Great Speech by Senator on Global Warming

[Airscrew]

Originally posted by Gh0stFT
sorry i doubt anyone have pics from that time, do you have?
but what we have are pics from our life-time.

Nope I dont have any pictures either, but then I'm not trying to use 80 - 100 year old photographs to prove global warming either  
What I do know that in the life of the planet it has been alot warmer and it was a lot colder.  And all without the influnece of man.

[GtoRA2]

I kinda doubt some of you guys read it.... If it does not make you wonder about the issue you need to rethink things.

This little bit alone should make your mind churn.

The fact remains that political campaign funding by environmental groups to promote climate and environmental alarmism dwarfs spending by the fossil fuel industry by a three-to-one ratio. Environmental special interests, through their 527s, spent over $19 million compared to the $7 million that Oil and Gas spent through PACs in the 2004 election cycle.

Or this whole section.  

MEDIA COVERAGE OF CLIMATE CHANGE:

Many in the media, as I noted earlier, have taken it upon themselves to drop all pretense of balance on global warming and instead become committed advocates for the issue.

Here is a quote from Newsweek magazine:

“There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production– with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth.”

A headline in the New York Times reads: “Climate Changes Endanger World’s Food Output.” Here is a quote from Time Magazine:

“As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval.”

All of this sounds very ominous. That is, until you realize that the three quotes I just read were from articles in 1975 editions of Newsweek Magazine and The New York Times, and Time Magazine in 1974. http://time-proxy.yaga.com/time/archive/printout/0,23657,944914,00.html

They weren’t referring to global warming; they were warning of a coming ice age.

Let me repeat, all three of those quotes were published in the 1970’s and warned of a coming ice age.

In addition to global cooling fears, Time Magazine has also reported on global warming. Here is an example:

“[Those] who claim that winters were harder when they were boys are quite right… weathermen have no doubt that the world at least for the time being is growing warmer.”

Before you think that this is just another example of the media promoting Vice President Gore’s movie, you need to know that the quote I just read you from Time Magazine was not a recent quote; it was from January 2, 1939.

Yes, in 1939. Nine years before Vice President Gore was born and over three decades before Time Magazine began hyping a coming ice age and almost five decades before they returned to hyping global warming.

Time Magazine in 1951 pointed to receding permafrost in Russia as proof that the planet was warming.

In 1952, the New York Times noted that the “trump card” of global warming “has been the melting glaciers.”

BUT MEDIA COULD NOT DECIDE BETWEEN WARMING OR COOLING SCARES

There are many more examples of the media and scientists flip-flopping between warming and cooling scares.

Here is a quote form the New York Times reporting on fears of an approaching ice age.

“Geologists Think the World May be Frozen Up Again.”

That sentence appeared over 100 years ago in the February 24, 1895 edition of the New York Times.

Let me repeat. 1895, not 1995.

A front page article in the October 7, 1912 New York Times, just a few months after the Titanic struck an iceberg and sank, declared that a prominent professor “Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age.”

The very same day in 1912, the Los Angeles Times ran an article warning that the “Human race will have to fight for its existence against cold.” An August 10, 1923 Washington Post article declared: “Ice Age Coming Here.”

By the 1930’s, the media took a break from reporting on the coming ice age and instead switched gears to promoting global warming:

“America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-year Rise” stated an article in the New York Times on March 27, 1933. The media of yesteryear was also not above injecting large amounts of fear and alarmism into their climate articles.

An August 9, 1923 front page article in the Chicago Tribune declared:

“Scientist Says Arctic Ice Will Wipe Out Canada.” The article quoted a Yale University professor who predicted that large parts of Europe and Asia would be “wiped out” and Switzerland would be “entirely obliterated.”

A December 29, 1974 New York Times article on global cooling reported that climatologists believed “the facts of the present climate change are such that the most optimistic experts would assign near certainty to major crop failure in a decade.”

The article also warned that unless government officials reacted to the coming catastrophe, “mass deaths by starvation and probably in anarchy and violence” would result. In 1975, the New York Times reported that “A major cooling [was] widely considered to be inevitable.” These past predictions of doom have a familiar ring, don’t they? They sound strikingly similar to our modern media promotion of former Vice president’s brand of climate alarmism.

After more than a century of alternating between global cooling and warming, one would think that this media history would serve a cautionary tale for today’s voices in the media and scientific community who are promoting yet another round of eco-doom.

Much of the 100-year media history on climate change that I have documented here today can be found in a publication titled “Fire and Ice” from the Business and Media Institute. http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/fireandice_timeswarns.asp

Some of you have claimed you can't trust the science of guys backed by the oil companies, but if you think you can trust the info coming out of the envirnmentalist movement you are fooling yourself.

They have as money to lose as well, far more then the oil companies do in the short term.

[Sabre]

Originally posted by Nilsen
Point is that there is absolutly no harm in assuming that we are causing problems and doing something to reduce all emitions. If we are wrong, and we are not causing them then no harm done.

If we are assuming that we are not the cause of the rise in temperature etc and are wrong about then we are truly screwed.

Better to be safe than sorry.

It is a logical fallacy to assume that (a) that humans are causing a global rise in temperature, (b) that the cause is solely (or even primarily) CO2 emissions, and (c) enacting potentially economically disastrous measures will do no harm.  How do you measure "harm"?  Sometimes doing something when you don’t need to can have disastrous consequences. Taking medication where you’re sick can save your life.  Taking it when you’re not can have both short-term and long-term deleterious effects on your health (antibiotics comes to mind as one such example).  And if purchasing that medicine you weren't even sure you needed causes you to default on your mortgage, what then?  I suggest you re-read the section on the potential economic impacts of Kyoto-like measures, when weighed against other problems facing the world. With so many problems facing the world, and such a potentially heavy cost, don't you think it best to perform a cost benefit analysis?  Heck, shouldn't we first establish that that we have a problem, and that that problem can be solved by the proposed action?

As a final example of applying a pound of cure at the wrong time, think about the examples the Senator noted of the ice-age scare back in the 70’s (to name just one of the periods where environmental alarmism swung that way).  I was in high school in the 70’s, and remember reading articles about this.  If CO2 is thought to cause global warming, and you’re worried we're headed for an ice-age, what is a logical possible action to take?  Why, pump as much greenhouse gas into the atmosphere as possible, of course.  After all, if we’re wrong, what harm will it do?  If we’re right and do nothing, then we are truly screwed (and frozen).

One final point.  Dogmatically accepting the (tenous) explanation of CO2 emissions as the cause of (debate-able) global warming may very well blind you to other explanations, explanations that we might have a better chance to affect.  Don't get me wrong.  I'm all for reducing our dependance on fossile fuels, especially imported fossil fuels, but global warming has nothing to do with that support.  Remember the sage words that grace the cover of that wholy remarkable book, the "Hitchhiker's Guide": Don't panic!

[Nilsen]

Originally posted by Sabre
It is a logical fallacy to assume that (a) that humans are causing a global rise in temperature, (b) that the cause is solely (or even primarily) CO2 emissions, and (c) enacting potentially economically disastrous measures will do no harm.  

It is a logical fallacy to not assume so.

I guess all the crap we put in the atmosphere just floats into space and the rainforests (ex) starts growing on the moon and starts beaming oxygen back to earth via plasma cannons.

As to economy... well.. the economies will collapse if we continue as we do anyway. Taking pre-emptive measures will give us the chanse to improve future economies in a viable way.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Gh0stFT
check this pictures out, some are 100 years old and are compared to today pics. (press WEITER for the next pic)

Glaciers melting,
global warming a hype?

I think you kinda proved the point of the speech reguarding propiganda.

Is september generally a warmer month here like it is in the states?

(Image removed from quote.)
Pasterze-glacier on the 13 September 2003:  Only a thin stream

I can post pics of my back yard in Nebraska....one in January the other in september and they will be not so surprisingly different.  The only thing that would prove is season change....not climate change.

Again the science geeks need to get in there and look at this from an un-biased objective viewpoint(IE: Scientificly) and duke it out.  I see too many from both sides with good points but 180 degree conclusions.

In addition the economic impact is a valid point.  Those that didn't actually read the speech missed the great parts about the 3 world and developing countrys.  While the US economy would take a major hit, global reforms would literally wipe out countrys that are currently developing.

[Grayeagle]

ok .. lets use the Ozone Layer as an example of how 'badly' man has been in using up our entire Planet.

Umm.

Mt. St. Helens eruption put more gases into the atmosphere that are considered 'harmful' to the ozone layer .. more smog, more metric TONS of *stuff* into the atmosphere than man has since he's been around.

Guess what? .. it rained a few days later .. all better now.

On a scale of volcanic eruptions, Helen was a minor player.
Krakatoa was the most violent in the history of man .. it was literally heard around the world and darkened the entire planets skies .. guess what?

Man .. yup .. still here.
(Well .. except for anyone near Krakatoa . . guess no Virgins were handy.)

It rained .. again.

All better.

Frankly the entire idea of 'man' using up the Planet is ludicrous .. it will be here long .. in geological epoc terms .. after we are all gone.

You really wanna scare yourself silly, read 'The Hab Theory' .. everything else in the headlines today is just no big deal if that theory is true

-GE (and it's got some valid points you can verify your own self )

[midnight Target]

Glaciers don't (aren't supposed to) change drastically with the seasons. That's why they are glaciers and not just snow.

[Hap]

Originally posted by GtoRA2
Some of you have claimed you can't trust the science of guys backed by the oil companies, but if you think you can trust the info coming out of the envirnmentalist movement you are fooling yourself.

Gto, yup.  Makes assessments difficult.

hap

[Sabre]

Originally posted by Nilsen
It is a logical fallacy to not assume so.

I guess all the crap we put in the atmosphere just floats into space and the rainforests (ex) starts growing on the moon and starts beaming oxygen back to earth via plasma cannons.

As to economy... well.. the economies will collapse if we continue as we do anyway. Taking pre-emptive measures will give us the chanse to improve future economies in a viable way.

Now you're just being glib.  We were talking about mankind's CO2 emissions' impact on global warming, not on pollution in general.  If you want to talk about deforestation and its impact on global oxygen levels, start another thread.  As for your statement on economy, I'm not sure what you mean by "economies will collapse if we continue as we do", or why you think Kyoto-type measures will improve future economies.  Can you explain?  And may I suggest you read the Senator's speech in full and discuss where exactly you feel he got it wrong?

[Hawco]

Very enlightening when you look at this:


Oil & Gas:
Top 20 Recipients

Election cycle:  2006 2004 2002 2000 1998 1996 1994 1992 1990
List Top 20:   All Recipients Presidential Candidates Senators Members of the House Senate Candidates House Candidates All Members of Congress
Rank
 Candidate
 Office
 Amount
 
1
 Cornyn, John (R-TX)
 Senate
 $511,825
 
2
 Inhofe, James M (R-OK)
 Senate
 $241,258
 
3
 Landrieu, Mary L (D-LA)
 Senate
 $221,405
 
4
 Allard, Wayne (R-CO)
 Senate
 $174,100
 
5
 Domenici, Pete V (R-NM)
 Senate
 $164,658
 
6
 Hutchinson, Tim (R-AR)
 Senate
 $154,130
 
7
 Sununu, John E (R-NH)
 Senate
 $137,380
 
8
 Coleman, Norm (R-MN)
 Senate
 $136,400
 
9
 Thune, John (R-SD)
 Senate
 $134,650
 
10
 Talent, James M (R-MO)
 Senate
 $130,450
 
11
 Dole, Elizabeth (R-NC)
 Senate
 $127,229
 
12
 Sullivan, John (R-OK)
 House
 $124,100
 
13
 Young, Don (R-AK)
 House
 $121,950
 
14
 Tauzin, Billy (R-LA)
 House
 $121,750
 
15
 Barton, Joe (R-TX)
 House
 $120,898
 
16
 Pickering, Charles "Chip" Jr (R-MS)
 House
 $101,350
 
17
 Stevens, Ted (R-AK)
 Senate
 $100,690
 
18
 Pearce, Steve (R-NM)
 House
 $100,200
 
19
 Bonilla, Henry (R-TX)
 House
 $98,950
 
20
 DeLay, Tom (R-TX)
 House
 $92,800

Just follow the money in these things-easy2

[GtoRA2]

Originally posted by Hawco
Very enlightening when you look at this:




Just follow the money in these things-easy2

Unless you do the same for the people who take money from environmentalist groups your post means nothing.

On top of that how does that list show anything about their stance on global warming?

[Hawco]

Originally posted by GtoRA2
Unless you do the same for the people who take money fromenvironmentalist groups your post means nothing.

On top of that how does that list show anything about their stance on global warming?

Tell you what, go and find that list and post it, as for your other point, ther'es not a lot I can say about it..........

[GtoRA2]

Originally posted by Hawco
Tell you what, go and find that list and post it, as for your other point, ther'es not a lot I can say about it..........

Why did you post, you do know this thread is about global warming and the media hype behind it right?

I am not going to do your research for you. I will just take it as concession you have no clue about either, I already knew that anyway.


(granted I don’t either, but I didn’t make the pointless post in the first place)

[Debonair]

zOMG

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by GtoRA2
Why did you post, you do know this thread is about global warming and the media hype behind it right?

I am not going to do your research for you. I will just take it as concession you have no clue about either, I already new that anyway.


(granted I don’t either, but I didn’t make the pointless post in the first place)

That's funny!

"Hey look at me, look at all these republicans that oil companys gave money to!!!!!!"

Sleight of hand comes to mind