Climate Expert Says NASA Tried to Silence Him

[Irie]

Originally Posted by Beestie

This isn't fark, you know.

lol

[Hippikos]

Being silenced is never a good thing for Democracy. But that goes for both sides. Dr.Hansen has been able to spread his alarmist messages, which most of them did not became true since 1988, much more than many skeptic scientists. A bit of the kettle calling the pot black. AGW has been looked at more objectively. Me thinks Dr.Hansen is now trying a different route...

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Irie

I would love to be able to point a finger at someone for ignoring the "climate change" issue going on, but it really is everyones responsibility.

Everyone should be aware by now that it's getting warmer, the climate is changing, and people a likely contributing to it.
BUT, before we start dictating radical changes in lifestyle, shouldn't we ask some questions?
Like, so it's getting warmer, so what? Is that a bad thing? How warm will it get and what will that mean? Can we do anything about it or is our contribution too small to have that effect? Or is it too late to effect the outcome, even if we could have?

Don't equate change with bad, some changes are good ....or at least neutral.
If we are going to do something we need a plan. In order to have a plan we have to know where we get the most bang for the buck. That's hard until we have some hard facts, which seem to be as rare as hen's teeth.

[Ibby]

Thanks, Bruce, thats exactly how I feel.

[piercehawkeye45]

I think global warming is natural but we are just adding fuel to the fire. Either way, it can lead to devastating effects throughout the world.

[Irie]

Bruce,
you make a good point and I must admit that my call for immediate change comes in a feeling of desperation. True, it has been this hot before and the earth does what it wants over time, but I think there is enough evidence in not only in science but 70 degree weather in Boston in January that proves we are contributing plenty. Fossil fuels are known to be a large contributer to the problem, so we should start there right away, then plan some more researched attempts.

A recently failed theory was putting quantities of iron in the ocean which spurred plankton growth and helped remove CO2 from the air, but the results weren't what we hoped. If something as desperate as chucking mass quantities of a metal into the ocean won't really work, then shouldn't we do what we can now?

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

If we are going to do something we need a plan. In order to have a plan we have to know where we get the most bang for the buck. That's hard until we have some hard facts, which seem to be as rare as hen's teeth.

We have a plan. The problem is that some just fear innovation - simply love the status quo. Hell, GM was given $100million to build a hybrid - and did not even do that. Instead they build 300 HP vehicles - and label that obsolete crap as innovation?

The plan exists with options and ballpark numbers. But again, it would require xoxoxoBruce to read any technical discussions. xoxoxoBruce could not find enough money to buy that issue of Scientific American. But somehow he knows no plan exists. Denial is widespread among those who love the status quo.

Do nothing until we detail every aspect of the plan. Nonsense. Even Wal-mart has a program to reduce by a factor of seven the energy consumed by wasteful lighting. And yet xoxoxoBruces says we should wait, do nothing, until a better plan is created.

We don't even insulate building. What some call insulation is trivial efforts only determined by oil selling at low prices – even subsidized by the government. But again, it is called solutions to global warming – not a political ideology. xoxoxoBruce says don't require buildings to be insulated. Let's wait until a better plan is created.

Those who address global warming now will be the rich nations then. They will own the solutions. But what would a bean counter say? Let's wait until a better plan is created. Build V-8 engines because profits are higher. Idiots. That is why GM does not have profits. No wonder they oppose solutions to global warming.

[tw]

We watched xoxoxoBruce's logic 30 years ago when the same myopia said we would all have to ride in Pintos to achieve 24 MPG cars. Back then, the Pinto only achieved about 22 MPG. Why is 30 MPG the normal number for a standard car? Because innovation - not the 'we fear to innovate' attitude that xoxoxoBruce posts - occurred where car companies said the product and innovation. Same applies to global warming. xoxoxoBruce is again saying we would all ride in Pintos; the status quo - stifling innovation - is more important.
We watched xoxoxoBruces logic 30 years ago when the same myopia said we would all have to ride in Pintos to achieve 24 MPG cars. Back then, the Pinto only achieved about 24 MPG. Why is 30 MPG the normal number for a standard car? Because innovation - not the 'we fear to innovate' attitude that xoxoxoBruce posts - occurred where car companies said the product and innovation. Same applies to global warming. xoxoxoBruce is again saying we would all ride in Pintos; the status quo - stifling innovation - is more important.

The argument of global warming is really about those who fear to innovation – who fear change. Meanwhile the threat of global warming is because the changes are happening 10 and 100 times too fast. The resulting loss of knowledge – the various species that teach us how to advance ourselves has become massive. Species are literally ‘falling off the mountain’ – a term that in not understood by those who so hate the world as to not first learn concepts.

[yesman065]

Originally Posted by tw

...a term that in not understood by those who so hate the world as to not first learn concepts.

Are you talking about yourself in the third person again? You do know thats a sign of insanity - right? Oh, and posting the exact same thing twice in the same post does not increase its validity.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

so it's getting warmer, so what? Is that a bad thing?

Global warming = severe local weather more often. Can we deal with a Katrina sized storm every couple years? Can we deal with a loss like California's entire citrus crop every once in a while? Can we deal with changes in precipitation and another dust bowl like they had in the 30's? As global warming continues, scientists are pretty sure that severe weather like this will increase. I'd say that is a bad thing.

[yesman065]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Everyone should be aware by now that it's getting warmer, the climate is changing, and people a likely contributing to it.
Like, so it's getting warmer, so what? Is that a bad thing? How warm will it get and what will that mean?

I'm not positive of the exact amount, but even a minute increase in teperature at the polar caps is, not may, is causing a chain of events that will end life on this planet as we know it. Not that I think we can do anything about it or whether we are the cause, but. . .
http:Polar Ice Cap Melting

http:Causes of Global Warming

[Irie]

Not that I think we can do anything about it or whether we are the cause, but. . .
Are you still dancing on the fence? There is more than enough evidence to support people as the cause. Even your own link to the causes of CO2 should be enough. Sure, it doesn't have a blinking sign saying "We did it! We did it!" But you shouldn't have to lay your face on the stove to know it's on. The planet is warming up and we are the cause, time to start trying to clean up our mess!

[Irie]

Originally Posted by yesman065

Not that I think we can do anything about it or whether we are the cause, but. . .

http:Causes of Global Warming

Sorry, that was meant to be quoted

[piercehawkeye45]

Global warming will not wipe out the human race or life as a whole. Humans have experienced temperatures close to these and maybe even higher back 1,000 years ago and no one died out. Around 100 million years ago the CO2 level was four times as high as it is now, life still exists.

Now all of that is true, humans WILL survive global warming, but that argument is lacking one big issue. How will the standard of living be affected? I don't know about you guys, but I don't want to live my life day to day, living on shit in constant 100 degree weather. If global warming persists, the sea levels will rise, droughts will ravage the third world countries, weather will be as fierce as it comes, and all farming will have to relocate due to a change of the range crops can grow in.

Life will survive global warming, but the standard living will drop, which is the missing argument in the "it's natural" argument.

[Irie]

Update: Bills on Climate Move to Spotlight in New Congress

Legislation to control global warming that once had a passionate but quixotic ring to it is now serious business. Congressional Democrats are increasingly determined to wrest control of the issue from the White House and impose the mandatory controls on carbon dioxide emissions that most smokestack industries have long opposed.

Four major Democratic bills have been announced, with more expected. One of these measures, or a blend of them, stands an excellent chance of passage in this Congress or the next, industry and environmental lobbyists said in interviews.