Comments on: Todays EVERYBODY PANIC! Climate Change Story-War, War, War

By: Bob

Bob — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 17:21:32 +0000

These idiots probably eat steaks to prove they are vegetarians.

Don J. Easterbrook, Ph.D., emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, asked, “What does it take to ignore 10 years of global cooling, sharply declining temperatures the last couple of years, record setting lack of sun spots . . . failure of computer models to predict real climate, predictable warming and cooling climates for the past 500 years. The answer is really quite simple — just follow the money!”

The questions are scientific, but the UN answers are political. The global warming debate is hardly about science. It has become a cause célèbre, championed by activists, politicians and celebrities. To deny their belief that humans are the cause of global warming, is to invoke their wrath. Science is not consensus; Science is theory, observation and measurement. Science is not, “let’s all take a vote on the speed of light and see what number we get.” Science is dictated by nature’s rules.

By: William Teach

William Teach — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 22:21:46 +0000

Allen B, I would suggest that you branch out and read dissenting viewpoints. Furthermore, so many on the mankind is causing it side always talk about “consensus.” But, consensus is not science.

Start with Climate Confusion by Roy Spencer and the video The Great Global Warming Swindle.

By: Allan B

Allan B — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 19:42:11 +0000

I’d encourage all sceptics (and non-sceptics) to actually read the details of the IPCC report, visit the NOAA site, the Nat.Meteorologist site, etc. The more actual scientific sites you read, the more you see that there is plenty of scientific evidence from researchers (not paid by any “carbon industry”), for gloom and doomer concerns about the future of the planet for our children and grandchildren, IF the present trend of CO2 buildup in the atmosphere continues (or even accelerates, as India and China industrialize).

How is it that some can believe in pre-emptive war, w/o sufficient evidence, but do not believe in pre-emptive environmental responsibility, on an issue that potentially could be much worse than war? And if found to not be true, almost all the remedial actions are good anyway(energy independence, less pollution, renewable energy, etc).

We need less name calling and more research, more peer-reviewed science and discourse.

By: Torabora

Torabora — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 17:59:44 +0000

MarkJ….Seeeeeeee? That proves it!

By: MarkJ

MarkJ — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 16:45:39 +0000

“If we don’t deal with climate change decisively, “what we’re talking about then is extended world war,” [Lord Nicholas Stern] said.”

Earth calling Nicky Stern: WE ALREADY ARE IN AN EXTENDED ‘WORLD WAR.’ OR ARE YOU UNFAMILIAR WITH ISLAMIC FASCISM?