« British Nanny State Now Stealing Cars | Main | Mayor Gavin Newsom Displays His San Francisco Values »

That photo "proves" glowball worming just as much as this proves a coming ice age.

The battle will not be about climate, but it will be about who's in power. It's world communism all over again.

Questions for Global Warming Fanatics:

Given that by the UN's own admission, full Kyoto implementation would reduce global warming by less than a tenth of degree over a century, while inflicting a cost to the US economy equal to fighting five Iraq Wars simultaneously, every year, for that century, how far should we go to reduce global warming? Is the situation so dire that we should shutdown 50% of all economic activity, regardless of the consequences?

Hmmm, couldn't ask that of a Gaiaist... too many big words.

Oh my god! Stranded polar bears cling to drifting chunks of Arctic ice, reports Drudge.

Polar bears are AQUATIC animals, marvelously adapted to life at sea. They have been found happily swimming scores of miles from the nearest ice flow. Indeed, polar bears have been observed to swim continuously for 100 km. Oh, and they can swim for hours in the frigid waters of the Arctic Ocean. Why, over millions of years, polar bears have become one of the frozen north’s premiere predators. It is the exception rather than the rule for these animals to make landfall. For doubters, have a look at a map of the Arctic Ocean superimposed over the polar bears’ range.

Forgive the omission: Ursus maritimus is the scientific name for the common polar bear. And, yes, that would be “maritimus” as in “Of, relating to, or adjacent to the sea”.

Link

Global warming is many things - a tool of anti-capitalists, validation for the world views of the not very successful not-so-bright, an apocalyptic myth for the new enviro-religion - but is also very much a way for the academic class to assert control over the business class. The learned elite just can't stand it that business people run America, and those who dirty their hands with commerce might be considered more important than they.

akuna matata.

Must not be looking very hard, because there is NO scientific evidence that the earth is warming; the famoust UN protocol that is held up in fact didn'nt even say that. They conveniently left that off of the public statement. The unbiased science does not support global warming whatsoever. The earth's temperature is WELL within normal fluctuation. There is no such thing as the "greenhouse effect." Earth's atmosphere doesn't work like a greenhouse.

For more nuttiness to do with the UN (remember the 'Convention on the Rights of the Child'?), their worldview, and last night's release of the "Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change" ('Humans are directly to blame. Kill Yourself'), see

here

and a follow-up (linking isn't working for this article).

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54082

I haven't been able to determine what specific religious convictions are objectionable.

If the Gaiaists are so convinced that science is on their side, why are they so hell-bent on shutting down anyone who wants to research the contrary position?

I am striving to never allow thw words Glo*** War**** to pass my lips again...or to be typed or written by my hand. From here on out, it's the "War on Weather", for me.

What I just don't understand is why there is so much resistance to the theories on climate change.


Carbon has gone through the roof - that's undeniable. Why the vociferous opposition to the notion that we might be having an effect? Why insist it can't be true? I don't understand the motivation. This is not an academic issue; if we're wrong, and we're having this effect - as the scientific community believes - then it's going to be cataclysmic. What's the motivation to simply dismiss this evidence, poke holes in it, and rationalize our continuing behaviour?



Laziness, I guess! Oh well, I'm going to turn up the heat, and pretend that polar bears aren't endangered too. It's the easy way out.

Ian, the polar bears aren't endangered. Studies that say they are are based on a single population in a single area. Evey other population around the arctic is growing.

For the record, the fact that CO2 levels have risen recently says nothing. Ice-core records have demonstrated that CO2 levels tend to follow temperature rather than lead it, and it's been speculated that they might be a side-effect of increasing temperatures releasing large amounts of methane, which naturally decays in to CO2 over a relatively short period.

Finally, taking the entire content of the atmosphere in to account, CO2 has a negligible effect due to it making up only a tiny percentage of the total. The absorption bands of CO2 are roughly matched by those of water vapour, and since there's so much water vapour in the air already, adding CO2 would actually make no difference because of something called the saturation effect. SImply put, the water vapour is already absorbing nearly all the infra-red energy at those important bands. CO2 can only absorb so much before you hit 100% absorption - saturation - and after that it makes no difference how much you add.

That's assuming it makes any substantial difference in the first place which, given the percentages involved, is highly doubtful, which is why the climate models have to introduce "forcings" and positive feedbacks in order to compensate. Put a positive feedback in to a computer program and you can prove anything.

What's the motivation to simply dismiss this evidence, poke holes in it, and rationalize our continuing behaviour?

First, questioning evidence and poking holes in theories is part of what science is. People who want to shut down all debate in favor of a single conclusion are not practicing science.

Second, let me repeat, since no significant carbon reductions can be achieved without severe reductions in economic activity... basically, putting the entire world at third-world subsistence levels of quality of life ... would you support forcing everyone except a few elites into a third world standard of living?