Take our user survey and make your voice heard.
world

US inaction on climate troubles global talks

61 Comments

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

© Copyright 2010 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

61 Comments
Login to comment

Good news. Man made Global Warming is baloney. Im not paying any of my hard-earned dosh towards "Green Taxes," "Carbon offsetting" or any of the other new, meaningless vocabulary you care to use. The entire hypothesis of Anthropogenic Global Warming is based on flawed science, dating back only a couple of hundred years and ignoring the Middle Ages Little Ice Age and also the Medieval Warm Period. There has been a lot of negative publicity in recent times about so-called "Man Made Global Warming," and rightly so. More and more people are not "skeptical" about this flawed theory, but are rather "unbelievers" in what has rapidly been becoming a new religion. I am glad the US Senate have thrown this bunkum out. There are far more important issues facing the world today, like how to survive this Great Depression were are in.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@realist - well said. Infact, Al gore also realized it and shifted his focus from Global Warming to Groping Women.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The real issue here is inaction by China and the country's refusal to agree to cuts in greenhouse gas emissions reasonably close to what the US has offered. I think US politicians are sending a clear signal here ==> No way the US agrees to make such cuts while "freinemies" like China benefit and grow stronger at the expense of the American people.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I have no doubt that realist has extremely little understanding of science in general, much less climate science. He (?) just throws around the same, tired old arguments regurgitated by flunky weathermen, so thoroughly shot down by true scientists. His ilk are always good for a few laughs, though.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'm sure in the Middle Ages the pollution from industry and vehicles was a significant contributor like it is today. (rolls eyes)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

He (?) just throws around the same, tired old arguments regurgitated by flunky weathermen, so thoroughly shot down by true scientists.

So because his scientists disagree with your scientists that invalidates their opinion? That is dangerous thinking. It's already known that the sun is currently reaching a peak in solar activity in addition to other completely natural processes. A typical human reaction to any problem is to assume that it couldn't have occurred without our influence when in reality this is probably nothing more than a natural warming trend.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I still think more research is needed. I believe the earth is warming, but I don't think we know for sure if any of the proposed solutions will have any impact. I think we owe it to ourselves to make sure the science behind the solutions is sound before we put our economies at risk.

And the process is too political now. Countries are manipulating the data and cuts to give them an advantage. The burdens aren't equal and as long as that's the case the finger-pointing has to stop. You can't expect economies built on coal before we knew the dangers to suddenly replace their entire power supply system at the behest of countries that didn't use coal because they never had any to begin with. You also have issues with geography requiring more or less power consumption based on heating and cooling, overall distances between borders that require some countries to use airplanes while others can get away with trains, etc.

And the reference points should be different for every country. It's not fair that Russia gets to conveniently choose a point right before their economy collapsed and contracted naturally without them having to take any steps to protect the environment. They essentially cut their emmissions the most out of any country without lifting a finger protecting the environment. It's the same with Europe choosing a time that included the belching Eastern Block countries that were changed to cleaner evergy beause it simply made economic sense to do so. Ignoring China and India can easily erase any gains that we all make at which point it just becomes an economic competition issue. Sometimes it's an economic windfall with no environmental consideration when a country traps natural gas to sell it then claims a carbon credit for it when they'd be doing it with or without the credit. The accidental environmentalist has to go away.

I think everyone is rushing to do something and they're blackmailing others who don't do the same when they know the burden isn't the same and they can't even prove it will make a difference.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So because his scientists disagree with your scientists that invalidates their opinion?

Yes, given that his scientists represent a tiny, tiny, tiny percentage and are bankrolled by big oil, et al.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Question, I riddle you this... Where did you get your data that sunspots are at a high?

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2009/01apr_deepsolarminimum/ would suggest the opposite.

World's highest average temperatures this year, while sunspot activity is low. When the sunspot cycle turns, and we haven't reduced any CO2, we'll be cooked.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Good grief, if the liberal Democrat-controlled Senate won't pass a climate bill, it'll never get passed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Just goes to show how really "liberal" it is.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Question writes:

A typical human reaction to any problem is to assume that it couldn't have occurred without our influence when in reality this is probably nothing more than a natural warming trend.

The natural process that embedded carbon dioxide into hydrocarbon fuels like oil and coal took millions of years to accomplish. It is all too typical human stupidity that assumes that man can put a large percentage of that carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere in just a few decades without it causing any undesireable climatic effects.

Today's doubters of climate science sound a lot like the doctors the tobacco companies hired back in the 50's and 60's to debunk anyone who claimed that smoking was harmful to human health. It's the same logic warmed over.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib - I still think more research is needed. I believe the earth is warming, but I don't think we know for sure if any of the proposed solutions will have any impact. I think we owe it to ourselves to make sure the science behind the solutions is sound before we put our economies at risk.

The "global" tempurature has NOT risen beyond the levels reached in 1998. The "global" temp has actually dropped since then.

The results are in, the global warming/climate change alarmist can NOT prove their claims that man-made CO2 is responsible for "global" tempurature increases.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

arrestpaul,

I've done it here on JT more than once. I was a weather forecaster. You really only need that level of education to realize that man is indeed, making the planet warmer.

Do a little bit more research than a wiki link to the term "albedo" then think of the urbanization of the planet and all will come together for you.

It's not a case of difficult science. It's a case of money being made on both sides by promoting their agenda.

All agendas aside, man is making the planet warmer. Period.

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Taka313 - I was a weather forecaster. You really only need that level of education to realize that man is indeed, making the planet warmer.

All agendas aside, man is making the planet warmer. Period.

Then you should have no problem pointing to actual evidence that the "global" tempurature has risen over the last decade. That would be something that the UN, IPCC and the Copenhagen climate summit can NOT do.

This man-made CO2 "global" warming issue has been debated for decades. Why should the U.S. Senate pass any laws based on unproven speculation? Either there is documentation showing an increase/decrease in tempurature directly correlating to an increase/decrease in man-made CO2

or there isn't.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

arrestpaul,

O.K. Here it is. When the suns rays hit the earth, they are either reflected, refracted or absorbed. The more of the longwave radiation absorbed by earth, the hotter it gets.

Tree tops work great for refracting and reflecting, as do lighter colors and angular things. Dark flat areas work best for absorption of longwave radiation.

Parking lots and highways are great absorbers and retainers of heat.

What we are seeing worldwide is a massive urbanization to handle our increasing population. The long and short of it is this, we are filling the world up with more absorbant areas and we are losing our refracters and reflecters.

Hence, the world is heating.

Now before you go all screen wipe on me about global temps. Your scientists and my scientists can fight it out over what the global temps are actually doing. Mine call this year the hottest of the hottest decade on record. Yours say the earth is cooling.

So...let's discount both and get back to something we both know is actually occurring and that is, massive urbanization is causing the earth to have a greater albedo and absorb more heat.

You can't argue that with me unless you think there are more forests now than there were 100 years ago and if you believe that, then I have really wasted my time here.

So...there it is. Plain, simple, easy.

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

so call for sanctions against the USA. Their economy is in tatters anyway, it's hardly going to matter. Then when they are forced to pay taxes, pay down their debts, and clean up after themselves, they'll be better off for the experience. Like any detoxed junkie. Help USA become clean and sober.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

that goes for Canada too.

all developing countries have to do is stop exporting to countries who do not have acceptable GHG emission levels. That forces their own changes and forces "developed" countries to grow up.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Thank you, Mr. Bush, for not signing the Kyoto Accord. You remain the best U.S. president of the 21st century.

RR

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Taka313 - Hence, the world is heating.

Now before you go all screen wipe on me about global temps. Your scientists and my scientists can fight it out over what the global temps are actually doing.

Hahahaha. This debate and the resulting speculation didn't begin yesterday. It's been going on for decades. Either the GLOBAL tempurature has been increasing or it isn't. The IPCC and the man-made CO2 zealots can't produce any record that GLOBAL temps have increased since 1998.

You can chose to ignore "actual" GLOBAL temps and instead talk about massive urbanization. You can chose to discard all of the data and hope that the discussion will start over from the very beginning when guessing and fear mongering held sway.

The bottom line is that NO nation should be passing economic laws based on the "can't-be-proven, man-made CO2 is causing GLOBAL tempurature increases" horse poop.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

more reason to just sanction the USA. Can't play well with others, can't evolve

0 ( +0 / -0 )

arrestpaul,

I ignored everything that is debatable and focused on what is not. If you think my reasoning is wrong, prove it.

I'll grab the popcorn and a beer because this is going to be a good show.

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I was a weather forecaster.

Trust this man. He was a weather forecaster.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

more reason to just sanction the USA. Can't play well with others, can't evolve

Sanction China, India, Russia & Brazil while you are at it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yes, Weather Forecasters always get it right, dont they? Bottom line is that "man made global warming" is indeed horsepoop. There is more evidence for global cooling, and the Climategate Scientists in England recently admitted as much, as they tried to cover up and hide other data. Al Gore`s error -filled movie made him a lot of money, and he spent over $4 million on a waterfront condominium in San Francisco, one of the cities he said would disappear when sea levels rose higher because of his "global warming" theology. Talk about hypocrisy!

The BBC has also been one of the main propagators of the new religion. For example, they filmed what they called "melting icecaps" in the Artic, during July - high summer up there, when you would expect a bit of melting ice! The whole thing is one giant swindle, in order to propagate world socialism and higher taxes.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I have no problem with propagandists spewing nonsense if they are getting paid for it - hey everybody has a price. I have a problem with people who do it for free. You guys should all be taken to Moscow and tied to tree for a day.

The fact is that the argument that man-mad global warming is NOT happening is a logically unprovable hypothesis. It can not be tested. You can shout "it is all fake", "the temperature is really going down", "it is happening naturally because of sunspots!!!" etc. etc. all you want , but I don't care and I am not listening. Everybody gets all crazy about how man-made global warming has not been proven, but then hypocritically don't care that the opposite hasn't been (and can't be) either. If you don't know enough about science to know that why you can't prove your position, or don't care enough, you ain't worth listening to.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Man made Global Warming is baloney.

The deniers spew at least as much Baloney as those who support the theory.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yes, given that his scientists represent a tiny, tiny, tiny percentage and are bankrolled by big oil, et al.

If big oil was putting in serious funds than it would be far from a tiny percentage. As it stands it should still be a topic of serious science and debate, not outlandish reactions that could cost manufacturing billions in money they don't have. What research has been done has been largely self affirmative in nature or has been purposely skewed to produce exaggerated results. Right now I’m skeptical.

It is all too typical human stupidity that assumes that man can put a large percentage of that carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere in just a few decades without it causing any undesireable climatic effects.

If it's true than that's the price of progress and I wouldn't have it any other way. If a report came out that genuinely convinced me that man was the main cause of the current warming trend I still probably wouldn't change a thing. And if the world really is burning and all the ice caps are going to melt, then let them. Heck, maybe someday I'll be able to get some prime beachfront property in Tennessee.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It would be the same whether it be global warming or UFOs NAY sayers would not accept it even if it landed in their own back yard. As for USA should not do anything until other nations(PRC) do the same and/or, why should the US tax payers endure the pain while other nations(PRC) do nothing is a broken arguement. All the nations which accepted the Kyoto Protocol had accepted the burden even though they emit significantly less than the USA. USA emits roughly one quarter of the total global carbon emission and have yet accepted any burden at the costs of other nation that already have.

Grow up already.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

TheQuestion said: If big oil was putting in serious funds than it would be far from a tiny percentage.

But they don't need to lose more money to convince a majority, and trying would make it obvious. All they need do is have enough to throw the debate into circles. Its cost effective and least obvioius.

Probably my favorite line is the worry about the economy. We are just talking about a major calamity for the human race, and people want to make sure the money is safe? Look, I am not totally sold on man-made global warming myself, but the scenario does represent economic opportunities. And the U.S. just plain pollutes too much anyway, and most of it comes from industry. Anyway, there is no way I am going to prioritize money over reducing pollution and risking irreversible calamity in the future. Its not all about money, and the people who think first about the economy need to go live a poor country and get their heads screwed on straight regardless of if there is any truth in global warming.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Taka313 - I ignored everything that is debatable and focused on what is not. If you think my reasoning is wrong, prove it.

I'll grab the popcorn and a beer because this is going to be a good show.

Any tests or research of GLOBAL warming must be based on one thing - the actual rise and fall of the actual GLOBAL tempurature. It's that simple. All of the scientific testing, think tank speculations, press reports, justifications and computer modeling still requires a knowledge of what is the historical GLOBAL temp and is it going up or down.

If there is no increase in the GLOBAL temp then there is no GLOBAL warming.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

GJDailleult - but I don't care and I am not listening.

I guess that settles the issue as far as you're concerned but what should the U.S. Senate do?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There is way too much craziness in terms of weather these days that can't simply be explained by the "el nino." Something is seriously out of whack with this planet.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The IPCC and the man-made CO2 zealots can't produce any record that GLOBAL temps have increased since 1998.

May 2010. The hottest month in the (so far) hottest year at the end hottest decade on record. 1998 was a spike year, just one look at the temperature charts can tell you that, if you have any kind of analytical brain. It's a false and misleading baseline to work from. Your baseline should be an average over some set period, not the highest datapoint out of that set.

The trend is upwards. End of.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@arrestpaul

Give it a break, your reasoning of global temperature measurement as the only empirical sign is flawed simply because Earth is not made from a single material and water's properties of accumulating heat energy offsets temperature measurements BUT the fact that global ice caps have been thawing out at an alarming rate is enough to state that there is excessive heat energy within the atmosphere.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

By the way, anyone who thinks a large group of mainly scientists are either willing or able to pull off a massive global conspiracy is a fool and clearly never spent time in a science lab.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

May 2010. The hottest month

Correction: meant to type the hottest May on record

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Some raw data, if you like that sort of thing:

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

According to the NASA data, both 2005 and 2007 were hotter than 1998 and 2009 was about equal. This year is .06C higher on average thus far and the March-May period is the hottest on record by a full 0.09C.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"The United States rejected Kyoto, partly because it made no demands on rapidly developing countries like China, which now produces more much heat-trapping gases than any other country."

Which the Americans accurately predicted. They also stated that the vast majority of other nations would never be able to live up to their Kyoto Protocol obligations... like Japan, Canada, etc etc etc ! This constant finger pointing at the Americans went out of vogue years ago... doesn't JT have access to more pertinent and accurate info like how so many American cities managed to meet Kyoto protocol targets independently and without government backing ?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

like how so many American cities managed to meet Kyoto protocol targets independently and without government backing ?

So why the oppostition to Kyoto then?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"inaction on climate"

Whatever action Mother Nature decides to take on climate is not going to be changed by man. All man can do is deal with it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge said: Whatever action Mother Nature decides to take on climate is not going to be changed by man.

Not even six billion of them? It sure did not take very many to do all that damage in the Gulf of Mexico! Why so skeptical on the teamwork of six billion?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

lol Sarge,

So humans can:

Completely transform the land surface of the earth, removing forests which are known to influence temperature and weather patterns and replacing them with heat-absorbing concrete.

Destroy or irreversibly alter entire ecosystems

Cause countless numbers of extinctions, and yet create our own organisms through GM 'forced evolution'

Go into space

Alter the chemical makeup of our atmosphere

Open a hole in the Ozone Layer, and then change our habits so it can then repair itself.

BUT

We can't in any way affect climate or do anything to alter it, or change our habits to stop whatever influence we do have because we're just a few little insignificant mammals. Right? Just so we're clear.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

MistWizard: Anyway, there is no way I am going to prioritize money over reducing pollution and risking irreversible calamity in the future.

Some of us want to make sure the solutions have a reasonable chance of success before putting the economy at risk. That doesn't seem like an unreasonable request. As it stands now no one can say that if every country followed Kyoto it would make any change to global warming at all. It worries me that the issue has become so knee-jerk that people will agree to anything just so they don't look like they are against protecting the enviroment.

And let's be real. No country, at the end of the day, is actually going to cause any real and lasting harm to their economy because of global warming. That means the most likely solution will have to come through technology.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No country, at the end of the day, is actually going to cause any real and lasting harm to their economy because of global warming.

Sadly you're probably right. More likely the damage to the economy will come from drought, famine, lack of resources, floods, freak weather events, disease and - inevitably - war.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wiz: "the teamwork of six billion"

You think all 6 billion people on the Earth are going to work together as a team? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

lol yokomoc, we can't even accurately predict next week's weather, much less make it rain, stop the rain, or make it warmer or cooler. One summer is relatively cool, the next is blazing hot. One winter is relatively warm, the next is freezing cold. It's what Mother Nature wants. It's what Mother Nature gets.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

mistwizard:

The Kyoto Protocol was based on negatives, government mandates, unnecessary interference in global markets. The Prez at the time, like all US Prez's do- even the current one, that creativity and engineering in the business sector will be more effective that punishments and threats. It is the sole reason that Bush gave Koizumi a Segway- as a demonstration of what American ingenuity can create. We now see a virtual plethora of new "green" technologies flooding the markets. Vastly improved and affordable solar panels, hybrid and electric autos, whole factories that run on wind and geothermal powers. The Americans didn't sign Kyoto Protocol for good reasons and they have benefited enormously. Now back to my original question- what happened to the sponsor of this mess- Japan ? And what about all those other nations that failed, miserably, to live up to their obligations like Canada ? Shouldn't we be spending more time chastising these nations then replaying the same ol- "it must be America's fault" nonsense !

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The only thing worse the inaction on climate change, is action on climate change. Particularly when its based on unproven scientific hypothesis.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

wow. American education in action. If Americans hate the planet so much, then stop buying American.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The world is waiting for American leadership that will never arrive. Time for the rest of the world to stand up for once in a positive direction

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"The world is waiting for American leadership that will never arrive. Time for the rest of the world to stand up for once in a positive direction."

They tried that once- it was called the Kyoto Protocol- and it failed miserably !

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yokomoc - According to the NASA data, both 2005 and 2007 were hotter than 1998 and 2009 was about equal. This year is .06C higher on average thus far and the March-May period is the hottest on record by a full 0.09C.

3 out of the 4 most popular global temperature charts, HadCRUT, RSS, UAH disagree with global-warming activist Jim Hansen’s NASA GISS. There are concerns about temp data missing from the NASA GISS and NASA's temp stations were poorly located. Some in parking lots, some too close to buildings, some were just plain dirty and even contained insect nests. HadCRUT, RSS, UAH show 1998 to be the hottest GLOBAL tempurature.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SamuraiBlue - Give it a break, your reasoning of global temperature measurement as the only empirical sign is flawed simply because Earth is not made from a single material and water's properties of accumulating heat energy offsets temperature measurements BUT the fact that global ice caps have been thawing out at an alarming rate is enough to state that there is excessive heat energy within the atmosphere.

Hahahaha, I said that GLOBAL warming must be is "based on" the GLOBAL tempurature. You're the one who said, "as the only empirical sign".

Melting at one ice cap, ice acculation at the other, drought in North America, flooding in Europe, drought and flooding in South America, recently discover (2008) evidence of volcanic activity beneath the Arctic circle are all isolated incidents and weather patterns. It's the combined tempuratures of the planet Earth that creates what is known as the GLOBAL tempurature.

The "claim" is that the GLOBAL temp is increasing and it's caused by man-made CO2. The U.S. Senate no longer believes what the MMCO2GW zealots are "speculating".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There is no such thing as global warming, just a scam. I guess some places were not getting warm enough so they changed it to climate change. Sorry, not gonna buy it. Lets throw this at the bottom of American prioroties.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib,

That means the most likely solution will have to come through technology.

That does worry me.

I've always got by during my last few decades of life. A job has always come, the rent has always been paid, things seem to have slotted in to place. I guess as I head towards my retirement, based on "luck" having got me through so far, I can forget about needing a pension and healthcare and instead rely on winning the lottery. Winning the lottery will save me.

That is in effect what the "technology will save us" crowd are saying. Health technology never did arrive to save my uncle from lung cancer, much to his dismay. I have serious doubts it will come to save us from AGW, and the damage we do to the world in the meantime is likely to be many times more expensive than adopting a low carbon lifestyle now.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Psyops, it has always been called climate change. And I think you might find the argument has moved on from "is it happening or not" to "are we causing it or not".

Then again, it could all be a scam...like smoking causing cancer.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Tevita - it has always been called climate change. And I think you might find the argument has moved on from "is it happening or not" to "are we causing it or not".

No, the IPCC claim that "man-made CO2" was responsible for "GLOBAL warming" began over 2 decades ago. The U.S. Senate simply doesn't believe the zealotry's unproven speculations.

Man-made CO2 GLOBAL warming became "climate change" after it became appearent that the GLOBAL tempurature has plateaued since 1998. "Climate change" was an equally poor choice because everyone knows that "climate change" happens every spring, summer, fall and winter. There's nothing scary about that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

arrestpaul:

3 out of the 4 most popular global temperature charts, HadCRUT, RSS, UAH disagree with global-warming activist Jim Hansen’s NASA GISS. There are concerns about temp data missing from the NASA GISS and NASA's temp stations were poorly located. Some in parking lots, some too close to buildings, some were just plain dirty and even contained insect nests. HadCRUT, RSS, UAH show 1998 to be the hottest GLOBAL tempurature.

(Sigh) and two thing are completely apparent no matter which dataset you look at.

1998 was a SPIKE YEAR. You do understand what that means right?

The 2000's were clearly warmer than the 90s, which were warmer than the 80s, which were etc...

Why are you trying to use scientific arguments on this when you're not thinking at all scientifically? Stick to your soundbites, like this:

The U.S. Senate no longer believes what the MMCO2GW zealots are "speculating".

LOOOOOOOOL. There's your definitive proof people. I don't even think this statement is accurate but still. Ahahaahaha.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yokomoc - Why are you trying to use scientific arguments on this when you're not thinking at all scientifically? Stick to your soundbites, like this:

-The U.S. Senate no longer believes what the MMCO2GW zealots are "speculating".

There's your definitive proof people. I don't even think this statement is accurate but still.

The U.S. Senate vote is only indicative of the fact that the man-made, global-warming zealots have NOT proved that the 3-4% of the global CO2 that is man-made is causing the GLOBAL tempurature to climb. It can't even be proved that increased CO2 levels are directly related to increased GLOBAL tempurature.

Man-made CO2 increased from 1945 to 1973 and the GLOBAL temp decreased to a point where some scientists even predicted that we were facing another Ice Age.

It's been 12 years since the GLOBAL temp peaked in 1998. If the man-made CO2 zealots/scientists truly understood the interaction between CO2 levels and GLOBAL temp, they should have been able to easily explain why their dire predictions have failed to meet expectations.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What Senate vote are you talking about exactly? Not that actions by politicians are important to the argument but please at least explain what you're talking about?

Man-made CO2 increased from 1945 to 1973 and the GLOBAL temp decreased to a point where some scientists even predicted that we were facing another Ice Age.

Which has since been shown to have a strong correlation with the post-war increase in sunlight reflecting aeroslos in the atmosphere. Once these were regulated in the 80s to stop the destruction of the ozone layer and for general health reasons the temperature increases picked up again - and if you care to (just once) actually look at the data you quote you'll see we're essentially back on track with the pre-war trend.

It's been 12 years since the GLOBAL temp peaked in 1998. If the man-made CO2 zealots/scientists truly understood the interaction between CO2 levels and GLOBAL temp, they should have been able to easily explain why their dire predictions have failed to meet expectations.

Do I have to run the spike lesson by you again? 1998 was an anomaly - huge increase in a single year (some attribute it to El Nino) which came sharply back down the following year. If you look back through temperature records you'll see these spike years (often negative) occurred regularly in the past 100 years. How much relevance do they have with general temperature trends? Nada. Are they useful as any kind of base to compare against? Absolutely not.

By the way, with your misrepresentation of data and blindness to any reasonable arguments that go against yours, you've got some gall calling anyne else a zealot.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yokomoc - What Senate vote are you talking about exactly? Not that actions by politicians are important to the argument but please at least explain what you're talking about?

A bill is subjected to many, many, many votes before it comes to a floor vote before the entire U.S. Senate. There are votes in Committee, there are votes in subcommittees, there are votes on how a bill should be voted on. There are even unofficial votes to see if a bill has enough votes for passage in the Senate.

The Senate Democrat's decision to withdraw the bill to cap U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide was based on the preliminary vote that there would not be enough floor votes available to pass the bill. So it's back to Committee to await a later vote to see if the bill should be brought back to the floor for more votes on how many Yay votes will be required for clouture and finally passage. Plus more votes for passage of each proposed ammendment to the bill.

Which has since been shown to have a strong correlation with the post-war increase in sunlight reflecting aeroslos in the atmosphere. Once these were regulated in the 80s to stop the destruction of the ozone layer and for general health reasons the temperature increases picked up again - and if you care to (just once) actually look at the data you quote you'll see we're essentially back on track with the pre-war trend.

WHAT? Are you claiming that there are OTHER influences on the planets GLOBAL tempurature besides CO2? To listen to the man-made, GLOBAL warming zealots you might come to the conclusion that man-made CO2 levels had a "direct" effect on the planets tempurature levels.

By "direct" effect I mean, if CO2 levels went up then the GLOBAL temp must go up also. If CO2 levels drop then the GLOBAL temp must have dropped also. Any other finding proves that there is NO direct link between CO2 levels, especially the 3-4% of CO2 that is man-made, and the GLOBAL tempurature.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

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