Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page:  « First  ‹ Previous  1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (13 total)
11:41 PM on 07/07/2009
Man-made carbon dioxide is only 0.117 percent of total carbon dioxide in the air and contributes only 0.0047 percent carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.
The average person has been misled and is confused about what the current Global Warming debate is about, greenhouse gases. None of which has anything to do
with air pollution. People are confusing Smog, Carbon Monoxide (CO) and the pollutants in
car exhaust with the life supporting, essential trace gas in our atmosphere, Carbon Dioxide (CO2).

NASA has corrected its US temperature records, the hottest year on record is no longer 1998, but 1934.
Five of the ten hottest years since 1880 were between 1920 and 1940 " and the 15 hottest years since 1880 are spread across seven decades.
This suggests natural variation, not a warming trend. Plant and insect remains found at the base of Greenland"s ice sheet indicate that,
just 400,000 years ago, the island was blanketed in forests and basking in temperatures perhaps 27 degrees F warmer than today.

Newsweek said climate holocaust "deniers" had received $19 million from industry, to subvert the "consensus"
it claims exists about global warming. It made no mention of the $50 BILLION that alarmists and other beneficiaries have received since 1990
from governments, foundations and corporations (including Exxon,Big Banks,GE)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
11:48 PM on 07/07/2009
Don't confuse the discussion with simple facts. There is a chance to make good money trading derivatives in cap n TRADE. Also, it is a good way for us to stop China, India and Brazil from developing. Let 3 billion people out of poverty and just imagine the problems.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Romeover
Civilization is for weaklings.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
01:15 AM on 07/12/2009
The data is doctored. Hansen will not release the raw data nor the computer code to "adjust" the data. The data has been "corrected" several times. The NASA data does not agree with the UAH data nor UK data?
11:11 PM on 07/07/2009
Inhofe has proved himself an id..iot more and more times over... wouldn't really take what he has to say as any sort of gospel.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
11:50 PM on 07/07/2009
Brown shirt ad hominem attack, no need for content.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Mr C
10:35 PM on 07/07/2009
I'm sorry. I made a mistake on the date of the world wide ban on camp fires. It was in the 11th century. Also I forgot to mention that although they did save the planet, it caused a terrible economic downturn known as the dark ages.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Romeover
Civilization is for weaklings.
06:39 PM on 07/08/2009
You are such a card!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Mr C
10:22 PM on 07/07/2009
Just to prove a point. There's a little know fact that they already saved the planet once back in the 16th century because they passed a worldwide ban on campfires. The CO2 dropped dramatically and the planet cooled just as predicted.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Mr C
10:17 PM on 07/07/2009
consensus in the scientific community..........The left wing fringe extremists sure like using all those buzz phrases and words to prove their point don't they.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
dwillisno1
Learning to Butt Heads Without Being Buttheads
11:21 PM on 07/07/2009
We could save a lot of energy and reduce green house gasses if all bulbs were as dim as you are!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Mr C
12:22 AM on 07/08/2009
You called me dim... Oh my what will I ever do.. Your side is so skilled in name calling. What chance do I have in a debate.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Tommygun264
2Q2BSTR8
11:49 PM on 07/07/2009
Yes, we rely heavily on those catchy little phrases like "facts" and "verification through peer-reviewed research", whereas the deniers rely keep pulling new arguments out of thin air without the cumbersome burden of a basis in reality.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Mr C
12:25 AM on 07/08/2009
Scientific consensus. Yep that's a fact alright. NOT!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Mr C
10:03 PM on 07/07/2009
THERE IS NO CONSENSUS!!!!!!!! Stop with the consensus propaganda.
photo
Leper
Giving the finger to intolerance
01:54 AM on 07/11/2009
You're right. There is no consensus. Not as long as there are flat-earthers like you around.
09:56 PM on 07/07/2009
Sen. Inhofe (and other fringe extremists) say global warming a "hoax." The consensus in the scientific community disagrees. It is often said that what we do on this planet will affect it for generations to come. I think future generations will be most thankful if we go with science and reject Inhofe. No generation deserves the future that Sen. Inhofe and his pals are determined to create through their willful ignorance and their devotion to greed.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
11:52 PM on 07/07/2009
Did you read his web site. They have 31,000 physical scientists who say AGW is not probable. For an alternative view, read the Rolling Stone article: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/28816321/the_great_american_bubble_machine/print#
photo
Leper
Giving the finger to intolerance
01:59 AM on 07/11/2009
I've read it. It is an interesting article. I have a great deal of respect for Matt Taibbi and I will be interested in seeing how cap-and-trade will be comodotized. Right now, I don't see it.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
12:31 AM on 07/08/2009
Read the Manhattan Declaration....you might change your mind.
09:39 PM on 07/07/2009
HEAD of the EPA said today that we could implement a very strict and expensive climate bill as proposed and it would not make one bit of difference without China and India implementing the same thing.
09:47 PM on 07/07/2009
Exactly what I have been saying over and over on this post. We will spend TRILLIONS and lose millions of jobs for what is projected to be a 1/10th of a degree savings. Do you really think that is worth it? Not even close in my book. You would get more savings if EVERYBODY else in the WORLD joins us. Good luck on that one!

CO2 makes up .015% of the atmosphere and is only 1 part of the GHG affect. Explain how an increase to .02% will make for a CLIMATE CATASTROPHE.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Romeover
Civilization is for weaklings.
06:49 PM on 07/08/2009
CO2 is 387 ppm by volume, or 582 ppm by mass, in dry air. Do the math to convert to percent. Source: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

Which brings me to the burning question: where do you get your figures?
09:57 PM on 07/07/2009
And of course all the statements that if the US does pass such a bill China and India would do so as well must have gone over your head.

Also even a degree of a fraction in climate temperatures have huge effects. Climate is not weather.
10:02 PM on 07/07/2009
You really think that China, which is installing dozens of coal burning plants by the day, is just going to give up this cheap energy and become a regressive society? You really wouldn't think this, would you? Seriously.....you couldn't, could you?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Mr C
09:27 PM on 07/07/2009
serena1313, Any scientist that's qualified on the subject knows that CO2 follows temperature. We have higher CO2 because we have higher temperatures not the other way around. So stop with the misinformation on CO2 causing higher temps.
photo
Leper
Giving the finger to intolerance
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
11:54 PM on 07/07/2009
He meant real scientist or climatologists, like:
http://www.nipccreport.org/

Don't start with the Wiki version to discuss science.
09:42 PM on 07/07/2009
yawn....

show me a scientist who does not think the burning of fossil fuels for the last couple of centuries is not to blame for our rise in CO2 levels for the last couple of centuries...

We have higher CO2 because we are releasing it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Mr C
09:46 PM on 07/07/2009
Like this........................................................................................................ http://icecap.us/images/uploads/FlaticecoreCO2.pdf
09:50 PM on 07/07/2009
Hope your packing for the trip went well, now go ahead and answer my question. If CO2 makes up only .015% of the atmosphere and is only 1 part of the GHG affect, then explain how an increase to .02% will cause a CLIMATE CATASTROPHE.
09:20 PM on 07/07/2009
We know. And you can't even hope help from stemm-cells.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Mr C
09:19 PM on 07/07/2009
Golly serena1313 that sounds bad!
09:13 PM on 07/07/2009
Correction: From what I have read It seems like water boarding might.
09:10 PM on 07/07/2009
From what I have read I seems like water boarding might.
09:09 PM on 07/07/2009
We must reevaluate science of GW.

Ideas that GHG trapped infra red (IR) radiation are correct, but properties of water more important in GW.

We need 539 kcal to evaporate one kg of water, to heat one kg of water on 1� C we need 1 kcal.
Molecular mass of N2 = 28, of O2 = 32, of CO2 =44, of H2O = 18. Water vapor is lighter than most gases in air. As lighter gas it is going up to cloud and above.
Water vapor is invisible gas, what we see in air it is water DROPLETS of fog, clouds and particles which mostly responsible for visibility.
Water vapors also GHG and trapped IR radiation and therefore also heats the air.
In air we always have some droplets of water, energy of molecule, with trapped IR radiation if it will collide with water droplet will evaporate at least one molecule of water from that droplets and it will cool the air.
Wind always evaporates partially water droplets and this process also cools the air.
Huge amount of water vapor on clouds level condensed to water droplets and released the same energy as they take in process of evaporation. We have only one differences-energy released on 2-7 miles close to space, where IR radiation of condensation will more easily escape to space.
Clouds, which reflect back to space direct sun radiation, also cool the earth.
PROPERTIES OF WATER MORE IMPORTANT IN NATURE THAN ALL GHG.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Romeover
Civilization is for weaklings.
06:53 PM on 07/08/2009
You should get a Nobel prize for realizing before any other scientist that water is the driving force in global warming!!!

Oh..... water vapor is already taken into account in the climate models....

Sorry.; No bell for you.
12:50 AM on 07/09/2009
Dear Romeover, please show me one climate model, where properties of water already taken into account, and after that take back your sarcasm.
It must be full picture with changing direct sun radiation by tilling, growing crops for food production, deforestation, reduction of evaporation on the continents, changing cloud formation, soot and many others small things, which is difficult to put in model, but without them any models are garbage.
08:58 PM on 07/07/2009
Why do you hate the Earth, Inhofe?
photo
Leper
Giving the finger to intolerance
09:39 PM on 07/07/2009
Inhofe doesn't hate the Earth; just the people on it.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
11:57 PM on 07/07/2009
No the Malthusians hate people and want to stop the progress of people in China, Brazil and India by imposing impossible standards. They could not kill enough with the prior ban on DDT, so they had to create a new means.