Comments for UN IPCC Scientist Says Global Warming Big Deception at http://www.rightsidenews.com , comment 1 to 6 out of 6 comments http://www.rightsidenews.com Sat, 20 Mar 2010 16:25:21 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.rightsidenews.com/200907115419/energy-and-environment/un-ipcc-says-global-warming-big-deception.html#comment-4439 Hi, Interesting discussion. I have been campaigning and studying environmental issues for about 30 years now. I have a scientific background (if somewhat limited) still i have the ability to reason in a deductive rather than an inductive way. It seems to me that the whole CO2/global warming/climate change issue is a bit of a red herring. Decades ago it was 'acid rain' then it was 'the ozone layer/cfc's' then 'the rainforests' the point being that so many thousands/millions of years ago there came about a set of circumstances on this p lanet that allowed our existence, a set of conditions that made it possible for us to evolve into human beings. Now it also stands to reason that if you significantly alter those circumstances , those conditions, then that will ultimately have a negative impact on our environment. in other words can we really improve on the very circumstances, conditions that brought about our existence. The answer is obvious. For many thousands of years the human population was pretty constant at around 300 million.Then in a blink of an eye, ie. from around 1750 till now the population shot up to around 7 billion , set to rise to 10 billion by 2050. That is not only amazing but disturbing. If it were any other animal it would be considered a plague. Now put together a massive human population plus industrialiastion and that is going to significantly alter the environment. ie. the conditions that allowed us to be here in the first place.Put CO2 to one side. We are pumping all manner of man made chemicals into the atmosphere, cutting down rainforests, created a dependence on fossil fuels (that are fast running out), causing a mass species extinction event (only about the 6th in the planets history) producing food in a very inefficient way when billions are starving (yeah meat production creates greenhouse gas emissions, it also needs crops to be grown to feed the animals and masses of water too) So i repeat it's not just about CO2 blah de blah...it's that as an animal we're out of control. Suffereing from misplaced arrogance , that we are somehow superior. We've been around for a very short space of time , yet we have created many different scenarios that might bring about our downfall. We're not clever , we're egotistical and inventive. Those 2 things have brought us to the brink. We think we can invent our way out of this , when the truth is we invented our way into this. We are not the solution we are the problem.We need to wake up to that. But our egos and misplaced arrogance will prevent us from doing so. We see our 'big brain' 'our 'intelligence' (so called) as proof that we are superior. yet isn't it quite convenient that we set the criteria. Why not the fastest, the longest living, the one that causes least damage to the environment. It's a bit like a room full of athletes trying to decide who is the best and the tall guy stands up and says " I know the one who can jump the highest" A cheetah is just fast enough to catch it's prey, a giraffe's neck just long enough to reach the leaves in a tree, but what if, just what if we're not quite clever enough, clever enough to solve these problems ? What if we're just a brief freek of nature that brings about our own downfall. Most of the evidence suggests this to be the case. We're backing ourselves into a corner more and more as time goes on. Species become extinct , why not us ?!! - Ian Morill Thu, 12 Nov 2009 13:33:36 +0100 http://www.rightsidenews.com/200907115419/energy-and-environment/un-ipcc-says-global-warming-big-deception.html#comment-3099 The GloBULL Warming Theory is officially now a 23 year old liberal WMD scam misleading the country to war under false pretenses. Calling a country to battle against a counterfeit enemy is treason and we pray the courts will condemn these politicians and scientists to the severest of punishment they disserve. STOP GLOBAL DOOMING Here are the denier’s observed facts: -A policy of precaution is not science, its superstition. -Just shy of a quarter of a century of failed IPCC predictions certainly disproves the theory. -La Nina is stronger than all of Global Warming’s magical powers. -Melting ice does not prove CO2 is at fault? -Our cooling clear blue sky disproves the theory. -10 years of NOAA cooling disproves the theory. -Resulting cooling disproves predicted warming. THE THEORY WAS WRONG. MOVE ON. Be responsible environmentalists and stop chasing a false crisis from CO2. Work on real pollution and stop scaring our children with this. Let’s all get ahead of the curve preserve our planet, not save it from a mistake with more needless fear. Peace! [b][/b][b][/b] - mememine69 Sat, 18 Jul 2009 10:21:30 +0100 http://www.rightsidenews.com/200907115419/energy-and-environment/un-ipcc-says-global-warming-big-deception.html#comment-2999 Dear dcedit1, [b]You wrote[/b]: “really doesn’t prove anything” Interesting that you would dismiss the statement of one of those who was ON the panel, who worked ON the report. Oh and by the way, this was [b]not[/b] the only one who worked on this report and later refuted the conclusions of the politicians who wrote the IPCC report, there were more than a dozen who said their work had been subverted, edited, “doctored”, or out and out changed to “fit” what they wanted the report to show. Of course, I don't know how YOU do math, but since there were ONLY 52 scientists who were on the committee that generated the report, I sort of think a dozen out of 52 is like, I don't know, a LOT. [b]You wrote:[/b] “specialists in only small subsets of the total climate change field” Ok how about these then: “The distinguished scientists featured in this new report are experts in diverse fields, including: climatology; geology; biology; glaciology; biogeography; meteorology; oceanography; economics; chemistry; mathematics; environmental sciences; engineering; physics; thermogenics, analytical chemistry; radiant thermogenics; and paleoclimatology. Some of those profiled have won [b]Nobel Prizes[/b] for their outstanding contribution to their field of expertise and many shared a portion of the UN IPCC Nobel Peace Prize with Vice President Gore.” Gosh, you still think that those who say man-made global warming is crap are in “small subsets “ of the science? - Texas FrogSoup Mon, 13 Jul 2009 22:44:10 +0100 http://www.rightsidenews.com/200907115419/energy-and-environment/un-ipcc-says-global-warming-big-deception.html#comment-2991 While this article is a commendable effort, it really doesn't prove anything. First, most of the people you cited are specialists in only small subsets of the total climate change field (botany, meteorology, etc.) Thus, while they may be more qualified to speak on such matters than you or I, they are hardly experts on the full implications of CO2 as relates to warming. Second, the point is not that CO2 is a pollutant in the traditional, Clean Air Act-regulated sense. The point is whether it raises global temperatures, which was only minimally discussed. While interesting, discussing CO2 as a traditional pollutant isn't really relevant to the issue of anthropogenic global warming. The issue is not whether CO2 is bad - no serious scientist says it is. The issue is whether A) -[i]too much[/i] CO2 is bad (note: for the climate, not for humans), and B) - are humans causing there to be too much CO2. Neither of these was discussed at length, leaving me no more "enlightened" than before I read the article. As a final note, on the quote: "It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don't buy into anthropogenic global warming..." It's interesting to note that this has actually been studied [url]http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf[/url], and in fact, statistically, it [i]is[/i] a "fringe" that deny global warming, at least among those actively studying it. I'm not sure what this says about the scientific community, but it should certainly be taken into account when talking about global warming. - dcedit1 Mon, 13 Jul 2009 06:17:53 +0100 http://www.rightsidenews.com/200907115419/energy-and-environment/un-ipcc-says-global-warming-big-deception.html#comment-2962 If carbon dioxide is a pollutant, then so oxygen. Anthropogenic global warming is an interesting hypothesis, but unfortunately doesn't match real data. - R James Fri, 10 Jul 2009 18:17:58 +0100 http://www.rightsidenews.com/200907115419/energy-and-environment/un-ipcc-says-global-warming-big-deception.html#comment-2961 Its nice to see the Church of Global Warming doesn't have you. [img]http://www.churchofglobalwarming.com/images/banner.jpg[/img] [url]http://www.churchofglobalwarming.com/images/banner.jpg[/url] - Father Fri, 10 Jul 2009 17:31:28 +0100