Maybe. Likely getting into semantics here, but climate change is a pretty large issue, and we are kinda past the point of being able to "solve" it. Mitigating disastrous consequences is where we're at. I'm cool with taking those steps.
And improving the wealth of 3rd world nations seems like it might be kind of a good thing? - aschuter82
So you don't have a problem, with your taxes being increased, so that millions can be shipped over to third world countries, in the name of fighting "man made global warming" and having it spent in anyway the leaders of these countries decide to do ...... and it's never for fighting "man made global warming" ..... and that's been proven beyond a doubt.
Add this waste of your tax-dollars to the tax-dollars wasted, again in the name of fighting "man made global warming" right here at home.
Example, the Ontario Green Energy Act funneled tax-dollars to foreign companies, to set up heavily tax payer subsidized plants in Ontario to jump start the green industry to fight "man made global warming", and now that the tax-dollar subsidizes have run their course, the foreign owned plants are shutting down .............. just like they did in Europe decades ago ......... and we knew it was going to happen here too ........ but the Ontario Liberals sold this scam to the sheeple, and they voted for it ...... and now we have the highest electricity prices in North America, and own the largest sub national debt in the entire world................. oh and absolutely none of this did anything to fight "man made global warming" as there is nothing humans can do to alter what naturally occurs, and has been naturally occurring since the end of the last ice age.
Just how much will it take for the sheeple to wake up to the fact that they've been scammed?
Research Team Slams Global Warming Data In New Report: "Not Reality... Totally Inconsistent With Credible Temperature Data"
by Tyler Durden
In this research report, the most important surface data adjustment issues are identified and past changes in the previously reported historical data are quantified. It was found that each new version of GAST has nearly always exhibited a steeper warming linear trend over its entire history. And, it was nearly always accomplished by systematically removing the previously existing cyclical temperature pattern. This was true for all three entities providing GAST data measurement, NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU.
As a result, this research sought to validate the current estimates of GAST using the best available relevant data. This included the best documented and understood data sets from the U.S. and elsewhere as well as global data from satellites that provide far more extensive global coverage and are not contaminated by bad siting and urbanization impacts. Satellite data integrity also benefits from having cross checks with Balloon data.
The conclusive findings of this research are that the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality. In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data. Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever –despite current claims of record setting warming.
Finally, since GAST data set validity is a necessary condition for EPA’s GHG/CO2 Endangerment Finding, it too is invalidated by these research findings.
5 times climate alarmists made horribly wrong predictions
1. New York Times: Polar explorer predicts end of ice at the North Pole (1969)
Way back before Leonardo DiCaprio, the rise of Gore and the rampant politicization of climate science, polar explorer Col. Bernt Balchen was convinced the North Pole would melt by as early as 1979.
The New York Times reported on February 20, 1969, “Col. Bernt Balchen, polar explorer and flier, is circulating a paper among polar specialists proposing that the Arctic pack ice is thinning and that the ocean at the North Pole may become an open sea within a decade or two. … A number of specialists believe that an ice-free Arctic Ocean would not freeze again.”
Needless to say, the North Pole didn’t melt. In fact, we now know the global climate was at the tail end of a decades-long cooling period.
2. Al Gore: Only 10 years left to avoid total disaster (2006)
In 2006, CBS News asked Gore a series of questions about global warming at the Sundance Film Festival, where Gore was promoting “An Inconvenient Truth.” Throughout his movie, Gore consistently gives the sense that unless something is done immediately, we’re all doomed, but he often (not always) refrains from giving a specific timetable. CBS News’ report, however, notes Gore had predicted that the “point of no return” would come within “10 years” if greenhouse-gas emissions weren’t reduced substantially.
“And politicians and corporations have been ignoring the issue for decades, to the point that unless drastic measures to reduce greenhouse gases are taken within the next 10 years, the world will reach a point of no return, Gore said,” according to CBS News’ story.
Have we reached a “point of no return,” as Gore suggested? If so, “An Inconvenient Sequel” would seem to be rather pointless, wouldn’t it? Gore was asked about this during a June interview with Fox News’ Chris Wallace, to which he responded: “Well, we have seen a decline in emissions on a global basis. For the first time, they’ve stabilized and started to decline. So, some of the responses for the last 10 years have helped, but unfortunately and regrettably, a lot of serious damage has been done.”
3. New York Times: ‘New ice age on the way’ (1975)
Here’s another report from the New York Times, this one published on May 21, 1975. In this news story, reporter Walter Sullivan noted many scientists believed global cooling was “inevitable,” but he also said there were numerous researchers predicting massive, catastrophic global warming within the next century.
Here are some of the highlights from the article:
The world’s climate is changing. Of that scientists are firmly convinced. But in what direction and why are subjects of deepening debate.
There are specialists who say that a new ice age is on the way—the inevitable consequence of a natural cyclic process, or as a result of man-made pollution of the atmosphere. And there are those who say that such pollution may actually head off an ice age.
Sooner or later a major cooling of the climate is widely considered inevitable. Hints that it may already have begun are evident. …
There is general agreement that introducing large amounts of smoke particles or carbon dioxide into the atmosphere can alter climate. … If worldwide energy consumption continues to increase at its present rates, catastrophic climate changes have been projected by M.I. Budyko, a leading Soviet specialists. He says that the critical level will probably be reached within a century. This, he has written, will lead to “a complete destruction of polar ice covers.” Not only would sea levels rise but, with the Arctic Ocean free of ice, the entire weather system of the Northern Hemisphere would be altered.
Virtually no one today is predicting the “complete destruction of polar ice covers” in the near future or a new ice age, showing that 40 years ago, the scientific community clearly overestimated the effects of human activity on climate.
4. United Nations: ‘Entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth’ (1989)
United Nations environmental official Noel Brown predicted absolute chaos in 1989, including dramatic coastal flooding, crop failures, “eco-refugees,” and more. The only way to save the world, Brown warned, was to reverse course on burning fossil fuels within 10 years. Sound familiar?
The San Jose Mercury News (Calif.) reported on June 30, 1989, “A senior environmental official at the United Nations, Noel Brown, says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ‘eco-refugees,’ threatening political chaos, said Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program. He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human [control].”
5. Al Gore: The final ‘snows of Kilimanjaro’ (2006)
One of the more powerful moments in Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” is when Gore shows a series of images of the famed Mt. Kilimanjaro, the highest mountain in Africa, progressively losing snow. Perhaps the most common error perpetrated by climate alarmists, especially in the mainstream media, is that warming is proof of their theory. It isn’t. Many climate scientists believe it is currently warming, albeit very slowly, but that the warming isn’t being caused by humans and/or isn’t catastrophic.
However, this prediction from Gore is just too juicy to ignore. During Gore’s movie, in 2006, he predicted, “Within the decade, there will be no more ‘snows of Kilimanjaro.’”
More than a decade later, the snow is still there, and no reputable scientist I’m aware of expects it to be gone in the immediate future. You can see pictures of the snow-covered mountain by going to the blog operated by the University of Massachusetts’ Climate System Research Center, titled “Kilimanjaro Climate & Glaciers.”
5 times climate alarmists made horribly wrong predictions
2. Al Gore: Only 10 years left to avoid total disaster (2006)
In 2006, CBS News asked Gore a series of questions about global warming at the Sundance Film Festival, where Gore was promoting “An Inconvenient Truth.” Throughout his movie, Gore consistently gives the sense that unless something is done immediately, we’re all doomed, but he often (not always) refrains from giving a specific timetable. CBS News’ report, however, notes Gore had predicted that the “point of no return” would come within “10 years” if greenhouse-gas emissions weren’t reduced substantially.
“And politicians and corporations have been ignoring the issue for decades, to the point that unless drastic measures to reduce greenhouse gases are taken within the next 10 years, the world will reach a point of no return, Gore said,” according to CBS News’ story.
Have we reached a “point of no return,” as Gore suggested? If so, “An Inconvenient Sequel” would seem to be rather pointless, wouldn’t it? Gore was asked about this during a June interview with Fox News’ Chris Wallace, to which he responded: “Well, we have seen a decline in emissions on a global basis. For the first time, they’ve stabilized and started to decline. So, some of the responses for the last 10 years have helped, but unfortunately and regrettably, a lot of serious damage has been done.”
- D0PPELGANGER
You pointing this part out as if it's an embrassing failure is pretty dumb. What he said in 2006 remains true. We have passed the point of no return. There is still time to minimize the damage, but global temperatures are gon' keep rising, and the impact of inaction from the last 10-50 years is already being felt.
But sure, yuck it up about this as if it was misguided fear-mongering. Better yet, yuck it up about the other 4 completely unrelated "mistakes" you posted.
I got young kids, it scares the poop out of me when i stop and think about it. (because of the msm liberal progressive media lying to me of course.)
seems the right can't tell the difference between Climate and Weather the same way the left can't tell the difference between race and culture. - Cape Breton Bruins
Location: I'll always remember the last words my grandfather ever told me. He said, "A Truck!", SK Joined: 09.21.2009
Aug 1 @ 3:26 PM ET
Research Team Slams Global Warming Data In New Report: "Not Reality... Totally Inconsistent With Credible Temperature Data"
by Tyler Durden
In this research report, the most important surface data adjustment issues are identified and past changes in the previously reported historical data are quantified. It was found that each new version of GAST has nearly always exhibited a steeper warming linear trend over its entire history. And, it was nearly always accomplished by systematically removing the previously existing cyclical temperature pattern. This was true for all three entities providing GAST data measurement, NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU.
As a result, this research sought to validate the current estimates of GAST using the best available relevant data. This included the best documented and understood data sets from the U.S. and elsewhere as well as global data from satellites that provide far more extensive global coverage and are not contaminated by bad siting and urbanization impacts. Satellite data integrity also benefits from having cross checks with Balloon data.
The conclusive findings of this research are that the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality. In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data. Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever –despite current claims of record setting warming.
Finally, since GAST data set validity is a necessary condition for EPA’s GHG/CO2 Endangerment Finding, it too is invalidated by these research findings.
But Dr Claire Parkinson, a senior scientist at Nasa’s Goddard Space Flight Centre, says increasing Antarctic ice does not contradict the general warming trend. Overall the Earth is losing sea ice at a rate of 35,000 sq km per year (13,514 sq miles).
“Not every location on the Earth is having the same responses to climate changes. The fact that ice in one part of the world is doing one thing and in another part ice is doing another is not surprising. The Earth is large and as the climate changes it is normal to see different things going on,” says Parkinson.
But Dr Claire Parkinson, a senior scientist at Nasa’s Goddard Space Flight Centre, says increasing Antarctic ice does not contradict the general warming trend. Overall the Earth is losing sea ice at a rate of 35,000 sq km per year (13,514 sq miles).
“Not every location on the Earth is having the same responses to climate changes. The fact that ice in one part of the world is doing one thing and in another part ice is doing another is not surprising. The Earth is large and as the climate changes it is normal to see different things going on,” says Parkinson. - aschuter82
My point is, and has always been, that any change in the climate, cooling or warming , is as it has always been........ naturally occurring, and not "Driven" by human activity, and the "alarmists" who have been trying for decades, to convince everyone it is.
The amount of CO2, from human activity, is barely measurable in the atmosphere ............. but the "powers that be" have run out things to tax, and need you to get on-board with this junk science theroy, and dig deeper into your pockets.
My point is, and has always been, that any change in the climate, cooling or warming , is as it has always been........ naturally occurring, and not "Driven" by human activity, and the "alarmists" who have been trying for decades, to convince everyone it is.
The amount of CO2, from human activity, is barely measurable in the atmosphere ............. but the "powers that be" have run out things to tax, and need you to get on-board with this junk science theroy, and dig deeper into your pockets. - D0PPELGANGER
Fair enough. I'm gonna have to side with the mountains of evidence to the contrary, performed by a large majority of scientists who are far more educated on the topic than you or I. Feel free to call me out for appeal to authority if you like.
Al Gore's Inconvenient Reality:
The Former Vice President's Home Energy Use Surges up to 34 Times the National Average Despite Costly Green Renovations http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA679.html
Fair enough. I'm gonna have to side with the mountains of evidence to the contrary, performed by a large majority of scientists who are far more educated on the topic than you or I. Feel free to call me out for appeal to authority if you like. - aschuter82
The Creator, Fabricator And Proponent Of Global Warming – Maurice Strong
Strong is considered to be the person behind the globalization of the foundation-funded environmental movement, and was the Secretary-General of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment held in 1972, in Stockholm, Sweden.
He co-authored the ‘Earth Charter’ with Mikhail Gorbachev in 1992. It was Gorbachev who stated in 1996 that the “threat of environmental crisis will be the ‘international disaster key’ that will unlock the New World Order.”
Strong was recruited by David Rockefeller at the age of 17 and groomed for the role he serves today. Despite not having a college education, he was a millionaire by his early 20’s and wielded enormous power and influence.
Already in 1972, at the time of this interview, there is talk of doomsday scenarios if people don’t give up their rights and drastically alter the way they live. Also mentioned in the interview is zero growth, put forward by the Club of Rome in the late 60’s/early 70’s, which called for the control of population and economic growth, and was the precursor to what we see happening today with the US economy and infrastructure being gutted and sent overseas.
In this interview clip Strong discusses his proposal of licenses in order for women to give birth, which has been of much talk among the elite for the past several decades. In the 70’s, David Rockefeller extended his praise to communist dictator of China, Mao Zedong, in an article published in the New York Times, for his country’s one-child policy, which will be the model for the Western nations to follow in the future — hence China’s “Most Favored Nation” status granted by the UN.
