Comments on: Good news: Global warming’s holding off the next ice age!

By: Richard Welch

Richard Welch — Sat, 02 Jan 2010 02:27:43 +0000

The one obvious fact is that current science has no real handle on climate change. The impact of CO2 has been vastly overplayed, and they haven’t even cranked in the geopulsation cycle, which is actually the key factor. (See Roots of Cataclysm:Geopulsation and the Atlantis Supervolcano, Algora Publ.NY 2009.)

By: Scott McKye

Scott McKye — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 09:44:27 +0000

Thanks for the information. Ill read it and get back to you.
BTW: Not in favor of any “Cap and Trade”.
In favor of incentives or tax credits for reduce, reuse, recycle, re-purpose and R&D.

By: Red Neck Granola

Red Neck Granola — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 14:30:34 +0000

Scott, Here is a link to a study supported by several thousand real scientists with real world global warming facts. http://www.petitionproject.org/ And here is a more bias site founded by a former NOAA top dog http://www.icecap.us/ I hope this helps.

By: Scott McKye

Scott McKye — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 21:45:24 +0000

Judy:
I accept virtually anything can be done with computer animation, but I have to write I saw and heard the clip where he made the “internet” remark. To me, this was no different than when Secretary of State Clinton while running for her party’s nomination for President described the hostility she was subjected to on the tarmac (coming under gunfire) when, in fact, there was no danger of such an action and for which she subsequently made conciliatory remarks. I also saw where using infra red photography of Mr. Gore’s home had an immense and luminous “exothermic footprint”. To change my mind about what I saw not read in both of these (video clip and photo) would need hard evidence presented of fabricated photos for me to believe what someone else reports as an urban myth. What I saw and heard directly from what appeared to be his lips is worth believing. I must confess to you I am at the point where I doubt virtually everything the press or a politician tells me. I loved my country, but I don’t know who or what to believe. Energy Star is supposedly testing products to help us conserve and make wise choices, yet over a year ago Consumer Reports caught them administering tests on refrigerators which were anything but “real world” tests but was this heavily reported? People bash PVC and our government has gone as far as to ban 6 different phthalates because there’s allegedly a correlation between those children in China’s sexual development and their proximity to PVC mills, yet you can go to any Children’s hospital and see blood and other collection bags which are made of PVC which you know are not just in close proximity to, rather are intravenous. So where are the studies confirming this as being dangerous? Where are the malpractice lawsuits? Why did the co-founder (Patrick Moore) of Greenpeace leave? What is he doing now and why doesn’t his new organization (Greenspirit) get any media coverage. Why doesn’t CFACT get any media coverage? My last rhetorical question of the night – If it’s true any large corporate entity probably releases only monolithic self-serving propaganda (think any of the press’s usual suspects from Big Banks, Gun Lobbies, to American Chemical Society) why would we think there would be anything by the same biased and imbalanced messages coming from “the media” who also are large corporate entities who usually think the same way before FOX network came along. But to me FOX isn’t any better or worse. Both sides of the Press on any issue no longer really cover the story and share facts, they share opinions. I want facts. I don’t care what the political leanings are I want as much empirically verifiable information I can locate without all the drama and embellishment and mud slinging. Leave your bias baggage at the door before you go on the air. That’s what I want to see and that’s what I want out of our climate centric mavens out there. Who knows what to believe any more? I do know it isn’t our God-given right to trash up the environment any more than it is to trash up a State Park or my Father’s house, so why do we thing the common ground of our world is OK to trash? Because we’re lazy and because we’ve succumbed to a misconception that temporal is better than durable and reusable.

By: Red Neck Granola

Red Neck Granola — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 23:22:23 +0000

Judy, If what Al Gore preaches is truth, then why have the British courts banned use of his film in schools unless the school points out that most of his points are fiction? Also after the release of emails last week why are the Brits looking into charging the global warming folks for fraud? It’s because horse hockey these fine folks have been feeding us. Next question, why is the US government pressing on with Cap’n Tax without good evidence?… Greedy little buggers aren’t they.

By: Judy Buckley

Judy Buckley — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 20:45:18 +0000

Scott, thanks for the supporting comments. I would like to point out that Al Gore has been saddled for years with the UNTRUTH that he claims to have invented the Internet. I looked this up some time ago on one of those sites that digs out the truth of what was said, and he hever said that. It shows if a statement is repeated enough it is accepted as truth. Also, kind of related, proves the point that once a negative statement is repeated about a political candidate, for example, public opinion of that person goes down. Interestingly, when the statement is subsequently proved false, puclie opinion goes up again, but not to the level it was before the statement was made. Therefore, damage to the person was done because some people still believe the statement even after proof it was false. Also, I’m glad to hear people are at least supportive of reducing, reusing and recyclying as much as we can. I’m guilty of using a lot of paper towels, but I recycle everything I can, even if I have to separate some items I think are not recyclable from a package. And, I’ll even wash some plastics so I can recycle those. So, I hope that makes up for the paper towels! Getting back to the source of the statements in An Inconvenient Truth – I believe I actually speculated on the reactions of folks if the statements were made from people they respected on the conservative side – but maybe I mentioned apolitical, too.

By: Red Neck Granola

Red Neck Granola — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 14:21:15 +0000

Did anyone see all the “new” evidence that came out last week from the emails of all the most “respected” global warming experts saying basically that they don’t have the evidence to support their theory but that they would keep pushing it anyway.

Looks as if all of us taking the common sense approach were right!

Scott, you are right though, that there are many benefits to reducing, reusing and recycling much of what we consume. But forcing crap and tax only benefits the already powerful rich and will do great harm to the emerging small business’s that employ the majority of U.S. citizens.

By: sad state

sad state — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 12:52:56 +0000

It is interesting that the latest info on the data that has been manipulated from the authorities on “Climate Change” has been ignored by the media. It is also interesting that we are proceeding full speed ahead with crippling our economy further without reviewing the misinformation that has been provided. Sad day for the country and the planet.

By: Scott McKye

Scott McKye — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 00:12:58 +0000

After reading many of the reactions, I thought I’d point out Judy Buckley has a good point when she speculates how people would feel about Inconvenient Truth had it been written by someone who is apolitical. I grant this. I also wonder what Ms. Buckley thinks regarding Al Gore’s information when she understands he also takes credit for inventing the internet. Finally, it seems to me we have examples of the Mayans, Aztecs and Incas who probably had a hand in their own demise and not put aside the climate debate to an extent and just focus on being more practical. Is there really anything wrong with trying to reduce, reuse, recycle and re-purpose? Being a throw away society does have collateral damage if left unchecked. But all must done in balance. Unfortunately, humans sometimes need necessity to give birth to inventions. Better late than never.

By: Timbotam

Timbotam — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 00:19:34 +0000

We unfortunately have an elite green fringe in this country and world that want to control everyone as much as possible. And they now have a majority of scientists on their bandwagon to promote the global warming THEORY. And so those “green establishment” scientists are not derided for the sheep that they are, they have now come up with a lame attempt to explain why those brilliant green power scientists thought we had an ice age coming just 30 years ago. There are many other scientists, some with better credentials, who do not subscribe to this THEORY. And it IS only a THEORY. But let’s change the whole world around it — after all, brilliant scientists thought the earth was flat for many centuries. I do believe in having as small a footprint as reasonably possible, but when you can spend 20%-30% to eliminate 80%-90% of the air and water pollution, you generally find that the last 10%-20% is going to cost ten times as much. It would be much better to just give this money to the emerging countries in Asia and elsewhere and let them reduce 80%-90% of their pollution that would achieve several times the bang for the buck. We could eliminate a lot more of this pollution from the world’s atmosphere and it would be done at a reasonable price. Then, it would be nice if the green powers that be could allow for a reasonable discussion of their THEORY with other even more brilliant dissenting scientists, to see what other theories are out there, and that not everyone agrees with them. And finally, maybe these green powers could stop developing problems and responses to them that are primarily motivated by their desire to implement their social agenda throughout the whole planet. Okay — time to stop dreaming.