Comments on: Real Scientists Refute Gore’s Global Warming Hysteria

By: Brutus II

Brutus II — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 01:40:42 +0000

Yes, let’s do it for the children. How can anyone disagree with that argument? The children… We owe it to them.

By: vilijidiot

vilijidiot — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 05:41:14 +0000

I will be the first to admit, I have always been a sceptic about global warming. I have always thought the our planet is always in a state of change, but didn’t want to think a group was out to make money on the principle of global warming. My Dad taught me to follow the money and if you follow the money in this case, many Hollywood producers, actors, and politicians who need the following to get re-elected, have made millions off this “theory”.
To a point, I will believe science and it’s findings. From what I can tell, someone picked up the C02 ball and ran with it. You can read accounts of 30,000 plus scientists that refute the findings of Al Gore and his followers, but find 3 million who buy it. Again, I believe science to a point and in this case will take their point and continue to not buy the global warming “theory”. Of course, if I catch on fire one day and am no longer living, I may be a little upset my carbon foot print was WAY to large.

By: JenChem

JenChem — Fri, 07 Jul 2006 01:35:34 +0000

ok so i was kinda perturbed in my last blog but you have been gracious in your rebuttal and i respect that. i totally agree that we should question scientific ‘fact’ and i’m a chemist. this, however, was my independent study topic my sr year of college and i just cant dispel the fact that the data supports global warming.
while it is true that we are in a warming cycle, compare the cycles prior to the last ice age to this one and you’ll see that the temperatures are warmer in a shorter time frame. on a 3D plot with [co2] you’ll see the higher temperatures correlate to higher concentrations which were not at comparable levels present before the 4 previous ice ages. going on the ‘cycle’ theory then we’re not due for another ice age for another 30000 yrs but the type of warming we’re seeing now predicates the cool cycle.
isn’t it just a little curious that the record breaking temperatures all over the world are happening sequentially rather than sporadically or cyclically?
as for the defeatist attitude that it would be impossible to reverse the damage, i just dont buy that for one second. if we still insist on using the antiquated internal combustion engine (and i cant figure out why we still do) there is already a viable alternative to petroleum: biodiesel! make it from animal waste, vegetable oil, or any kinda trigylceride will do (like what do they do with all the waste from liposuction?) biodiesel burns more efficiently and cleaner than petroleum based fuels. engines need no modification to use it (unless you live in subarctic areas then you’ll need a glow plug) plus, if you’re using vegetables to make it then you’re using up all the [co2] during photosynthesis to grow the vegetables. actually they use more than they emit. hey and we can grow it right here in the US: foreign oil dependency no more! and what about wind, geothermal, hydro, and solar power? we already use them all just not on a large scale so the technology exists. what do we use the mojave desert for anyway? fill it with solar panels to create enough energy to power the entire country.
As for [CH4] emissions from animals/decay; science has already bioengineered algae and bacteria that feed off [CH4]. and livestock really dont produce significant amounts of [CH4] so long as the vegetative threshold isnt crossed (slash n burn needs to stop)
We cant change the amount of electromagnetic radiation emitted by the sun but to think that changing the composition of the earth’s atmosphere will have no effect on refraction, reflection, and absorption is just wrong. Le Chatlier’s principle states that putting stress on a system at equilibrium will cause a shift in the system to accomodate the stress. Earth will survive everything we throw at it but when it shifts equilibrium we might find that humans will no longer be part of the equation.
even if science extrapolates the timeframe wrong; err on the side of caution. i owe it to my baby just as all parents owe it to their children and their children’s children to, at the very least, leave it as good as we had it if not better.

By: lockjaw

lockjaw — Thu, 06 Jul 2006 01:14:05 +0000

No, I don’t think it would suck all that much if I was wrong. It isn’t like the world hasn’t had warming periods before. Life on Earth didn’t go through any major calamities when the Earth’s warming reached a peak around a century ago. We don’t read about some of the stupid things that Global Warmiacs warn us about happening back when Jesus walked the Earth around the time of the second-to-last warming peak.
Statistically, we’re at a warming peak now. The Earth has been warming for a long time. It’s no big deal, and it has pretty much NOTHING to do with the actions of mankind.
Hey, when this whole global warming fad started, it was a response to the lack of a global ice age’s appearance. The coming global ice age is a fad that I was glad to see go away, because it was just stupid. Unfortunately, stupidity is often replaced by more stupidity, and we got Global Warming as the scare-fad of the decade.
First, the global warmiacs started saying we’d see a rise of two degrees celsius over 100 years. A rise of that magnitude, if true, would mean a warming of double that of previously documented cycles. To rise by that amount over 100 years would mean the fastest warming of the Earth ever. This type of calamitous talk is just fantastic, incredible, vacuous nonsense.
Of course, since 100 years was too long to wait for a major scare fad, things had to be sped up a bit. How can you get someone to vote for you if you’re talking about results 100 years out? Now we’re told it’s 10 years. Of course, the 10 year timeframe isn’t a new thing either. It’s been 10 years for about 5 years, which means that the global warmiacs aren’t just lacking in logical thought, but also in their ability to understand the passage of time (one important factor that can indicate insanity).
So, let’s say it’s all true. Let’s say we’ve got 10 years to turn around global warming, and that mankind is the cause of global warming. In order to accomplish this feat, we’d have to do some major work. First, we’ll have to shut down all industry. We’ll have to shut down all non-nuclear power. We’ll have to shut down all internal combustion engines. We’ll need to somehow, without the use of industry, collect all biodegrading biomatter and encase it in an impermeable seal. We’re going to have to reduce the population of the Earth, so Eugenics comes into play. No more cars, planes, boats, or trains. No more bicycles, since we’ll need a lot of polluting industry to make them. Horses crap and fart, so we can’t use them. Likewise, we’ve got to get rid of the cows, pigs, chicken, turkeys, and other animals that poop out large amounts of methane-producing matter.
Since all that really won’t be enough to repair all the damage we’ve supposedly done, we’ll need to prevent any volcanic eruptions, since just one of those could put out more “greenhouse gasses” and other bad stuff than mankind can make in 10 years.
Hey, I’ve got an idea, why don’t we address the single most important factor in global warming. There’s one factor in the warming and cooling cycle that means more than anything else. When that one factor produces more, we have more warming. When that factor produces less, we have cooling. With everything else taken into account, this one factor can warm and cool the Earth no matter what we do, no matter what we try. That factor is the Sun.
Ten years from now, how long will it be before we can’t save ourselves from ourselves again?

By: JenChem

JenChem — Wed, 05 Jul 2006 23:04:53 +0000

if statistics is a valid enough discipline for you then mathematically you’re screwed. numerically more climatologists agree that increased carbon dioxide levels cause global warming. i also noticed that it was”professor carter” not “Dr. Carter”. I’m not a liberal environmentalist, either. rather a chemist, a mother, and a very concerned resident of planet earth. wouldn’t it just suck if you were dead ass wrong?

By: JohnP

JohnP — Sat, 17 Jun 2006 06:40:55 +0000

Yes , but Dr Bob Carter is a well known oil industry stooge: :::[Global warming denial funded by ExxonMobil]. So how can you believe him?