Here
and
Now

opinions

The American 'allergy' to global warming: Why?

65 Comments
By Charles Hanley

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2011 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

65 Comments
Login to comment

"“Well, I suppose they could say God is burning us up.” He nailed it here! I am sure the flat earth crowd will go from "There is no warming" to "Jesus is coming back with fire." And they will say it is the will of god and do nothing.

America has become a political joke it is so frozen in polarized thinking. Not very hopeful for the future.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

in order to overcome financial/economy crisis....Central Banks all over the globe inject trillions of $$$ but liquidity dries up so fast...how that could be? because of Global Warming :)))

0 ( +0 / -0 )

How about taking another look at the "Science"? First, there's that little matter of "cooked books" at East Anglia U. Then, there is some inconvenient history. The Little Ice Age followed a period of relative warmth (warmer than now) and the accompanying economic activity which would have included increased production of carbon dioxide from all those fires. It got so cold in northern Europe that they switched from wine to beer and whiskey. That period didn't really end until 1850 and it could be argued that we are still recovering from it. Ice and seabed cores show several cases in which carbon dioxide was a trailing indicator: First, the pollen changed showing warmer species of plants, then the carbon dioxide increased. Meanwhile, all the "Global Warming Remediation" schemes have a central theme: Stick it to the so-called First World (Japan included) while letting the Second and Third World economies off the hook, including China with its voracious appetite for coal and oil. Oh, by the way, Japan is downwind from all that Chinese activity. I saw elsewhere that someone challenged the government to build a reactor in Tokyo. If the land price is right, I would gladly settle in next door.

-6 ( +1 / -8 )

Global warming is not caused by people.

-6 ( +4 / -9 )

The man-made global warming theory has been discredited ad infinitum. The Earth's climate always goes in cycles, years of warming and years of cooling. Most of North America used to be covered by glaciers but natural warming melted those away. We're simply in another warming cycle.

Leading scientists, including Nobel Prize winners, have been leaving the IPCC in droves in disgust of the politically motivated tactics used by the elite UN organization.

-4 ( +4 / -7 )

Global warming is not caused by people.

But Soylent Green IS people.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Also ITT: Americans make themselves easily identifiable.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

The man-made global warming theory has been discredited ad infinitum. The Earth's climate always goes in cycles, years of warming and years of cooling. Most of North America used to be covered by glaciers but natural warming melted those away. We're simply in another warming cycle.

Leading scientists, including Nobel Prize winners, have been leaving the IPCC in droves in disgust of the politically motivated tactics used by the elite UN organization.

It's clear which side of the fence you are. Not on the side of the 98% of the scientists who have explained what's been happening. The United States still the big nay-sayer? Is it an allergy? How about the difference of opinion between republicans ans democrats? Hmmm, intelligence and greed gap? Ostrich syndrome with the former?

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Why?

In a few words: pig-headed arrogance on the part of a lot of us Americans. Especially since we are the heaviest contributors to the human activity which has released so much greenhouse gas into our Earth's atmosphere.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

yabits - Americans are not the biggest producers of CO2, the Chinese are. Check it out!

The Japanese are going to have to backtrack on Hatoyama's promise to reduce CO2 emissions by 25%.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Gobal What? Are people still debating that nonsense?!

-5 ( +2 / -6 )

Gurukun - Yes, can you believe that?

-3 ( +2 / -4 )

Leading scientists, including Nobel Prize winners, have been leaving the IPCC in droves in disgust of the politically motivated tactics used by the elite UN organization.

No they haven't. Don't make stuff up! ONE Nobel Prize winner has left; this is not winner(s) nor is it 'leaving in droves'.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

yabits - Americans are not the biggest producers of CO2, the Chinese are. Check it out!

The average American produces far more CO2 than the average Chinese. That a nation with one-quarter of the population comes in a close second to China is damning.

Second: Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have been accumulating for years. Show me a graph of the countries that have released the greatest amount of those gases over the past 10, 20 and 30 years. The United States leaves China far behind.

I suspect the average fifth-grader could understand that.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

The numbers touted by Global Warming Alarmists are about as reliable as an Enron Balance Sheet.

Let's hope that cooler heads prevail on this one.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

"“Well, I suppose they could say God is burning us up.” He nailed it here! I am sure the flat earth crowd will go from "There is no warming" to "Jesus is coming back with fire." And they will say it is the will of god and do nothing.

You think? Rick Perry's response to the record Texas drought, rather than propose water-usage policies was to ask people to "pray for rain" while dismissing climate science. Didn't work, you'll be shocked to hear.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Weather has it's cycles. Yeah we're in a drought right now, but that doesn't prove that man is making the world hotter.

I for one, stand on the "Climate waxes and wanes" much of the world was tropical when certain reptiles of a grand nature ruled the earth, then it got cold.

Also, water usage policies are up to the city, not the state. Affected places are already under restrictions.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Weather has it's cycles. Yeah we're in a drought right now, but that doesn't prove that man is making the world hotter.

Who is 'we'? Some parts of the world are in drought, others have way too much rain. And nobody claims that because some areas are in drought that man is making the world hotter.

You may be surprised to find there is actual science behind this, and political pundits don't really know much about the science.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

I for one, stand on the "Climate waxes and wanes" much of the world was tropical when certain reptiles of a grand nature ruled the earth, then it got cold.

And fortunately we have some very smart, hardworking people who spend years researching 'why' the world was hotter then, why it got colder and what is causing the current warming trend. Or you could just shrug and says 'It changes. Whatever.'"

1 ( +2 / -1 )

"we can go see a movie or something"

Us in Texas. It was a direct response to the comment above mine. I suppose I should have quoted.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Copy and past fail...

"Who is 'we'?" **

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The "climate science" you speak of is nothing more than computer models which are designed by vested interests.

Just because skewed computer models are pumping out data doesn't mean it's science, it's just rhetoric.

Real scientists are looking at the observable data and man-made CO2 is not a contributing factor to weather patterns.

Remember, 98% of the greenhouse effect is caused by natural water vapor while CO2 is only 1%. And of that 1% the portion of CO2 in the atmosphere that is caused by human behavior is so miniscule that it can't even be measured.

Why are we even debating this anyways, scientists have already debunked the man-made global warming theory. It's just a political fringe now.

What

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

Full diclosure: I'm an American and I believe the planet is warming and that man contributes to it.

That said, America has a huge obesity problem right? CO2 reduction and good health go hand in hand. Green technology is the next major emerging technology and will likely be the thing to spur economies going into the next decade.

The climate science proposal for reducing global warming? Improve your economy by investing in emerging technology, and improve your health by taking the stairs and riding a bike once in a while.

Climate skeptic or not, it's a win-win.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Skepticism of man-made global warming is itself global; but it is so much easier (and enjoyable) to blame the Yanks.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Real scientists are looking at the observable data and man-made CO2 is not a contributing factor to weather patterns.

Yes, scientists on oil company funded grants, or scientists who like to appear on Fox News. By and large the GLOBAL scientific consensus is that it is a contributing factor. If you read science from unbiased sources - not those linked to on far-right blogs and news sites - you'll find this is the case.

Remember, the reason that Bush vetoed the Kyoto protocol wasn't because it was based on bad science, but that it 'would hurt the economy'. That's all this so-called debunking of climate science really is, it's an effort by big business and their paid-for political partners (the GOP) to prevent any crimp in their income. Meanwhile we all suffer from increased incidence of illnesses caused by pollutants in the air and water.

I don't know about you, but I like clean air and water. Left to their own devices big business and their affiliates would roll back the air and water standards, too.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

The "climate science" you speak of is nothing more than computer models which are designed by vested interests.

Firstly climate science is a LOT more than computer modelling. Secondly the models themselves and their inputs are based on factual physical relationships. Where their are uncertainties in the models or the inputs this is reflected in uncertainties in projections. The first thing they have to do is model the past, and the current models do a very good of modelling temperature trends over the recorded period (c.1850-date). Thirdly vested interests? Be serious please.

Real scientists are looking at the observable data and man-made CO2 is not a contributing factor to weather patterns.

Name me one of these 'real' scientists.

Remember, 98% of the greenhouse effect is caused by natural water vapor while CO2 is only 1%.

You mean 60-70% is caused by water vapour and about 25% by CO2 (confirmed by infra-red measurements of radiation entering and leaving the earth's atmosphere). The difference is water vapour is short-lived in the atmosphere while CO2 remains for 100 years and so levels are constantly being increased by human activity. Water vapour levels are increasing though as a feedback from increasing CO2-driven temperatures, and roughly double the warming caused by CO2 alone.

Why are we even debating this anyways, scientists have already debunked the man-made global warming theory. It's just a political fringe now.

Again, what scientists and also what have you been smoking? The fact you call it a 'political' fringe says it all. Your opposition to it is political not scientific.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

The instant dismissal of the information in this article by so many people making comments is ironic and sad. Humans can't pump billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere without affecting the balance of the system. The sooner we can all reduce our impact on the environment, the better for everyone.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Firstly climate science is a LOT more than computer modelling. Secondly the models themselves and their inputs are based on factual physical relationships. Where their are uncertainties in the models or the inputs this is reflected in uncertainties in projections. The first thing they have to do is model the past...

Still wondering how the earth came out of the Ice Age when.....oh, wait....there wasn't any automobiles and factories back then. I bet the creatures that raomed the earth back then blamed something on Global Warming too.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Still wondering how the earth came out of the Ice Age when.....oh, wait....there wasn't any automobiles and factories back then. I bet the creatures that raomed the earth back then blamed something on Global Warming too.

Is understanding that climate change and human-influenced climate change are two separate issues really that difficult? Or do you think that climate scientists never even noticed that the climate has changed in the past (and is in fact constantly changing) when humans weren't numerous?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Ohhhhhh, I get it. In these times it is 'Human-Influenced' climate change vice, "Dinosaur-Influenced" climate change back in the day.

I've read alot about this global warming...both sides of the debate. The only thing I got of everything I read is:

The Global Warming Group-Base thier data off of guess work. They have no hard data from 1000, 2000, 5000, years ago. Everything is based on "probabilities" and 'maybes'. How do they know, or not know, if the weather pattern as of today, is part of the first cycle, second cycle, etc.? How do they know that the world will not get cooler? If the world is getting warmer, why is it that every year we have "The coldest day on record" new stories on the news?

All this hype about Global Warming have generated all these new type of Eco-friendly products to save the environment. I have no 'beef' with that. Being efficient is great. But this Global Warming BS, not.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Still wondering how the earth came out of the Ice Age when.....oh, wait....there wasn't any automobiles and factories back then. I bet the creatures that raomed the earth back then blamed something on Global Warming too.

I'm sure you'll well aware of how Milankovitch cycles control the ice ages, after all:

I've read alot about this global warming

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The man-made global warming theory is the most fundamentalist dogma of our time. Anybody who questions it is immediately labelled a "denier" or a "heretic". It's become a religion.

As more and more evidence comes that counters the theory of global warming we'll see more global warming alarmists resort to these types of tactics to defend their doctrine.

We need to objectively review the facts and the evidence. Science doesn't mean consensus among dogmatics, nor does it mean whipping together a few computer models and touting doomsday theories.

It's relieving to know that globally, the tide is turning against the global warming alarmists as level-headed scientists objectively review all the available data without preconceived notions.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

As more and more evidence comes that counters the theory of global warming we'll see more global warming alarmists resort to these types of tactics to defend their doctrine.

Again, what new evidence? Can you even just once back up a single one of your claims?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

I'm sure you'll well aware of how Milankovitch cycles control the ice ages, after all:

Yes, I am aware of the Milankovitch cycles. I learned it as the Milankovitch "Theory." I'm not too fond of the word "Theory." However, in a nut shell, it basically states that The Global Warming, (if there is any at all), is based on orbits, axis tilt, etc.,. Doesn't mention anything about humans causing the orbits and earth's axis to change, i.e., "Human Infuenced."

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

why is it that every year we have "The coldest day on record" new stories on the news?

I've seen lots of 'hottest day/month/year on record' news stories, but can't recall any 'coldest day on record' stories. Wiki for what it's worth has a list of highest/lowest temperatures ever recorded, and it's quite striking that while the 'coldest temperature' list has 13 of 73 dates in the last two decades (18%), in the 'highest temperature' list 55 of 85 dates (65%) fall in that time period.

If you have links to those annual news stories about 'The coldest day on record' I'd be very interested to see them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The global climate change deniers can't even muster simple common sense.

Oil and coal deposits represent the sequestration of massive amounts of carbon in a process that took millions of years to accomplish. (Not thousands of years as believed by religious loonies.)

The deniers expect people to believe that massive quantities of oil and coal can be dug up and the carbon spewed back into the atmosphere in a matter of a few decades without having any noticeable impact.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Yes, I am aware of the Milankovitch cycles. I learned it as the Milankovitch "Theory." I'm not too fond of the word "Theory." However, in a nut shell, it basically states that The Global Warming, (if there is any at all), is based on orbits, axis tilt, etc.,. Doesn't mention anything about humans causing the orbits and earth's axis to change, i.e., "Human Infuenced."

Why would Milankovitch cycles say anything about human-induced warming? They're two different effects. The important factor that links them is an energy imbalance which causes changes in climate amongst other things to rebalance.

In M. cycles, it takes a certain 'perfect storm' of earth's precession, axial tilt and orbital eccentricity to induce an ice age. Basically the conditions have to be right to allow enough ice to gather at the poles (primarily the land-free north pole), and to remain there, so that the albedo effect (reflection of sunlight back into space by the ice) becomes dominant, reducing the temperatures further. But these occur over a period of many thousands of years.

In human-induced climate change the imbalance is mainly caused by extra CO2 added to the climate system - carbon which has not been been in the system for millions of years.

BTW it's entirely possible than we are putting an end to the ice ages by releasing this carbon. The ice ages are a pretty new phenomenon that only appear to have come about once CO2 levels dropped sufficiently through weathering.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

For those posters that have been apparently living in a bubble for the last 5 years here's a link to some information regarding the growing consensus among scientists that the man-made global warming theory needs serious review, if not outright dismissal.

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=64734

Not to mention Nobel Laureate Dr. Ivar Giaever who spoke out against the global warming dogma just this month and resigned in protest.

Let's not forget that the institution which has been providing (or should I say making up) the data used to toute the global warming theory, the University of East Anglia, has been thoroughly discredited and is now an object of international ridicule.

And for those who insist on sticking with their fundamentalist doctine of the global warming mantra, I suggest you start protesting at Mount Pinatubo in the Phillipines, as has been the single largest contributor of CO2 in the atmosphere in our life time.Or better yet, stop breathing, since every time you exhale your hot air contributes to global warming.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

For those posters that have been apparently living in a bubble for the last 5 years here's a link to some information regarding the growing consensus among scientists that the man-made global warming theory needs serious review, if not outright dismissal.

Not to mention Nobel Laureate Dr. Ivar Giaever who spoke out against the global warming dogma just this month and resigned in protest.

Repeating yourself doesn't increase the efficacy of your comments, although at least this time you back off the "leaving in droves" part and acknowledge ONE scientist has left.

Let's not forget that the institution which has been providing (or should I say making up) the data used to toute the global warming theory, the University of East Anglia, has been thoroughly discredited and is now an object of international ridicule.

It's the subject of ridicule on Fox News. I guess they are broadcast internationally, aren't they? One would hardly say University of East Anglia is thoroughly discredited since "Six committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct." - from Wikipedia.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Not to mention Nobel Laureate Dr. Ivar Giaever who spoke out against the global warming dogma just this month and resigned in protest.

Giaever earned his Nobel prize in semiconductor physics and quantum tunnelling. He is as much an authority on climate science as you or I.

Let's not forget that the institution which has been providing (or should I say making up) the data used to toute the global warming theory, the University of East Anglia, has been thoroughly discredited and is now an object of international ridicule.

As Pawatan says six commitees have investigated their methods and found no wrongdoing. An independent inquiry went back to the primary data sources and were able to replicate CRU's results. I'm surprised you're keen to discredit their data since it's the HADCRUT dataset that gives rise the the much parroted "no warming since 1998" claim that I recall you were very keen on in your former guise of 'arrestpaul' (am I allowed to say that?) You must believe NASA have also tampered with their GISS data in order to come to good agreement with HADCRUT? It's all part of the hoax right?

And for those who insist on sticking with their fundamentalist doctine of the global warming mantra, I suggest you start protesting at Mount Pinatubo in the Phillipines, as has been the single largest contributor of CO2 in the atmosphere in our life time.Or better yet, stop breathing, since every time you exhale your hot air contributes to global warming.

Lol! Where do yo pull these gems from? CO2 from human activity is 100 times that from volcanoes. I think you need to step out from your (very small) bubble.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Speaking to an advocate of man-made global warming is like discussing the bible with a religious zealot. There's no hope in reasoning with them

Global Warming has become an ideology and it's adherents are hell bent on defending it at all cost, irrespective of the evidence.

You need to take a step back and separate the facts and the observable science from your own beliefs. Your ego is interfering with your ability to rationally assess all the available information and the latest scientific research.

Over 31,000 qualified scientists in the US have signed a petition rejecting the man-made global warming theory. That's 31,000 in the US alone.

Thankfully the ranks of adherents to the AGW theory are quickly dwindling, perhaps in a few years the only person left will be the head of the IPCC, who, speaking of qualifications, happens to be a train driver by profession.

Science is about evidence, not ideology or politics.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Talk about projection. You have not given one piece of accurate science backing up what you're saying. I've given plenty.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

And speaking of the Petition Project, of those 31,000 only roughly 200 were involved in climate science. If I lived in the US I could have signed that petition on the basis of being a qualified scientist. All you need is a bachelors degree. The petition methodology was also non-scientific and open to abuse.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/OISM-Petition-Project-intermediate.htm

0 ( +1 / -1 )

yokomoc - As Pawatan says six commitees have investigated their methods and found no wrongdoing. An independent inquiry went back to the primary data sources and were able to replicate CRU's results. I'm surprised you're keen to discredit their data since it's the HADCRUT dataset that gives rise the the much parroted "no warming since 1998" claim that I recall you were very keen on in your former guise of 'arrestpaul' (am I allowed to say that?)

HAHAHAHA. No, you're not. It makes it look like you're prone to making things up to prove your point.

The University of East Anglia investigated a department of the University of East Anglia and found that the University of East Anglia did nothing wrong. That's not my idea of an "independent" inquiry.

The question of GLOBAL warming is easily settled by looking at the GLOBAL tempurature. The IPCC made the claim several decades ago that the GLOBAL temp would increase and man-made CO2 was the reason why. ALL of the IPCC's projections have surpassed actual GLOBAL temps. The IPCC is wrong. Any honest scientific organization would have readdressed their computer modeling to find out WHY they were so wrong. The man-made CO2 global warming zealots chose to chant that the "science is settled" instead.

I'm sure that many global warming zealots "believe" they are right - They just can't "prove" it.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

yabits - The deniers expect people to believe that massive quantities of oil and coal can be dug up and the carbon spewed back into the atmosphere in a matter of a few decades without having any noticeable impact.

You can "claim" anything you want to but eventually you and the IPCC are going to have to prove your claims.

Why has the IPCC tempurature projections not been proven by the last few decades of historical GLOBAL temps?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

pawatan - Is understanding that climate change and human-influenced climate change are two separate issues really that difficult? Or do you think that climate scientists never even noticed that the climate has changed in the past (and is in fact constantly changing) when humans weren't numerous?

I did notice that "global warming" became "climate change" when GLOBAL warming couldn't be proven.

Climate change happens every season.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

arrestpaul/NeverSubmit

The University of East Anglia investigated a department of the University of East Anglia and found that the University of East Anglia did nothing wrong. That's not my idea of an "independent" inquiry.

If you bothered to look anything up before hitting submit, you'd find that there were 6 independent inquiries: "The six major investigations covered by secondary sources include: House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (UK); Independent Climate Change Review (UK); International Science Assessment Panel (UK); Pennsylvania State University (US); United States Environmental Protection Agency (US); Department of Commerce (US)."

Gee, none of those sounds like "The University of East Anglia investigated a department of the University of East Anglia and found that the University of East Anglia did nothing wrong. "

Climate change happens every season.

Please consult a dictionary for the definition of climate. It's embarrassing that you would post this.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

"Screw the future! I'm cold now!"

1 ( +1 / -0 )

The IPCC made the claim several decades ago that the GLOBAL temp would increase and man-made CO2 was the reason why.

Several decades? It was formed in 1988 so I guess 23 years is 'several decades' right? They gave a number of scenarios given the scientific uncertainties then and the temperature change is well within that range.

The question of GLOBAL warming is easily settled by looking at the GLOBAL tempurature.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt

Any honest scientific organization would have readdressed their computer modeling to find out WHY they were so wrong.

The models are constantly being improved as new research is done, but this isn't the IPCC's responsibility. The IPCC doesn't do any research. Their are no such things as 'IPCC models'.

I'm sure that many global warming zealots "believe" they are right - They just can't "prove" it.

Sorry, but I don't do belief

I did notice that "global warming" became "climate change" when GLOBAL warming couldn't be proven.

The two terms have been used independently for years in the scientific literature to describe two different things.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

pawatan - If you bothered to look anything up before hitting submit, you'd find that there were 6 independent inquiries: "The six major investigations covered by secondary sources include: House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (UK); Independent Climate Change Review (UK); International Science Assessment Panel (UK); Pennsylvania State University (US); United States Environmental Protection Agency (US); Department of Commerce (US)."

Please consult a dictionary for the definition of climate. It's embarrassing that you would post this.

"Climate" is the general weather conditions usually found in a particular place. How embarrassing for you.

The term "global warming" was dropped when it was discovered that the GLOBAL tempurature wasn't warming and the IPCC predictions were wrong. Apparently the science isn't settled.

The investigation into the University of East Anglia was instigated by the contents of UEA emails from several UEA "scientists" that showed the data used to make the "claim" of global warming was destroyed and of the attempts to denigrate any scientist that disagreed with the UEA findings.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

They ignore long-term trends and seize on insignificant year-to-year blips in data to claim all is well.

I love this line about the "insignificant year-to-year blips". Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! Every damn time I turn on the news after a natural disaster (hurricanes, tornadoes, floods) I ALWAYS hear some nutcase claiming it's due to global warming. The problem with global warming activists is they commit the same exact logical fallacies that the deniers do!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Let's at least use the English language properly.

Someone who doubts the hypothesis of man-made global warming is a skeptic, not a denier.

Take that all you global warming claimers.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

The answer is simple. US politicians are bought and paid for by businesses with a financial stake in environmental regulations. The less regulations the more profit. Buy the politician to control the laws.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Some proof to back up my statement. From an LA Times article on Rick Perry campaign contributors.

Along with Simmons — who won permission to build a low-level radioactive waste disposal site in Texas, a project that promises to generate hundreds of millions of dollars — The Times found dozens of examples in which major donors to Perry have benefited during his tenure.

Auto magnate B.J. "Red" McCombs, who contributed nearly $400,000 to the governor, is the primary financial backer for a Formula One racetrack to be built near Austin. The state has pledged $25 million a year in subsidies to support the project.

The Houston-based engineering firm of James Dannenbaum, who gave more than $320,000 to Perry, received multiple transportation contracts from the state. In 2007, Perry appointed Dannenbaum to a coveted post on the University of Texas' board of regents.

A Mississippi-based poultry company run by Joe Sanderson, who gave $165,000 to Perry, received a $500,000 grant from a state business incentive fund championed by Perry to open a chicken hatchery and processing plant in Waco.

With its mix of big-money industries like oil and campaign finance rules that allow unlimited political donations, Texas has a reputation for monied campaigns. And its elected officials have long sought to elevate their political patrons. <>http://articles.latimes.com/2011/aug/16/nation/la-na-0816-perry-donors-20110816

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The problem is that a majority of these corrupt politicians are conservative. So they make global warming part of their conservative rhetoric and the people buy it. The irony is that true conservatives should believe in conserving the planet. Think for yourself, people.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Someone who doubts the hypothesis of man-made global warming is a skeptic, not a denier.

If you look at it objectively you're a skeptic. If you blanket ignore any research supporting global warming and latch onto any unsubstantiated claim against it (see your Mount Pinatubo post) you're a denier.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

yokomoc - If you look at it objectively you're a skeptic. If you blanket ignore any research supporting global warming and latch onto any unsubstantiated claim against it (see your Mount Pinatubo post) you're a denier.

If you cling to a concept that your own projections failed to prove after 30 years of trying, you're the IPCC.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

If you cling to a concept that your own projections failed to prove after 30 years of trying, you're the IPCC.

What do you base this on?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Man-made global warming is just a hypothesis, it has not been objectively proven or observed in a scientific manner. Moreover, it cannot be falsified, since any and all types of weather are blamed on the theory.

If it's hot, it's due to global warming If it's cold, it's due to global warming If it's dry, it's due to global warming If it's raining, it's due to global warming

It's an unfalsifiable theory. Much like religious fanatics blaming everything on the devil.

And let's not forget, the whole theory was popularized by the same nutcase that claimed he invented the internet. I would also be remiss if I failed to mention that Al Gore is now making a fortune on his carbon trading scheme, since he's one of the main owners of the exchange. And of course he flys around the world on the private jet touting this theory.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Man-made global warming is just a hypothesis, it has not been objectively proven or observed in a scientific manner. Moreover, it cannot be falsified, since any and all types of weather are blamed on the theory.

The greenhouse effect of CO2 is a physical fact. That burning fossil fuels has increased the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is a fact observed by carbon isotope analysis. Even well-known 'skeptics' like Lord Monckton or Roy Spencer (who wrote "The Great Climate Swindle") who claim it's a conspiracy, a religion, etc. and disparage the IPCC at any opportunity accept this. Their contention is just that it won't be as bad as is projected, and that other factors like increased cloud cover will negate some or most of the warming.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Roy Spencer (who wrote "The Great Climate Swindle")

*Correction: The Great Global Warming Blunder

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Since we're discussing the global warming theory lets discuss the equally valid and plausible global raining theory.

The global raining theory is as follows.

Observations:

Humans release moisture when breathing FACT! (Skeptics (deniers) who doubt this can easily test it by foggy a mirror) Moisture in the air causes rain FACT

As per global warming logic, since 1 and 2 are both FACTS it follows that human breathing is altering the climate and causing rain. Anybody who doubts this is a denier.

As a solution I propose a breathing tax (we can call it a hydrogen/oxygen tax). Every person's moisture emissions should be calculated and taxed accordingly and everybody should be discouraged from breathing.

But for rich people in the world like Al Gore and the millionaires at the IPCC, they should be allowed to buy breathing credits, so they can continue their lifestyles whilst the rest of us cut back.

Everybody stop breathing now !

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@NeverSubmit

Lol

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yokomoc - What do you base this on?

The actions of the IPCC and all those global warming zelots who believe that "the science is settled".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Even if it is not true using climate change to characterize America as 'allergic to' and 'sick' - needing quarantine perhaps from the rest of the world - does have its benefits!

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites