"This is why Global Warming is a religion instead of a science. Once you accept the premise that man-made C02 emissions are destroying the planet, it becomes very hard not to argue from a moral perspective that we have to make some sacrifices "for the children."

I was watching a National Geographic special on Yosemite a few months back, and they were giving the typical Global Warming dogma, all about how we needed to stop using oil to save the "one remaining glacier" in the park. Then they took the camera around to show all the beautiful landscapes that had been carved by all the other glaciers that used to be in the park. You know, the glaciers that melted long before the invention of the internal combustion engine.

The fact that virtually all glacier melting in Yosemite had occurred eons before "Global Warming" was "discovered" was stated repeatedly. But the single remaining glacier's retreat was repeatedly blamed on human caused "Global Warming."

In other words, National Geographic showed direct physical evidence that glaciers have been melting in Yosemite for thousands of years, and that the entire park was once covered in ice, and all of that ice had melted before humans even discovered the region, and the ice melting has been continuous ever since the last ice age.

But somehow, this LAST glacier was only melting because of human activity. And this LAST glacier demanded great human sacrifice to save it before it too melted.

And this was done with no sense of irony. It was presented as simple fact.

It would seem to me that if glaciers have been melting in Yosemite for thousands of years, and entire mountains of ice have melted long before humans began using oil as fuel, it seems somewhat of a stretch to blame the final glacier's melting on human beings.

But that's what they do."

By Sean Golden

http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1201796015.shtml#138912

Then there was the glaciers that carved out and then filled with fresh water the Great Lakes. And let's not forget the one that gouged out the recesses and left very close to the surface the granite called Manhattan Island.

10,000 years of warming and melting was in anticipation of the internal combustion engine. We won't mention all that co2 from Mount Pinatubo, Krakatoa, Tambora, St Helen, Etna and a list too long to recite.

It has to be laid at the feet of man in order to harness men into slavery to the cause.

http://bruderheim-rea.ca/warming6.htm

The link above will take you to the page from which the following quote was taken.

Global Warming Explained
Is Earth warming up or not?

But the Earth is warming up, you say. Well, the evidence for that is very skimpy and is, due to the poor quality of surface temperature recordings, not supported by an overwhelming quantity and quality of facts. Moreover, what we can consider to be normal at any given time depends on the time interval into which a given point in time falls.

The climate alarmists do not tell us that for the years following the "high" temperatures reached in 1998 the global average annual temperatures reached were in every single year below the "high" reached in 1998 and appear to have begun a downward trend.

Many surface temperature measurements that are being tracked and reported are being taken and recorded in or near large urban centres. It would be no more accurate to extrapolate from them to the rest of the World than it would be to extrapolate from the reading in my kitchen right now and to conclude that we really and truly don't have now [in 2003] the coldest spring we've had for the last 150 years, ever since temperatures were recorded more or less on a global basis.

And that is where the problem lies. We don't have a sufficiently accurate record of surface-air-temperature readings to tell us what our climate has been in this region, or in North America, or for that matter in the whole World, to tell us what normal is. What we know is that "normal" is the average of a whole range of values. What we don't know is what the whole range of values is and how far away from or how close to normal we are right now, or do we?

Whatever the length of the interval, whether it covers the last 12 thousand, 450 thousand, 5 million, 65 million or 500 million years, global average temperatures have been falling steadily. The annual global average temperatures are now considerably lower than they were many times in the past.

Much more follows and is an interesting read.

The ravages of retreating glaciers and environmental change are all to evident from the followong piece which I quote verbating from an expert source *cough*. See the pictures below and a direct quote from a leading authority on the subject. Yours disgustedly... Carrot.


Pristine Alaskan Glacier Turns Into Tropical Wasteland

(Updated July 9, 2007)

(Frosty Cove, Alaska) Few places on Earth have suffered the ravages of global warming more than Alaska. While recent news reports have highlighted accounts of the native Inuits' snowmobiles falling through the ice, threatening their traditional way of life, there are isolated parts of Alaska have been completely transformed by global warming.

Possibly the most frightening example of this climate catastrophe that continues to unfold before the eyes of humanity is the case of Frosty Cove, Alaska. Once dominated by a pristine ice field, with a slowly advancing glacier dumping its frigid cargo into the sea, the Cove's original beauty has been forever lost.

Totally devoid of the ice and magnificent rock outcropping that once adorned the lanscape, Frosty Cove has become the poster child for the ravaging effects of global warming. In the accompanying pair of photographs, taken only twenty years apart, the environmental degradation is immediately obvious. Types of vegetation totally foreign to Alaska have invaded the region, upsetting the delicate ecological balance that once existed. Clouds of mosquitos, once so abundant in the cool moist climate of Alaska, have all but disappeared.

Pic 1: 1986: Frosty Cove's original pristine state featured majestic ice fields and rock outcroppings.

Pic 2: 2006: Frosty Cove's original beauty has been forever lost, now replaced with invasive foreign plant and animal species.



"We have been astounded by the environmental degradation that has occurred at Frosty Cove", said Dr. John Striker, director of Alaska's Cold Preservation Institute. "This level of transformation in only twenty years is sobering -- clearly, global warming has gotten out of hand in Alaska, and now other fragile ecosystems in polar regions are threatened as well".


Oops pics were too big.. here ya go:

Ah yes, Carrot, that should send Green Weenies into orbit every where. If you could ramp up the amperage on that you might even begin to trip some circuit breakers!

I reconize that 2nd picture

Wasn't that from "Gilligans Island" ? (nuts)

http://www.ecoenquirer.com/Frosty-Cove-Alaska.htm

Oh crap I'm sorry I shouldnt have poked fun at the post

Can I take a muligan on my gilligan ?

A quick yahoo search to a eco web site showed I should have took more time and really took advantage of the situtation

Hell even I noticed the destinct difference in the picture other than one has snow and one has palm trees.


Our planet changes ,But greenies never seem too.


Be sure and read the whole page
Especialy this part at the bottom
from page listed:
EDITOR'S NOTE: We have been informed by an astute and observant reader, Mr. R. Erle, that the story above might not be entirely accurate; Mr. Erle writes:

"I have been in my life five times in the north including twice in the high arctic so I appreciate its desolate beauty, I have kayaked the 375 mile Horton river in NWT alone and loved every moment...but the photo of the change in Frosty Cove is a phoney (if there is such a place with that as its official name.) If one studies the upper photo a range of hills can be seen. Then behind that range, very dimly seen, is one farther and higher. The lower photo taken on a bright sunny day, probably while on someone's semi-tropical or tropical vacation, shows palm trees (go find ONE palm tree in Alaska, even in a hotel or restaurant!) and no in indication of any hills."

We would like to thank Mr. Erle for his keen eye and intuitive grasp of the obvious.
*****************************************************************

Ah come on 6 days and no responce ?

At least they could have tried to photoshop it.(nuts)

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2175/2251966030_52cfb5f3f0_o.jpg

Belief based "science" doesn't suffer the burdens of fact and logic:

"Wintry blasts from the warmists

For ill-tempered venom it is hard to equal the believers in man-made global warming. Not for some time has anything I have written drawn so much personal abuse as my report last week of a graph on the Cryosphere Today website showing that, after its record drop last summer to 4 million square kilometres, ice cover in the Arctic has now recovered to 13 million sq km, almost where it was this time last year.

The point made by those who called me "monumentally stupid" (courtesy of The Guardian's political correspondent, Michael White) or accused me of "utter drivel" was that what should alarm us is not winter ice-cover but the fact - which I did mention - that it dropped to its lowest recorded level last summer.

Once all these climate experts have recovered from their fit of self-righteousness, perhaps they could explain why, at the same time that Arctic ice is diminishing, ice in the Antarctic has increased to easily its highest level ever recorded at this time of year, currently 30 per cent above normal.

After all, it is not winter in the Antarctic, it is summer. And isn't the point about this warming we are all supposed to be panicking about is that it is meant to be global?"

By Christopher Booker

From bottom of page at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/10/nbooker110.xml

A point of human nature seems to be that we do not like to admit our mistakes, past or present. I'll continue to milk my cows at 6:30 AM just like my daddy and my grandaddy did, and I don't care if studies show I get more milk by milking them at sunrise. Are those that refute global warming saying they don't believe we are causing it? Or are they really saying, I see no reason to change my lifestyle because it would be admitting I am wrong.

There are so many arguments for and against wheather we are contributing to global warming. I do think this planet is in a state of balance that has lasted for 10's of thousands of years. 10,000 years ago there were not 5 billion people on the planet. Picture a teter-toter balanced level with a big heavy ball exactly centered. What happens if you roll that ball just a little one way or the other? That may be a little simple minded but you get the picture.

The planet will survive (at least until the sun goes supernova) and we will survive for quite some time. The question is...

How much more do we want to contribute to our decendants demise.

Steve

A point of human nature seems to be that we do not like to admit our mistakes, past or present.


Real pollution has been reduced tremendously by technologies such as catalytic converters and fuel injection.

It irks me that carbon dioxide is called pollution, but a car running off a hydrogen fuel cell is seen as an improvement because it emits only water vapor - water vapor is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. Never mind that manmade CO2 is insignificant, that the sun is entering a cooling phase, that the Antarctic ice has been thickening. Rich humans (Americans) are risking the existance of future generations and must be made to atone for their sins - no point in trying to extort money from those that don't have it.

Accepting measures that increase the cost of energy without actually reducing carbon emissions are clearly to enrich some at the expense of others. The "lets change just in case" brigade should try and sell the idea of healthy organ removal as a means to prevent cancer.

I'll continue to milk my cows at 6:30 AM just like my daddy and my grandaddy did, and I don't care if studies show I get more milk by milking them at sunrise.

How come nobody is asking the cows when they would prefer to be milked?

Ok... ignore the coal fired power plants, the coal fired cement plants, the natural gas fired power plants, natural gas fired glass plants, all the natural gas and fuel oil burned in home heating, all the carbon fuel burned everywhere except in cars...

Take the total number of cars in use, multiply that by 1/2 the cubic inch displacement (assuming 4 cycle engines) of their engines, multiply that by the average RPM of said engines, multiply that by the average number of minutes said engines are run daily, multiply that by 365, and tell me how many hundreds of thousands of cubic miles of air is run through JUST CAR ENGINES ??

Oh yes, that water vapor from the fuel cells... condenses very nicely back to water once you cool it a bit.

Yes, water vapor is a greenhouse substance, clouds do hold the heat in. More clouds, more rain in some areas. More heat in the oceans, more water vapor, more clouds... Big cycle... There is also a very very long carbon cycle of which all living things are part of. We are burning acient forests and animal life long burried. And that is not a part of the balanced process.

To say that we are not capable of causing climatic change? Have you ever wondered why it so often seems to rain just in time for the weekend? Look at historical data on when it rains most often if you want a little surprise.

Link just for reference: 1998 article http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/19980706131634data_trunc_sys.shtml

Steve

What the religion is really about:
http://www.financialpost.com/analysis/story.html?id=0a250f10-ec86-449b-b2b1-a5c40270496b&k=54519&p=1

Take the total number of cars in use, multiply that by 1/2 the cubic inch displacement (assuming 4 cycle engines) of their engines, multiply that by the average RPM of said engines, multiply that by the average number of minutes said engines are run daily, multiply that by 365, and tell me how many hundreds of thousands of cubic miles of air is run through JUST CAR ENGINES ??

I don't see man-made CO2 as a problem in need of a solution, nor is a slightly warmed earth; but lets just do the math again for the fun of it:

Your calculation assumes 100% volumetric efficiency. The average passenger car approaches this at it torque peak RPM with the throttle wide open. Most of the time the throttle is only partly open, so your calculation is way off.

Oh yes, that water vapor from the fuel cells... condenses very nicely back to water once you cool it a bit.

How is the water vapor going to cool down with global warming already taking over the globe? Oh, I forgot, it is cold enough out there to freeze the balls off a brass monkey.

There is also a very very long carbon cycle of which all living things are part of. We are burning acient forests and animal life long burried. And that is not a part of the balanced process.

All of those ancient plants and animals used to float around in the air as CO2. Considering how much carbon is tied up in fossil fuel, the air must now be depleted compared to "natural levels" before man, and by burning said fuel, we are putting the carbon back where it came from, restoring this natural level.

To say that we are not capable of causing climatic change? Have you ever wondered why it so often seems to rain just in time for the weekend? Look at historical data on when it rains most often if you want a little surprise.

The rain is not caused by the carbon, but by the hydrogen. The hydrocarbons in gasoline contain more hydrogen molecules than carbon. When you burn hydrogen you get water vapor. The water vapor condenses into water because there is no GW problem.

As far as burning coal is concerned, soot and radioactive pollution may be a problem; CO2 is not.

Anyone who believes that hydrogen causes rain should go back to 8th grade science class.

Yes given the intake manifold pressure is less than atmospheric unless wide open. Maybe only 400mm hg. So about half the volume of air. Still a lot, and that is just cars.

Oh... the carbon... that was in the air... where did it come from? Try the sun, as in solar wind. And it's been drifting in thourgh our atmosphere for eons, falling to the ground, taken up by plants.. and so on. Most of it has gotten burried over the eons and all has been fine.

Now, if you are ready to tell me what the emission wavelength of a CO2 molecule is when relaxing back to it's normal energy level, we might have an intelegent conversation.

Steve

Anyone who believes that hydrogen causes rain should go back to 8th grade science class.

Hydrogen causes rain like guns cause war, and like humans effect natural climate fluctuations.

Carbon dioxide causes rain like the UN causes peace.

It snowed in palm springs today ( a little)
In Beaumont we got SNOW most of today.( IF I wanted snow I would live in montana or canada eh ?)


When is this global warming BS suppose to start, as I am tired of freezing my ass off.

A three hour tour
Hey can I set up ,like a steam motor , a engine that runs on compressed CO2 ?

Quite, non poisonous ,good for the plants.

Yes we should get off of fossil fuels.
At least off of fuel that isn't ours.

NO we shouldn't and can't do it at the rate the leftest greenie's want it to happen.

It will happen. When the technology , supply demand thing catches up.
Or perhaps the delicate thing in balance that teeters out of control will be civilization.( we are way over due anyway look at the numbers)

Which will thin out the herd ,and that billions of people problem won't be a problem after all.(nuts)

liveD

When is this global warming BS suppose to start, as I am tired of freezing my ass off.
The fear of global warming is based on nothing more than the instinctual pagan awareness of Hell. Like all great religions, GW is an opportunity to organize the masses against some entity, and to use your conscience to drive the flow of money.

Dang I knew it !
My lack of conscience and a utter hatred of psychological manipulation, lights off my spidy sense whenever a "environmentalist" speaks.
Yep Ole school religion ,if I control your god I control you .
Same with emotion . Repent the end is near. LMAO :nono: :argue: (nuts) (group)

Hahahahaha

when I saw this topic, I thought, here we go again. Won't be welcome here for long ...

... but no, you mostly agree with me. Engineers are altogether too logically minded :-)

I think the climate is warming in some parts of the world, but it is part of the normal cycle of planet earth. If it does warm globally, it is probably returning to a mean level and not going to an extreme (you know there are fossil corals and stuff under antarctica don't you)

It is all about money.

"...on the matter of global intervention to stop global warming, there seems to be no need for scientific evidence to justify what is shaping up as a
global carbon tax of 35 cents a gallon of gas on the American people... Clearly, we are supposed to accept all of this on faith...

The U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is officially sponsored by the U.N. Environmental Program, which once organized an
"Environmental Sabbath" program (http://www.earthministry.org/Congregations/UN_Sabbath.htm) so people could pay homage to the planet."


From: http://www.aim.org/aim-column/media-promote-global-warming-fraud/