Is global warming real or a hoax? - Page 10 - DNForum - Domain Sales, Domain Forum, Domain Appraisals, Domain Registrars

**DomainBELL** · 05-12-2008, 04:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoPC

In my experience, the best way to get a presidential hopeful to go back on their word is to ELECT THEM.

LOL!!!!

GoPC

so TRUE...

~DomainBELL (Patricia)

**fab** · 05-12-2008, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raider

And Al Gore has been bady tarnished by Occidental Petroleum Company..... Your logic here is a joke, What your saying is; Dont listen to anything these people have to say BUT DO listen to EVERYTHING Al Gore says, the man who is in bed with BIG OIL in a big way!

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=468

Uh Oh

**H2FC** · 05-12-2008, 10:05 PM

Here's the latest on the world's CO2 levels...

World CO2 levels at record high, scientists warn
David Adam
guardian.co.uk, Monday May 12 2008

This article was first published on guardian.co.uk on Monday May 12 2008. It was last updated at 16:15 on May 12 2008.

The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has reached a record high, according to new figures that renew fears that climate change could begin to slide out of control.

Scientists at the Mauna Loa observatory in Hawaii say that CO2 levels in the atmosphere now stand at 387 parts per million (ppm), up almost 40% since the industrial revolution and the highest for at least the last 650,000 years.

The figures, published by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) on its website, also confirm that carbon dioxide, the chief greenhouse gas, is accumulating in the atmosphere faster than expected. The annual mean growth rate for 2007 was 2.14ppm – the fourth year in the past six to see an annual rise greater than 2ppm. From 1970 to 2000, the concentration rose by about 1.5ppm each year, but since 2000 the annual rise has leapt to an average 2.1ppm.

Scientists say the shift could indicate that the Earth is losing its natural ability to soak up billions of tons of carbon each year. Climate models assume that about half our future emissions will be re-absorbed by forests and oceans, but the new figures confirm this may be too optimistic. If more of our carbon pollution stays in the atmosphere, it means emissions will have to be cut by more than currently projected to prevent dangerous levels of global warming.

Martin Parry, co-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's working group on impacts, said: "Despite all the talk, the situation is getting worse. Levels of greenhouse gases continue to rise in the atmosphere and the rate of that rise is accelerating. We are already seeing the impacts of climate change and the scale of those impacts will also accelerate, until we decide to do something about it."

· Martin Parry will be speaking at the Guardian Planning for Climate Adaptation conference on May 19
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...arbonemissions

This information supports Al Gore claim that CO2 levels increase before temperature increases and not the other way around as the naysaying sceptics would have us believe. The CO2 level has been rising at an alarming rate for some time now and the average temperatures are sure to follow.

**fab** · 05-13-2008, 09:34 AM

Quote:

Scientists at the Mauna Loa observatory in Hawaii say that CO2 levels in the atmosphere now stand at 387 parts per million (ppm), up almost 40% since the industrial revolution and the highest for at least the last 650,000 years.

Good thing they've been measuring it for that long. I can't recall anyone whose been around for so long!

**H2FC** · 05-13-2008, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fab

Good thing they've been measuring it for that long. I can't recall anyone whose been around for so long!

fab, if you will do a little research you will find they have been measuring the co2 levels from ancient ice cores in the East Antarctica for several years now and those measurements show the levels to 650,000 years ago.

**GoPC** · 05-13-2008, 01:26 PM

That would be the very SAME ice cores that show CO2 levels increase AFTER temperature increases?

Or different "special" ice cores that theorize MMGW without even hinting at normal climate changes?

I forget which ones.

GoPC

**H2FC** · 05-13-2008, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoPC

That would be the very SAME ice cores that show CO2 levels increase AFTER temperature increases?

Or different "special" ice cores that theorize MMGW without even hinting at normal climate changes?

I forget which ones.

GoPC

I'm sorry....I didn't mean to confuse you. In fact, had I known you were here I wouldn't have posted such complicated data.

**tas38** · 05-13-2008, 05:30 PM

MCcain got pretty mad and said that some, people must stop over reacting to MMGW. And some need to stop acting like it is not happening, he clearly said in a upset voice. HE WOULD NOT, WAIT ANOTHER 8 YEARS FOR A GW TREATY!!!!

He said the debate is over and it is now over, who ever takes the white house will sign the world MMGW treaty. And the USA will start leading the MMGW fight, so lets stop acting as if we all don't know any better. As he said we all knew CO2 was doing this for a long time now, it's time to get behind who ever our new priz is going to be.

MCcain and Obama even clinton have clear plans to cut CO2 levels way down, by 2050 Mccains will cut them by 60% pre 1990's levels. Obama plans to cut them more by 80%, but they first will push the bush admins levels back all the way then go from there.

Yes I know that why many of you republicans dislike MCcain, because he puts the republicans foot in their mouth by telling the truth. But that why he WON the republican ticket isn't it, I said this was coming and it has come. But we still want everyone helping fight this, you may have noticed I've changed my reply's some what on this matter already.

The fact is we all know the truth now, and we all need to come together and do the right thing. I was not going to vote for Obama at first, but he is the best we new dems can do now. And you know what MCcain is the best you repulicans can do for now, and who ever wins we all need to get behind them. They have a very hard job ahead of them, and will need every ones support to have a chance to do it right.

The truth is Mccain and Obama are good people, mccain will kick your bu$$ while, obama will bring you to tears with his speeches. And clinton well we will all feel bad for her after losing, but the fact is who ever wins the white house needs our support. Or we all will lose in the end, see we are all american's and we all come together when we really need to.

The debate is over the USA will sign, onto a world global warming treaty there no stopping it. I'm sure one of the first things our new priz will do, is study our best options to start cutting CO2 levels. Then make a speech to the USA and world about it, both men know it will be the biggest speech they will ever make. And that they will need to get everyone in the USA, and the world on the same page with fighting global warming.

As it means big changes must be made, and that history and other country's will be watching them closely. And how they handle this will make or break them, and forget cutting off your own leg because you feel some pain in it. That not some thing anyone in their right mind would do, as we need to all get behind who ever wins the white house. We must all remember we will all, be part of making history this time around and can make a big difference.

The fat lady is singing her song right now, and when she is done we will all have a new priz in the white house. I will be voting for Obama and hope he wins the white house, but if Mccain wins I will get behind him then as well. Yes my leg has some pain in it right now, but I'll take a pain pill and it will feel just fine. The dems will not just push this stuff through though, they will get the republicans help with it, so it don't get changed when repubicans are running things again.

**bd77** · 05-13-2008, 06:17 PM

Found this article in the Wall Street Journal. It highlights how John McClain's proposed "Cap and trade" system would be a disaster for this country. This is the problem with McCain is that when he talks about Global Warming he sounds just like Barack Obama. It makes me wish their was a third choice, a real conservative choice.

REVIEW & OUTLOOK

McCain's Climate 'Market'
May 13, 2008; Page A16

The latest stop on John McCain's policy tour came at an Oregon wind-turbine manufacturer, where the topic was – what else? – the Senator's plan to address climate change. This is one of those issues where Mr. McCain indulges his "maverick" tendencies, which usually means taking the liberal line. That was the case yesterday, no matter how frequently he claimed his approach was "market based."

In fact, if "the market" is your favored mechanism, Mr. McCain's endorsement of a "cap and trade" system is the worst choice for reducing greenhouse-gas emissions. The Bush Administration has pursued one option, which combines voluntary measures with subsidies for "clean" alternatives. Since 2001 under this approach, U.S. net carbon emissions have fallen by 3% – that is, by more than all but four countries in cap-and-trade-bound Europe.

At the other end of the market spectrum is a straight carbon tax, which would at least distribute costs more efficiently. It would also force politicians to be honest about – and take responsibility for – the true price of their global-warming posturing.

Then there's cap and trade, which Mr. McCain has backed for years and would, as he put it with some understatement, "change the dynamic of our energy economy." He noted that Americans have a genius for problem-solving but continued, "The federal government can't just summon these talents by command – only the free market can draw them out." To translate: His plan is "market based" insofar as it requires an expensive, invasive government bureaucracy to interfere with the market.

Mr. McCain's proposed targets and policy instruments more or less mesh with the global-warming bill sponsored by Senators Joe Lieberman and John Warner that may come up for debate next month. The McCain plan would aim to return emissions to 2005 levels by 2012, and to 1990 levels by 2020. Barack Obama supports similar reductions.

In theory, this would be achieved by imposing emission ceilings on electric power, transportation fuels, commercial business and industries. If a company produced less carbon than it was allowed under the cap, it could sell -- i.e., trade – its extra allowances to other businesses. Under the McCain plan, permits would be given away to industries, at least initially. Mr. Obama prefers to "auction" the permits, meaning businesses would be taxed at the outset. So Mr. McCain's plan would help mitigate the transition costs of putting "the age of fossil fuels behind us."

The problem is that once government creates an artificial scarcity of carbon, how the credits are allocated creates a huge new venue for political rent-seeking and more subsidies for favored industries. Some businesses will benefit more than others, in proportion to their lobbying influence and how well they're able to game the Beltway. Congress itself will probably take the largest revenue grab, offering itself a few more bites out of the economy and soaking politically unpopular businesses.

Then there's the question of whether any of this will even reduce greenhouse gasses. The McCain plan would allow businesses unlimited use of domestic and international offsets to comply with the carbon cap. So a chemical manufacturer, say, would pay an industry not covered by the program – most notably, agriculture – to reduce its emissions. Or it could pay a coal plant in China for plucking low-hanging efficiency fruit, like installing smokestack scrubbers. In other words, U.S. consumers would be paying higher prices for energy in return for making Chinese industries more efficient and competitive. Europe is in the midst of that experience now under the Kyoto Protocol, and most of its reductions so far have been illusory.

The compliance bookkeeping for this new "market" is vastly complex, and a McCain Administration would create a public-private "Climate Change Credit Corporation" to oversee it all. This new regulatory body is likely to morph over time into an "Energy Fed," similar to the one Warner-Lieberman would create. Such an agency would set the price of energy indirectly by fiddling with carbon levies, which will undoubtedly lead to economy-wide distortions.

Given the distance between Mr. McCain's rhetoric and the policy reality, we wonder if he even knows what he's proposing. This is of a piece with his approach to many domestic issues, where the policy contradictions and cul-de-sacs overwhelm his professed political convictions. The McCain campaign believes his global-warming plan will appeal to independents and young people, as well as separate the Senator from President Bush.

But he will never be green enough for the climate-change fundamentalists. The Obama campaign and Democrats were already dinging Mr. McCain yesterday for half-measures. His concessions won't help him much in November, but they will make his governing decisions in 2009 that much more difficult if by some chance he does win.

**GoPC** · 05-13-2008, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by H2FC

I'm sorry....I didn't mean to confuse you. In fact, had I known you were here I wouldn't have posted such complicated data.

Thanks. I appreciate that. I can see how conflicting data like that would need to be manipulated to avoid attemtion.

GoPC

**H2FC** · 05-13-2008, 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoPC

That would be the very SAME ice cores that show CO2 levels increase AFTER temperature increases?

Or different "special" ice cores that theorize MMGW without even hinting at normal climate changes?

I forget which ones.

GoPC

No, you're confused with all the lies that Rush L. has been making up about Al Gore, co2, and GW. Go to this article and read the truth.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...arbonemissions

This information supports Al Gore's claim that CO2 levels increase before temperature increases and not the other way around as the naysaying sceptics would have us believe. The CO2 levels have been rising at an alarming rate for some time now and that of course means average temperatures are sure to follow.

**tas38** · 05-13-2008, 10:29 PM

Yes indeed your other post H2FC answered this very thing, it's about where ice cores are found and that not most of the earth.

Gopc we need to stop playing these games, and the debate really is over now as the USA, will be signing a world man made global warming treaty and that ends the debate.

We now need to debate what plan and how to work a plan, we don't want our leaders pulling a fast one on us. And taxing us out the nose for their own gain, this needs to be driving by the markets. At this point both party's will have to work out a plan, and how to carry out said plan and time frames. So it's no longer about if it's man made or not, it is man made and it's in our leaders hands now to fix it.

We need to force our leaders to debate how they plan to fix it, and how they plan to carry out that plan. Before we vote for them in nov, or we can do like we done over if it's real or not and let it all up to them. And act like it's the end of the world when they, tax us out the nose just because it seems like we are not even worried about it at all. So far we left bush stall and let oil prices sky rocket, that is our faults because we was more worried about fighting if it was real or not.

May be you trust our leaders to handles this in away, that best for us and not them selfs, but that would be very foolish. Seeing how bush was left get us, into such a bad state doing just that. Closing your eyes to the facts will not change them, nor make them go away, it only give our leaders a free hand to do what ever they want. And as we seen with the bush admin, they will do what is best for them selfs not the voters or our country.

The truth is we all been had on MMGW, because our leaders cared more about their own needs. I was shocked to find out how clear MMGW was, it made me feel sick to think our leaders left this happen. And even when they knew it was true, they talked out of both ends of their mouths about it. Where the he$$ was MCcain, clinton and Obama, when bush lied and did nothing but stall. I'm sorry I'm not going there it's just upset me, that our leaders knew the truth way before this. And played their own political games, with such a thing like MMGW.

Thank god they was now forced to tell the truth, but must now wait till bush leaves office to do anything about it. We have all been had by our leaders, so we all need to get over it now. And make sure they deal with this the right way, because if we don't they will keep playing their political games. And the so called news TV will play right along with them for ratings, if you think rush and CNN and fox people care about the people. Then your as nutty as they are, they help our leaders do this to us and our country.

If I could ask who ever wins the white house one thing, it would be how they could have left, this political game go on so long like they did. Peoples lifes are not some political game chip, to be played out in our leaders political lifes. Some times our country and peoples lifes, must be rised above the petty political games and this was one such time. Yes we all been had by our leaders, now we all know it and must make sure it does not happen again.

Edited In:

I found this about the end game for oil, the poster is talking about us here in the USA. First you may notice it's a bit over the top, but then it makes you go HHHHmmm all the same.

The USA gov't been buying up oil and coal shale land in the USA, they also control all land leases for any oil drilling here in the USA. We took control of Iraq by bushes own words, so Iran could not get control of the oil fields and hold us hostage. And he said it would keep oil cheaper for the world as well, well the first thing done was to cut oil out put in 1/2 when we took over.

Afghanistan also big oil wanted to run a big oil pipe line through it, but the afghanistan gov't would not do it at all. That fall to the side because of all the fighting that keeps happening there, follow the bush money trail and it all starts looking like HHHHmmm. Anyone that got any common sense could think that poster was right, we are in the oil end game by the looks of it, but now man made global warming is cutting it off much sooner.

We may well be very lucky MMGW has cut the grab for oil short, and that the world will have to come together to fix it. Or it may have well marked the start of the end for humans own doom, may be this is a sliver lining in it after all, that is if the world does come together to fix it. One thing is for sure the poster, MICHAEL C. RUPPERT wrote a book on it and it was a best seller.

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/fre...ftw_maps.shtml

See how much oil shale the USA gov't, owns or controls 70% of it and it's adds up to about well from the site.......

( Not all resources in place are recoverable; however, even a moderate estimate of 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil from oil shale in the Green River Formation is three times greater than the proven oil reserves of Saudi Arabia. )

http://ostseis.anl.gov/guide/oilshale/index.cfm

**fab** · 05-14-2008, 03:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bd77

Found this article in the Wall Street Journal. It highlights how John McClain's proposed "Cap and trade" system would be a disaster for this country. This is the problem with McCain is that when he talks about Global Warming he sounds just like Barack Obama. It makes me wish their was a third choice, a real conservative choice.

REVIEW & OUTLOOK

McCain's Climate 'Market'
May 13, 2008; Page A16

The latest stop on John McCain's policy tour came at an Oregon wind-turbine manufacturer, where the topic was – what else? – the Senator's plan to address climate change. This is one of those issues where Mr. McCain indulges his "maverick" tendencies, which usually means taking the liberal line. That was the case yesterday, no matter how frequently he claimed his approach was "market based."

In fact, if "the market" is your favored mechanism, Mr. McCain's endorsement of a "cap and trade" system is the worst choice for reducing greenhouse-gas emissions. The Bush Administration has pursued one option, which combines voluntary measures with subsidies for "clean" alternatives. Since 2001 under this approach, U.S. net carbon emissions have fallen by 3% – that is, by more than all but four countries in cap-and-trade-bound Europe.

At the other end of the market spectrum is a straight carbon tax, which would at least distribute costs more efficiently. It would also force politicians to be honest about – and take responsibility for – the true price of their global-warming posturing.

Then there's cap and trade, which Mr. McCain has backed for years and would, as he put it with some understatement, "change the dynamic of our energy economy." He noted that Americans have a genius for problem-solving but continued, "The federal government can't just summon these talents by command – only the free market can draw them out." To translate: His plan is "market based" insofar as it requires an expensive, invasive government bureaucracy to interfere with the market.

Mr. McCain's proposed targets and policy instruments more or less mesh with the global-warming bill sponsored by Senators Joe Lieberman and John Warner that may come up for debate next month. The McCain plan would aim to return emissions to 2005 levels by 2012, and to 1990 levels by 2020. Barack Obama supports similar reductions.

In theory, this would be achieved by imposing emission ceilings on electric power, transportation fuels, commercial business and industries. If a company produced less carbon than it was allowed under the cap, it could sell -- i.e., trade – its extra allowances to other businesses. Under the McCain plan, permits would be given away to industries, at least initially. Mr. Obama prefers to "auction" the permits, meaning businesses would be taxed at the outset. So Mr. McCain's plan would help mitigate the transition costs of putting "the age of fossil fuels behind us."

The problem is that once government creates an artificial scarcity of carbon, how the credits are allocated creates a huge new venue for political rent-seeking and more subsidies for favored industries. Some businesses will benefit more than others, in proportion to their lobbying influence and how well they're able to game the Beltway. Congress itself will probably take the largest revenue grab, offering itself a few more bites out of the economy and soaking politically unpopular businesses.

Then there's the question of whether any of this will even reduce greenhouse gasses. The McCain plan would allow businesses unlimited use of domestic and international offsets to comply with the carbon cap. So a chemical manufacturer, say, would pay an industry not covered by the program – most notably, agriculture – to reduce its emissions. Or it could pay a coal plant in China for plucking low-hanging efficiency fruit, like installing smokestack scrubbers. In other words, U.S. consumers would be paying higher prices for energy in return for making Chinese industries more efficient and competitive. Europe is in the midst of that experience now under the Kyoto Protocol, and most of its reductions so far have been illusory.

The compliance bookkeeping for this new "market" is vastly complex, and a McCain Administration would create a public-private "Climate Change Credit Corporation" to oversee it all. This new regulatory body is likely to morph over time into an "Energy Fed," similar to the one Warner-Lieberman would create. Such an agency would set the price of energy indirectly by fiddling with carbon levies, which will undoubtedly lead to economy-wide distortions.

Given the distance between Mr. McCain's rhetoric and the policy reality, we wonder if he even knows what he's proposing. This is of a piece with his approach to many domestic issues, where the policy contradictions and cul-de-sacs overwhelm his professed political convictions. The McCain campaign believes his global-warming plan will appeal to independents and young people, as well as separate the Senator from President Bush.

But he will never be green enough for the climate-change fundamentalists. The Obama campaign and Democrats were already dinging Mr. McCain yesterday for half-measures. His concessions won't help him much in November, but they will make his governing decisions in 2009 that much more difficult if by some chance he does win.

I really liked this article. Thanks for posting. In the future, it would help if you could post a link as well, instead of having to Google it.

In other words Bush is the real MMGW favorite.

Just waiting to get bashed!

**GoPC** · 05-14-2008, 12:17 PM

Looking at the failed Kyoto treaty and how the top 5 countries that signed the thing and their resulting $33 Billion Dollars in fines for not meeting the emmissions reduction quota... I have to ask a couple of very pointed questions about this "market" approach.

1 - WHO pays those fines?

2 - Who made the decision to rename TAX in such a way to deceive casual onlookers that this is an opportunity for the market to profit by generating new, cleaner alternatives?

Cap and Trade does NOTHING to reduce emmissions. A true "market driven" solution would. However, what is being proposed under a "market driven" moniker is simply NOT accurate... that is "market punishment"

If companies present themselves in such a way to create a "fudge factor" in their emmissions or work out these financially lucrative long term agreement with companies that don't hit their ceiling, then big, wasteful corporations that make huge profits making waste will simply continue to do so by simply buying credits from others. BOTH of which are producing emmissions and neither has slowed down.

But MMGW fanatics are being "fed" what they want to eat so... I guess it's all good, then, yeah?

No.

How about grants, tax breaks and other financial rewards for companies actively involved in creating an alternative? What about letting the fact that with consumer pressure, marketing prowess and pure profitability in a marketplace where "green" is selling like hotcakes, drive the development?

Back to the COST for a second... Assuming the policy of punishment is imposed, who actually PAYS the bill? Who's paying the $33 Billion Dollars in fines that were imposed by the Kyoto Treaty?

Ultimately, WE do. The taxpayers and the consumers. The wacko's in the governemnt just created a way to extract money from BOTH ends of us. We get taxed on our own consumption and use.

Growth will happen as population increased exponentially despite the lofty dream of returning to the production numbers of the past. Couple that with the fact that the Government would impose those requirements instantly while business has to physically BUILD the equipment needed to comply with those new regulations.

The net result of that is increased fines during the building phase and the physical costs of the new equipment. ALL of which will cost truckloads of cash to the companies being forced to comply.

And WHO pays the new tax, the new fines, the increased costs of the products being produced and the costs of the new equipment to produce them?

YOU DO.

This is the end game folks. This is a carefully constructed plan to extract more of YOUR money from you. The cost of heat just went up Tas... will we get to continue to hear you cry and moan about not getting enough of MY tax dollars to pay YOUR heating bill now that you've supported a way to exponentially increase the cost of heat?

Like them I'd wager, YOU DON'T CARE... because it's people like ME that are paying YOUR bills.

Well... there is a point where people just don't have any more money to squeeze from them. Arguably, we are there with the gas prices (that the government won't just ease off the tax to help with), there's new "Millionaire" taxes being proposed by the Democrats to PUNISH those ambitious enough to create a good life for themselves and their families. Now there's the proposal to increase our consumables costs and taxes and levy fines against us for what amounts to nothing more than a man made hoax, known as Global Warming.

Enjoy the ride. Cause the end SUCKS.

GoPC

**H2FC** · 05-14-2008, 01:18 PM

Having read through your senseless ramblings its clear you don't have a clue as to the subjects you're bashing. It brings to mind the old Mark Twain saying, "its much better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt".