U.S. Governement make pressure to deny Global Warming

Gene Hoglan's amazing drumming is so blisteringly fast, he's single-handedly causing global warming. That's it, man. It's all him.

However, I am quite releived that the denial-fanatics of global warming are beggining to loose worldwide, and even in U.S.

Sorry but having read the article I have seen nothing that makes sense that supports the theory of man made global warming. You see I actually have been studying the topic when global climate change was going to have us buried under three miles of ice in 20 years oops that was 1964 did I miss it? Then it was in the 70's and we only had 10 years before we would be frozen to death because we had the coldest weather in history. In the 1980's we still only had 10 years till we all die. in the 1990's it changed to global warming and we only had 10 years before we all die from extreme heat. Now it is 2007 and we are still only 20 years away from global disaster. In every case no serious proof has been offered.
Yet scientist that are not looking for federal grant money say that it is the sun and have proof that the sun and natural causes hear on Earth is causing the global warming. The proof is on the planets Venus and Mars as well as the Earth. why is this information being ignored by the mainstream press? Let me give an example. A few years ago the UN put out a report that man's burning of fossil fuels was THE cause of global warming. A few months ago they retracted this report because the new report shows that the increase of a greenhouse gas called methane was caused by cows not man. So we have the tree huggers screaming for years that man is the cause and now it has changed but they are still screaming that it is man. I just read a report that disturbed me. it says that man produces 1.4 billion tons of air pollution every year. My goodness, that is a lot! Well it is until you learn that one volcano erupting puts out 14 billion tons of air pollution in a day and currently there are an average of 56 volcanoes erupting around the world every day. Roughly 560 times what man produces in a year is produced every day yet it is believed that man is the cause of global warming. If people are serious about stopping global warming they will turn off the volcanoes and get rid of all the cows. If this can't be done then man can not do anything to even slow down global warming.

Another example is the planet Mars. The sensors we put there in the 70's and the sensors there now tell us that the rise in temperature on Mars corresponds with the rise in temp on Earth. We don't burn any fuels on Mars why is the temp going up? Oh yeah its the sun. So we need to turn off the sun, kill all the cows, and turn off the volcanoes. You say that man can't do that? I agree. Man has no control over the climate on Earth, so how can anything we do change the climate?

I still look for proof that fits scientific standards because I keep an open mind and if the proof is there I will change my mind to go with the facts not the hype and superstition.

You repeat your arguments like a broken record. How much have you been funded to throw some discredit on the global warming theory?

I mean, wow, you really try to sound convincing! You practiced your speech often?

You repeat your arguments like a broken record. How much have you been funded to throw some discredit on the global warming theory? I mean, wow, you really try to sound convincing! You practiced your speech often?

He doesn't have to be paid anything. Over half the scientists in the world have discredited that theory. Do some googling on the subject. You might be surprised. The title says it all:

Two private advocacy groups told a congressional hearing Tuesday that climate scientists at seven government agencies say they have been subjected to political pressure aimed at downplaying the threat of global warming.

Do you know the meaning of that word?

You repeat your arguments like a broken record. How much have you been funded to throw some discredit on the global warming theory?[/quote] I have to repeat the same old thing because anything else would be an exageration or a lie. You don't seem to have anything to refute what I wrote does that mean you can't find facts that make my arguments incorrect? I am not paid by anyone to state the facts I have reserched over the years. Unlike the global warming croud that jumped on the bandwagon in the last 20 yars I have been reading up on the subject since it was called the next ice age in the 60's, nuclear winter in the 70's, and global warming in the 80's. only the terms have changed over the years, it is still the same old line that we have between ten and twenty years to avert global disaster. When man can regulate the flow of Co2 being pumped out of volcanoes on a daily basis or regulate the heat from the sun the two main reasons for climate change, then I will believe that it is mans fault and or responsibility. But as it stands right now the three major causes for climate change is the sun which is getting hotter every day, Co2 from volcanos that pump out 14 billion tons of pollutants a day for each of the average 56 volcanoes that erupt, or the last major cause of greenhouse gas methane produced from cows. Man is so low on the scale of pollutants it is neglegable. All of mankind puts out 1.4 billion tons a YEAR. Tell me how the earth will even notice we are even here? [quote]I mean, wow, you really try to sound convincing! You practiced your speech often?

You are right, I wrote a book about it so I have done the research which covers most of the silly arguments people like you cling to as proof.

You are right, I wrote a book about it so I have done the research which covers most of the silly arguments people like you cling to as proof.

Then how do you explain IPCG's report? One of the many, claiming that there is now almost no more dissenssion about the reality of global warming.

People like you keep saying that half the scientists doesn't beleive in the reality of global warming. That's not true anymore. And be sure that I would place your book right at the side of Micheal Moore's in my bookshelf. In "propaganda"

Then how do you explain IPCG's report? One of the many, claiming that there is now almost no more dissenssion about the reality of global warming.

Global warming does exist....it's the myth and junk science that SUVs and people are the cause of it.  They can't even prove it, so they use words like "very likely" to cover their nonsense.

Global warming does exist....it's the myth and junk science that SUVs and people are the cause of it. They can't even prove it, so they use words like "very likely" to cover their nonsense.

I see a trend:

First, it was "could be"
then, it was "maybe"
after, it was "possible"
continued on "probably"
followed by "likely"

we arrived at "very likely"

the more the time goes on, the more sure they are about it. Sure, they don't have 100% proofs, 'cause peeping into the future still evade our science, but they think rather hard that we are the cause of the unbalance the world actually suffer.

Let's look at it at another angle:

- If Global warming doesn't exist, and we don'T do anything about it, nothing will change. (statut quo)
- If Global warming exist, and we don't do anything about it, we're pretty much screwed (game over)
- If Global warming doesn't exist, but we do something about it, we still will pollute less (bonus)
- If Global warming exist, and we do something about it, we will maybe end up saved (hurray)

so, you have the choice: either it's statut quo/game over, or bonus/hurray, which is the safest course of action for our children?

so, you have the choice: either it's statut quo/game over, or bonus/hurray, which is the safest course of action for our children?

The problem is your "angles" are slanted.  Do you take into effect the damage to economies that would happen if we follow some "protocols"?  The mentality of people who blame SUVs for global warming don't take into account anything else like the effect on business and economy.

Then how do you explain IPCG's report? One of the many, claiming that there is now almost no more dissenssion about the reality of global warming.[/quote] Global warming has been a certainty since the 1960’s the argument as always been whether man was the cause of it. The radical liberals of the time disputed global warming and decided that our pollution was going to cause a new ice age. All the radical scientist were discussing how we should put soot on the ice caps to allow more heat in to keep us from freezing to death. The consensus at the time was we needed more greenhouse gases or in 20 years we would all be incased in ice. Once that was embarrassingly debunked they jumped onto the original global warming band wagon only this time it was man’s fault the same pollution that they swore to Congress would cause a premature ice age was now going to cause devastating death and destruction from too much heat. This is when Greenpeace, ELF, and a host of radical organizations sprung up to save the planet. Please understand that the planet will survive no matter what we do to it. Also keep in mind that before the pollution of oxygen was introduced to this planet the atmosphere was made up of 78% nitrogen and a mixture of carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide making up about 19% the rest was trace gases. Organisms in the ocean fed on the carbon and sulfur filtering it out of the atmosphere. They released oxygen which was toxic to the creatures on earth at the time. They died out and we showed up. So for those that wish to bring the Earth back to its natural state then we have to make the earth toxic to humans and all the land animals. There still are sea animals that feed on sulfur as evidenced by the crabs, shrimp, and coral at the bottom of the sea, the only place left on earth for them. People like you keep saying that half the scientists doesn't beleive in the reality of global warming. That's not true anymore. And be sure that I would place your book right at the side of Micheal Moore's in my bookshelf. In "propaganda" This is where you were lied to. 100% of the scientist has proof of global warming. It was a hypothesis, in the 1950’s a theory in the 1960’s the accepted working theory in the 1970’s and confirmed in the 1980’s. Where you have disputes is when you ask them the cause of the global warming. I have said this many time and pointed it out in my truncated book posted on JU titled global warming is real. The sun is the major cause of global warming. It is dying and as it dies it expands this moves the habitability zone outward. At one time the planet Venus was like the earth and the earth was as cold as the planet Mars. The Viking probes sent to Mars took the temperature and those figures were compared to the later probes sent to Mars. The rise in temperature is the same as on the earth. Are you suggesting our pollution is affecting the climate on Mars roughly one degree per century. The Earth is at the very end of the habitability zone so we are much warmer than Mars but the rise in temperature is the same rate. Once the habitability zone has left our planet the oceans will boil away. Keep in mind that Venus is now about 800 degrees Fahrenheit. Before that time we will have a few more ice ages. So tell me what is it that man can do to stop this from happening? Say we stop all fossil fuel usage. In 100 years the Earth will have totally cleaned up the air pollution and the Earth will still be between one and five degrees hotter. Man accounts for 6/100 of a degree. You see it was never an argument of whether there is global warming or not the argument was from the scientist that did the research saying that there are about 40 factors that are involved in global warming. The nutcases want you to believe that man is the sole cause of global warming. The scientist say there is nothing man can do to stop it. So keep believing in man made global warming and be happy. No matter which one is correct it still can’t be stopped. I just hate seeing people fighting over something so silly as this. My research says it can’t be stopped no mater what we do. The kooks say that if we stop all progress and live like cavemen we will save the Earth. I have a hard time believing this. Also keep in mind that between the rocky mountains and the Adirondack range used to be an ocean, where do you think all the water went? Don’t you think that if the climate is on a cycle that it will return? [quote]so, you have the choice: either it's statut quo/game over, or bonus/hurray, which is the safest course of action for our children?

The point I make in my book is that no matter what we do the earth will be burned to a cinder. If you want to save the children then we have to find a new planet and move them there.

I think it is fine to pressure government agencies to not go nuts on unprovable theories. If these agencies were peopled with those who went to the other extreme, and released articles slanted heavy-handedly AGAINST global warming, Cikomyr would be right here saying that their overseers should have stepped in and "pressured" them.

There's no doubting climate change. Climate change was a reality before the first human. The question is the amount to which man is responsible for climate change, and whether there's really anything we can do about it even if we are. Even then, it's nuts to pose the idea that the US is somehow the villain, when Asia and Russia and the rest of the backward world is belching out pollutants to make breathing unsafe for their people.

"First, it was "could be"
then, it was "maybe"
after, it was "possible"
continued on "probably"
followed by "likely"

we arrived at "very likely"

And you could make the same argument for a lot of bad science down through history. The question isn't the point that you stopped at, it is whether the next few steps will start a decline in the certainty. There is way too much philosophy involved right now for it to be good science. When we can look at it more dispassionately, and without political motivation, maybe we'll find more objective fact.

There's no doubting climate change. Climate change was a reality before the first human. The question is the amount to which man is responsible for climate change, and whether there's really anything we can do about it even if we are.

Thanks for making my point. And to add, the latest lunacy of the fear mongers says that man can do nothing about the warming.

If we can do nothing about the warming, how did we cause it? WOuld not eliminating man be doing something if we were responsible? Yet they state that we can do nothing about it? Why?

Because old mr. sun up there is doing more than man could ever think to do. And Ma nature with her volcanos and rain forrests and cows do more than man could ever hope to do. Simply put, and to the chagrin of many, man is an impotent vessel that the most common use for is a goat. A scape goat.