Bill ties climate to national security

Remember that our communist “friends” in Russia, the Former USSR, Latin America and China, and the Middle Eastern and African dictatorships are EXEMPT from Kyoto.

“While the hawks among us worry about preventing the Armageddon that’s coming, our modern-day hippies just want to make sure the planet is pristine when it does. In fact, the more menacing terrorism becomes, the more some people seem to worry about the weather” (Julia Gorin, 3, 2006)

bookmark for later read

Absolutely the most moronic idea I have ever heard of.

That's only because you didn't read this thread today: Clean Cars: Proposed State Law Would Impose Fee On Gas-Guzzlers, Hand Cash To Gas-Sippers. Morons need to be bagged and put back in the looney bin where they belong.

That was so disappointing to watch Rudy’s response to the global warming question.

Got H20?

We have SOoooooooooo many morons who vote these arrogant delusional morons into office. This bill is unbelievably stupid. It must be blissful to be a moron, never knowing the depth of one’s own stupidity.

Disappointing?

It’s disgusting!

I can`t can`t can`t believe how out of control this "Gorebull warming" BS is getting. This is completely unreal that a bunch of wackos can be taken seriously like this.

Like I posted here on Freep many many times, what is so hard to understand here about this hoax? Why is this going straight over the heads of Congress? The earths atmosphere contains an absolute absolute miniscule amount of CO2, not even 10%, not 5%, not 1%, not .5%, not even .05% but .0383% to be exact! .0383 freggin` percent!!!!

Of that tiny amount you can`t even count how much is made from fossil fuels without getting into micro measurements, parts per MILLION.

By comparison the planet Venus (that these Gorebull warming wackos like to compare to) contains an atmosphere made up of almost ALL CO2, 96% CO2 to be exact!!!

Over 100 years humans have been burning fossil fuels and STILL we can`t even get that CO2 amount up to .05%!!! DO these idiots in Congress have any idea the amounts of coal, gas, and whatnot that would have to be burned to raise it to even .5%?? There`s not enough fuel, cars, industrial plants on this planet to ever get to that amount, it`s IMPOSSIBLE!

Why? Simply put there is just too many plants that use CO2. Trees, algae, bushes, grass, etc etc. It`s why the earths atmosphere contains 21% Oxegen instead of .0383%.

Maybe Al Gore can tell me if this pic of South America from space is mostly green because of cars.

Tell Algore to take his gobal warming and shove it where the sun doesn’t shine!!!

From ‘Global Warming denier’ to ‘climate criminal’ to ‘environmental terrorist’ in less than a year.

Because of that serious scientists conducted a petition drive based on a peer reviewed paper on global warming.

The "peer-reviewed paper" was a hoax. The petition drive was a sham.

More information on the crackpot Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, which sponsored the petition drive hoax:

"he Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) describes itself as "a small research institute" that studies "biochemistry, diagnostic medicine, nutrition, preventive medicine and the molecular biology of aging." It is headed by Arthur B. Robinson, an eccentric scientist who has a long history of controversial entanglements with figures on the fringe of accepted research."

"The Oregon Petition, sponsored by the OISM, was circulated in April 1998 in a bulk mailing to tens of thousands of U.S. scientists. In addition to the petition, the mailing included what appeared to be a reprint of a scientific paper." "... the paper was titled "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" and was printed in the same typeface and format as the official Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences." ... "A cover note signed "Frederick Seitz/Past President, National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A./President Emeritus, Rockefeller University", may have given some persons the impression that Robinson's paper was an official publication of the academy's peer-reviewed journal. The blatant editorializing in the pseudopaper, however, was uncharacteristic of scientific papers." ... "The NAS issued an unusually blunt formal response to the petition drive. "The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal," it stated in a news release. "The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy." In fact, it pointed out, its own prior published study had shown that "even given the considerable uncertainties in our knowledge of the relevant phenomena, greenhouse warming poses a potential threat sufficient to merit prompt responses. Investment in mitigation measures acts as insurance protection against the great uncertainties and the possibility of dramatic surprises." ...

"When questioned in 1998, OISM's Arthur Robinson admitted that only 2,100 signers of the Oregon Petition had identified themselves as physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, or meteorologists, "and of those the greatest number are physicists." This grouping of fields concealed the fact that only a few dozen, at most, of the signatories were drawn from the core disciplines of climate science - such as meteorology, oceanography, and glaciology - and almost none were climate specialists. The names of the signers are available on the OISM's website, but without listing any institutional affiliations or even city of residence, making it very difficult to determine their credentials or even whether they exist at all. When the Oregon Petition first circulated, in fact, environmental activists successfully added the names of several fictional characters and celebrities to the list, including John Grisham, Michael J. Fox, Drs. Frank Burns, B. J. Honeycutt, and Benjamin Pierce (from the TV show M*A*S*H), an individual by the name of "Dr. Red Wine," and Geraldine Halliwell, formerly known as pop singer Ginger Spice of the Spice Girls. Halliwell's field of scientific specialization was listed as "biology." Even in 2003, the list was loaded with misspellings, duplications, name and title fragments, and names of non-persons, such as company names."

Serious scientists? Do you include Spice Girls?

Thanks. Their exaggeration and deceptions cost them credibility. As it should.

I find this interesting and probably most important:

"Is there a scientific basis for Robinson's claim that increased carbon dioxide levels will contribute to increased growth of some plants? Some research has gone into investigating this possibility, but the evidence does not point to the type of reassurance that the OISM is peddling..."
"...Notwithstanding the shortcomings in Robinson's theory, the oil and coal industries have sponsored several organizations to promote the idea that increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is "good for earth" because it will encourage greater plant growth."

CO2 does promote plant growth but as to how much I don't know. What I take from that is that since CO2 lags temperature change thus cannot cause it and the effects of CO2 and many other variables that interact are little understood as they relate to climate change; with the Law of Accelerating Returns pointing to a much, much more accurate understanding of climate in twenty and thirty years, human generated CO2 is going to have little if any effect between now and when we know with confidence what can be done to generate desired effects to climate.

The discussion of human generated CO2 having more than minimal effect on climate is a bit like arguing which gives more gifts, Santa Clause or the Easter bunny -- anthropogenic CO2 is not a problem. Creating the illusion of a problem, is a problem.

What I take from that is that since CO2 lags temperature change thus cannot cause it

Incorrect. Check point #5 of my profile tomorrow -- I should have it nearly done by today.

You're wrong. It's interesting all the hoops you'll leap through to support your error. Obviously you don't yet know you're in error.

Global warming? Do the math

"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. And of that miniscule amount, Canada's contribution is just 2% --about 1 ml.

"If, as Mr. Dion demands, we honoured our Kyoto commitments and reduced our current CO2 emissions by one-third -- which would involve shutting down all the coal-fired power generating plants in Canada (and living with constant brownouts and blackouts); or taking all the cars or all the commercial vehicles off the roads; or shutting down the oilsands; or some combination of all these -- we would be saving one-third of 1 ml-- the tip of an eyedropper.

"And somehow, that is supposed to save the planet from warming; the tip of one eyedropper out of 2,400 bottles of water.

"That might be true if carbon dioxide were the most toxic substance ever discovered by man. But it is not. We each expel it every time we exhale."

See if this plot makes any sense to you.

The proportion of atmospheric gases is irrelevant. If the gases are radiative absorbers, they absorb radiation. There's very little ozone by concentration in the stratosphere, but it is an effective UV absorber when it's there.

for the first time be required

Great. Make them do what they already have been doing for decades.