Comments on: The Global Warming Challenge

By: Ricardo

Ricardo — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 18:06:02 +0000

Well, here we are, almost one year after Al Gore refused to man up. Gore declined the wager, and he absolutely runs and hides from any neutral, moderated debate on his repeatedly falsified global warming hypothesis. So, what has another year revealed?

1. Since 1998, temperatures have declined or remained flat; they have not increased. At all.

2. The r-squared correlation between Sunspots and global temps is right on track: very few Sunspots, and declining temperatures.

3. Carbon dioxide, an extremely beneficial plant nutrient, has steadily increased — at the same time that the Earth’s temperature has fallen. Therefore, CO2 can not cause global warming; effect can not precede cause.

Inescapable conclusion: anthropogenic global warming [AGW] is a purely financial scam, aimed directly at American taxpayers. AGW has been repeatedly falsified via the Scientific Method [peer-review]. The only basis for Gore and the UN’s alarmism comes from computer models, which are uniformly inaccurate. Empirical [real world] measurements, on the other hand, show significant cooling over the past year. Gore’s climate models are wrong. All of them.

Before he left office, UN Sec-Gen Kofi Annan floated a proposed .7% “World Tax” [which would exempt all non-industrialized countries, preposterously including China, Russia, Brazil and most smaller countries]. The UN’s World Tax is to be paid into the UN to “combat global warming.” [Note also that the UN has steadfastly refused to allow any independent accounting of its spending.] Kofi Annan’s successor, Ban Ki Moon, realizing that a “World Tax” is bad P.R., dropped the term “World Tax,” and placed the proposed tax in the UN’s “Millennium Development Goals” program. But it still proposes a .7% tax, primarily aimed at U.S. taxpayers [our GDP is ~$14 trillion, so a .7% tax = about $100 billion per year - to be paid to the opaque and unaccountable U.N. kleptocrats].

The global warming scam is all about MONEY - American taxpayers’ money, and how the U.N. can get its hands on a revenue stream to replace the lost Oil-For-Food income.

Now that global temperatures are declining, maybe it’s time for The Gorebot and his acolytes to begin arm-waving over a colder climate. After all, “climate change” allows them to continually move the goal posts - which by now are in the next county.

By: John B

John B — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 23:35:46 +0000

It is now pollitically correct to change the term “Global Warming” to “Climate Change”
The reason for this change is so that it is easier to explain the current 10 year Cooling Cycle on Climate Change. Global Cooling for the last 10 Years = Climate Change.

You won’t see this in Mainstream US Media.. It took the Australians to break the news!

See what the head of the IPCC has actually acknowledged about the current Global Cooling at the following link:

http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=233&Itemid=1

By: Lame-R

Lame-R — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 16:01:39 +0000

A few facts: I ride my bike to work. I don’t eat meat. Car exhaust smells bad.

With those facts out in the open, you should know that I’m doing ‘my part’ to reduce global warming. But not because I believe in the whole man-made global warming hyperbole, but simply because I like a clean, grean environment in which to live.

Al Gore is a shyster (I could very well have added this to my above list of facts.) Nevertheless, I don’t enjoy sucking on exhaust fumes on my ride to work. But I strongly believe that the most fair, the most effective, and the most efficient means of change is through the marketplace.

I also strongly believe science should be objective. There’s a lot of junk being passed off as ’science’ by many whose zeal exceeds their knowledge. I heartily endorse this wager as a means of returning the debate to a solid scientific foundation.

By: Rcherry

Rcherry — Mon, 02 Jul 2007 00:45:59 +0000

The reason the earth is sick, is because there is little immediate money in fixing it and there was money in the poisoning. So make the repair of the earth profitable or don’t…. for a more immediate profitable goal.

By: weethan

weethan — Sun, 01 Jul 2007 06:01:37 +0000

Nuclear power, although it does not produce greenhouse gases, still has other environmentally and socially hazardous implications. You still have to mine the uranium and other materials to actually make the power station support itself, it takes a very long time to build, and it has numerous health risks and waste products that cannot safely or easily be destroyed or prevented to a more-than-satisfactory degree; even in today’s standards. Hydro-electric, solar and wind is the direction to head in. They are all renewable energy sources; but nuclear is not renewable.

By: Ray Blevins

Ray Blevins — Sun, 01 Jul 2007 01:05:29 +0000

Instead of solar, etc. why not follow the lead of the French, Japanese and others and use nuclear power? Oh yeah, I forgot , the environmentalists just don’t get the attention over there that we give to them. They are the number 1 reason we have no new oil refineries in 30 years. I praise their name each time Big Oil rips me off at the pump. Unwittingly, they have empowered the Big Oil machine. Take a refinery off line for maintenance and they can jack the price. How Convenient that must be!! I hear that Exxon is considering forming a chapter of Sierra Club as it has been their leading contributor to the bottom line.

By: paul

paul — Sat, 30 Jun 2007 16:52:03 +0000

I think that the crucial issue here is the need to bring the debate back towards reality. Dr. Armstrong does not seem to be challenging the theory of Global Warming, just the extreme and unhelpful claims made by Mr. Gore.

When alarmism comes to dominate a discussion that has tremendous implications for everyone the world over, we all lose. I applaud any effort to force this undeniably important conversation back onto surer ground.

By: weethan

weethan — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 10:06:01 +0000

“The idea that the melting of the polar ice caps would flood the Earth is also stupid. When water freezes it expands and takes up a greater volume of space than if it was in its liquid state.”

True, but that’s only the case for the North Pole. Antarctica, which has a greater amount of ice than the North Pole, has most of its ice situated on top of the actual land mass. If Antarctica ice melted, the water would flow off the land mass into the ocean, rising the sea levels dramatically.

—

“Wrong wrong wrong wrong. To assemble the cars maybe so. To manufacture the batteries costs lots of money. To mine the matterials to build the batteries cost money and creates a lot of pollution. To dispose of the batteries cost money and pollution. To replace the batteries after 100K miles or so costs money. To charge the batteries costs electricity, which in this part of the country is coal generated.”

And batteries for electric cars make them cost triple that than normal cars? That’s so wrong - it’s just bigger companies buying the majority of electrical and hybrid cars out and forcing the brands that still manufacture electric cars struggle to sell their product. If you compared a car battery of an electric car to the amount of oil that is needed in a petrol based car’s lifetime, you would see the immediate difference. Plus electric car batteries last a lot longer now - and if hydro-electric power supply was used, like where I currently live, there would be no extra emissions at all.

So which type of car is better for the environment? Or is that part of your argument flawed also?

By: buzz

buzz — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 00:30:47 +0000

“For example: Electric of Hybrid cars. Why doesn’t everyone buy them instead? Most people would say it is too costly - but that is a downright LIE. An electric car takes the same amount of labour to build and manufactor as any other automobile, but they are only expensive because some people are too greedy to let those sort of non-pollution cars enter market.”
Wrong wrong wrong wrong. To assemble the cars maybe so. To manufacture the batteries costs lots of money. To mine the matterials to build the batteries cost money and creates a lot of pollution. To dispose of the batteries cost money and pollution. To replace the batteries after 100K miles or so costs money. To charge the batteries costs electricity, which in this part of the country is coal generated. You guys wont let us build nukes. You might consider a econ class if your going to argue this stuff.

By: chas

chas — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 05:23:10 +0000

1. The Earth was created by, ad is regulated by, God.
2. To think that humans could do something that would have an effect of such magnitude (i.e. cause global warming, or stop global warming) is arrogant and ridiculous.
3. The idea that the melting of the polar ice caps would flood the Earth is also stupid. When water freezes it expands and takes up a greater volume of space than if it was in its liquid state. See where I am going with this yet? If the ice caps melted coastlines would recede. Don’t believe me? Get a cup, drop a few ice cubes in it, then fill it to the very top with water. Then wait for the ice to melt and watch what happens. It wont overflow I can promise you that, the water level will actually go down.