to the work of a Canadian statistician, Stephen McIntyre, and others, this graph is now known to be deeply flawed.

There are other reasons, too, why the public hears so little in detail from those scientists who approach climate change issues rationally, the so-called climate sceptics. Most are to do with intimidation against speaking out, which operates intensely on several parallel fronts.

First, most government scientists are gagged from making public comment on contentious issues, their employing organisations instead making use of public relations experts to craft carefully tailored, frisbee-science press releases. Second, scientists are under intense pressure to conform with the prevailing paradigm of climate alarmism if they wish to receive funding for their research. Third, members of the Establishment have spoken declamatory words on the issue, and the kingdom's subjects are expected to listen.

On the alarmist campaign trail, the UK's Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir David King, is thus reported as saying that global warming is so bad that Antarctica is likely to be the world's only habitable continent by the end of this century. Warming devotee and former Chairman of Shell, Lord [Ron] Oxburgh, reportedly agrees with another rash statement of King's, that climate change is a bigger threat than terrorism. And goodly Archbishop Rowan Williams, who self-evidently understands little about the science, has warned of "millions, billions" of deaths as a result of global warming and threatened Mr Blair with the wrath of the climate God unless he acts. By betraying the public's trust in their positions of influence, so do the great and good become the small and silly.

Two simple graphs provide needed context, and exemplify the dynamic, fluctuating nature of climate change. The first is a temperature curve for the last six million years, which shows a three-million year period when it was several degrees warmer than today, followed by a three-million year cooling trend which was accompanied by an increase in the magnitude of the pervasive, higher frequency, cold and warm climate cycles. During the last three such warm (interglacial) periods, temperatures at high latitudes were as much as 5 degrees warmer than today's. The second graph shows the average global temperature over the last eight years, which has proved to be a period of stasis.

The essence of the issue is this. Climate changes naturally all the time, partly in predictable cycles, and partly in unpredictable shorter rhythms and rapid episodic shifts, some of the causes of which remain unknown. We are fortunate that our modern societies have developed during the last 10,000 years of benignly warm, interglacial climate. But for more than 90 per cent of the last two million years, the climate has been colder, and generally much colder, than today. The reality of the climate record is that a sudden natural cooling is far more to be feared, and will do infinitely more social and economic damage, than the late 20th century phase of gentle warming.

The British Government urgently needs to recast the sources from which it draws its climate advice. The shrill alarmism of its public advisers, and the often eco-fundamentalist policy initiatives that bubble up from the depths of the Civil Service, have all long since been detached from science reality. Intern-ationally, the IPCC is a deeply flawed organisation, as acknowledged in a recent House of Lords report, and the Kyoto Protocol has proved a costly flop. Clearly, the wrong horses have been backed.

As mooted recently by Tony Blair, perhaps the time has come for Britain to join instead the new Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (AP6), whose six member countries are committed to the development of new technologies to improve environmental outcomes. There, at least, some real solutions are likely to emerge for improving energy efficiency and reducing pollution.

Informal discussions have already begun about a new AP6 audit body, designed to vet rigorously the science advice that the Partnership receives, including from the IPCC. Can Britain afford not to be there?

• Prof Bob Carter is a geologist at James Cook University, Queensland, engaged in paleoclimate research

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jh...09/ixworld.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
- Back to Top -

Important Disclaimer: Please read carefully the Visajourney.com Terms of Service. If you do not agree to the Terms of Service you should not access or view any page (including this page) on VisaJourney.com. Answers and comments provided on Visajourney.com Forums are general information, and are not intended to substitute for informed professional medical, psychiatric, psychological, tax, legal, investment, accounting, or other professional advice. Visajourney.com does not endorse, and expressly disclaims liability for any product, manufacturer, distributor, service or service provider mentioned or any opinion expressed in answers or comments. VisaJourney.com does not condone immigration fraud in any way, shape or manner. VisaJourney.com recommends that if any member or user knows directly of someone involved in fraudulent or illegal activity, that they report such activity directly to the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. You can contact ICE via email at Immigration.Reply@dhs.gov or you can telephone ICE at 1-866-347-2423. All reported threads/posts containing reference to immigration fraud or illegal activities will be removed from this board. If you feel that you have found inappropriate content, please let us know by contacting us here with a url link to that content. Thank you.
×
×
  • Create New...