Global Warming

[me]

Answer the question. A direct answer please ....

It is worth the cost of what we are already doing not the cost of what the climate change/greens are wanting to do. Keep the factories here with some sort of control don't over regulate them to China where there are no controls at all and make things worse.  Don't you think we will be affected by what happens if the factories move to China?

[Palehorse]

>

In another topic (f3-f5 long track tornadoes) you say you have never heard of who I mistakenly called Goldman when I meant Goddard. Right here you quote him so don't try to deny it.

[Henry Hawk]

In another topic (f3-f5 long track tornadoes) you say you have never heard of who I mistakenly called Goldman when I meant Goddard. Right here you quote him so don't try to deny it.

Well how the hell did I know YOU made a mistake?  Yes said Goldman.....and for your information, I the name Goddard doesn't mean crap to me either....I just wanted to demonstate the train of thoughts by scientist back in 1975.

[me]

Well how the hell did I know YOU made a mistake?  Yes said Goldman.....and for your information, I the name Goddard doesn't mean crap to me either....I just wanted to demonstate the train of thoughts by scientist back in 1975.

You showing them that and me showing graphs and records of past severe weather patterns is meaningless to them because it doesn't go along with what they perceive to be fact.  They say the earth is going to change but yet think a geologist who has studied the earths changes and what caused them knows nothing but a climatologist who studies weather knows it all.  Go figure.

[Palehorse]

...and for your information, I the name Goddard doesn't mean crap to me either...

Really? So you just go around quoting whatever pages come up in your google search, without even giving the slightest thought toward the credibility of the site or author(s)?

Must be the case, because you and your side-kick both quoted Goddard as a "source" for your position.

[Palehorse]

You showing them that and me showing graphs and records of past severe weather patterns is meaningless to them because it doesn't go along with what they perceive to be fact.  They say the earth is going to change but yet think a geologist who has studied the earths changes and what caused them knows nothing but a climatologist who studies weather knows it all.  Go figure.

[Henry Hawk]

Really? So you just go around quoting whatever pages come up in your google search, without even giving the slightest thought toward the credibility of the site or author(s)?

Must be the case, because you and your side-kick both quoted Goddard as a "source" for your position.

Whatever, I used THIS one because it was a NewsWeek source.........or is THAT not a good enough source for you.

[Palehorse]

Whatever, I used THIS one because it was a NewsWeek source.........or is THAT not a good enough source for you.

Here is the "url" from your "source"

> alt=ScreenHunter_376 May. 20 18.53 width=246 height=39]http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/screenhunter_376-may-20-18-53.jpg?w=640alt=ScreenHunter_373 May. 20 18.50 width=331 height=402]http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/screenhunter_373-may-20-18-50.jpg?w=497&h=603
alt=ScreenHunter_384 May. 20 21.58 width=316 height=449]http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/screenhunter_384-may-20-21-58.jpg?w=640
alt=ScreenHunter_375 May. 20 18.51 width=324 height=378]http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/screenhunter_375-may-20-18-51.jpg?w=640

Please point out where "Newsweek" appears within that string? [img] removed

[me]

Whatever, I used THIS one because it was a NewsWeek source.........or is THAT not a good enough source for you.

No source that doesn't agree with their point of view is good enough.  Even if an opposing viewpoint came from one of their sources they would find fault with it all of a sudden like the person who reported it suddenly turned stupid or the people who published it had been bought off or something. 

[Palehorse]

No source that doesn't agree with their point of view is good enough.  Even if an opposing viewpoint came from one of their sources they would find fault with it all of a sudden like the person who reported it suddenly turned stupid or the people who published it had been bought off or something.

"Steven Goddard" is a pseudonym used by an anonymous climate denialist crank, so incredibly sloppy that he even embarrassed arch climate denier Anthony Watts. So where is the credibility?

[Henry Hawk]

Please point out where "Newsweek" appears within that string?

Even Gerorge Will had something to say about the "Newsweek" artilce.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/11/06/everyone-out-of-the-water.html

[me]

Even Gerorge Will had something to say about the "Newsweek" artilce.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/11/06/everyone-out-of-the-water.html

Hum, imagine that. 

And if it does not? A story in the April 28, 1975, edition of NEWSWEEK was "The Cooling World." NEWSWEEK can recycle that article, and recycling is a planet-saving virtue.

[Exterminator]

Even if an opposing viewpoint came from one of their sources...

Funny thing about that is that there are none.  Not.  One.  I don't want to believe that the planet is on a downward spiral because of us so I've looked and I've been unable to find a single scientist whose specialty is climatology and who isn't being paid by big oil or coal who doesn't agree that this is a real problem and that we are the cause.  Again... Not.  One.  As you are so fond of telling others...maybe you need to wake up.

I did read an article last week where a dentist and a podiatrist were claiming that global warming is a farce designed to bring capitalism to its knees (no one has yet provided me with an explanation why anyone would want to do so) so, yeah, they must be right because they're doctors and whatnot; right?

[me]

Funny thing about that is that there are none.  Not.  One.  I don't want to believe that the planet is on a downward spiral because of us so I've looked and I've been unable to find a single scientist whose specialty is climatology and who isn't being paid by big oil or coal who doesn't agree that this is a real problem and that we are the cause.  Again... Not.  One.  As you are so fond of telling others...maybe you need to wake up.

I did read an article last week where a dentist and a podiatrist were claiming that global warming is a farce designed to bring capitalism to its knees (no one has yet provided me with an explanation why anyone would want to do so) so, yeah, they must be right because they're doctors and whatnot; right?

And I keep reading the ones from Al Gore's study or who are financed by the government, well except for the ones who have recanted, that are the ones that you agree with.  It's a matter of choice and I chose the ones that make the most sense.  You, on the other hand chose to go with the ones who are using scare tactics and benefit through the "carbon credit" business and getting money for green business most of which have already filed bankruptcy.

[libby]

And I keep reading the ones from Al Gore's study or who are financed by the government, well except for the ones who have recanted, that are the ones that you agree with.  It's a matter of choice and I chose the ones that make the most sense.  You, on the other hand chose to go with the ones who are using scare tactics and benefit through the "carbon credit" business and getting money for green business most of which have already filed bankruptcy.

Well, here's one who makes the most sense to me (he's one of my heroes):

The Washington Post

NASA Climate Scientist James Hansen Quits to Fight Global Warming

Tanya Lewis, LiveScience Staff Writer
Date: 02 April 2013 Time: 10:34 AM ET
inShare

James Hansen at the Energy Crossroads conference in Denmark on March 12, 2009.
(picture)
   
Climate scientist James Hansen is retiring from NASA this week to devote himself to the fight against global warming.

Hansen's retirement concludes a 46-year career at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, but he plans to use his time to take up legal challenges to the federal and state governments over limiting greenhouse gas emissions.

In recent years, Hansen, 72, has become an activist for climate change, which didn't sit well with NASA headquarters in Washington. "As a government employee, you can't testify against the government," Hansen told The New York Times.

Supporting his "moral obligation" to step up to the fight now, Hansen adds in the Times article that burning a substantial fraction of Earth's fossil fuels guarantees "unstoppable changes" in the planet's climate, leaving an unfixable problem for future generations.

The distinguished NASA scientist has spent his career at the Goddard Institute on the campus of Columbia University. He has testified in Congress dozens of times, and has issued warnings and published papers that drew criticism from climate-change skeptics. [The Reality of Climate Change: 10 Myths Busted]

Hansen was arrested in February while protesting the proposed construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline that would carry heavy crude oil from Canada to the U.S. Gulf Coast. "We have reached a fork in the road," he told the Washington Post at the time, adding that politicians must understand they can "go down this road of exploiting every fossil fuel we have — tar sands, tar shale, off-shore drilling in the Arctic — but the science tells us we can't do that without creating a situation where our children and grandchildren will have no control over, which is the climate system."

With his departure from NASA, Hansen told the Times he plans to lobby European leaders to institute a tax on oil derived from tar sands, whose extraction leads to more greenhouse gas emissions than conventional oil. He could not have done these things as a government employee, he said.

Hansen will probably work in a converted barn on his farm in Pennsylvania, but may possibly set up a small institute or take an academic appointment, according to the Times. He will continue to publish papers in academic journals, but will not run the powerful
computers provided for tracking and forecasting global warming and its effects.

Raised in a small town in Iowa, Hansen initially studied the planet Venus, but switched to studying the effect of human greenhouse gas emissions on Earth during the 1970s.

He was one of the first scientists to raise alarm about global warming and its effects on climate and the environment. After testifying at a Congressional committee in 1988 that man-made global warming has begun, Hansen was quoted widely as saying, "It is time to stop waffling so much and say that the evidence is pretty strong that the greenhouse effect is here."

Hansen joined NASA's Goddard Institute as a post-doctoral scholar in 1967 and became a federal employee in 1972. He became director in 1981, and was the longest-serving director in the institute's history. "He has pushed forward the frontier of our knowledge of Earth's climate system and of the impacts that humanity is having on Earth's climate," Nicholas E. White, director of the Sciences and Exploration Directorate at Goddard, said in a statement.

Climate scientists applaud Hansen for leading the predictions of climate change's effects. But some say these predictions were exaggerated. For example, he has said in recent years that vast carbon dioxide emissions might ultimately cause a runaway greenhouse effect like on Venus that would boil the oceans and make Earth uninhabitable, the Times reported. Other scientists say this hasn't happened in the past and that Hansen overstated the risk.

Hansen was embroiled in a political fight in 2005, when a young political appointee in George W. Bush's administration tried to muzzle Hansen in the press. But Hansen revealed this to the public in an interview reported by the Times, and the administration lifted its restrictions.

Despite his environmentalist stance, Hansen has also criticized the environmentalist movement. He strongly opposed a failed climate bill in 2009, because he said it would have given the federal government billions of dollars without truly limiting emissions.

Hansen, who is registered as an independent, believes carbon dioxide emissions should be taxed, but that the money should be returned to the public as a rebate, instead of going to the government.

Hansen told the Times he senses a mass movement on climate change is beginning, led by young people, which he plans to support.

Follow Tanya Lewis on Twitter and Google+. Follow us @livescience, Facebook & Google+. Original article on LiveScience.com.
Top 10 Ways to Destroy Earth
Image Gallery: One-of-a-Kind Places on Earth
8 Ways Global Warming Is Already Changing the World
inShare

Copyright © 2013
TechMediaNetwork.com
All rights reserved.