I wanna see some links... LOL... ;)

I hate you....LMAO

Only if they are interesting.

That's too subjective: What is uninteresting for you might be interesting for others, and vice versa

That's too obvious.

---

me@rescam.org

OK....since I am WAY too lazy to post all the links to the things that have been blamed on Global Warming....I will simply supply the link TO the links.

Warm List

* edit * Some of the links may not work. The majority of them do, though. * edit *

---

Air Cold, the blade stops;
from silent stone,
Death is preordained

Calm Chaos Forums : Everyone Welcome

I will simply supply the link TO the links.

Slacker... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

I will simply supply the link TO the links.

Slacker... ;)

I did point out that I was too lazy to link them all....lol

---

Air Cold, the blade stops;
from silent stone,
Death is preordained

Calm Chaos Forums : Everyone Welcome

An open letter to environmentalists

Thank you for your dedication to protecting our environment. Clean air and clean water are essential to preserving life on planet Earth. Protecting all species and natural lands and forests are admirable priorities. Recycling and a green lifestyle are wonderful. Making the environment the most important thing in your life is a good thing, not a problem. I support you.

But we do have a problem. You have vigorously embraced the Global Warming predictions of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and are using the warning of uncontrollable warming and a resulting environmental calamity to campaign for elimination of fossil fuels. Your environmentally conscious friends in politics and in the media have united with you to create a barrage of news reports, documentaries, TV feature reports, movies, books, concerts and protest events to build support for your goals. The war against fossil fuels has become a massive scare campaign that is giving children nightmares.

Here’s what’s wrong with that: the science is not valid. There is no Global Warming underway and the science on which the computer projections of weather chaos are based is wrong. Dead wrong.

I know many scientists are part of your movement and they have tried hard to give your uncontrollable climate change panic a scientific basis. The UN Climate Change Panel has a large staff, a big budget, a headquarters in Geneva and a strong champion in Al Gore to lead the charge. And thousands of well-intentioned politicians and the media of the world have supported your movement. It must seem to you that there can be no doubt: fossil fuels are destroying the environment and will lead to uncontrollable global warming unless we act now. With all that powerful support for your anti-fossil fuel movement, and with the worthy goal of saving the planet from the disastrous consequences of runaway Global Warming, how can you fail?

Here’s how: The science behind your global warming scare is bad and no anthropogenic global warming is happening. Dissenting scientists have now produced convincing evidence that the cornerstone of your scientific argument, increased atmospheric carbon dioxide forcing a rapid, irreversible rise in temperature, is invalid. All of the various “signs of global warming” you have so widely publicized have been proven wrong. They are normal variations in climate that result mostly from the cycles of the Sun. As the Sun cycle has changed in the last three or four years, they have reversed themselves. Arctic ice melting and polar bears dying, shrinkage of glaciers and the rise of ocean levels, increased intensity and number of hurricanes and intensified droughts have all been touted as signs of global warming. They are not. They are part of this natural variation in climate. The intensified hurricane claim never happened. Katrina was an isolated, random event. The droughts are part of the natural cycle and are reversing at this time. Glaciers are stabilizing. The Arctic ice cap is already back to normal.

Here is what I am suggesting you do. Campaign for your environmental goals on the basis of their own merit. Let go of the global warming frenzy before it leaves you discredited and embarrassed. Stop screaming, “The sky is falling.” It is not.

Do your good work. Devote your lives to our environment. In many ways you will succeed. We are all grateful for your love of the planet. But, don’t use scare tactics.

Most of all I urge you not to become extremists. And, may I encourage you to live your lives in a loving way, love your fellow human beings and our wonderful advanced standard of living and way of life as much as you love the Earth.

My very best regards,

John Coleman

P.s. - If you will read my briefs on the science that debunks the global warming frenzy and follow the links there, you will begin to realize the folly of Global Warming.

Go to ICECAP.us for a starter.JC

------------------------------------------

John Coleman is the founder of The Weather Channel.

---

Air Cold, the blade stops;
from silent stone,
Death is preordained

Calm Chaos Forums : Everyone Welcome

John Coleman is the founder of The Weather Channel.

And long time weatherman for KUSI TV in San Diego. :)

---

me@rescam.org

Polar bears placed on threatened list as sea ice recedes
But ruling won't affect warming policy

By Juliet Eilperin
THE WASHINGTON POST

May 15, 2008

WASHINGTON – Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne listed polar bears as “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act yesterday, saying the loss of Arctic sea ice in a warming climate could drive them to the brink of extinction in less than four decades.

Although the Bush administration handed environmentalists a victory they had sought for more than three years, Kempthorne said he would ensure that his decision did not “open the door” for activists to force the adoption of limits on greenhouse gas emissions linked to global warming.

The act “is not the right tool to set U.S. climate change policy,” he said in a news conference. “This has been a difficult decision. But in light of the scientific record and the restraints of the inflexible law that guides me, I believe it was the only decision I could make.”

The decision to list polar bears, which have become the iconic symbol of global warming's impact, highlights how an administration opposed to mandatory cuts in emissions has begun to acknowledge the growing evidence of their effects. Kempthorne pointed to satellite images of shrinking Arctic sea ice that has outpaced scientists' most dire projections. Polar bears use sea ice as a platform to hunt prey.

“The fact is that sea ice is receding in the Arctic,” he said. “As you can see, when we have looked at what is actually happening in the Arctic, we have found considerably less sea ice than the models are projecting. Because polar bears are vulnerable to this loss of habitat, they are, in my judgment, likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future – in this case, 45 years.”

Under the law, the federal government is now required to draft a recovery plan for the species, which entails assessing the population and its habitat. The ruling also compels federal agencies to consult with the Interior Department when considering decisions that could further imperil the polar bears.

Administration officials, however, sought to minimize the policy consequences of the decision – the first time the Endangered Species Act has been invoked to protect an animal principally threatened by global warming. Kempthorne made clear that the decision would not justify regulating emissions from power plants, vehicles or other human activities.

Kempthorne said that there is no scientific way to connect specific greenhouse gas emissions from specific smokestacks to the harm of a species or its habitat.

Kempthorne had the director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issue a memo yesterday that said the existing science doesn't make such a connection. As a result, when new power plants and other emitters of greenhouse gases seek permission to operate, the Fish and Wildlife Service can't use the polar bear listing as a reason to deny a permit.

But environmentalists, who by and large praised the decision, said the administration would have no choice but to curb greenhouse gases.

“The law says what it says, not what the administration wishes it says,” said Kassie Siegel, climate program director at the Arizona-based Center for Biological Diversity. “This is great news for polar bears. ... It's also a watershed moment, the strongest statement we've had to date from this administration about global warming.”

Conservative and business groups, however, hailed Kempthorne's intention to limit the regulatory fallout.

“We must safeguard our environment while also protecting our economy,” said William Kovacs of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

---

me@rescam.org

Great thread. Daddio will now weigh in and attempt to sum things up.

Environmentally Friendly Bombs Planned

---

Calm Chaos Forum...Join Calm Chaos Now

Control through global warming

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER
THE WASHINGTON POST

May 30, 2008

I'm not a global warming believer. I'm not a global warming denier. I'm a global warming agnostic who believes instinctively that it can't be very good to pump lots of CO2 into the atmosphere, but is equally convinced that those who presume to know exactly where that leads are talking through their hats.

Predictions of catastrophe depend on models. Models depend on assumptions about complex planetary systems – from ocean currents to cloud formation – that no one fully understands. Which is why the models are inherently flawed and forever changing. The doomsday scenarios posit a cascade of events, each with a certain probability. The multiple improbability of their simultaneous occurrence renders all such predictions entirely speculative.

Yet on the basis of this speculation, environmental activists, attended by compliant scientists and opportunistic politicians, are advocating radical economic and social regulation. “The largest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity,” warns Czech President Vaclav Klaus, “is no longer socialism. It is, instead, the ambitious, arrogant, unscrupulous ideology of environmentalism.”

If you doubt the arrogance, you haven't seen that Newsweek cover story that declared the global warming debate over. Consider: If Newton's laws of motion could, after 200 years of unfailing experimental and experiential confirmation, be overthrown, it requires religious fervor to believe that global warming – infinitely more untested, complex and speculative – is a closed issue.

But declaring it closed has its rewards. It not only dismisses skeptics as the running dogs of reaction, i.e., of Exxon, Cheney and now Klaus. By fiat, it also hugely re-empowers the intellectual left.

For a century, an ambitious, arrogant, unscrupulous knowledge class – social planners, scientists, intellectuals, experts and their left-wing political allies – arrogated to themselves the right to rule either in the name of the oppressed working class (communism) or, in its more benign form, by virtue of their superior expertise in achieving the highest social progress by means of state planning (socialism).

Two decades ago, however, socialism and communism died rudely, then were buried forever by the empirical demonstration of the superiority of market capitalism everywhere from Thatcher's England to Deng's China, where just the partial abolition of socialism lifted more people out of poverty more rapidly than ever in human history.

Just as the ash heap of history beckoned, the intellectual left was handed the ultimate salvation: environmentalism. Now the experts will regulate your life not in the name of the proletariat or Fabian socialism but – even better – in the name of Earth itself.

Environmentalists are Gaia's priests, instructing us in her proper service and casting out those who refuse to genuflect. (See Newsweek above.) And having proclaimed the ultimate commandment – carbon chastity – they are preparing the supporting canonical legislation that will tell you how much you can travel, what kind of light you will read by, and at what temperature you may set your bedroom thermostat.

Just Monday, a British parliamentary committee proposed that every citizen be required to carry a carbon card that must be presented, under penalty of law, when buying gasoline, taking an airplane or using electricity. The card contains your yearly carbon ration to be drawn down with every purchase, every trip, every swipe.

There's no greater social power than the power to ration. And, other than rationing food, there is no greater instrument of social control than rationing energy, the currency of just about everything one does and uses in an advanced society.

So what does the global warming agnostic propose as an alternative? First, more research - untainted and reliable - to determine (a) whether the carbon footprint of man is or is not lost among the massive natural forces (from sunspot activity to ocean currents) that affect climate, and (b) if the human effect is indeed significant, whether the planetary climate system has the homeostatic mechanisms (like the feedback loops in the human body, for example) with which to compensate.

Second, reduce our carbon footprint in the interim by doing the doable, rather than the economically ruinous and socially destructive. The most obvious step is a major move to nuclear power, which to the atmosphere is the cleanest of the clean.

But your would-be masters have foreseen this contingency. The Church of the Environment promulgates secondary dogmas as well. One of these is a strict nuclear taboo.

Rather convenient, is it not? Take this major coal-substituting fix off the table, and we will be rationing all the more. Guess who does the rationing?

---

me@rescam.org

If my British government was in any way serious about reducing CO2 emissions, they'd have a law stating all fossil fuel power stations must be shut by 2020 and replaced by 80% nuclear/20% wind powered pumped storage hydro.
Doing this would reduce British CO2 output by 30% with no impact on our lifestyles

But then the various green movements hate nuclear more than global warming*

And in any case the government prefers to spend billions and employ 1000's on the personal carbon trading card game sorry scheme while raising taxes on every thing else

Boris


* To quote James Lovelock "whats worse 50 000 dead due to a nuclear accident every 50 yrs or 500 million dead due to global warming?"

If global warming is the result of increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, can anyone tell me why the CO2 uptick has historically (and repeatedly) occurred 600 years AFTER the rise in temperature?

Just wondering,

Doug