None of those articles settle the issue. You guys can say what you like, but you can't argue with all that melted ice. What are you going to say when another ten years worth of temperature data comes in and re-validates that conclusion? But success to you is another ten year period of inaction, I guess.

 

Palin's view on global warming undergoes a convenient freeze

By Eugene Robinson

Published: Tuesday, Dec. 15, 2009 - 12:00 am
Sarah Palin is such a cold-eyed skeptic about the Copenhagen summit on climate change that it's no surprise she would call on President Barack Obama not to attend. After all, Obama might join other leaders in acknowledging that warming is a "global challenge." He might entertain "opportunities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions." He might even explore ways to "participate in carbon-trading markets."

Oh, wait. Those quotes aren't from some smug Euro-socialist manifesto. They're from an administrative order Palin signed in September 2007, as governor of Alaska, establishing a "sub-Cabinet" of top state officials to develop a strategy for dealing with climate change.

Back then, Palin was governor of a state where "coastal erosion, thawing permafrost, retreating sea ice, record forest fires and other changes are affecting, and will continue to affect, the lifestyles and livelihoods of Alaskans," as she wrote. Faced with that reality, she sensibly formed the high-level working group to chart a course of action. "Climate change is not just an environmental issue," wrote Palin. "It is also a social, cultural and economic issue important to all Alaskans."

http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/2395728.html#mi_rss=Opinion

 

So.. you're trying to prove me wrong that the claims are unfounded by quoting the source of the material that I claim is unfounded?

I was aware of the memorization and regurgitation of talking points, but this is an entirely new level of that...

 

You made me read this whole fucking article Ace when the name of Sen. James Inhofe, of Oklahoma appears in the second paragraph. Shit usually I'd quit reading right then but just to humor your whinny ass I read the whole thing.

And your point would be what Ace? Its already been looked at and debunked. These few yahoo's don't make up all the global warming science and several experts have taken the emails apart and showed how they are being taken out of context and how the data is actually backed up in other places.

 

Palin is not a scientist, so her argument does not hold.

 

Gee, I thought you were going to say she was an idiot. But in any case, her argument does not hold. The most recent one, I mean. But she was driven by political expediency in both cases.

 

The point is that Sarah Palin is on record as believing in global warming, and has since then pretended to be a skeptic on this issue in order to please her followers.

 

Here is a little food for thought,,,,and as I have told stumbler, climate change is as real as the earth is old , but I have doubts that it is now and then created by us.

Now for the facts.
Vineyards On Greenland Again

By Brooks A. Mick, M.D.
June 3, 2006

What is incontrovertible is that there is enough uncertainty about the past and the present to make predicting the future very chancy. Just think about it: If we have insufficient knowledge about the past to understand what occurred, and if we are still unable to understand the present and make short term predictions, it is arrogant to think that we know enough to preduct the future many decades and centuries and millennia into the future. The current global warming hypothesizing is all designed simply to allow the anti-capitalists to advance their agenda, the destruction of corporations, profit motives, and western civilization.

It is clear that the major media have a global warming propaganda pushing agenda. One notes that a major new scientific discovery casts serious doubt on the "global warming by volcano" hypothesis that the media continues to push. The real news shows up in in the scientific literature. The propaganda shows up in the Guardian in Great Britain and the Washington Post in the USA, both liberal and printed on dead trees. The media puts anti-capitalist Marxist news front and center, and if it reports the contrary views at all, they are relegated to small print in the back of the newspapers or broadcast at 2AM when nobody is watching cable news.

An apparent crater as big as Ohio has been found in Antarctica. Scientists think it was carved by a space rock that caused the greatest mass extinction on Earth, 250 million years ago. The Permian-Triassic extinction, as it is known, wiped out most life on land and in the oceans. Researchers have long suspected a space rock might have been involved. Some scientists have blamed volcanic activity or other culprits. --Robert Roy Britt, Space.com, 1 June 2006

The Wilkes Land impact is much bigger than the impact that killed the dinosaurs, and probably would have caused catastrophic damage at the time. --Ralph von Frese, Ohio State University, 1 June 2006

Rising global temperatures over the next century could trigger a catastrophe to rival the worst mass extinction in the history of the planet, leading British scientists warned today. Researchers at Bristol University say their studies show that six degrees of global warming was enough to wipe out up to 95% of the species which were alive on earth at the end of the Permian period, 250 million years ago. Up to six degrees of warming is now predicted for the next 100 years by United Nations scientists from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), if nothing is done about emissions of greenhouse gases, principally carbon dioxide, the chief cause of global warming. --The Guardian, 19 June 2003

Scientists call it "the Great Dying," a 250 million-year-old catastrophe that wiped out 90 percent of ocean species and 70 percent of land species in the biggest mass extinction in Earth's geologic history. The cause of this cataclysm is a matter of great dispute among paleontologists, but research released yesterday offers new evidence that global warming caused by massive and prolonged volcanic activity may have been the chief culprit. --Guy Gugliotta, The Washington Post, 21 January 2005

Yes indeed, the good old newspaper prints what it wants you to believe, not what is necessarily true. We do know that the Vikings were growing grapes in Greenland long before many SUVs and coal-fired power plants existed. If man didn't cause that global warming, why should we believe he is causing any climate change now? Why not just another natural cycle that the Earth has gone through many times?

We know that glaciers then grew massively after that old warm spell. Man didn't cause the cooling, either. And so it MAY be warming a bit now, and strangely, the doomsayers predict that all will be death and destruction because of a warming trend. Uh, gee, if it warms a bit, maybe the Vikings will start planting vineyards on Greenland again! It didn't appear that a warm earth wiped out civilization then. In fact, it may have helped spread civilization.

 

The silliness of Climategate

The Los Angeles Times By Tim Rutten December 12, 2009

we Americans are, by and large, technologically advanced but scientifically illiterate. Our national conversation is dominated by a culture of assertion rather than a respect for evidence reasonably assessed. Thus the endless wrangling over self-evident nonsense like creationism. It's precisely the insistence on treating a scientific theory, evolution, and an allegorical notion, creationism, with a faux evenhandedness that creates a situation in which 75% of Americans believe most scientists disagree over global warming.

In fact, the scientific consensus on the issue is broad and deep. Nor does it rely on science done at the Climatic Research Unit at East Anglia. Even if something untoward occurred there, we have two other scientific organizations providing baseline climate data -- both of which happen to be funded and directed by the U.S. government. One is NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and the other is the Global Historical Climatology Network -- operated not by the EPA or the Interior Department but by the Commerce Department. Their historical data essentially matches that compiled at East Anglia...

As Alan I. Leshner, who heads the American Assn. for the Advancement of Science, wrote this week: "It is wrong to suggest that apparently stolen e-mails . . . somehow refute a century of evidence based on thousands of studies. . . . Doubters insist that the Earth is not warming. This is in stark contrast to the consensus of 18 of the world's most respected scientific organizations.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-rutten12-2009dec12,0,2096153.column

 

I honestly don't think she knew what she actually did during her time as governor. Somebody probably came to her, said "sign this" and she did. Then she probably did a few winks and said "gosh folks, being governor is easy!"

 

Ha! So true!

Then she would have done a little Yosemite Sam dance, making little guns with her hands and going "pew pew, pew!"

 

Isn't Antarctica growing in ice?

 

No. It really, really doesn't. It all depends if you believe al gore and the liberals and half the conservatives and the rest of the worlds leaders and most of the worlds scientists.

What? So you mean only scientists opinions are valid? So you agree that humanity is causing, and will cause much worse, climate change?
I thought you were a denier :S

 

Not from what I'm reading.

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/02/25/antarctica-glacier-melt.html

 

Sarah Palin's followers say she is a Second Ronald Reagan. Reagan's advisers ran the country while the Gipper took long naps and vacations.

The difference is Reagan did what his advisers told him to do. Palin disobeyed her handlers during the presidential campaign. That's why she made so many stupid mistakes.

 

Something is happening, how do you explain that mountain of ice that is heading towards Australia??? Things just aren't right with our world, and I find it to be very disturbing!!!

 

I don't think it's total crap but I doubt it's caused by humans. What about the medieval warm period? What about the other times in the past where the climate has warmed even more than it has in the past little while? How come they were all natural but this one isn't?

And it's warming on Mars! No humans there. I think it's a natural process and all the money being wasted to fight it should be used to prepare people and build up dams and levees and other stuff that might do some good!

 

Well said. I'm sick of this whole global warming debate. It's common knowledge that the world is polluted, and everyone agrees that measures need to be taken to reduce it. But this whole fight about whether global warming is or isn't real is ridiculous. It's one more issue to divide people and cause bickering rather than just doing the logical thing and trying to clean up our planet.

There are effects of pollution that everyone can agree on. Why not focus on those and gain the support of everyone rather than have a summit to discuss what some people say is real and some people say isn't? I'm not here to say global warming is or isn't a fact. BUT, I think if you take the issue solely off of global warming and apply it to all the adverse effects of pollution across the board, these efforts might be a little more efficient and less argumentative. God knows what the world doesn't need is something else to fight about.

 

You are correct.

 

One story states that there is less ice on the west side ,yet there is more ice on the east side,,,,,,I wonder,,so I find this.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/01/080121-antarctica-volcano.html

Can we also contribute this to the ''man made'' global warming?