Obama wins Nobel Peace prize

I would like to take this opportunity to suggest that the global warming issue is being used to bolster the arguments in favor of global government. To really push the idea of global government "they" need issues and crises that are beyond the scope of a national government. They have to emphasize the importance of anything that transcends national boundaries.


for example:
Swine flu
Bird flu
global warming
financial crises


I suspect they care less about the climate and more about the ability to dictate what you can and cannot do. Just like I don't think they care about my health in regard to the health care plan. And I don't think they were really trying to fix the economy with their stimulus package. The government is not really here to help you, the citizen.

 

the thing is imminent in the sense that not doing something NOW will make it inevitable, i believe this is the argument.

if we pass a point now which leads to something being inevitable, then now is what matters, right? so again, it would help convince us if the authorities could point to some evidence of this thing happening now. instead it isnt warming at all and hasnt been for years.

again, i think anyone with a decent understanding of human nature can see what a perfect lie this is. how perfectly it stays in the future and cant be proven, while justifying action now. the way we get to feel guilt and redemption. again, just like adam and even in the garden of eden. the greatest lie ever told, because it perfectly uses our guilty nature against us to control us. global warming legislation and hysteria is the solution not the problem. but the problem is that people feel empty and guiltya nd need to fill that void. particularly now that technology has made it obvious god isnt controlling things.

 

I never thought I would say it but I think martin is right on this one. They get to demand action from you now but the payoff doesn't come til later.

Sounds a lot like the massive heist from the taxpayer last year......

"bail us out or else it's going to be a depression!"

so we give Paulson and his goldman sachs cronies a blank check....and then....well the economy's not real good so what did we get for our money?

"if you hadn't bailed us out the then the economy would've really tanked.....be glad it didn't! Off to cash my bonus from a company that by all rights should be out of business!!"

Why is so hard to believe that they may in fact have another motive besides what they express publicly?

 

what if they develop over decades but then go a decade or two not developing at all. still uber-positive we need to address them ASAP? still need to to hurt the economy to fix the problem that has been happening since the 90's? even as economic growth is the most important thing on earth? the things that makes lives better and saves lives and pushes people from sadness and poverty into development and a better standard of living?

any premise based on the predicability of the earth's long term climate cycle is absurd.

it these things are not inevitable why dont we just wait and see what happens? why the need to seek solutions for things that are not even necessarily coming?

 

No, I don't believe in instant cures. I don't believe in the ability of Congress to control the weather, either. There are so many other factors that influence the climate on this planet. My money is on the sun. But I'm not a scientist and I'm too lazy to look up the necessary studies to refute these arguments. I am convinced that this is a politically motivated movement.

The stories just don't jive enough from what goes on in this country. The information that is presented to the masses is dripping with agendas. If you cannot as an adult see past their public statements then I suggest you are being as simplistic as a schoolboy.

Wall Street has absolutely financially raped this country with the help of this government. The rich got bailed out by the poor or middle class....

Why is that? Because the poor cannot do anything about it that's why. The whole problem comes down to relative positions of power. The Israelis hammer the Palestinians because they cannot do anything about it.

Which is why I am so skeptical of the climate change crowd, health care crowd, weapons of mass destruction crowd, Iran is a threat to middle east peace crowd.....all these damn busy bodies. The world would be better off if they would stop trying to fix everything. Life is messy enough, they're just making it worse....

 

What if they are not developing at all? My problem is with the data used as the foundation for "discernible human influence on global climate".

In other words Garbage in Garbage out.

[FONT=&quot]In the early 1980s, with funding fr is how the origina data om the U.S. Department of Energy, scientists at the United Kingdom’s University of East Anglia established the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) to produce the world’s first comprehensive history of surface temperature. It’s known in the trade as the “Jones and Wigley” record for its authors, Phil Jones and Tom Wigley, and it served as the primary reference standard for the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) until 2007. It was this record that prompted the IPCC to claim a “discernible human influence on global climate.”

Putting together such a record isn’t at all easy. Weather stations weren’t really designed to monitor global climate. Long-standing ones were usually established at points of commerce, which tend to grow into cities that induce spurious warming trends in their records. Trees grow up around thermometers and lower the afternoon temperature. Further, as documented by the University of Colorado’s Roger Pielke Sr., many of the stations themselves are placed in locations, such as in parking lots or near heat vents, where artificially high temperatures are bound to be recorded.

So the weather data that go into the historical climate records that are required to verify models of global warming aren’t the original records at all. Jones and Wigley, however, weren’t specific about what was done to which station in order to produce their record, which, according to the IPCC, showed a warming of 0.6° +/– 0.2°C in the 20th century.

Now begins the fun. Warwick Hughes, an Australian scientist, wondered where that “+/–” came from, so he politely wrote Phil Jones in early 2005, asking for the original data. Jones’s response to a fellow scientist attempting to replicate his work was, “We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”

Reread that statement, for it is breathtaking in its anti-scientific thrust. In fact, the entire purpose of replication is to “try and find something wrong.” The ultimate objective of science is to do things so well that, indeed, nothing is wrong.

Then the story changed. In June 2009, Georgia Tech’s Peter Webster told Canadian researcher Stephen McIntyre that he had requested raw data, and Jones freely gave it to him. So McIntyre promptly filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the same data. Despite having been invited by the National Academy of Sciences to present his analyses of millennial temperatures, McIntyre was told that he couldn’t have the data because he wasn’t an “academic.” So his colleague Ross McKitrick, an economist at the University of Guelph, asked for the data. He was turned down, too.

Faced with a growing number of such requests, Jones refused them all, saying that there were “confidentiality” agreements regarding the data between CRU and nations that supplied the data. McIntyre’s blog readers then requested those agreements, country by country, but only a handful turned out to exist, mainly from Third World countries and written in very vague language.

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Roger Pielke Jr., an esteemed professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado, then requested the raw data from Jones. Jones responded: [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record should be freely available. Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e., quality controlled and homogenized) data.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The statement about “data storage” is balderdash. They got the records from somewhere. The files went onto a computer. All of the original data could easily fit on the 9-inch tape drives common in the mid-1980s. I had all of the world’s surface barometric pressure data on one such tape in 1979.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]If we are to believe Jones’s note to the younger Pielke, CRU adjusted the original data and then lost or destroyed them over twenty years ago. The letter to Warwick Hughes may have been an outright lie. After all, Peter Webster received some of the data this year. So the question remains: What was destroyed or lost, when was it destroyed or lost, and why?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Patrick J. Michaels is a senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute[/FONT]