« Climate Change »

Sure, I'll take a stab at it. The American Way of Life. Let's see ... A couple of different viewpoints. One, you just look at the Constitution. The other comes from a more recent source. It's your ability to be free to pursue just one thing. If you don't know what that is I suggest you go watch the movie City Slickers - Jack Palance said it best. I'll paste the transcript here though:

"Along the trail Jack Palance asks Billy Crystal, "Do you know what the secret of life is?"

Crystal responds, "No, what?"

Palance holds up his gloved index finger and says "This".

Crystal jokes, "Your finger?"

Palance says, "One thing. Just one thing. You stick to that and everything else don't mean (bleep)!"

Crystal asks, "That's great, but what's the one thing?"

Then Palance says in a knowing way, "That's what you've gotta figure out"."

Kyoto was meant to do one thing. Suck money out of the US. Everybody acknowledges it wouldn't, even if countries *would have* kept to it, do squat about the dreaded "Global Warming".

The IPCC is about socialism, thinly (very thinly) veiled as science. We don't know enough about anthropogenic effects on climate to start hobbling ourselves. If somebody's going to raise my taxes, I want it to be for research to figure out what's actually going on with climate, not some socialistic scheme in which some foreign fat cats and wannabe carbon traders get rich while denuding MY Constitution.

So, what's wrong with more research vs. just bleeding the US? In case you haven't noticed, Global Warming has been basically stuck in its tracks for the last decade. It's not "increasing drastically" although the simplistic "CO2 forcing" is at an all time high.

Chew on this. Robert Oppenheimer said it well:
"There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry. There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors."

So if you're thinking where does this guy get off questioning all those "scientists", well, maybe the big picture here just doesn't make sense when you consider the thermodynamics etc. Maybe that's my "Just One Thing". Maybe that's *my* America.

Hey now we get to say we need more time for the climate inspectors to inspect and hopefully produce real science instead of glow-bull warming BS.

I have a question: Why does none of the IPCC BS focus on the sun, you know, the source of all energy on Earth instead of an unproven hypothesis of runaway greenhouse effect. I predict in the end the sun will win.

Look up right now, the sun might be doing something right this very minute that is not being covered. It might just be that the current modern maximum has run it's course and the sun is entering a quite period, and the energy deposited on Earth may be headed down. Probably why the UN doesn't want to discuss the Maunder minimum or other problems with their fake 2000 year temperature history chart. You would think that after the hockey stick was proved bogus they wouldn't have the nerve to do it again.

Explain why the satellites can't find the unique CO2 signature in the atmosphere, especially in the tropics. If it was there, we could measure it. The simple answer, neither the satellites nor weather ballons can find the unique CO2 warming signal that the UN IPCC is talking about. Why? Because CO2 induced glow-bull warming doesn't exist.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: