Skip to main content

View Diary: We need a Department of the Environment now! (75 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  it's an easy answer.... (0+ / 0-)

    because the, as you put it so untruthfully,

    today's greatest threat to mankind?!?

    is a hoax. That's why! Get it? I am sure you don't, but you will some day.

    P.S. I have some snake oil for you to purchase.

    •  Sen. Inhofe? I didn't know you were a Kossack! nt (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      catadromous, rossl
    •  Are you saying global warming is a hoax? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      But of course you probably think the International Panel on Climate Change was paid off by Al Gore or something.  Educate yourself and read the report of leading climate scientists, please.  

      That is, if you can break away from listening to Rush Limbaugh long enough to do so.

      •  I'm pretty sure that's what he's saying n/t (0+ / 0-)
      •  Nope..... I am not. (0+ / 0-)

        The globe warms and cools. I wouldn't refute that. I am saying that the tie to man creating, or accelerating a natural phenomana,has not been proven, not even close. That is why there is a controversy. I would say that if you apply logic, reason and history to the hypothesis, the most reasonable answer is a hoax by people who have demonstrated mastery at these kind of rackets. Statements like "for it to be a problem we have to convince the American people it's a problem" start to tell the story.  

        Also, if you look at the IPCC you will see an amazing fact: they aren’t all scientists, not to mention top scientists. As a matter of fact, it’s not even a majority of, as you would call it  

        leading climate scientists

        Also, many were listed against there will, again, not to mention the large number of those so called leading climate scientists have reversed there original position, primarily, based on further examination and information.

        P.S. I don't listen to Rush, Sean, Michael, Keith, Rachel, Chris or any other gun for hire of the MSM. You should take your own advise and quit being so pompous and ignorant.

        •  So, did you read the report or not? (0+ / 0-)

          I find it amazing that some people knock the results when they haven't even read the results.

          Also, of course some people in the IPCC are not climate scientists.  To dismiss the report for that reason is a fallacy.  Is everyone in the CIA a spy?  Is everyone in the military a fighter?  No, you need a large team from varied backgrounds to have the best result.  

          Do you really think a psychologist is writing the atmospheric chemistry portions of the report?

          That being said, I've heard this argument many times and I find it incredibly silly.

          •  yes, I have read it, in detail... (0+ / 0-)

            and I am not dismissing it. I find it to be a very relevant catalyst.

            Look, once upon a time people felt the earth was flat and that was a fact as far as people knew. And, we thought our planet was the center of the universe. We now know those things aren't true. But, the fact people believed it doesn't make it true and without those people thinking the earth was the center they may have never really looked in to it. I think we will find the same situation here. I know those examples may seem far fetched, but the spirit of the argument is to raise it as a question is valuable. I just can't sit by why these racketeers bilk us for multi millions. I will not accept there word any longer. Enough, I say!

      •  Here is something else for you, (0+ / 0-)

        Just to wet your whistle...

        Continuing a decade-long trend of declining global temperatures, the year 2008 was significantly colder than 2007, and global temperatures for the year were below the average over the past 30 years.

        The global temperature data, reported by NASA satellite-based temperature measurements, refuted predictions 2008 would be one of the warmest on record.

        Data show 2008 ranked 14th coldest of the 30 years measured by NASA satellite instruments since they were first launched in 1979. It was the coldest year since 2000. (See accompanying figure.)

        Satellite Precision

        NASA satellites uniformly monitor the Earth’s lower atmosphere, which greenhouse gas theory predicts will show the first and most significant effects of human-caused global warming.

        The satellite-based measurements are uncorrupted by urban heat islands and localized land-use changes that often taint records from surface temperature stations, giving false indications of warming.

        The uncorrupted satellite-based temperature measurements refute surface temperature station data finding 2008 to be one of the top 10 warmest years on record.

        "How can an ‘average year’ in one database appear to be a [top 10] warmest year in another?" asked meteorologist Joe D’Aleo on his International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project Web site.

        "Well, the global databases of [surface station reports] are all contaminated by urbanization, major station dropout, missing data, bad siting, instruments with known warm biases being introduced without adjustment, and black-box and man-made adjustments designed to maximize [reported] warming," explained D’Aleo.

        Warming Trend Overstated

        "The substantial and continuing La Niña cooled the Earth quite a bit in 2008, to the point that it was slightly below the 30-year average [1979-2008] but slightly above the 20-year average [1979-1998]," said John Christy, distinguished professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH).

        "From research we have published, and more to come soon, we find that land surface air temperatures misrepresent the actual temperature changes in the deep atmosphere—where the greenhouse effect is anticipated to have its easiest impact to measure. Surface thermometers are affected by many influences, especially surface development, so the bulk atmospheric measurements from satellites offer a straightforward indicator of how much heat is or is not accumulating in the air, for whatever reason," Christy explained.

        "Recent published evidence also supports the long-term trends of UAH as being fairly precise, so the observed rate of warming is noticeably less than that projected by the IPCC ‘Best Estimate’ model simulations which, we hypothesize, are too sensitive to CO2 increases," Christy added.

        I am sure NASA is a scam organization, right?

        •  What is your point, exactly? (0+ / 0-)

          Global temperatures 'to decrease'

          Global temperatures for 2008 will be slightly cooler than last year as a result of the cold La Nina current in the Pacific, UN meteorologists have said.
          The World Meteorological Organization's secretary-general, Michel Jarraud, told the BBC it was likely that La Nina would continue into the summer.
          But this year's temperatures would still be way above the average - and we would soon exceed the record year of 1998 because of global warming induced by greenhouse gases.


          But Mr Jarraud insisted this was not the case and noted that 2008 temperatures would still be well above average for the last 100 years.

          "When you look at climate change you should not look at any particular year," he said. "You should look at trends over a pretty long period and the trend of temperature globally is still very much indicative of warming.

          "La Nina is part of what we call 'variability'. There has always been and there will always be cooler and warmer years, but what is important for climate change is that the trend is up; the climate on average is warming even if there is a temporary cooling because of La Nina."

      •  and more... (0+ / 0-)

        and I know, the US isn't the globe. It's everywhere else around the globe, right?

          •  Wow. Now that argument just cracks me up. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            So you're using one year to establish a trend?  And tossing away the research of hundreds of PhD's in favor of this?

            I guess next we can use the temperatures after the next cold front to refute global warming.

            And look...even your one year above the normal of the past 100 years...which is above the normal for the past 1000 years?

            Got a better example?

            •  No, I was using (0+ / 0-)

              between 1915 and 1920...

              No, my point of the graphic was cooling over the last few years. That's all. But, if yopu follow these threads you'll see my point is a hoax, not that the globe hasn't warmed, it has and cooled, also.

              But, it is kind of cold out side right now, so I guess you're right...Global warming is debunked because it's cold

              •  There will always be short-term ups and downs... (0+ / 0-)

                There are so many factors at play, and we probably don't understand all of them yet.  That's why we need more research.

                You have brought up some interesting food for thought, bloon99.  I apologize for the hot-headed Rush comment earlier.

                •  yes, that is the fact (0+ / 0-)

                  I think we should seriously research it. As you can see, I have some passion around it.

                  and, thank you for the apology, but it's unnecessary. I enjoyed talking with you.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site