« Postcards from Eurabia | Main | Jay Grodner Crawls Away »

Man! That was the darndest thing I ever seen!
(I'm selling my GE stock, and, shorting another 2000 shares.)

I am so glad you posted something about that commercial. It's been driving me nuts for a while now. Just last night I was telling my wife why the commercial doesn't make any sense.

Okay, I'll take Michell's advice......I WANT TO CHOP DOWN EVERY SINGLE TREE ON PLANET EARTH BECAUSE THEY REQUIRE CO2.

HOW'S THAT FR MOONBATTERY? EVEN ALL CAPS.

OT: Teh Ghey Agenda, Explained.

"most of us used to know by high school that plants absorb CO2 and emit oxygen ; we do the same in reverse. "

That is by day, by night it is the contrary for the plants( they emits co2 and absorb oxygen), but not for us, we need always oxygen and we emit always co2. There is a balance in the nature, if we are emitting more co2 to the nature, that balance is broken, then we have more co2 than oxygen, and that is increasing year by year.
That tree is right hugging the house.

"the authorities are at a loss to explain why trees planted in New York City grow twice as fast as those planted in the country""Another study has found that increased CO2 helps trees grow in dry grasslands."

A quick growing is not synonimous of a good growing. The trees have abilities that we have not. If you have a baby inhaling the air of a city, and a baby inhaling the air in the country, which baby will have a lungs with better health? All of us know the answer.

The global warming is a fact, maybe we do not know all about that and we have to learn how much exactly the warming will incide in our societies. We have the technology to do predictions about that and the most of the predictions seem not promise good news. We should not break a balance that can affect us in a very harmful way. At least we should be careful about this.

According to carlos:

"The global warming is a fact..."

Really?

carlos, get with the program!

Global warming, OUT!

Climate change, IN!

carlos:

After 52 years I have noticed it has gotten a little warmer overall. What I qustion is the arrogance of the hairless chimp thinking that he is the cause of it.

"The global warming is a fact, maybe we do not know all about that and we have to learn how much exactly the warming will incide in our societies. We have the technology to do predictions about that and the most of the predictions seem not promise good news. We should not break a balance that can affect us in a very harmful way. At least we should be careful about this."

There's a great analogy illustrating how stupid the CO2-scare-mongering propaganda is. From http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=034028d4-8a4a-4103-8012-6445ac5ba715:

Think of the atmosphere as 100 cases of 24 one-litre bottles of water -- 2,400 litres in all.

According to the global warming theory, rising levels of human-produced carbon dioxide are trapping more of the sun's reflected heat in the atmosphere and dangerously warming the planet.

But 99 of our cases would be nitrogen (78%) and oxygen (21%), neither of which are greenhouse gases. Only one case -- just 24 bottles out of 2,400 -- would contain greenhouse gases.

Of the bottles in the greenhouse gas case, 23 would be water vapour.

Water vapour is the most abundant greenhouse gas, yet scientists will admit they understand very little about its impact on global warming. (It may actually help cool the planet: As the earth heats up, water vapour may form into more clouds and reflect solar radiation before it reaches the surface. Maybe. We don't know.)

The very last bottle in that very last case would be carbon dioxide, one bottle out of 2,400.

Carbon dioxide makes up just 0.04% of the entire atmosphere, and most of that -- at least 95% -- is naturally occurring (decaying plants, forest fires, volcanoes, releases from the oceans).

At most, 5% of the carbon dioxide in the air comes from human sources such as power plants, cars, oilsands, etc.

So in our single bottle of carbon dioxide, just 50 ml is man-made carbon dioxide. Out of our model atmosphere of 2,400 litres of water, just about a shot glassful is carbon dioxide put their by humans.

The moonbat diet: Bugs and Roadkill.

If a tree fell in a forest, and crushed hashfanatic in his tent. Would anybody give a shit?

UCA, are you confuding Carlos with hasfanatic? Not that I blame you, cover the name and they all sound alike.

When GE CEO jeffrey immelt took over after Jack Welch stepped down is when GE started its greenwashing propaganda campaign (reflecting the socialistic climate change views of jeffrey immelt).
They seem to be the British Petroleum (another infamous greenwasher) of the United States.

I do understand what all of you say, but these are extracts of official documentation from United Nations. I think this is more reliable than another sources. The most of the world agree with these conclusions, Europe does and the most of the scientific community in USA too.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf

"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level (Figure SPM.1). {1.1}

Global GHG emissions due to human activities have grown since pre-industrial times, with an increase of 70% between 1970 and 2004 (Figure SPM.3).5 {2.1}

Most of the observed increase in globally-averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations.7 It is likely there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent (except Antarctica) (Figure
SPM.4). {2.4}

Spatial agreement between regions of significant warming across the globe and locations of significant observed changes in many systems consistent with warming is very unlikely to be due solely to natural variability

Altered frequencies and intensities of extreme weather, together with sea level rise, are expected to have mostly adverse effects on natural and human systems."

but these are extracts of official documentation from United Nations.

Oh, well since you put it THAT way...

"The most of the world agree with these conclusions, Europe does and the most of the scientific community in USA too."

First, if the science is so compelling, why this appeal to authority? Second, it should not matter one whit what "the scientific community" thinks unless a particular scientist's field of expertise is climatolgy and there is reproducible experimental data to back up the hypothesis.

So far, all I've seen in support of global warming is computer model data and anecdotal evidence based on a paltry 200-odd years of recorded temperature measurements of a complex system supposedly 4.5 billion years old. Not exactly wowing me over here.

The IPCC assesment has been revised downward from the 1st to 4th assesment. For example the predicted sea level rise in the 3rd assesment was 3ft. The 4th assesment puts predicted sea level rise at about 13in. Ditto for predicted temperture increases. By my calculations, after two more assesments, the planet will be "normal", whatever that means.

I ask the same questions of carlos and others of AGW group:

What is the "normal" temperature of the planet? More importantly, who gets to decide what is normal? The United Nations? Al Gore? How do we know the planet is not returning to a "normal" temperature?

Earth climate is an amazingly complex system which is poorly understood by scientists (if you believe otherwise you are a fool)If we do indeed have the power to change the climate (I do not believe we do) how do we know we are changing it for the better? If we have that power to change the climate we have an equal chance of messing it up more.

How can we even think we have control over climate by manipulating a trace gas? This is foolishness.

Finally, why do people insist on using the rules of equilibrium with a planet that is not at equilibrium...never has...never will.

Well... as lead 2007 UN IPCC report author Stephen Schneider said:

"To capture the public imagination we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements, and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective and being honest".

Huh. Well... if the UN said it, it HAS to be true. You know... the same UN that has NEVER failed us in the past.

At a psychic convention, full of those who want to believe, the speaker calls out a member of the audience and says "You! I can feel your ora, I see an authoritative male figure in your past, with a job! Something has happened recently." And the idiot replies, "Yes! I can't believe you knew that! I had a father who recently moved." And the rest of the audience, full of idiots, is in awe of the speaker's ability to know the unknowable. Next on stage, a few hack scientists from the physic field with something to gain, have built their own psychic models, which they use to convince the audience that the speaker truly is, psychic.

It reminds me of that scene in Money Python's 'Life of Brian' where prophets who were talking out of their asses were a dime a dozen.

Al Gore (who's existence is a spec of time compared to the age of the earth's weather patterns and behaviors) says the sea levels will rise by 20 feet and told his minions that 4 major hurricanes in Florida and Katrina were proof of it. Just like the psychic proved himself/herself to the audience by knowing the 'specifics' of the gullible audience member's father. Then further convinces them that he could change the earth's weather to be more what they desire it to be by raising their taxes (along with the taxes of the less gullible) and using the money for wind farms and such. It's a good thing for Al Gore that an army of lemming idiots who vote can replace the expectation that he provide objective evidence concerning his Global Warming wet dream of destruction. Never underestimate the power of trendiness.

baldeagle390,

"The IPCC assesment has been revised downward from the 1st to 4th assesment"

It is still the same average.

The 3rd assessment says,

"Accompanying this temperature increase will be increases in some types of extreme weather and a projected sea level rise of 9 cm to 88 cm, excluding "uncertainty relating to ice dynamical changes in the West Antarctic ice sheet""

The 4th assessment says,

"Based on multiple models that all exclude ice sheet flow due to a lack of basis in published literature,[8] it is estimated that sea level rise will be:
in a low scenario[6] 18 to 38 cm (7 to 15 inches)
in a high scenario[7] 26 to 59 cm (10 to 23 inches)"

9-88cms to 18-59cms, the average of 40cms in the 3rd assessment is still 40cms in the 4th assessment (round 15 inches). The lesser level in the 3rd assessment have increased and the upper level in the 4th assessement have decreased.

Strat,

The panel is formed by an varied group of experts, not only in climatology, but in physics, paleogeology, biology,...and there is an expert in methodology that verify the steps previously to release the conclusions.

Crush, Monster,

UN is the only organization that is known in all the world, what another organization we can propose to be reliable about the study of a global subject?

"The panel is formed by an varied group of experts, not only in climatology, but in physics, paleogeology, biology,...and there is an expert in methodology that verify the steps previously to release the conclusions."

Not to be snarky, but verification via "an expert in methodology" is no substitute for reproducible experimental validation. It's called the scientific method -- look into it.

Holding a degree in biology, physics, or even climatology does not impart some special power to discern the workings of the climate, absent the actual science to back up the theory.

The problem with what "everybody knows", CARLOS, is that EVERYBODY DOES NOT BELIEVE it. There is a reason for that and it involves a LACK of proof, CARLOS. Please tell us why they keep changing their predictions, CARLOS. Tell us why they first said that there will be MORE hurricanes, then said there will be FEWER hurricanes. Tell us why they said that it's getting HOTTER "because of 'global warming'", then said that it's getting COLDER "because of 'global warming'". Tell us HOW giving money to "carbon off-set" company owned by AL GORE will keep us from a "wold-wide drought". Don't you see what a SCAM it is? And don't say that President Bush has bought into it, it doesn't make one damn bit of diffrence WHO is stupid enough to fall for it!
How about when they abandoned the war against CO2 when they learned that WATER VAPOR is a more abundant "greenhouse gas", then went back to argueing against CO2 when they realised that campaigning against WATER would make them look (more) insane?