The supposed threat of global warming!

Someone at GlobalSpec wrote that? I would have thought a technology company would have more brains? Where did you find it?

Newsletter

That is not the GlobalSpec Newsletter. It is ENS (Environment News Service).

Hi All,

The GlobalSpec Newsletters are summarizations from existing content that lives on the web and on other online sources and do not necessarily reflect the views of GlobalSpec as a whole. Instead, the newsletter articles are meant to inform, entertain, and occasionally to provoke. It is unfortunate that the article seems to suggest that GlobalSpec has taken a negative stance on the issue.

It's the same as CR4. Posts on this site cover a wide range of points and opinions, but do not in any way reflect the views of GlobalSpec, they only represent the opinions of the people who write the posts.

And for the record, CR4 is a GlobalSpec property and I am an employee of GlobalSpec. By the same token, what I say here on CR4 should be taken as the expressed opinion of one Chris Leonard, and not the opinion of GlobalSpec.

Not to worry in January the US Department of Energy pulled all funds from the project.

"Guest"

Ranting like that is BS as well. If you have a point to make, then express it in an intelligent, organized, and civil way with fact-based arguments.

Haven't you had a research and argumentation class in college?

If the best you can do is to pour political gasoline around and ignite it with hate with the intent to spark rage, you'll find this an unwelcome place to set up shop. There are many other organizations on the web that will welcome that, but not CR4, thank you.

Hmm it would be hard to burn anything with out emitting gases that increase global warming. Even water increases global warming, water vapor is more effective than carbon dioxide at trapping heat in the atmosphere. What would you do with all the trapped gases emitted? what raw materials do you need to trap these gases? How much carbon must be released from the raw materials and energy utilized to process these raw materials for use? This all seems like a waste of money if they really are trying to reduce atmospheric loading of the atmosphere with global warming gases, it is like a shell game with carbon.

NO! You miss the point. If you buy Carbon Credits from Al Gore, this can all go away.

I don't know if any of you have ever heard of John Coleman. He used to be a TV Weatherman here in Chicago. I heard him on the radio yesterday talking about Global Warming and CO2. He basically said that Al Gore should be arrested and charged with fraud for selling Carbon Credits, when he clearly knows that Global Warming is a hoax.

Here is a site that link's to John Coleman's original comments about the Global Warming Hoax.

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/comments_about_global_warming/

Dick Hourigan
Visit
www.RichardHouriganInc.com

I do not believe that most scientifically educated persons believe Global warming is a Hoax. There are identified occurrences of extreme temperature changes in the past that are correlated to CO2 in the atmosphere. The issue is how much of a factor is man, does man's contribution exceed the capacity of the environment to compensate and maintain the natural cycles of cooling and warming (run-away global warming would not be good), and finally (and more of a concern to the general public) will it effect the climate in a manner that adversely effects each individuals lifestyle, property and wealth. The global temperature effects changes in economic base and markets around the world. There are examples of wine production in England and northern Europe during the Roman period, but a cooling cycle in the dark ages transitioned northern europe from wine into beer production because it was too cold for grapes.

Those who believe that man has caused Global Warming achieved a early tactical advantage in the argument by stating their case and then quickly declaring that the issue is settled and the discussion is now over. Evidence to the contrary is either not reported or is ridiculed. They try to equate those who disagree to Holocaust Deniers in an attempt to discredit them.

In just the last year we have we have reversed the 1 degree rise in temperature. Snow and Ice levels in the Northern Hemisphere are now back to 1966 levels as we in the north are experiencing one of the coldest winters on record.

The hottest year on record is NOW 1934. 1998 was knocked off as being the hottest on record by NASA when data errors were discovered in those records.

Regarding Carbon Dioxide, It is caused BY Global Warming, and not the cause OF Global Warming. Thus it is a trailing indicator.

From the Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change (just last week):

That there is no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity has in the past, is now, or will in the future cause catastrophic climate change.

Global Warming is not science it is politics. Its purpose is to achieve what the socialist and the communist were unable to achieve during the Cold War, which is global domination. They want to tax the rich countries to give money to the poor countries for increased social programs. Socialism is dying due to lack of money and they need to go somewhere else for funds such as the US, and Australia. Global Warming Hysterics hope to stop or slow Capitalism because Socialism is unable to compete. Global Warming is just their latest vehicle to make that happen.

Some references:

http://List_of_scientists_opposing_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

Manhatton Declaration on Climate Change

19,000 Scientists Rejecting Man Made Global Warming

Hmmm, as a Chemist, I could sign that, too, and make this 19,001.

Dick Hourigan

www.RichardHouriganInc.com

Not one of your three references could be found. Is that a conspiracy too?

Amazing those links do not work. I will enter the entire URLs...Sorry about that.

I hope this works better. Try this first one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

Link number two (The Manhatton Declaration:

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22866

Dick Hourigan

www.RichardHouriganInc.com

Fyi, Australia is a socialist society by US standards, just like UK, France, Germany, Sweden and Canada. All are less democratic than France surprisingly (more republican socialism with a limited number of parties). It just doesn't get noticed as much.

Link number three, The Global Warming Petition.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/

Hopefully all three of these links will work.

I don't know what happened last time.

Dick Hourigan

www.RichardHouriganInc.com

"LIST_OF SCIENTISTS"

What, is that about 1% of all scientists?

This is the way I look at global warming & pollution: if it causes cancer in you & the bodies of your children then it should not be allowed. If a company has the technology available to it to stop polluting, it should be mandatory that it uses that technology. That's pretty simple. If you believe that they should not be forced to stop polluting, then I believe that's wrong headed thinking.As for the right-wing publication, Heartland Institute, you have to take in consideration their strong bias before you start quoting or referring them.

Only if you take into consideration all of the left wing organizations that promote global warming. You do bring up a good point though.

This is issue is entirely political. You have the Left Wing University Professors who are living off of government grant money (It seems most liberals and socialist prefer government money), their left wing friends in the "Main Stream Media", and left wing UN scientists representing the socialist countries of the world on one side. These are the ones expecting a payment for Global Warming.

On the other side you have the Capitalists and scientist who work for industry or the Bush administration. These are the ones who would be taxes to pay the socialist. These are the ones you call Right Wing.

Who is left in the middle? Why it is the masses who have never taken a science course in their life and don't know who to believe or how to make an independent determination of the facts.

I expect this will remain a stalemate for a number of years until the weather turns decidedly colder and this will go the way of the Y2K issue.

Mean while, some companies are going to make a killing by selling those new expensive mercury laced light bulbs and other green products.

Dick Hourigan

www.RichardHouriganInc.com

A couple of things:

1. There was a higher concentration of CO₂ than currently occurs following the end of the Permian. The average global temperatures were also higher than present and water levels were much higher. This actually occurs naturally, and CO₂ does retain thermal energy more efficiently than nitrogen or oxygen in the atmosphere. FYI Water and Methane are even more efficient. I do not necessarily believe that the world will be destroyed, it has always seemed to rebound from much worse conditions, but a global rise in temperature could distictly change the nature of our environment. There is evidence of a tropical climate in the Sahara during the last ice age, and Ice nearly to florida just 10,000 year ago. Man is obviuosly a factor in changing the environment, and no amount of ignorance can ever hide this fact. The question regarding how much of an impact our CO₂ emissions will have is debatable, but it must have some effect. So maybe Illinois is hotter in the summer, or maybe it triggers another ice age and illinois is under ice. For me I live in central California about 120 feet above sea level. So 5 degrees warmer for me would not be so bad, a Sea level rise of 20 meters would actually increase my property value, a ice age would increase the agricultural market share for California (since the Midwest would be useless either way) and the money in the local market. Only problem i see is all the midwesterns flooding into California like they did when the Dust Bowl hit because of poor land practices that no one in the Midwest considered an issue until they could not grow anything. Of course immigration rates into california even now are on the order of nearly 500 K to 1 M people a year. and about half are from US east of New Mexico.

2. You can not possibly believe that Bush knows any real scientists, maybe scientologist (they do kind of sound similar), or for that matter, any one whose education isn't linked to some major donations to educational institutions.

3.You can not possibly believe Bush or any of his friends pay their share of taxes. They have enough money to pay accountants and lawyers to find the loopholes to keep from paying taxes. Taxes in the US, since the implementation of the income tax have become increasingly the burden of the middle class.

First:

"Man is obviously a factor in changing the environment, and no amount of ignorance can ever hide this fact."

Actually, that is NOT a fact, unless you can prove it. That is merely your assumption, opinion, or belief (Whatever).

"2. You can not possibly believe that Bush knows any real scientists, maybe scientologist (they do kind of sound similar), or for that matter, any one whose education isn't linked to some major donations to educational institutions."

What does who President "Bush knows" have to do with global warming? Most of us don't know any of the scientist who claim that man is responsible, even though they, too, can not prove it (Hardly Science...once again, just opinion). (BTW: Some of the IPCC scientists have asked that their names be withdrawn, since they disagree with the final conclusions that there work was a part of.)

"3.You can not possibly believe Bush or any of his friends pay their share of taxes. They have enough money to pay accountants and lawyers to find the loopholes to keep from paying taxes. Taxes in the US, since the implementation of the income tax have become increasingly the burden of the middle class."

I don't know why President Bush's tax bill is relevant. But I suppose we could talk about the equally irrelevant tax bill of Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Bill and Hilary Clinton, John Edwards, and Barack Obama (all of whom make more that I and probably you do, or it would not be an issue to you). According to the IRS the top 1% of wage earners paid 39.38% of all income taxes collected., and the top 50% of wage earners pay 96.93% of all income taxes collected. This data is for 2005. It sounds to me like these guys are paying FAR MORE than "their share" of taxes. They are getting screwed.

I do believe the fair tax would be better, however. We all should pay 25-27% (even the poorest among us...including you), and no deductions.

Your questions about income reveal a Socialist/Marxist philosophy which is what I always suspected "Man Made Global Warming" was about.

Thank You for confirming that, Comrade.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" (or needs) is a slogan popularized by Karl Marx in his 1875 Critique of the Gotha Program. The phrase summarizes the idea that, under a communist system, every person shall produce to the best of their ability in accordance with their talent, and each person shall receive the fruits of this production in accordance with their need.

Well, i guess you miss the obvious everyday, look around you and you see evidence that man is a factor in changing his environment. Look at your house, with out man's influence what would exist there in that location? What would Chicago look like with out man's influence? Look at the non-native invasive species in the Midwestern water systems? or even acid rain? Wind patterns around the Sears tower? thermal effects from Cities? Urbanization effects on runoff? This is a pretty long list that i do not feel like continuing to elaborate on just to demonstrate the obvious. It is observable everywhere and a fact that we change our environment. The question is whether a certain effects to the environment are significant.

I would agree that most politicians left and right are not going to pay what was intended originally by the income tax laws. This is why these laws are so voluminous, loopholes.

As far as taxes go, I am all for a system of tiered sales taxes, tariffs, and other business taxes. The government, before becoming "socialized", obtained most of its tax revenues from business not the citizens, and it had a surplus not deficits. The government also didn't used to spend so much money bailing out businesses that are not competitive and severely mismanaged, business people just went to jail for stealing from investors (sometimes after being tarred and feathered). In addition with tariffs, the US corporations could not make a profit through globalization of the labor force, since imported products might cost more in tariffs than the cost of production t home. Now foreign products would have to compete in the US market not on a purely cost of labor, but also on a product quality basis. You may not want that toaster from China, if it cost as much as one from the US. By the way, I am well above that 50% mark for US incomes.

Just for my own curiosity I Googled some of the name on the signing list. I purposly went down from the top to see if there were any Prominent scientist in the group, or if it was loaded with "phone book "names.

I only checked three

Robert C Walish-no such person

Robert C Walsh- this is what I found on this spelling.

C Troy Haggard-nothing on him! Went to page 15.

Charles Hall, PhD-Charles Hall claims to have witnessed and interacted with a race of extraterrestrials he described as 'tall whites' while serving at Nellis Airforce Base as a duty weather observer from 1965-67. In his three volume memoirs, Millennial Hospitality, (2002) he describes his experiences as fiction yet in a series of interviews, he claims that the experiences were real and that the US Air Force were indeed hosting extraterrestrials they had reached agreements with during the 1950's if not earlier. The tall whites are

This photo is from www.exopolitics.org