Hackers Expose Global Warming Fraud

[HoustonEagle]

I nearly fell over this morning when I saw the Obama Network on NBC report on the Cophenhagan Summit and actually mentioned EmailGate. Of course, they gave the typical excuses being spread around by the left meant to diminish it all, but still surprising it was discussed.

Rick

A news network discussed both sides of an issue? Unacceptable! I will never watch them again...

[UNT90]

A news network discussed both sides of an issue? Unacceptable! I will never watch them again...

2 weeks late, and only after the internet, remarks made by republicans in congress, reports on another network (Fox News), and the copenhagen conference made them say something.

You would figure a major university having it's global warming community hacked into would at least be worthy of a mention.

Again, just reeks of "if only we ignore it, it will go away and we won't have to report the facts."

[EagleGreen]

From the right? I assume (we know what that does) that the CSM is from the right?

http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/...s-climate-news/

Check out the Copenhagen primer. Good stuff.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

Not to mention... even IF the world is warming, and even IF it is being caused by humans, and even IF we could do something about it....

How can we say for certain a planet that is 1-2 degrees warmer is a bad thing??? How are we be so arrogant to believe that the current climate is the ideal?

---I assume you do not own any land or live near sea level... such as in Venice or in a town where a sea wall is needed year round now.. Glaciers are disappearing rather rapidly and if enough happens the sea level will rise quite a bit causing all sorts of problems... They really is not debatable... What is debatable is "Is man contributing at all" and even if so could we even do anything about it. Land a high elevations is now visible that are few years ago was aways covered with ice. That part is not faked or even debatable.

--- Personally I am not so sure we are responsible or can do anything about it other than just accept that some warming is happening. A few degrees up can really change ocean levels. Natural variation is natural... just hope it isn't too much.

---Glacier National Park barely has glaciers now... the same with many in rivers on Canadians coast... take a Alaskan cruise and take note what it once was like (pictures and environment near them).

[Green P1]

Sure is cold out there tonight.

[FirefightnRick]

EPA Finding Gives It Effective Control of the Economy

The EPA is about to announce that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare, something that has in many ways been inevitable since the boneheaded SCOTUS ruling in Mass. vs EPA (which essentially found that the Clean Air Act was always intended to be Kyoto-on-steroids.) With thanks to my colleague Will Yeatman, here's a brief summary of what this means, and why you should be appalled.

Under the Clean Air Act, an “endangerment” finding means that the EPA will have to grant a waiver to those states (such as California) that want to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions from automobiles. The EPA has already agreed to do so. When “pollutants” that “endanger” human health and welfare are regulated, the EPA must expand its regulatory program to include “stationary” sources. The EPA has already announced that it will do so.

This is where Obama wants to get off the “endangerment” train, with the ability to regulate stationary and mobile sources (i.e., industry and cars) with almost complete discretion. These “endangerment” powers give the president tremendous leverage in a number of complex negotiations.

This is how the Marxist plan to get around any block of the Cap and Tax bill should that occur.

Rick

Edited December 8, 2009 by FirefightnRick

[EagleGreen]

EPA Finding Gives It Effective Control of the Economy

This is how the Marxist plan to get around any block of the Cap and Tax bill should that occur.

Rick

Pent-up anger Rick?

[Censored by Laurie]

Pent-up anger Rick?

More of a gross mis-understanding of history/philosophy/literature.

[yyz28]

EPA Finding Gives It Effective Control of the Economy

This is how the Marxist plan to get around any block of the Cap and Tax bill should that occur.

Rick

I have to give Senator Max Webb (D, Virginia) a BUNCH of credit on this one. He has dispatched a letter objecting to the administration or a bureaucracy regulating such matters, and warns the President not to attempt to lock the country into something politically in Copenhagen as it wouldn't be binding without Senate support.

This power grab by the President and the EPA is pissing off even Democrats in congress who feels their power is being subverted.

It will be interesting to see how this holds up. The burden of proof is on the EPA to prove in court that their power grab is in the best interest of the people, and I'd be surprised if they could do that in a court of law today.

[HoustonEagle]

I have to give Senator Max Webb (D, Virginia) a BUNCH of credit on this one. He has dispatched a letter objecting to the administration or a bureaucracy regulating such matters, and warns the President not to attempt to lock the country into something politically in Copenhagen as it wouldn't be binding without Senate support.

This power grab by the President and the EPA is pissing off even Democrats in congress who feels their power is being subverted.

It will be interesting to see how this holds up. The burden of proof is on the EPA to prove in court that their power grab is in the best interest of the people, and I'd be surprised if they could do that in a court of law today.

Sir you seem well-versed in the subject. So I have just a couple questions. One, who is Senator Max Webb? Two, do the dastardly folks at the EPA have any idea that they may have to defend their position in court?

[FirefightnRick]

Sir you seem well-versed in the subject. So I have just a couple questions. One, who is Senator Max Webb? Two, do the dastardly folks at the EPA have any idea that they may have to defend their position in court?

Not Max, he meant Jim.

Sen. Democrat Jim Webb warns Obama on taking action in Copenhagen

Rick

Edited December 9, 2009 by FirefightnRick

[UNT90]

Not Max, he meant Jim.

Sen. Democrat Jim Webb warns Obama on taking action in Copenhagen

Rick

Gee, really?? You mean a democratic senator from Virginia, which has a vast concentration of coal mines, is against cap and trade or an agreement in Copenhagen? Amazing.

Just another demonstration thast this whole subject is politically generated drivel.

[UNTflyer]

---I assume you do not own any land or live near sea level... such as in Venice or in a town where a sea wall is needed year round now.. Glaciers are disappearing rather rapidly and if enough happens the sea level will rise quite a bit causing all sorts of problems... They really is not debatable... What is debatable is "Is man contributing at all" and even if so could we even do anything about it. Land a high elevations is now visible that are few years ago was aways covered with ice. That part is not faked or even debatable.

--- Personally I am not so sure we are responsible or can do anything about it other than just accept that some warming is happening. A few degrees up can really change ocean levels. Natural variation is natural... just hope it isn't too much.

---Glacier National Park barely has glaciers now... the same with many in rivers on Canadians coast... take a Alaskan cruise and take note what it once was like (pictures and environment near them).

OK, well, first... it's dangerous to assume anything. I do own land.

Second, if your ice cubes melt in your soda, does the soda spill over the edge of your glass? No. The ice cube displaces liquid to support itself. SAME THING WITH GLACIERS. Ever single glacier in the world could melt and the sea levels would not rise one inch.

Third, Venice? Really? Venice is sinking - it has absolutely nothing to do with global warming.

Finally, glaciers are NOT disappearing. Hubbard Glacier recently had a growth spurt of 7 feet per day. The antarctic ice shelf is growing, not shrinking as was once hysterically reported. This article reports "the South Pole had shown significant cooling in recent decades".

This crap about declaring things "undebatable" is ridiculous, closed-minded, and is not at all aligned with the scientific method.

[EagleGreen]

OK, well, first... it's dangerous to assume anything. I do own land.

Second, if your ice cubes melt in your soda, does the soda spill over the edge of your glass? No. The ice cube displaces liquid to support itself. SAME THING WITH GLACIERS. Ever single glacier in the world could melt and the sea levels would not rise one inch.

Comedy

Third, Venice? Really? Venice is sinking - it has absolutely nothing to do with global warming.

How do you know it has nothing to do with global warming? Glen? Rush? Just checking. I just read a study that says it's most likely.

Finally, glaciers are NOT disappearing. Hubbard Glacier recently had a growth spurt of 7 feet per day. The antarctic ice shelf is growing, not shrinking as was once hysterically reported. This article reports "the South Pole had shown significant cooling in recent decades".

Wow. Most scientific reports show a decline in summer ice on the poles (reminds me of Palin) over a long-term analysis. In the last 10 years, the summer ice has decreased by 80% (report from Copenhagen), with an overall warming trend on the poles (Tiger's mistress) over time. The increase in ice of 7 ft/day is due to the phenomenon I described (minus the pole dancing jokes). With less summer ice, you will get more growth per day during the winter freeze (opposite of shrinkage as we know it), but that would be a short term anomoly of climate change.

This crap about declaring things "undebatable" is ridiculous, closed-minded, and is not at all aligned with the scientific method.

There is a growing consensus among scientists that climate change is happening but it is still debatable; everthing is debatable in this forum. LOL.

[KingDL1]

Wow. Most scientific reports show a decline in summer ice on the poles

That is completely wrong what a joke, I thought you were a scientist? Wow, the South pole has been growing non-stop for last 30+ years, NASA satellites has proved that one. One ice shelf with suspected volcanic vents under it has broken off, a fraction of a percent lost and not even putting a dent in the gain. Maybe you should do some real research. before you run your mouth that his how this crap gets out of control.

I think flyer was talking about frozen sea ice at the poles.

Edited December 9, 2009 by KingDL1

[UNTflyer]

OK, well, first... it's dangerous to assume anything. I do own land.

Second, if your ice cubes melt in your soda, does the soda spill over the edge of your glass? No. The ice cube displaces liquid to support itself. SAME THING WITH GLACIERS. Ever single glacier in the world could melt and the sea levels would not rise one inch.

Comedy

No - it's science. Try it. Fill a glass to the brim with water and ice and let the ice melt. I guarantee it won't overflow. Physics works the same everywhere - in a glass or in the ocean. I know there are studies out there that claim ocean salt makes glaciers slightly more buoyant, but the general principle remains.

Third, Venice? Really? Venice is sinking - it has absolutely nothing to do with global warming.

How do you know it has nothing to do with global warming? Glen? Rush? Just checking. I just read a study that says it's most likely.

Ahh, belittle someone by claiming I get all my information from talk shows. That I can't think for myself? No, sir, I'm an educated man and I happen to know that Venice has been sinking for 600 years. I believe I read that in a book sometime when I was a child. And while the sinking was partially caused by man when they diverted rivers to prevent attacks, it had nothing to do with global warming.

Finally, glaciers are NOT disappearing. Hubbard Glacier recently had a growth spurt of 7 feet per day. The antarctic ice shelf is growing, not shrinking as was once hysterically reported. This article reports "the South Pole had shown significant cooling in recent decades".

Wow. Most scientific reports show a decline in summer ice on the poles (reminds me of Palin) over a long-term analysis. In the last 10 years, the summer ice has decreased by 80% (report from Copenhagen), with an overall warming trend on the poles (Tiger's mistress) over time. The increase in ice of 7 ft/day is due to the phenomenon I described (minus the pole dancing jokes). With less summer ice, you will get more growth per day during the winter freeze (opposite of shrinkage as we know it), but that would be a short term anomoly of climate change.

Correction - most scientific reports from groups promoting the global warming scare make this claim.

This crap about declaring things "undebatable" is ridiculous, closed-minded, and is not at all aligned with the scientific method.

There is a growing consensus among scientists that climate change is happening but it is still debatable; everthing is debatable in this forum. LOL.

I am 100% certain climate change is happening. To believe otherwise would require a belief that the earth is a static, closed system. What I do not buy into (apparently you do) is that the progress of mankind is presenting a significant danger to our climate. What I do not buy into is hyperbolic claims of polar ice disappearing in 10 years, that climate change is responsible for nearly every ill on the planet - from pasta shortages to Maple Syrup shortages to increased saltiness of the Atlantic and, MY God, even a less salty Atlantic (consensus, huh?).

[yyz28]

Sir you seem well-versed in the subject. So I have just a couple questions. One, who is Senator Max Webb? Two, do the dastardly folks at the EPA have any idea that they may have to defend their position in court?

Jim, not Max... had two people mixed up in my brain.

...so many congressmen, only so much brain space.

To answer your question, I don't know what evidence they may have, but short of showing how global warming is actually man made and being able to show that our behaivior could actually reverse the course of the climate, and then show how people are actually in danger right now, it's going to be hard to show how their power grab would be held up as constitutional.

...and the EPA's track record isn't very good. EPA policy has killed far more than it has saved.

[yyz28]

Gee, really?? You mean a democratic senator from Virginia, which has a vast concentration of coal mines, is against cap and trade or an agreement in Copenhagen? Amazing.

Just another demonstration thast this whole subject is politically generated drivel.

He may have another motive like you say, but he's right none the less. The President nor the EPA can take action like this on the behalf of the country without congresses approval. Politically motivated or not, his opposition is supported in the constitution.

[meangreenacct]

OK, well, first... it's dangerous to assume anything. I do own land.

Second, if your ice cubes melt in your soda, does the soda spill over the edge of your glass? No. The ice cube displaces liquid to support itself. SAME THING WITH GLACIERS. Ever single glacier in the world could melt and the sea levels would not rise one inch.

Third, Venice? Really? Venice is sinking - it has absolutely nothing to do with global warming.

Finally, glaciers are NOT disappearing. Hubbard Glacier recently had a growth spurt of 7 feet per day. The antarctic ice shelf is growing, not shrinking as was once hysterically reported. This article reports "the South Pole had shown significant cooling in recent decades".

This crap about declaring things "undebatable" is ridiculous, closed-minded, and is not at all aligned with the scientific method.

I think I understand where you are trying to go with the bolded statement, but I have to disagree with that. I think what you are saying is true about any submerged glaciers/ice, because in essence the ice has already had it's impact on sealevel because it is a part of the sea. However, I think that the part of glaciers/ice blocks that is not submerged would have an impact on sea level. It would in essence be holding an ice cube above your soda and letting it slowly melt into the glass, raising the level.

[yyz28]

Here's your consensus -

Environmentalists’ mythical “scientific consensus” has served as a shroud behind which they have sought to maintain an air of infallibility. By falsely claiming a closed consensus and excoriating anyone who speaks out against their flawed orthodoxy, environmental extremists seek to prevent any objective, scientific debate that might inhibit their political agenda.

That shroud, however, was further torn in 2008 by a 31,000-strong petition organized by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM). According to the OISM’s board of scientists, “a review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th Century have produced no deleterious effects upon global weather, climate, or temperature.”

To the contrary, the OISM notes that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide have actually increased plant growth rates, among other positive effects. On this basis, the OISM concludes that “predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in minor greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide are in error and do not conform to current experimental knowledge.” "

The petition reads: "We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing, or will in the foreseeable future cause, catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

The petition itself appears alongside a letter from the late Frederick Seitz, a former President of the National Academy of Sciences. Dr. Seitz stated that “the United States is very close to adopting an international agreement that would ration the use of energy and technologies that depend upon coal, oil, natural gas and some other organic compounds.” He therefore warned that, “this treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research into data on climate change does not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful.”

...but I'm sure these people wouldn't know anything about it.

Scientists measuring the dynamic changes that happen with our without us in the climate and then jumping to the conclusion that changes must be as a result of our activity (despite geological evidence that the planet warms and cools in cycles and did so for millions of years before we started building cars and factories) aren't very good scientists. These e-mails are the smoking gun - the "scientists" from which many accept the consensus are actively trying to hide the truth so they can continue to push their agenda.

[Cerebus]

Venice is built upon wooden piles driven into marsh land. It's been sinking about 7cm a century for the last 1000 years, including the little ice age that stretched from the 16th to mid 19th century or so. Why?

For one, the pilings rest on clay that is compressing.

Secondly, around the 15th century, the Venetians diverted all rivers that lead into to lagoon. This prevented the lagoon from silting up, which protected them from attack, but also made sure the lagoon bottom wasn't replaced every year as the tides washed it out, so its a little deeper every year.

Third, many people who like to claim Venice is sinking because of global warming like to point out that the rate of sinking increased to about 24cm a century in the 20th century. This ignores the fact during the early 20th century, thousands of artesian wells where dug to provide for the growing population and the heavy industry moving into the area. The city of Venice commissioned a study and it found that the increased rate of sinking was due to the aquifer that the lagoon relied upon was being depleted. When these wells where banned in 1960, the rate of sinking slowed dramatically, to about the previous 7cm a century rate.

And that folks, is Why Venice is Sinking 101. Join us next week when we discuss the formation of the city, or All These Damn Germanic People Showed Up in Norther Italy and Where are We Supposed to Live Now?

[Censored by Laurie]

This poll has all the data I need.

Ohh...and in video form.

Edited December 9, 2009 by Censored by Laurie

[Cerebus]

This poll has all the data I need.

So you sidestep my entire Venice argument? Typical liberal anti-Veneto slant.

[FirefightnRick]

This poll has all the data I need.

So? No one pays attention to Fox, right? Besides, they were simply trying to do more than what their coaches back in the day had taught them to do, to give 110%, and then some?

Rick

Edited December 9, 2009 by FirefightnRick

[Censored by Laurie]

So you sidestep my entire Venice argument? Typical liberal anti-Veneto slant.

Sorry...I happen to know that there is no place called "Norther Italy" so I just disregarded everything you had written.