Comments on: NASA Says Earth Is Entering A Cooling Period

By: citizentoo

citizentoo — Fri, 17 Dec 2010 10:59:04 +0000

The earth has been going through cooling and warming cycles since the day it was made. Buying and selling carbon credits won’t do a thing to stop the cycle. The earth can heal itself a lot better than the life on it can. Think about it…What’s the age of the oldest dog, horse, turtle or human? Now, what’s the age of the earth? Other than the earth, life is sexually transmitted and it is ALWAYS FATAL.

By: BlackHawk_83

BlackHawk_83 — Fri, 17 Dec 2010 07:21:39 +0000

To understand the true motivation of "98% of climatologists", reread the last line of the article: "I note that other NASA pages contradict the statement above and are more alarmist". In other words, the global warming zealots are much more alarmists in their conclusions. The alarmist factor of these zealots (Al Gore, etc.) is what drives the government funding for this "science". In other words, the greater the purported danger from global warming, the more money governments throw at these zealots. What a nice racket, create an issue, then get an unlimited stream of government funding to study the issue. And by the way, the science behind "global warming" is no where near settled. "'Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudo-scientific fraud I have seen in my long life", Harold Lewis, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Here's the link: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100058265/us-physics-professor-global-warming-is-the-greatest-and-most-successful-pseudoscientific-fraud-i-have-seen-in-my-long-life/ Once the zealots lose the "global warming" argument, watch for the new fraud "climate change". Climate change is a natural phenomenon, and pre-dates the use of fossil fuels by several billion years; which I learned in a 6th grade science class.

By: Erick

Erick — Fri, 17 Dec 2010 04:36:46 +0000

Didn’t we reduce net CO2 by eliminating the buffallo heards roaming the plains? – as well as relpacing horses with cars? …. I think garganutan is defrined as 5% (the human contribution) of the 4% of greenhouse gases represented by CO2 - one very rough way to figure the numbers.
Once I tried to research why Water vapor wasn’t a more serious “green-house gas” than CO2. I went to the recomended web sites, read the articles, then asked questions – It felt like I was in the movie “Spinal Tap” – the answers I got to sincere questions amounted to “but this one goes to 11″ – It should have been obvious to the most casual observer that the emporor had no clothes.
I was scared as a kid in the 1970s reading about how the earth would freeze… Now just when I thought I was safe! …. perhaps I should turn up the heat and open the door – do you think it will help?

By: ted

ted — Thu, 16 Dec 2010 20:13:01 +0000

that was great!

By: ReClimate

ReClimate — Thu, 16 Dec 2010 13:45:34 +0000

basing your citations i’ll assume you’re just a lay person who has no involvement in atmospheric/climate field. i as a meteorologist have only one plea for you alarmists: plead with the IPCC to amend their policy and release their data and methodologies, also its peer-review process for the open scientific community to audit because we NEED IT!! blocking access to the scientific world is unscientific and more to being political. thank you.

By: citizentoo

citizentoo — Thu, 16 Dec 2010 06:44:21 +0000

I’m going to sell my carbon credits and use the money to buy some carbon. I’m going to need to burn it for heat if this keeps up.

By: joseppi

joseppi — Thu, 16 Dec 2010 05:40:13 +0000

Brian, Im not the smartest guy out there, you will know that by my
spelling errors. I was sounding the global warming alarm 15 years ago.
I wanted a hydrogen economy, solar, wind, you name it. Then I realized
that all the green tech would not help. You see, the real problem, (
if you believe the 98% of climatologists, 150 years of physics, and 35
years of climate science), is not carbon pollution itself. The problem
therefore is far to many humans using fossil fuels causing carbon
pollution. Far to many people and an ever growing population. Green
tech would only allow more people to live off the same amount of
resources, and the carbon pollution would most likely still be the
problem. So, as I am no Phd, this has obviously been the conclusion of
any one smarter than me. Well then the problem is not carbon
pollution, its overpopulation. MMMMMM….. you know what, the
foundations funding global warming research have a very long history
of trying to control the population. MMMM….eugenics, and wow look at
what we have now Ted Turner stating he wants a 95% reduction in the
worlds population….by force of law, like brave China. And another
thing the author mentioned, volcanic activity puts many times the
amount of carbon into the atmosphere than humans. So could it be that
in order for the Phds to get there funding they better prove that
global warming is real, as it is the goal of those foundations who
pay the bills and have a well documented, un-deniable history of
eugenics and population control as their stated goals. Also,
scientists should not be pushed to prove something is true, thats not
science. Scientists should analyze data, thats it. It seems that there
is a big push to prove global warming, yet how much funding goes into
the other side of the argument (no global warming). Actually, when
scientists don’t conclude that the earth is warming, it seems like
they are kicked out of the club. So hows that science? How come the
mountain glaciers are still intact? How come the sea has not risen?
How come we have normal polar ice levels? Where are the islands which
have been lost forever? Where are the plants that have migrated from
the south to the north? Why is the UN stating that cap and trade is
not about global warming, but about re-distrubiting wealth form
wealthy nations to poorer nations, threw world bank loans of course.
How is cap and trade going to work if China and India do not take
part? Ill tell you why, because its all bull crap. People saw how ugly
eugenics is with the rise and fall of Hitler (an environmentalist) and
regected it. Now it has reared its ugly face wearing the mask of
global warming. I have a suggestion for all you global warming
believers, put your money where your big authoritarian mouth is. No
kids, no using electricity, no cars, no planes, no dogs, meat, and
last but not least no exhailing the awful gas carbondioxide. Oh yea.
if you want to reduce the birth rate, give people in the third world
electricity, raise their standard of living. The birth rate in
industrialized first world nations is low, because we burn fossil
fuels. The birth rate in 3rd world countries is very high, if they had
access to high energy bills like we do they would not be able to
afford 8 children per family. The way to control the population is to
burn fossil fuels. One child policies, hitlers death camps, and forced
sterilization is not only evil, it is satanic. So is the global
warming movement.

By: recovering_progressive

recovering_progressive — Thu, 16 Dec 2010 05:13:45 +0000

How big is a “gargantuan” or is that just some subjective value judgment you make in lieu of science? Is it some fraction of the CO2 dumped into the atmosphere by volcanoes or decomposing plants? If you want to do science you should measure the sensitivity of global temperature something that has not be demonstrated. You cannot demonstrate it since you do not accurately know how the various factors affect global temperature and since for the past 15 years the global temperature has been flat or decreasing despite the rising CO2 levels.

By: Bryan S

Bryan S — Thu, 16 Dec 2010 04:37:49 +0000

Please strike out “becoming more” in the last sentence.

By: Bryan S

Bryan S — Thu, 16 Dec 2010 04:36:31 +0000

So, because this article mentions a possibility for other factors to counteract our gargantuan dumping of fossil carbon in the atmosphere, you say it means that other factors ARE counteracting it? The author of this article almost certainly does not think that their article overturns 150 years of physics, 35 years of climate science, and 20 years of US-initiated international review of that science (the IPCC).
If you have a theory that is better than the theory that 98% of climatologists agree on, you are very gifted and you owe it to God to get a PhD science degree, get involved in the scientific discussion, and show society the light before we “waste” any money by becoming more passing a law that makes us more energy efficient and more energy independent.