Obama dire climate report more certain than ever

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: BlackboxInquiry
So the pole the scientist were sent to,where their ship was stuck...and then the following rescue ice breaker had issues as well...that's in the United States... *let me get my map*

NOPE! Far from here....

Please, do elucidate how this is a strike against climate change.

Do you even know the history of where the term 'climate change' originated from? I do hope so, if you do, think back about 5.5 years ago....you're welcome.

Point being that the claims aren't adding up. There is no real 'science' to what they are making claims....

originally posted by: BlackboxInquiry
Do you even know the history of where the term 'climate change' originated from? I do hope so, if you do, think back about 5.5 years ago....you're welcome.

Point being that the claims aren't adding up. There is no real 'science' to what they are making claims....

Do you even know its history? I know I was using this term as far back as 2007, because I felt it a more understandable description of what was happening.

As I recall, one Republican strategist, Mr. Frank Luntz, advised using the term back in 2003 (this article dates from 2005):

We have spent the last seven years examining how best to communicate complicated ideas and controversial subjects. The terminology in the upcoming environmental debate needs refinement, starting with 'global warming'' and ending with environmentalism,'' It's time for us to start talking about 'climate change' instead of global warming and 'conservation ' instead of preservation.

1) "Climate change" is less frightening than "global warming". As one focus group participant noted, climate change 'sounds like you're going from Pittsburgh to Fort Lauderdale.' While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge.

2) We should be "conservationists", not "preservationists" or "environmentalists". The term "conservationist" has far more positive connotations than either of the other two terms. It conveys a moderate, reasoned, common sense position between replenishing the earth's natural resources and the human need to make use of those resources.

Now that this is out of the way, by all means, please continue and explain why a boat trapped in sea ice is a mark against climate change.

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: BlackboxInquiry
Do you even know the history of where the term 'climate change' originated from? I do hope so, if you do, think back about 5.5 years ago....you're welcome.

Point being that the claims aren't adding up. There is no real 'science' to what they are making claims....

Do you even know its history? I know I was using this term as far back as 2007, because I felt it a more understandable description of what was happening.

As I recall, one Republican strategist, Mr. Frank Luntz, advised using the term back in 2003 (this article dates from 2005):

We have spent the last seven years examining how best to communicate complicated ideas and controversial subjects. The terminology in the upcoming environmental debate needs refinement, starting with 'global warming'' and ending with environmentalism,'' It's time for us to start talking about 'climate change' instead of global warming and 'conservation ' instead of preservation.

1) "Climate change" is less frightening than "global warming". As one focus group participant noted, climate change 'sounds like you're going from Pittsburgh to Fort Lauderdale.' While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge.

2) We should be "conservationists", not "preservationists" or "environmentalists". The term "conservationist" has far more positive connotations than either of the other two terms. It conveys a moderate, reasoned, common sense position between replenishing the earth's natural resources and the human need to make use of those resources.

Now that this is out of the way, by all means, please continue and explain why a boat trapped in sea ice is a mark against climate change.

Al Gore said about 5 years ago that basically 'if we don't change course and do something' that there would be no ice on the poles in 5 years. Well, guess what? (haha, I said GUESS) - the scientists that were sent up there got stuck in RECORD ICE.

The earth goes through natural cooling and warming trends, what man is doing is polluting our air, water and earth- which is horrible and things need to be done to curb it, however 'climate change' or 'global warming' is NOT happening as they are trying to get us to buy off on. The only ones seemingly pushing this are those who make money from 'climate change' or 'global warming' - whether that be funding from companies who'd sell carbon credits, or 'scientists' who are getting MONEY or GRANTS to coincide with the scare tactic that all the lemmings (no offense) are all up in arms over because they are scared of it.

Now 'scientists' are saying that the sea level could go up as much as 8 Inches, 11 Inches, 4 Feet, or 6.6 Feet. Same 'scientists' who clamored originally saying there would be no ice on the poles in 5 years...about 5 years ago. Record ice? Doesn't appear to be 'warming' at all. The other poster claimed it was only the U.S. - thus my reply. I don't know about you, but that sounds like a guess at the very best. It sure doesn't sound definitive either...just sounds like a scare tactic to me.

If anyone thinks that a magical Pokemon style 'carbon credit' will solve anything, they are foolish, naive, or at worst, mentally deficient. The money that goes to buy these magical, pollution cleaning credits, will simply hurt businesses, further damage the job market, all while not making pollution any cleaner, and only lining the pockets of those who proposed the magical credit system and the 'scientists' who were paid by those groups and the politicians who insisted that this farce was pushed from the get go. The Gov't isn't the answer in this, take a look at many of the programs the Gov't sets up...they cause too much red tape, too much bureaucracy, add more costs, taxes, controls that aren't theirs to make.

We *are* polluting our environment, and we do need to create ENCOURAGEMENT, not a penalty to clean it up (give tax credits and other perks). Do that and there will be constant innovation (possibly creating jobs along the way) and a win-win-win situation...except for those carbon credit lemmings. The 'warming' crowd will get their feathers soothed because pollution (which is the root cause of their guesses, I mean claims) get less pollution, exactly what they wanted minus the stupid purchasing of credits...that essentially have no positive value), those who want a cleaner environment, air, water and land, also get less pollution, a cleaner planet, and also a win for future generations because the 'war' of pollution would have been solved through encouragement, which is much more effective than penalties.

The solution can be had, without the needless continued over-regulation and over-taxation that most politicians are proposing....save the planet, save your check book and most importantly SAVE THE DAMNED JOBS.

a reply to: BlackboxInquiry

Al Gore said about 5 years ago that basically 'if we don't change course and do something' that there would be no ice on the poles in 5 years. Well, guess what? (haha, I said GUESS) - the scientists that were sent up there got stuck in RECORD ICE.

No he didn't say that. I have seen that claim parroted in several threads and it seems you are yet another lackey of the denier crowd who doesn't bother to look up what he actually said and will buy into what other groups have claimed he said. It was two 6 minute speeches he gave in Germany and in neither speech did he make that claim. What he did do is quote two possible timeframe of when we "could" see an ice-free arctic, but deniers latch on to the earliest date them claim he said it would happen. I have even seen sights and articles where they completely misquoted him where a few even had his recorded speech there, but it seems people were too lazy to watch and see what he actually said.

Well guess what? The people who are too !#@! to educate themselves are easy to dismiss..

Or maybe there is a wide swath of people who do not understand the difference between the words could, would, and will.

He said the earliest could be within 5 years but said other reports put it under 22 years. When that 22 year time frame comes and goes and the ice is still just as plentiful as today at that point the deniers can cry Gotcha.

Gore said that on Sept. 21, 2007, "scientists reported with unprecedented alarm that the North Polar icecap is, in their words, 'falling off a cliff.' One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week warns that it could happen in as little as seven years, seven years from now."

Read more at www.liveleak.com...

I don't think there will be a gotcha.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Convince me it's all hoax.

even in the face of the fact that other planets are warming at the same time

Are they?

No I will not convince you that its a hoax. You will never be convinced. I will however, illustrate to you how to spot a hoax

union-bulletin.com...

The Hallmarks of a Hoax

Step 1 - Grab it while you can.

Globing warming supporters claim there is absolutely no time for reasonable debate of either a) whether the theory is supported by the raw data or b) because there is a "emergency". The climate is arriving at a "tipping point" beyond which the earth cannot be saved.

www.climatedepot.com... /

We have the solutions (recycling, investing in renewable energy, biofuel, and most of all, carbon credits. The message the earths governments must all jump on board immediately to implement these measures or doom awaits mankind.

I have already discussed the problems with renewable energy sources (turbines and solar energy) with electricity prices that no reasonable person could afford. I have already discussed biofuel and the problems with that. Now I will discuss recycling - let us start with paper.

In order to encourage reycling of paper and carboard, a pseudo partnership was created with a private company. Every company that uses paper must file an annual report with the private company and pay a fee for the cost of recycling blue box waste. By this means, 5 year ago, 150 million dollars was raised for the "costs" of recycling. Now, 5 years later, the cost has increased by 700 % to 105,000 million dollars.

so what you say? It costs money to save the earth and the companies must all pay the costs of their activities. Ok fair enough. Except companies never pay those fees. The fees are passed on the consumer (and who among us doesn't use paper and cardboard. So we are now paying for a higher cost of living.

But what of the recyclable material and all those trees that are being saved! Well the truth is that there is a very limited market for recycled paper and cardboard fibres. In fact, the market can only use about 20 % of all blue box materials. The rest is sorted into a nice cube and transported to the nearest landfill.

We are paying $105,000 per year, only to have the recyclables in the landfill....right where they were when garbage pickup was paid for by our property taxes!
atures have been higher. Earth's climate has varied, for different reasons. This fact alone should give pseudo-skeptics pause... ah but then you'd be actual skeptics (oops). If Earth's climate is susceptible to change from a variety of causes then... ?

I don't even have to discuss carbon credits - they are an abject failure from which Al Gore personally was able to put out about 300 million in personal capital.

Notice how nuclear energy was rejected, when,in fact, it is the only currently available alternative energy.

But there is no time to debate. No time to evaluate. No time to test. No time to question. We must grab all available solutions regardless of the cost or mankind will be destroyed!!!!

Step 2 - appealing to our vanity

Simply witness how people on this website brag about what better characters they are because they invested in an electic car, or eat no meat, or recycle faithfully or donate to environment groups.

The global warming supporters have created a religion and pit citizen against citizen. Those who buy into the religion are "special" and "worthy" and have "higher levels of morality" than those nasty skeptics. Just look at how often global warming skeptics are accused of supporting "pollution" when, in fact, CO2 is a natural environmental element without which none of us would survive.

Step 3 - He is invested too!

Simply look at Al Gore and how he created the Chicago Climate Exchange to trade in carbon credits. He ended up with cash and the investors ended up with worthless carbon credits. Why didn't he loose money as well.

Step 4 - Prospect of Huge Profits

Government - jobs will be created by the green energy industry.
Al Gore - there is money in them there carbon credits

Do you notice how none of the proposed solutions actually reduce CO2 emissions, despite the fact that billions if not trillions have been spent? Tax dollars given in grants to support the solar energy industries - industries that disappear when the grants run out?

There you have - the HALLMARKS OF A HOAX

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

What?

a reply to: Kali74

Darn it! - I just prepared a long reply to the "prove its a hoax" comment and somehow it didn't post!

Here is an abreviated form:

union-bulletin.com...

Hallmarks of a Hoax:

Step 1 - Grab it Now

published today - www.commondreams.org...

he report Approaching a state shift in Earth’s biosphere reveals that our planet's biosphere is steadily approaching a 'tipping point', meaning all ecosystems are nearing sudden and irreversible change that will not be conducive to human life.

Oh my god - this is urgent urgent urgent!

But lets look at other predictions

wtfrly.com...

Wait a minute - the "tipping point" warnings have been coming now since 1982! That is 30 years of doom porn!

Of course - the governments and populations were warned that if we didn't act now - then by god - we would be extinct. No time to question or for public debate! The issue was settled by "concensus" back in 1989 and its up to the rest of us to pay the bill and not question the value of any of the proposed solution.

Notice that nuclear energy - the one type of energy that has no carbon discharges and can provide reliable energy is off the table and not up for discussion either!

Step 2 - Play on Vanity

Well that one is very obvious even from this site. There are "special people" who have drank the kool-aid and become global warming fanatics. These are the ones who go to great lengths to describe how morally superior they are to the dirty, pollution-approving sceptics!. They ride bikes, they don't eat meat, they grow their own garden from their own compost. They turn off and unplug every appliance and spit on the rest of the blind stupid population who even dare to quest "THE SCIENTISTS" They give each other awards for their contributions to the "green plan".

They are the in-group. Everyone else just isn't!

Step 3 - I am invested too!

Al Gore created the Chicago Carbon Exchange. He invested his money and the sweat off his brow. Notice how Al Gore made 100s of million of dollars. Everyone else got useless carbon credits worth NOTHING.

Solar panel companies that run out as soon as the grant money does?


Step 4 - Prospects of Huge Profits

Hey don't worry about the loss of the manufacturing sector. We will create new jobs from the green energy industry.

We will create a new society that doesn't rely on polluting carbon! Our new society will respect the earth and work in harmony with energy. We will recycle and consume less. The population will become happier and more spiritually satisfied. We will cure disease with less pollution. people will live longer healthier lives. and on and on and on

After 30 years and billions of dollars (if not trillions), anybody see any signs of that yet?

In short - they promise nothing short of utopia!

Tired of Control Freaks

Tired of those deluded by right wing ideology. Wildlife migration patterns are off in some cases so are the seasons.

Yes climate change is natural meaning it varies from year to year, so wouldn't this make it more important to control the emissions when we can?

Do you like your way of life and are you willing to sacrifice future generations by doing nothing?

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Sorry your post got eaten, I know how frustrating that is... however your new post really addresses nothing I said. Let's start simple... show me how it's the sun.

a reply to: lostbook

Deny Ignorance . Nuff Said .

It has entered a perpetual cycle already, all we can do is try not to make it any worse. This will effect everyone's lives. If we enter another ice age than it will stop. I ordered one yesterday, but it is coming UPS so don't be expecting it for a while.

a reply to: Kali74

No - Kili - lets follow the money. You can do your own googling on the solar activity thing

When did global warming take off as the dominent movement?

1992 - conference in Rio gives political legs to the global warming theory (a theory first postulated in1896_)

Who hosted - Maurice Strong! A former petrochemical executive who made his money in oil

www.afn.org...

Somehow out of this amazing environmental conference came the Earth Summit document and Maurice Strong got something out of too.

www.takebackcanada.com...

Incredibly, while Strong was organizing the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in June of 1992, in the same month of the same year, Costa Rica’s Ministry of Natural Resources were filing charges against Strong and his partner in Desarollos Ecologicos S.A., Julio Garcia for building the $35 million Villas del Caribe condo hotel on land located in the Kekoldi Indian Reservation and Gandoca-Manzanillo Wildlife Refuge–without official permits. Strong’s son ran the luxury hotel.

So Maurice Strong - the godfather of the global warming theory - the one that made it a household name and demanded conservation of trees etc. sold land donated to the Earth Council for its use but not for re-sale, a grand luxurious hotel is build in a wildlife refuge and his son is the manager.

???????

So Maurice Strong and the Earth Council got money for the sale of land that didn't belong to them and a life long plum job for his son. The attendees got the chance to buy "carbon credits" worth nothing


Read again - my post on the hallmarks of a scam and tell me how this is not a scam

of course - we do hear from Maurice Strong again - but now its in connection with the oil - for - food scandal

Tired of Control

In 2005, during investigations into the U.N.'s Oil-for-Food Programme, evidence procured by federal investigators and the U.N.-authorized inquiry of Paul Volcker showed that in 1997, while working for Annan, Strong had endorsed a check for $988,885, made out to "Mr. M. Strong," issued by a Jordanian bank. It was reported that the check was hand-delivered to Mr. Strong by a South Korean businessman, Tongsun Park, who in 2006 was convicted in New York federal court of conspiring to bribe U.N. officials to rig Oil-for-Food in favor of Saddam Hussein. Mr. Strong was never accused of any wrongdoing.[21] During the inquiry, Strong stepped down from his U.N. post, stating that he would "sideline himself until the cloud was removed." Shortly after this, Strong moved to an apartment he owned in Beijing.[21] He said that his departure from the U.N. was motivated not by the Oil-for-Food investigations, but by his sense at the time, as Mr. Annan's special adviser on North Korea, that the U.N. had reached an impasse. "It just happened to coincide with the publicity surrounding my so-called nefarious activities," he insists. "I had no involvement at all in Oil-for-Food ... I just stayed out of it."[21]

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

I've already done my googling thing. I know what the data says. I want you to tell me why you think the sun is causing the planet to warm. Can you do that or are you going to keep moving the goal posts?

a reply to: Kali74

From the advent of the telescope, Galileo was able to observe that the surface of the sun is/was "active." We call those (today) sunspots. An active surface of the sun produces a warmer earth; an inactive surface, and the earth cools (research the Maunder Minimum--a documented cycle of an inactive sun leading to colder (mini ice age!) temps on earth.

During solar maximums the planet was warmer to the effect that Greenland (ironic moniker today huh?) was lush and GREEN! And like England, had vineyards!!

A lot of basic research, chronicaling the suns activity affecting earth temps is "out there." Trouble is man (well politicians) cannot control the sun...but they sure can try and tax those who need it for survival. Read up on the "Chicago Climate Exchange" (CCX) and it's cast of "founders" (Gore, the Clinton's, Axelrod, the Daley familia, the Brothers Emmanuel...oh and an up and coming "community organizer...wonder who THAT is?) the CCX was founded to "exchange" carbon credits (and line pockets).

In the 70s it was the "Looming Ice Age" then "Global Warming" (and the trading of carbon "indulgences")...when that failed to come to pass to was "Climate Change" and the latest rebrand, "Climate Disruption." Whew...what if....

We just call it weather???

solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov... (Maunder Minimum)


heliophysics.nasa.gov... (Dalton Minimum/ Solar Maximum)

a reply to: Glinda

Yes, yes we know temperatures, solar activity yadda yadda but are the global temperatures currently tracking with solar activity? It's all fine to say it... show me. Is it too hard?

a reply to: Kali74

All right

I think solar activity is causing the earth to warm slightly because other planets in the solar system are also warming slightly and I don't think there are any SUVs on those planets.

news.nationalgeographic.com...

www.newscientist.com...
This article calls that a myth because solar output has not changed

But the solar activity I am talking about is NOT solar output
www.thegwpf.org...

NOW YOU CAN REBUTT MY POINT

How does anthropogenically sourced global warming NOT look like a scam??????

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

So the sun even with zero increase in output isn't just warming Earth, but the outer planets too? But before we get into that too far... show me how the sun is warming Earth, this should be easy to do but you keep deflecting. Let's see the proof.

Edit: Politicians and policy makers can scam up anything. That doesn't negate the reality of something. Take your allegation of Maurice Strong... if true, he exploited world famine in order to rig Food for Oil to profit Saddam Hussein. Does that change the fact the famines were real?

a reply to: Kali74

IN the moments since I posted the TWO lengthy, detailed links to NASA you could NOT have possibly (even using Evelyn Wood Speed Reading on Steroids) READ the information. It's NASA. The first link VALIDATES the research of GALILEO (who I do NOT believe ever took a US government grant or ever held any shares in the CCX).

The "proof" you as for is there. Sourced to NASA. Take the time to READ it...NOT dismiss.

a reply to: Kali74

My dear Kali - there are planets closer to the sun than earth.

You know what - Glinda said it better than I could ever say it.

READ THE POSTS

I will respond to no more of your demands until you do! Drink the kool-aid. Be the wife who sticks with her abusive husband (because deep down he really loves her). Keep falling for the scam

But don't expect me to.

a reply to: Glinda

Because I'm already well aware of solar cycles. You don't seem to understand what I am asking. Show me how since the current warming started that it is due to solar cycles. Were the conditions that you are basing your argument off of, present enough to account for the level of warming we have seen?