Global Warming Update
December 6th, 2007 at 09:00am Mark Noonan
PORTLAND - The first major winter storm to sweep across Maine this season was farther out to sea than expected, reducing snowfall totals, but there was still plenty of the white stuff to clean up on Tuesday, officials said.
Portland tied the record for the date set in 1890 with 8.5 inches of snow on Monday, according to Bob Marine of the National Weather Service.
Elsewhere, Marshfield in Washington County had 18 inches of snow, Lakeville in Penobscot County 17 inches, Island Falls in Aroostook County 16, Brassau Lake near Moosehead 15.7, Farmington 14.7 inches and Andover 13, the weather service said.
Also interesting:
The National Weather Service says the Grand Forks airport had 8.1 inches of snow yesterday, setting a record for the date. And Fargo set a record with 5.9 inches.
The previous mark in both cities was set back in 1926.
I know, it isn’t “global warming” anymore, its now “climate change”…and it is responsible for both record heat, and record cold; record drought, record snowfalls…its responsible for everything, including Al Gore’s weight gain.
Entry Filed under: Environment
49 Comments
1. FoolYouTwice | December 6th, 2007 at 9:20 am
Now you are reduced to looking at individual days of weather to try and debunk global warming. The funny thing is, you don’t even look at the individual temperatures, just snowfall totals. And these are record snowfalls for that particular date, not in general. Even for people who believe one cold day proves there is no global warming, this is completely lacking in any logic.
Since you seem to believe that when it snows, that goes to show global warming is a lie; I can only assume on days that it doesn’t snow, you will make posts claiming globabl warming is true.
2. hermie | December 6th, 2007 at 9:24 am
Well the Chicago area has been hit with temperatures in the 20’s and we expect single digits by tomorrow and Saturday.
As for taking individual days, there still is no proof of any warming being the direct result of man’s activities.
How is it there in Bali?
3. liberalT | December 6th, 2007 at 9:28 am
Mark - that is probably the weakest post I have seen in a while. Congratulations - thats hard to do on this blog. It snowed a lot in a couple places the other day so OBVIOUSLY global warming is wrong? How is that interesting at all. I feel bad for you man - thats just hilarious though
4. bagni | December 6th, 2007 at 10:08 am
markameteorologist
fyi….colorado is warmer than normal
snow is terrible for this time of year…
so here…we’re believing climate change
at least for this 5 min of our lives
why don’t you post up something about the mall shooting?
the fact that young white kids are the new terrorists
and the govt can do very little to protect us from them
hmm…wonder how the mall shooting would have been positioned if a non white was the shooter?
5. SEW | December 6th, 2007 at 10:24 am
You forgot that GW/climate change is also responsible for hurricanes and lack thereof as well, unless you pin it on W. And wildfires.
Thank you FatAl for your science. As for the pinheads that buy into it….thanks for reminding me how fortunate I am.
6. Kahn | December 6th, 2007 at 10:29 am
bangi,
I usually carry a .45 automatic and several extra magazines. You can’t rely on the government to protect you all the time.
But as to the weather - everything is caused by glogal warmi9ng. Good weather, bad wether, warmer than usual, colder than usual, hurricanes, no hurricanes. It’s a very understanding and inclusive religion.
7. Bigfoot | December 6th, 2007 at 10:37 am
And these are record snowfalls for that particular date, not in general.
If the opposite were to occur, and record highs were set for these places on this date, the Global Warming Believers would all be touting this as evidence that Al Gore is right.
I know, it isn’t “global warming” anymore, its now “climate change”…and it is responsible for both record heat, and record cold; record drought, record snowfalls…its responsible for everything, including Al Gore’s weight gain.
Mark, don’t forget, all of this is happening solely because we humans are emitting more CO2 than we should, and because Dubya refused to place us under Kyoto, which we never ratified in the first place. The naturally-produced CO2, and all that water vapor, even though it contributes far more to the greenhouse effect than CO2, all mean (excuse me while I convert to my Sgt. Schulz voice) nothing…nothing! [/sarc]
8. Global Warming Update&hellip | December 6th, 2007 at 10:47 am
[...] Original post by Mark Noonan [...]
9. plainjane | December 6th, 2007 at 11:12 am
December 6th, 2007 at 09:00am Mark Noonan
Mark, you listen to Limbaugh so much your head is mush. Only Limbaugh would come up with similar logic. In fact Limbaugh’s views are worse than yours they are that of a simpleton. Rush believes, if the Democrats are for protecting the environment then we Republicans are against interfering in man’s desecration of God’s creation. It is simply black and white political to him.
Just think if Repug’s are wrong on this one. The world wide consequences would make the Republicans’ Iraq folly look pale in comparison. Repugs should sit back and think of what the world can be, cleaner with better air to breath. Think of all the jobs being created to produce hybrid cars and energy efficient appliances. One day we may be able to tell Saudi Arabia to pound sand. We don’t need their oil. But that is what this Republican orchestrated rally against the environment is all about; protecting big oil. BP showed you what they thought of the environment. They were recently issued massive fines for failing to do the most basic preventative maintenance on their pipeline in Alaska. This lack of maintenance resulted in huge oil spills. And Repugs want us to give them more of God’s creation on the North Slope to destroy.
10. anarchist | December 6th, 2007 at 11:15 am
While I’ve seen some stuff that indicates we might be in a period of global warming and that there even may be some man made contributions, I think the government should prove itself capable of more mundane task before we allow it to set up a bureaucracy of controlling the climate and weather. I don’t really have much confidence in the federal government’s potential ability to control the weather, although I am confident they are willing to spend trillions and regulate increasinly more aspects of our lives trying.
11. OhioOrrin | December 6th, 2007 at 11:39 am
the issue is NOT climate change.
the earth’s climate changed BEFORE man.
the earth’s climate changed AFTER man.
the issues are man-controllable contribution(s), if any, and who PROFITS.
12. pinko_liberal | December 6th, 2007 at 11:51 am
As an economist, one of the first things we are taught is not to use anecdotal evidence as proof or disproof of a theory or trend. Super it was cold in Portland and it’s warm in Colorado, neither proves anything because there are going to be outliers in weather whether or not global warming exists.
I will grant to you that global warming is a theory and that it isn’t necessarily true, despite the fact that the evidence strongly supports it’s existence. But, trying to use a cold day as proof is ridiculous and doesn’t really do anything to contribute to the debate, but instead essentially puts a smoke screen over the actual issues which should be discussed.
13. eric | December 6th, 2007 at 11:55 am
If the democrats succeed in getting the U.S. to sign the Kyoto Treaty, it could be ruinous to the U.S. economy. China and India are not required to meet any emissions targets under the Treaty. However, it would cost the U.S. a fortune and would stifle economic growth. This is simply a socialist plan to redistribute wealth.
14. winnowhead | December 6th, 2007 at 11:59 am
You still don’t know the difference between weather and climate, Mark?
A least the mouse stops pushing the button after a couple electric shocks…
15. FoolYouTwice | December 6th, 2007 at 11:59 am
I doubt they all would be. Most notably actual scientists that study climate change wouldn’t use such faulty logic. Of course, some would do what you claim and they would be guilty of using the same flawed logic, or lack thereof, as Mark did.
It sounds like we are in agreement that Mark’s logic in this case is quite wrong and he has proved nothing.
16. navydad | December 6th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
The liberal vs. conservative point of view on GW is simple:
Conservative view-Every human on this planet (even Dennis Kookspinach) is a grain of sand in time with no more control over Earth’s rotation or that incredible shroud of life we call the atmosphere, than the control we have over what our enemies think of America.
Liberal view- We can surely change the rotatation if we stop living our lives, kill all the cows to eliminate methane, walk to work, use one sheet of TP to wipe our arses, and dole out hugs to our enemies.
To this extent, and to believe for a second, that we mere humans can control God’s will, is absurd and lacks common sense.
Now, on to reality. Like anarchist, we’ve all seen or heard bits and pieces of junk science, indicating GW “may be” anthropogenic, to which there is a 66 percent probability. Operative words…”may be”
Sixty-six percent….are they freakin nuts??? This is the highest probability factor to date and when compared with the latest NIE report regarding Iran’s nuke program, it truly seems absurd considering 66% is closer to 50/50 than to 100%. Basically, the scientists charged with creating GW data for the pro-GW crowd, understand that the majority of most civilized humans don’t comprehend “the glass is half full” analogy.
Also noteworthy is the technical “know-how” today vs. the 19th century. Were the instruments and data collection as good as today’s? If we re-construct global climate, using 20th century glaciers as our baseline, which most scientists use, then what about prior centuries and which climate is actually the “correct” climate. Man obviously had no affect on GW in prior centuries, so, is this century an anomaly, or are we on our way to a “correct” climate?
17. Ricorun | December 6th, 2007 at 1:13 pm
navydad: To this extent, and to believe for a second, that we mere humans can control God’s will, is absurd and lacks common sense.
It sounds more to me like you are saying we should put all our faith in God’s will (as if we knew what it was) and ignore common sense (as if it was the work of Satan and not something He bestowed upon us).
18. js | December 6th, 2007 at 1:26 pm
Is Global Warming Affecting North American Resort Snowfall Totals?
http://www.telemarktips.com/Snofall.html
well wadda ya know!!
search google for “annual snowfall totals usa” and what showed up?
I find it amusing that the liberals immediately run to high ground based on some supposed daily high snowfall record!! Its pretty plain to see that all they are interested in doing is gossiping and rumormongoring, because they fall extremely short on the end that demands facts.
19. TiredofLibBullShit | December 6th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
Uh Oh!
Hot Air Emitted by Climate Summit Equals 20,000 Cars
Government officials and activists flying to Bali, Indonesia, for the United Nations meeting on climate change will cause as much pollution as 20,000 cars in a year.
The delegates each will produce an average 4.07 metric tons of carbon dioxide, or CO2, to reach the resort island 950 kilometers (600 miles) from Jakarta, according to estimates e- mailed to Bloomberg by the UN agency holding the conference.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601170&refer=home&sid=aPbfclqokwcw
From whom will they buy their carbon credits?
This “climate change” or “global warming” (whatever catch phrase they are using now) is nothing but an economic redistribution scam.
It will do nothing to reduce CO2 emissions. “Rich” countries can purchase carbon credits from “poor” countries in order to emit more past their allotment. How will this limit emissions? Will these countries halt their economic/produciton expansion in order to realize this free income? Come on…..sit back, do nothing and sell your carbon credits.
What a scam. People have gone to jail for similar scams.
20. TiredofLibBullShit | December 6th, 2007 at 1:46 pm
But I thought the idea was to generate clean energy and weaning us off foreign oil………
Environmentalists just can’t seem to make up their minds. First they cry “global warming” and want to use the government to force businesses to come up with alternative energy measures. And then when a company comes along to offer a solution – in this case it is wind farms – the environmentalists are still complaining … the wind farms can’t be built because it might endanger some icky salamanders on that land; you can’t destroy it you greedy capitalist!
Well in this case, the King Ranch and a coalition of environmental groups are suing Texas Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson. Why?? Because the environmentalists want to require an “extensive environmental review and public comment” on two wind power projects that are being planned along the Gulf Coast.
The lawsuits will most assuredly delay, and maybe even stop, the two wind projects, which would place 600 turbines on 60,000 acres of land.
Remember … for many of the most vocal environmentalists .. it isn’t about the environment. It’s about attacking capitalism.
21. AAR | December 6th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
It’s the sun you DIMwit DIMocrats!
Just when we need some greenhouse gases and carbon dioxide to keep the Earth warm as the sun cools, Democrats want to eliminate those gases… create another Ice Age… kill our food crops… and freeze us all!!!
Never, ever put your faith in a Liberal (Democrat)… it’lll get you killed!
AAR
22. SteaM | December 6th, 2007 at 2:09 pm
Mark,
Right now, based on the technology and science that we have, the conclusion is that frequency and severity of weather will increase due to climate change or global warming or whatever you want to call it. I’d like to call it a severe, unprecidented, and unnatural shift in the balance of the elements in our atmosphere caused by humans’ post-industrial age burning of massive amounts of fossil fuels.
So you believe up is down as do other climate change sceptics. Yet, everyone is trying very hard to tell you that UP IS INDEED UP.
And, why not be better off being safe than sorry? Why not give these scientists a chance by listening to them?
23. navydad | December 6th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
Wow..Rico, great spin! You’re always on your game.
I guess what I said could be construed as you state…LOL!
But honestly Rico, do you believe Earth’s rotaion is coincidence? Or all of “this” is purely accidental?
What I meant was, no one human or culture has the ability to make the changes that some on the left insist must be made to save the planet. I’m also not sure any combined collaboration of cultures would have any quantifiable affect. In essence, we could all quit driving cars, but GW, due to natural cycles, would continue or reverse. Either way, the kooks would claim the cause was anthropogenic.
IMHO, that argument lacks common sense.
24. hermie | December 6th, 2007 at 2:54 pm
“I’d like to call it a severe, unprecidented, and unnatural shift in the balance of the elements in our atmosphere caused by humans’ post-industrial age burning of massive amounts of fossil fuels.”
I’d like to call it an unrealistic assumption that man is the sole and major cause of the supposed ‘Global warming/climate change/Shake and bake’.
“Why not give these scientists a chance by listening to them?”
If they had actually developed their methodology and came to their conclusions in the manner that all science is practiced, then you might have a point. However, their results can’t bear the scrutiny and they have shut off any debate by slamming the door shut on discussion and arguement.
25. SteaM | December 6th, 2007 at 3:10 pm
Their results can’t bear the scrutiny? Oh please.
I do not really see much scrutiny, debate, discussion, or argument against it that isn’t payed for by the energy companies.
26. GOP4ME | December 6th, 2007 at 4:22 pm
Steam,
I’m sorry, but when is FatAl Gore’s debate on Global Warming scheduled for?
hmm…. still waiting for him to put his money where is mouth is.
Also of note, as the plane I was riding in taxied down the runway of John Wayne Airport the other day, guess who was de-planing from a private jet?
You got it, the left’s favorite candidate, Hilary “effing” Clinton. So concerned is she about global warming that she just has to fly her private jet. First class is certainly not good enough for her.
HYPOCRITES each and every one of you filthy, leftists a-holes.
27. neocon | December 6th, 2007 at 4:35 pm
SteaM,
The IPCC is a government (mostly socialist government) funded panel that has in it’s very best interest to determine that global warming is indeed a existential threat. The governments that fund them stand to garner power and money based on that conclusion.
The IPCC is just another ineffective and corrupt UN organization.
28. SteaM | December 6th, 2007 at 4:49 pm
neocon,
Yes, I know they are governmental appointed scientists.
And those scientists most likely toned down their final conclusions rather than the opposite. That seems like a desparate paranoid conspiracy theory you have there. I’m going with the science on this one.
GOP4me,
Excluding the fact that hillary uses a jet, which is not a suprise to me, hell, you probably drove a car within the last week as did I … that is just distracting from the issue here.
Do you want Al Gore to really have a debate on prime time tv? I would LOVE that. I think it’s an awesome idea!
If this debate were to happen and you were there and asked to give him a question. What would your question be?
29. Ricorun | December 6th, 2007 at 5:09 pm
navydad: Wow..Rico, great spin! You’re always on your game.
Thanks. Allow me to extend the same compliment to you, and with all the sincerity you extended yours to me.
But honestly Rico, do you believe Earth’s rotaion is coincidence? Or all of “this” is purely accidental?
To be honest, I couldn’t make much sense out of your (#16) comment, much less figure out where you’re getting your data. So it’s a little hard to respond to it on any sort of factual basis. As far as your #23 comment goes, a lot is made about the relative cooling that took place from about 1950 through the 80s (give or take 5 years either way). Some take it as evidence that there was a “scientific concensus” that we were headed into an ice age. Except there really wasn’t a scientific concensus. There was, however, a scientific concensus that the sulfates, chloroflourocarbons, and tropospheric particulates that we were spewing into the air (as well as heavy metals, but that’s a different concern than the one I seek to address presently) was causing problems with acid rain and various adverse health effects. So starting in the 70s a concerted effort to reduce those sorts of emissions was made here in the US, Europe, and other developed parts of the world, despite warnings that it would kill our economies. The attempt was quite successful — and it didn’t kill our economies. That’s the good news. The bad news is that those agents also masked the effects of greenhouse gases (GHGs). So as their concentrations decreased the average global temperatures increased.
Now, you say, “I’m also not sure any combined collaboration of cultures would have any quantifiable affect [sic].” It’s not quite as simple as I’m explaining it here, but bear with me: the bottom line is that that experience was a real-life example of a situation where a “combined collaboration of cultures” CAN have a quantifiable effect.
Okay, here’s where it gets complicated… different things that we spew into the atmosphere have different half-lives (i.e., the precipitate out at different rates). Depending on their half lives, density, and distribution patterns, they may have more local effects or more general effects. They may spread for hundreds of miles, thousands of miles, throughout the hemisphere, or globally. Thus, depending on their origin and relative distribution, it stands to reason that they may affect climate locally, regionally, hemispherically, or globally. And that only considers the atmosphere. Then there are also the oceans to consider (which, after all, cover 3/4 or so of the earth’s surface) as well as vegetation on land. Obviously, the situation is hugely complex. Add onto that the fact that the various feedback loops aren’t likely to be linear in all cases and you have an even more complex system.
Faced with that seemingly overwhelming complexity, one can (most simply) do one of two things: (1) throw up your hands and claim it can’t possibly be understood and leave it in God’s hands, or; (2) accept responsibility and try to understand it.
Personally, I feel an obligation to do the latter. I do so because I feel an obligation to my God to be a good steward. Obviously, I’m not a climate scientist, but I do understand a little bit about science — both the methodology and the process, and the limitations they entail, both philosophically and practically. I also like to think that I am open to all arguments, and that I am willing to consider them on the basis of their merit. I appreciate that there is considerable cross-fertilization among those that study this stuff, and that’s a danger. But by the same token I recognize that climate science is a very, very complex field. And those that are in it require a great deal of computing power, and there’s only so much of it to go around. So complete independence among groups, although desirable, is impractical. So there is a real danger that they might (let me repeat — MIGHT) feed on their own biases. But acknowledging that possibility is not the same as presuming it. And to assume out of nothing more than naivete that there is some grand conspiracy afoot strikes me as just that — naivete.
To me there is a difference between legitimate “GW skeptics” and illegitimate ones — as well as many in-between (hey, it ain’t easy). Among those that I listen to are (to name a few) Richard Lindzen, Roger Pielke Sr., and Steve McIntyre — i.e., people that either have real data and/or real arguments based on real data, upon which they can base legitimate arguments against the “scientific concensus”. In contrast to them there are many others that just take pot shots. And in many cases it’s not really them, but reports in popular periodicals that take what someone said out of context, or otherwise misconstrue what they said. Perhaps the most recent example is AAR’s post of they Independent article. He didn’t provide a reference (I hate that — if you’re going to provide a quote, how hard is it to identify where you got it???), but I presume it came from NASA scientist David Hathaway. But if AAR actually looked into it I suspect he might find that Hathaway is more guarded in his opinions than the Independent article suggests. I’m not saying that’s necessarily the case, what I’m suggesting is that the Independent article suited AAR’s purposes, so he didn’t bother to investigate further. AAR is not unusual in that regard though. And that’s kinda the problem — very few are inclined to investigate further once their purpose is fulfilled.
30. neocon | December 6th, 2007 at 5:39 pm
You’re telling me that I have the paranoid conspiracy theory??????
Oh my…..LOL
31. SteaM | December 6th, 2007 at 5:57 pm
Well, yes! I am!
Do you think I really enjoy the thought of what science is telling us actually happening?
Dude, I’d rather it didn’t happen that way. But because they are the scientists and I am not then I listen to them. Not oil companies and their financed “scientists” or pundits?
32. Retired Spook | December 6th, 2007 at 6:00 pm
Anthony Watts just posted an updated map of all the surface temperature recordings stations surveyed so far by his volunteer organization. Each of the sites is color coded based on adherence to NOAA specifications and guidelines. Keep in mind as you look at the map, that, as one commenter notes, the U.S. is supposed to have the highest quality sites in the world.
33. eric | December 6th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
Spook,
Thanks for the heads-up. The photographical evidence that he presents in his “How not to measure temperature” series is very interesting. Unfortunately, this type of evidence is largely ignored by those that worship at the temple of Al Gore.
34. Ricorun | December 6th, 2007 at 7:15 pm
Spook, a couple of months ago one of McIntyre’s commenters on his ClimateAudit site did a study comparing the worst with the best sites, as graded by Watts, using data Watts posted. I’m pretty sure I posted it here at the time, but I didn’t keep a record of it. Did you see it? Or do I need to dig? As I recall, the conclusion was that once the corrections suggested by NASA were applied, the differences were negligible.
35. Cities and Towns of Vermo&hellip | December 6th, 2007 at 7:31 pm
[...] Global Warming UpdateBy Mark NoonanElsewhere, Marshfield in Washington County had 18 inches of snow, Lakeville in Penobscot County 17 inches, Island Falls in Aroostook County 16, Brassau Lake near Moosehead 15.7, Farmington 14.7 inches and Andover 13, the weather service …Blogs For Victory - http://blogsforvictory.com [...]
36. neocon | December 6th, 2007 at 7:56 pm
Only the “real” scientists, right SteaM?
37. hermie | December 6th, 2007 at 9:15 pm
Only those ’scientists’ who stand to get grants and other financing to promote the ‘humans are responsible’ mantra.
38. navydad | December 6th, 2007 at 9:44 pm
Rico, again..great response. You always seem to help clarify issues without complete bloviation…thanks!
However, I tend to disagree with your premise that a reduction in CFCs and others have contributed to global reduction in acid rain and other health related issues. Maybe regional, but not hemispherical. This is where you’ll really think I’m a kook….lol! China has not decreased their use of CFCs nor have they ever considered a reduction in production, in fact they had increased the level of use to pre 1980’s US production and just recently acknowledged the need for reduction. And prior to being confronted, they were the worlds leader in CFC production. Thus shooting a few holes in your “quanitifiable” analogy…with all due respect.
Finally, in Aug. of this year, China shut down most of their factories, but continued to produce CFCs.
I’ve pasted the site.
http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=514&ArticleID=5624&l=en
39. Retired Spook | December 6th, 2007 at 10:31 pm
Did you see it? Or do I need to dig? As I recall, the conclusion was that once the corrections suggested by NASA were applied, the differences were negligible.
I didn’t see it, Rico, but you don’t need to waste a lot of time digging it up. If it’s the poster at CA that I think you’re referring to , his credibility is less than zero. I find it hard to believe that Hansen and his pals could come up with accurate mathematical adjustments to accommodate some of the crap that the surface stations project has uncovered, even if they had visited each and every site and taken extensive readings and measurements (which they haven’t).
40. billy blanks | December 7th, 2007 at 12:54 am
Navydad,
Nice try.
At China’s peak they were producing 85k tons/yr of CFC in 1996. Just like your article indicated.
However, when the Montreal protocol was signed, worldwide production was 1.25 million tons/yr.
By 1992, worldwide production was reduced to ~ 600,000 tons.
http://earthtrends.wri.org/features/view_feature.php?theme=3&fid=28
While China did become the largest producer of CFC (After Russia agreed to suspend production)…Their peak production capacity was a pittance relative to the worldwide production in the mid 80’s.
41. Mr. Bill | December 7th, 2007 at 12:59 am
Navydad,
Nice try.
At China’s peak they were producing 85k tons/yr of CFC in 1996. Just like your article indicated.
However, when the Montreal protocol was signed, worldwide production was 1.25 million tons/yr.
By 1992, worldwide production was reduced to ~ 600,000 tons.
http://earthtrends.wri.org/features/view_feature.php?theme=3&fid=28
While China did become the largest producer of CFC (After Russia agreed to suspend production)…Their peak production capacity was a pittance relative to the worldwide production in the mid 80’s.
42. TiredofLibBullShit | December 7th, 2007 at 9:09 am
Bali update……
First … let’s start with this. If you don’t read anything else today .. anywhere .. read this. It’s a column from the Canadian Financial Post.
http://www.financialpost.com/analysis/story.html?id=eec03f41-5fa7-41b9-b179-614151eaf15e&k=87348
Peter Foster says what a lot of the more aware among us have been saying for years .. that the environmental movement has been occupied by cast-off Commies and assorted anti-capitalist radicals.
At the Bali conference on global warming, more than 200 (only 200?) climate scientists issued a declaration to agree on strong targets for tackling climate change. The declaration says that global greenhouse gas emissions need to be reduced by at least 50% below 1990 levels by 2050. The goal “must be to limit global warming to no more than 2 ºC above the pre-industrial temperature.”
And developing nations demanded rapid transfers of technology to help them combat climate change.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gBTCrOwOrOXV9BkLBDRmtO3XWbHQD8TBF58G0
Poor counties are demanding that they need more scientific know-how to reduce pollution and improve energy efficiency. Where do they get this technology? From wealthy nations. Who pays for it? Wealthy nations; evil, nasty, oppressive, horrible wealth nations. In the meantime those wealthy nations at the conference are focusing on making big countries like China setting goals for cutting pollution emissions.
Meanwhile, the government officials and activists that have flown to Bali will cause as much pollution as 20,000 cars in one year. Each delegate with produce an average of 4.07 metric tons of carbon dioxide. This total is the equivalent of 20,350 mid-sized cars. Some of the nations’ delegates promise to offset their carbon footprint by planting trees or buying emissions credits. But scientists say that these symbolic actions won’t do squat.
Another great column about the global warming mob hysteria. It’s by Andrew Bolt.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_welcome_to_my_nightmare/
He tells of the nightmare he experiences being on the outside watching the mob self-destruct.
NO PRESS CREDENTIALS FOR YOU!
Writers from The Heartland Institute showed up in Bali to cover the global warming mass hysteria meeting. They were denied press credentials. Why? Because these people represented an organization that has not bought the global warming scam hook, line and sinker. It’s not only some writers that are being barred. A group of scientists from The International Climate Science Coalition was denied the opportunity to be present at panel discussions and other events, and their members were denied press credentials. The UN is working to freeze these scientists out of any future discussions on the matter by using the tired old “the science is settled” line. Afraid of debate is more like it.
Please, folks. Wake up to what’s going on out there. It’s all about wealth redistribution, not the climate.
43. navydad | December 7th, 2007 at 9:45 am
Mr. Bill
The argument isn’t over quantity. It’s over the accuracy in which these quantities are reported. Sorry you felt it necessary to correct me on an irrelevant issue.
Go back to Rico and my earlier posts and you’ll see where the argument begins.
BTW, The odds are low that the Earth Trends staff has better, more accurate access to the Chinese organizations for reporting emissions and to show you how un-informed the American public is, here is a quote that proves my claims that China isn’t being honest about their emissions reporting.
“You cannot tell people who are struggling to earn enough to eat that they need to reduce their emissions,” said Lu Xuedu, the deputy director general of Chinese Office of Global Environmental Affairs, at a conference two weeks ago.
Get my drift Mr. Beel?
44. navydad | December 7th, 2007 at 9:50 am
Mr. Bill…China’s emissions peaked at 55k metric tons..not 85k.
Here’s the quote:”The shut down of the five facilities, in Chiangshou City, near Shanghai, will bring China’s production of CFCs to just about 550 metric tons, down from 55,000 metric tons at its peak in 1998.”
45. eric | December 7th, 2007 at 11:26 am
Spook,
Funny how the believers would prefer to use flawed data that requires correction instead of fixing the flawed temperature stations in order to get accurate data.
46. progressive insurance&hellip | February 4th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
progressive insurance
life insurance progressive insurance term life insurance rate online poker
47. adult orgies parties&hellip | April 18th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
dragonball gt hentai porn
auto trader on line classified ads
48. gayle klinger&hellip | April 21st, 2008 at 9:32 am
does god hate gay people
james guckert gay website
49. Charter Jets&hellip | May 29th, 2008 at 7:40 am
Charter Jets
From the days of simply offering an aircraft brokerage service, PROAIR have developed