Your Reptile and Amphibian Resource and Information Site

Back to *General Misc Forum   Forums   Home   Members Area  

*General Misc Forum

DuckMonster   Gottee guy   DuckMonster   GECKOGIRL22   DuckMonster   GECKOGIRL22   Gottee guy   JackAsp   Mama42   DuckMonster   DuckMonster   Joe smoe111   DuckMonster   DuckMonster   JackAsp   DuckMonster  
 Member  Message

 #1932694


DuckMonster
View Profile





 Ice Age, not a movie.

Hello all,

Just a recent article from the Bemidji (MN) Pioneer regarding the ever nauseous Globull Warming Hoax. It is a good read, just sad that such information, opposing the notion of a Warming Planet, needs to come out in Pravda of all places.


“Climate change” is a buzzword of the 21st century. We are so much more attuned to our environment and the need to save it now, or lose it forever.

That includes controlling so-called greenhouse gases, such as carbon-based gases, from entering our atmosphere where they threaten to raise the temperature globally. The Arctic and Antarctic are melting, and Greenland is becoming more and more green.

We are now prompted to look at government policies to effect climate change to prevent these things from happening, now that the science has proven the greenhouse effect is valid.

Or is it?

The Russian Pravda newspaper online reported this week that the Earth is on the brink of entering another Ice Age from what it called “a large and compelling body of evidence from within the field of climate science.” It seems Earth’s weather patterns are cyclic, and another cycle is ready to begin.

The new data indicate “that the warm, 12,000-year-long Holocene period will rather soon be coming to an end, and then the Earth will return to Ice Age conditions for the next 100,000 years.” Aiding this theory is a study of ice cores, ocean sediment cores, the geologic record and studies of ancient plant and animal populations which demonstrate a regular cyclic pattern. Add to that the tilt of the Earth which varies over a 41,000 year period, the shape of the Earth’s orbit which changes over a period of 100,000 years, and the Earth’s wobble which gradually rotates the direction of the planet’s axis over a period of 26,000 years.

The Pravda article pans the current global warming theories by saying that supporters “focus on evidence from only the past 1,000 years at most, while ignoring the evidence from the past million years — evidence which is essential for a true understanding of climatology.” Further, the global warming theory “is based on data that is drawn from a ridiculously narrow span of time and it demonstrates a wanton disregard for the ‘big picture’ of long-term climate change.”

Now Western scientists were quick to dismiss the Russian report, saying it made some severe jumps in logic and was based on flawed interpretation of the data.

But who are we to believe?

Pravda notes that the winter of 2007-08 delivered the deepest snow cover to the Northern Hemisphere since 1966 and the coldest temperatures since 2001. And it notes that the current Northern Hemisphere winter of 2008-09 “will probably equal or surpass the winter of 2007-08 for both snow depth and cold temperatures.”

Given the number of below-zero days we’ve had since Thanksgiving, the snow cover and especially this week of tundra-like 20-plus below zero temperatures, we could argue the Ice Age has already come.



01/15/09  11:52am

 #1932802


Gottee guy
View Profile



  Message To: DuckMonster   In reference to Message Id: 1932694


 Ice Age, not a movie.

so that’s a hoax?



01/15/09  03:29pm

 #1932805


DuckMonster
View Profile



  Message To: Gottee guy   In reference to Message Id: 1932802


 Ice Age, not a movie.

Man-made Globull Warming, was, is and will be a Hoax.



01/15/09  03:37pm

 #1933259


GECKOGIRL22
View Profile



  Message To: DuckMonster   In reference to Message Id: 1932805


 Ice Age, not a movie.

Yep. I didn’t really care about it before, I don’t care now. Global warming will never be our fault.

-GG22



01/16/09  09:31am

 #1933262


DuckMonster
View Profile



  Message To: GECKOGIRL22   In reference to Message Id: 1933259


 Ice Age, not a movie.

Except it isn’t warming. Last I checked coldest winter, most snow in decades.



01/16/09  09:33am

 #1933275


GECKOGIRL22
View Profile



  Message To: DuckMonster   In reference to Message Id: 1933262


 Ice Age, not a movie.

I’ve noticed that too. Here in CT, our winters vary. It’s just where I am. And this winter is the coldest and has the most snow in a while.

-GG22



01/16/09  09:53am

 #1933565


Gottee guy
View Profile



  Message To: GECKOGIRL22   In reference to Message Id: 1933275


 Ice Age, not a movie.

In Florida it’s been very warm and rainy this winter,alot warmer than usual.



01/16/09  06:28pm

 #1933960


JackAsp
View Profile



  Message To: Gottee guy   In reference to Message Id: 1933565


 Ice Age, not a movie.

All praise Obama! Global warming is cured!



01/17/09  02:02pm

 #1934044


Mama42
View Profile



  Message To: JackAsp   In reference to Message Id: 1933960


 Ice Age, not a movie.

LOLOMFG!!!!



01/17/09  05:22pm

 #1934963


DuckMonster
View Profile



  Message To: JackAsp   In reference to Message Id: 1933960


 Ice Age, not a movie.

Yes, all ills will be cured by the Obamessiah.



01/19/09  09:42am

 #1935606


DuckMonster
View Profile



  Message To: DuckMonster   In reference to Message Id: 1934963


 Ice Age, not a movie.

CNN’s Lou Dobbs opened this segment by saying this was a CNN exclusive, something you wouldn’t see anywhere else. And unfortunately, he was right for the most.

The Jan. 13 broadcast of CNN’s "Lou Dobbs Tonight" explored the possibility that earth isn’t warming, but is, in fact, cooling.

Dobbs cited National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration data dating back to 1880 which showed a spike in mean temperature over land and ocean. However, Joseph D’Aleo, the executive director of International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project (ICECAP) questioned that data by comparing it to more modern reliable satellite data, when ask if he "quibbled" with the NOAA data’s representation.

"Yes, I do," D’Aleo replied. "In fact, if you look at the satellite data, which is the most reliable data, the best coverage of the globe - 2008 was the 14th coldest in 30 years. That doesn’t jive with the tenth warmest in 159 years in the Hadley data set or 113 or 114 years in the NOAA set."

D’Aleo’s organization, ICECAP, is one of 33 groups co-sponsoring The Heartland Institute’s 2009 International Conference on Climate Change in New York City March 8-10. D’Aleo also appeared on Dobbs’ program on Jan. 5 and said that a lot of the research promoting the theory of anthropogenic or manmade climate change is too short-sighted.

According to D’Aleo, the spike in NOAA climate data is a result of location changes where the data is recorded. He contended that with the proportional increase of urban data used versus rural data, the overall effect was a warming trend.

"Those global data sets are contaminated by the fact that two-third of the globe’s stations dropped out in 1990," D’Aleo added. "Most of them rural and they performed no urban adjustment. And, Lou, you know, your people in your studio know that if they live in the suburbs of New York City, it’s a lot colder in rural areas than it is in the city. Now we have more urban effect in those numbers reflecting, that show up in that enhanced or exaggerated warming in the global data set."

Another factor contributing to the global cooling period is the decline in sunspot activity according to Jay Lehr, a senior fellow and science director of The Heartland Institute.

"[I] think more importantly it is to look at the sun’s output, and in recent years, we’ve seen very, very low sunspot activity, and we are definitely - in my mind - not only in a cooling period, we’re going to be staying in it for a couple decades," Lehr said.

Lehr said the cooling trend was a positive and hoped it would have and impact on legislators to resist the temptation to pass and sort of climate change regulation that could further hurt the U.S. economy.

"And I see it as a major advantage, although I think we will be able to adapt to it, I’m hopeful that this change in the sun’s output will put some common sense into the legislature - not to pass any dramatic cap-and-trade or carbon tax legislation that will set us in a far deeper economic hole," Lehr added. "I believe Mr. Obama and his economic team are well placed to dig us out of this recession in the next 18 months to two years. But, I think if we pass any dramatic legislation to reduce greenhouse gases, the recession is going to last quite a few more years and we’ll come out of it with a lower standard of living as a result on very tenuous scientific grounds."

Lehr pointed out the "silliness" of not including the sun’s impact on the earth’s climate - a factor often neglected by many of the global climate change alarmist. He also cited CNN meteorologist Chad Myers, who said the theory of manmade global warming was "arrogant" on Dec. 18, 2008.

"It just seems silly to not recognize that the earth’s climate is driven by the sun," Lehr said. "Your Chad Myers about a month ago pointed out it’s really arrogant for mankind to think he controls the climate or the universe. Only 4 percent of our greenhouse gas is carbon dioxide. Ninety percent is water vapor which we have no impact over."

Lehr told Dobbs it would be a mistake to enact policy that was intended to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, as Obama’s Secretary of State designate Hillary Clinton suggested to the Senate Foreign Relations committee on Jan. 13 in her confirmation hearing that the incoming Obama administration intended to do.

"And, if we were to try to reduce greenhouse gases with China and India controlling way more than we do and they have boldly said they are not going to cripple their economy by following suit, our impact would have no change in temperature at all," Lehr added. "In Europe they started carbon cap and trade in 2005. They’ve had no reduction in greenhouse gases, but a 5 percent to 10 percent increase in the [cost of] standard of living. We don’t want to go that route."


Cooling? Time to start putting out a bit of CO2 maybe?



01/20/09  08:09am

 #1939503


Joe smoe111
View Profile



  Message To: DuckMonster   In reference to Message Id: 1935606


 Ice Age, not a movie.

2012...

enough said.



01/25/09  05:31pm

 #1940010


DuckMonster
View Profile



  Message To: Joe smoe111   In reference to Message Id: 1939503


 Ice Age, not a movie.

It is funny what people will beleive in.



01/26/09  09:04am

 #1940439


DuckMonster
View Profile



  Message To: DuckMonster   In reference to Message Id: 1940010


 Ice Age, not a movie.

From the BBC, parenteses are mine.

A team of environmental researchers in the US has warned many effects of climate change are irreversible (Irreversible? Despite anything we do? Then why try?).

The scientists concluded global temperatures could remain high for 1,000 years, even if carbon emissions (Emissions from....... man? Volcanoes? the ocean? Which results in more CO2, anyone?) can somehow be halted.

Their report was sponsored by the US Department of Energy and comes as President Obama announces a review of vehicle emission standards.

It appears in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The scientists have been researching global warming and the consequences for policymakers.


The team warned that, if carbon levels in the atmosphere continued to rise, there would be less rainfall in already dry areas of southern Europe, North America, parts of Africa and Australia.

The scientists say the oceans are currently slowing down global warming by absorbing heat, but they will eventually release that heat back into the air.

They say politicians must now offset environmental damage already done by man-made pollution.

"People have imagined that if we stopped emitting carbon dioxide (By the climate would go back to normal in 100 years, 200 year - that’s not true," said researcher Susan Solomon, the lead author of the report, quoted by AP news agency.

Their conclusions come as President Obama ordered the US Environmental Protection Agency to review rules on carbon emissions from passenger vehicles.



The MoonBats are running the asylum!



01/26/09  09:54pm

 #1940504


JackAsp
View Profile



  Message To: DuckMonster   In reference to Message Id: 1940439


 Ice Age, not a movie.

What "normal" are we supposed to go back to, exactly, anyway? Woolly Mammoth normal? Or dinosaur swamp normal?



01/26/09  11:28pm

 #1940980


DuckMonster
View Profile



  Message To: JackAsp   In reference to Message Id: 1940504


 Ice Age, not a movie.

Jack!!

Words of wisdom indeed! Just what IS the ’Normal’ climate for this planet, and why? AND, given that the climate cycles between two ’extremes’ on its own, what can or should we do to affect that IF WE CAN?

Yet, still, here is our beloved gubmint doing its best to be stupid.........

Climate Policy Crash
The EPA is poised to regulate greenhouse gases without a legislative fix.

By Jonathan H. Adler



Climate change remains at the top of President Obama’s agenda, current economic woes notwithstanding. Obama recently inveighed against energy sources that “threaten our planet,” and several of his early appointments—including Energy Secretary Stephen Chu, science adviser John Holdren, and White House energy czar Carol Browner—signal the importance of climate-change policy to this administration. During the campaign, Obama endorsed an 80-percent reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions by 2050, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she hopes to move climate-change legislation before the end of the year. California Representative Henry Waxman’s successful coup against longtime Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell of Michigan makes congressional action more likely.

Even were Congress to have second thoughts, the climate-policy die is cast. In April 2007, the Supreme Court held, in Massachusetts v. EPA, that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. Thus no new legislation is required for the Obama EPA to begin crafting rules to control the emission of carbon dioxide and other gases from automobile tailpipes, power plants, boilers, and more. Like it or not, EPA administrator Lisa Jackson and her team have ample authority to impose controls on the most ubiquitous by-product of modern industrial civilization.

Indeed, they may not have a choice. Justice Stevens’s majority opinion in Massachusetts did not command the EPA to begin regulating, but that is the practical effect of the Court’s decision. At issue was Section 202 of the Clean Air Act, which requires the EPA to impose emission standards on new motor vehicles for any air pollutants which in the EPA’s “judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.” The Court decided that greenhouse gases are “air pollutants,” and so the EPA must set standards if it believes climate change “may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.”

The EPA would have a hard time claiming not to believe that, even if the Obama administration were so inclined: In numerous documents and statements, the agency has reiterated its belief that climate change is a significant concern, and that a gradual warming could have deleterious effects on health and welfare. Even during the Bush administration, the EPA endorsed federal action to “reduce the risk” of global warming. The EPA has done everything short of publishing a formal statement that climate change “may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare,” and no court would readily let it off the hook. Thus, Massachusetts effectively requires the imposition of carbon-dioxide controls on new cars and trucks.

But that’s not the only regulation affected by the Court’s conclusion that greenhouse gases are air pollutants under the act. Section 111 of the act, for instance, requires the agency to set standards for some stationary sources of emissions “which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.” So if the EPA must regulate automotive emissions under Section 202, it must regulate emissions from power plants and factories under Section 111 as well.

And there’s more. The act requires the issuance of permits and the imposition of technological controls on facilities that emit more than 250 tons of regulated pollutants annually. For traditional pollutants, such as sulfur oxides, these provisions capture only the really big emitters—large power plants and the like. Applied to carbon dioxide, however, the 250-ton standard could encompass many commercial and residential buildings, increasing the number of regulated facilities tenfold, if not more.

A plain reading of the Clean Air Act would also seem to require that the EPA set a National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for carbon dioxide, and then force state pollution-control agencies to develop plans to ensure that metropolitan areas comply. This is a fool’s errand. There is simply no way for state and local regulators to ensure that individual cities, or even larger regions, meet an air-quality standard for a globally dispersed atmospheric pollutant. Local emissions could be reduced to zero, and a given city could still violate the NAAQS because of emissions elsewhere. It would be a pointless regulatory exercise, but after Massachusetts v. EPA it is the law.

The regulatory train thus set in motion by the Supreme Court will move apace unless Congress stops it through legislative action. What should such legislation look like? Some who would prefer to replace existing Clean Air Act rules with a cap-and-trade emissions-control regime have labored under the delusion that such a regime could be adopted by administrative fiat. Unlikely. Last year a federal court struck down the Bush administration’s effort to create a regional cap-and-trade system for traditional air pollutants. If the Clean Air Interstate Rule was invalid under the Clean Air Act, there is little hope for implementing a greenhouse-gas trading system.


Another option, favored by some conservatives, is to overturn Massachusetts v. EPA with a simple statement that greenhouse gases are not pollutants under the Clean Air Act. This would correct the Supreme Court’s erroneous statutory interpretation. Such legislation has no prayer in a Democratic Congress (and would surely be vetoed anyhow).

In the meantime, retaining the status quo means suffering costly regulation. Some action is required. What are conservatives willing to offer (or agree to) in return for derailing the EPA regulatory train? Even the most die-hard climate alarmists would prefer a comprehensive legislative alternative to setting the EPA loose on greenhouse gases under current law, so there is a near-universal desire for legislative action of some sort.

Which brings us back to cap-and-trade. If administrative fiat won’t bring such a system into existence, an agreement in Congress might. Much of the business community has settled on this view, as did both major presidential candidates during the campaign. Cap-and-trade systems have some theoretical appeal, since they work the way markets do, but it would be sheer folly to impose one for greenhouse gases. For such a scheme to be effective, it would need a massive regulatory regime to ensure compliance. It would also unleash a flurry of rent-seeking as various interest groups and industries pursued advantage in the trading and allocation rules. Administered politically—as any such regime would be—it would also be likely to serve special interests over the purported goal of reducing climate-changing emissions. Insofar as cap-and-trade operates as an indirect tax (in capping emissions it will increase prices), it will be hidden from public view and undermine political accountability. (Perhaps this is why so many politicians prefer it.) Underneath its market-oriented veneer, climate cap-and-trade would be a regulatory monstrosity.

One promising alternative is climate-oriented, revenue-neutral tax reform. Congress would replace a wide range of existing federal taxes with a consumption tax based on the carbon content of fuels. Such a tax would create incentives for more efficient energy use, and thus serve the environmentalist goal of discouraging greenhouse-gas emissions—without delegating massive new regulatory authority to the EPA. A direct tax would be more transparent and more subject to democratic control than the cap-and-trade alternative. It would also serve the longstanding conservative goal of replacing taxes on income with a tax on consumption, a policy move that would make sense even if climate change were not a concern.

Some will no doubt object (indeed, my friend Chris Horner already has) that contemplating a carbon-tax deal of the sort I propose amounts to “anticipatory capitulation” designed to “buy peace” with the opposition. Not so. Barring the miraculous enactment of the Blackburn bill to overturn Massachusetts, control of greenhouse gases is inevitable. This is not a prediction about what Congress or the EPA will choose to do, but an assessment of what current law requires.

It’s an old saw that you can’t beat something with nothing. In this case, the need for a “Plan B” is especially urgent, because the train has already left the station. If stopping that train, and preventing the otherwise inevitable wreck, is important, conservatives need a climate strategy beyond opposition to existing regulations and the imposition of cap-and-trade. On this basis, and because the threat of climate change merits a serious response, conservatives should support policies to encourage and unleash innovation—as well as tax reform replacing corporate and income taxes with a carbon tax that could prevent more onerous regulation.



01/27/09  06:19pm


Back to *General Misc Forum   Forums   Home   Members Area