Comments:[Add New]
May 3rd, 2007 at 09:41:01  From: Mother Nature
All climate change is natural, it is not caused by man, nor can man do anything to alter it except try to survive the best they can. Everything else is just a socialistic pipe dream to try to control the masses through fear.
May 3rd, 2007 at 09:50:13  From: ArmedBuddhistDemocrat
Actually, China is tied with us right now, and soon to pass.
In the next 3 years, China will become the #1 greenhouse gas producer. My question is, will it still be America's fault?
May 3rd, 2007 at 09:57:32  From: arnold benedict
It's not only the collective America but the individual American that is an out of control ravenous beast rampaging in the garden we have had the astounding fortune to be born into. Shame on all that consume beyond their needs and rob the planet of it's beauty and vibrant diversity.
May 3rd, 2007 at 09:58:22  From: Colton
As YOUR vice president said "If there was a 1% chance that Sadaam has WMD's it's our responsibility to take him down" (paraphrased) Well look at that - here there is a 90% chance that humans cause global climate change, and you think it's a conspiracy theory. How about this, a robber puts his gun to your ribs and says "your money or your life!" ANYONE, from investment banker to soccer-mom knows that no amount of money is worth the chance that you'll get killed just trying to protect it. If you're still alive, you can always make money later. I guess it just depends on the 'life' you want for your children. Fat lot of good all your profit will do you when your money is worthless because the planet is ruined and society as we know it has collapsed...does paper money make good stew if you boil it?
May 3rd, 2007 at 10:20:26  From: Asshole
Somebody forgot to tell mother nature that she's not flat.
May 3rd, 2007 at 10:20:39  From: Mother Nature
Money cannot alter climate change, and to all of you painting the USA as the global warming demon, don't forget all the poor people in 3rd world countries that cut and burn jungles and tropical rainforests so they can try to survive through agriculture and raisng livestock. Anyone anywhere can be blamed, and any weather can be blamed on global warming, how convenient for the members of the church of global warming!
May 3rd, 2007 at 10:57:57  From: 
mother nature's postpartum depression
She's obviously not much of a mother either. Good mothers don't lie to their children.
May 3rd, 2007 at 11:19:18  From: Mother Nature
May 3rd, 2007 at 10:57:57
Spare the rod and spoil the child!! You are a spoiled child!!
May 3rd, 2007 at 11:23:12  From: 
Poor little Global Warming freaks. All this weeping and wailing...and nothing will change
May 3rd, 2007 at 11:28:18  From: mlee
whose fault?
>>From: ArmedBuddhistDemocrat Actually, China is tied with us right now, and soon to pass. In the next 3 years, China will become the #1 greenhouse gas producer. My question is, will it still be America's fault?<< Yes for a substantial part, because America has been polluting the earth since the industrial revolution, for more than one hundred years, and because it is to this day refusing to participate in the Kyoto Protocol and its successor treaty. If America does not participate, will China voluntarily cut back in trying to lift its people out of poverty? Is the US right in telling other countries not to take its populace out of poverty, while it continues to pollute?
May 3rd, 2007 at 11:37:45  From: Bobo the Clown
Any REAL "Mother Nature"
would out and out DETEST humans by now. We've polluted everything. Our food supply is now in question, pets poisoned, air unbreathable, cancer rates sky-rocketing, artic ice melting at a rate no on foresaw, bees disappearing. And this idiot calls itself "moterh nature" and shills for the lefties? "Mother FUCKER" is more like it. STFU.
May 3rd, 2007 at 11:46:21  From: Bobo the Clown
I meant
Shill for the righties, obviously... rightful indignation causes typos!!!
May 3rd, 2007 at 12:09:32  From: nardo
Mother Nature
Try this. Go sit in a closet, close the door and light up a charcoal grill. Report back to us tomorrow with the results of your experiment.
May 3rd, 2007 at 12:18:31  From: Mother Nature
nardo
RESULTS; You are describing a volcano, which spews tons of ash and CO2 into the atmosphere, this has been happening long before the industrial revolution.
May 3rd, 2007 at 12:29:00  From: mlee
volcanoes
Yes, but there was little global warming before the industrial revolution.
May 3rd, 2007 at 12:41:36  From: Bobo the Clown
HA!!
Refute what I said, "Mother Nature." What sort of representative of "nature" would condone ANYTHING people do, besides gardening? Puh-leeeeze. We are the blight. We COULD live in harmony with our environment, but we chose a long time ago NOT to.
May 3rd, 2007 at 12:44:56  From: nardo
Mother Nature
Grade = F. You failed to perform the experiment as directed, therefore your answer has no scientific credibility. But please explain to us why you mention CO2 in your reply. I never said anything about it, now I'm curious.
May 3rd, 2007 at 13:14:36  From: sheephead
mother nature
right on .......taxes cannot fix global warming.......it's just the cycles of the earth.........great post keep it up!!check out prisonplanet.com alex has some great articles from scientist that are debunking global warming
May 3rd, 2007 at 13:31:24  From: talkshowhost
Mars Rover melting Martian ice cap!
How is my car causing climate change on Mars? http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/07aug_southpole.htm http://news.nationalgeographic.com/ news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html Hey, maybe global warming is cause by... the Sun?
May 3rd, 2007 at 13:56:53  From: Mother Nature
nardo/ booboo
You asked for my results and I gave them, accept it. All the current warm temps put out by the global warming crowd are compared to temps in past times, like the headline about "the warmest temps in Norway in 300 years", it all proves that global climate change(warming and cooling), is a natural cycle of the earth long before man existed, let alone pre-industrial revolution. BooBoo, that is not the question, it is irrelevant what is or is not condoned, man does not cause global warming, nor can he alter it, no question there.
May 3rd, 2007 at 14:04:20  From: 
You asked for my results and I gave them, accept it. as he places pistol against Nardo's temple
May 3rd, 2007 at 14:04:47  From: 
The man-made global warming hysteria wont last much longer. Which is a shame because I wanted to cash in on the carbon credit scams. Of well, there will be a new hysteria soon.
May 3rd, 2007 at 14:04:57  From: Bobo the Clown
Well
MN, you are even more stupid than I thought. Gawd, have you even bothered to read ANY of the scientific findings? MY guess is no. But you probably listened to Glenn Beck the putz shill for corporate backed CNN or your pastor. Why don't you do your own sleuthing instead of listening to those on the Exxon payroll? Gawd.
May 3rd, 2007 at 14:16:22  From: 
BooBoo the Clod would we so disappointed if the world is not coming to an end. Makes me want to go outside and rev my SUV.
May 3rd, 2007 at 14:17:30  From: Mother Nature
Bobo the Clown
I don't know who glen beck is, and I can't stand CNN. Science isn't run by consensus, I would like to hear more about the discovery of pre-historic footprints discovered in the Arctic region, natural emissions of CO2 from the oceans, the effect of the sun on the earths climate, the effects of the earths molten core on climate, and the effects of volcanic activity on the earths climate. Also like the previous poster said, what about the melting ice caps on other planets in our solar system?
May 3rd, 2007 at 14:23:31  From: nardo
No, I do not accept the results of anything that were not performed in a scientific manner. Had you performed what I requested, which was a crudely scientific experiment that even a caveman could have done, you would not have come up with an answer that "spewed ash and CO2 into the atmosphere". You would have actually begun the process of suffocation from carbon "monoxide" poisoning. I think I'll stick with the scientists.
May 3rd, 2007 at 14:35:35  From: 
Their use of Mars as an example is somewhat of a joke, considering that Mars' polar ice has melted nearly completely during every yearly cycle since they were discovered. NASA has determined them to be only a few inches thick and they are mainly composed of frozen CO2. When they melt they go to directly to their gaseous state.
May 3rd, 2007 at 15:03:10  From: Abby
It's sad how an issue like global climate change can, in the face of all real evidence, become a Left/Right political issue. Hats off to the media of dis-information and to the general stupidity of a misinformed population. On a possible disaster on a truly global scale, unlike with another terrorist attack, the Republicans are willing to wait for the mushroom cloud. Pathetic.
May 3rd, 2007 at 15:08:05  From: Independent
"Mother Nature"
Where do you normally get your weather report? Fox News?
May 3rd, 2007 at 16:12:55  From: Mother nature
Indopendant
http://www.nws.noaa.gov/
May 3rd, 2007 at 16:16:56  From: Mother Nature
When they melt they go to directly to their gaseous state.
What is causing them to melt?? George Bush...Bwaaahaaahaaa
May 3rd, 2007 at 16:22:33  From: Independent
"Mother Nature"
Oh, the NOAA. Yeah, the agency that Rick Santorum tried to take control of a couple years ago, and the same one that answers to the Bush Crime Syndicate as all federal agencies currently do. OK- I just wanted to get that straight. BTW, substances changing their phases from a solid to a gaseous state are said to go through a process called sublimation. I wonder if Bush knows anything about that?
May 3rd, 2007 at 16:37:54  From: Mother Nature
Independent
"BTW, substances changing their phases from a solid to a gaseous state are said to go through a process called sublimation. ' Ok, explain to me how this process is triggered with the ice caps on mars. What is the catalyst??
May 3rd, 2007 at 16:38:37  From: Grizzly Bear Dancer
Yo - Mother of industrialized destructive humans who take NO RESPONSIBILITY fo the shit they pump and cuntinue to pump into the air to maintain their so called quality of life screwing all the other earth's inhabitants until the atmosphere takes it's final cough. U R A stpd Mther Fcker
May 3rd, 2007 at 16:43:47  From: Mother Nature
Independent
'the south polar cap on Mars is made of frozen CO2 or "dry ice," it reflects more sunlight than any other part of the planet. Dave Smith of the Goddard Space Flight Center says, "The polar cap is receding because the springtime sun is shining on it." THE SUN?? Go figure!!
May 3rd, 2007 at 16:51:03  From: Rook
Heres the real poop. http://www.850koa.com/pages/shows_gunny-news-archives.html?feed=122633&article=2065680
May 3rd, 2007 at 16:51:40  From: Independent
It's Very Simple
The atmospheric pressure on Mars is not the same as it is on Earth. Here, it's 14.7 psia. On Mars, it's less than 1%. Therefore, this low level of pressure could easily allow ice to change quickly into vapor just as CO2 can do here on Earth. Now, how the process is triggered is another story. I don't think anyone knows the answer to that currently including NASA since the Euro Mars Express reports that it thinks it found ice on Mars. I would say the study is only just now beginning. As for Mars, I'm not sure why that is part of this argument. I thought we were talking about Earth.
May 3rd, 2007 at 16:51:50  From: Mother Nature
CO2 on Mars
Oh shit, wait till al gore finds out about this, that is his favorite greenhouse gas!! An inconvenient truth about Mars!
May 3rd, 2007 at 16:54:14  From: Mother Nature
Independent
The point is, the SUN is causing the ice cap to melt, OK? Do you think maybe the suncould be causing the same thing to happen on earth??
May 3rd, 2007 at 16:54:39  From: Bobo the Clown
MN = IDIOT
Why are we even reasoning with such a moron? Or attempting to? There was a fucking story YESTERDAY that says even scientists WORST FEARS about the escalation of the melting of the arctic icecap are realized and then some. The ice isn't supposed to melt in its entirety in the summer, STUPID. But in 3-4 years it will. I truly hope you live in Florida and will be underwater then so no one can hear your inane babble. I bet 100 bucks I could look up Dave Smith and find he's tied to big oil. You actualyl get your info from the fucking GOVERNMENT? Case closed. Big oil has them in their pocket. Why don't you go to Exxon exposed or An Inconvenient Truth and at least see what the opposing argument is. MARS has nothing to do with it, retard. GAWD.
May 3rd, 2007 at 16:54:56  From: Independent
"Mother Nature"
Reading your last post, I ask the question again: Why are we discussing Mars? We have very limited information on it compared to what we know about this planet. And since Mars has an atmospheric pressure about 1% of Earths', it wouldn't surprise me that solar radiation would have a much more profound impact on that planet.
May 3rd, 2007 at 16:56:37  From: Mother Nature
Independent
THE SUN THE SUN THE SUN THE SUN THE SUN THE SUN THE SUN THE SUN THE SUN
May 3rd, 2007 at 16:58:04  From: Mother Nature
Independent
Are you daft, the SUN is causing global warming on earth, NOT MAN
May 3rd, 2007 at 16:59:55  From: Independent
No "Mother Nature"
I don't. Two entirely different planets with entirely different characteristics including temperature and pressure. You are over simplifying it. I'm not a climatologist, but I am well versed in thermodynamics, and can say that your oversimplification of the issue leaves you off the mark. As the sun has been originating the same amount of solar radiation for millions of years, your claim would have the ice caps melting off long ago. It is something else causing it, likely changes in OUR atmosphere allowing more of that solar radiation to reach the planet surface in greater intensities and at a faster pace then ever seen before in the thousands of years of ice core samples taken.
May 3rd, 2007 at 17:00:08  From: Mother Nature
Independent
Dammit, its the sun that is causing the ice caps on earth to melt, GOT IT??
May 3rd, 2007 at 17:00:11  From: Grizzly Bear Dancer
Hey Mohther Nature why don't you tell your legion of followers to keep fornicating as much as possible because the human race is dying out. Keep voting for people like the Congress multi-national corporate sellouts who provided support under GW Bushit administration REVERSING OVER 250 ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS AND STANDARDS. kEEP USING AS MUCH ENERGY AS POSSIBLE AND KEEP SUPPORTING BUSH ANTI-SCIENCE POLICIES. tHE SUN IS SHINING TODAY AND u IGNORANT INBREED AIR SUCKING BASTARD.
May 3rd, 2007 at 17:01:28  From: Independent
Repeating the Lie
I see you have lowered yourself to the level of tactic the Bush Crime Syndicate uses when they have run out of ideas: continue to repeat the lie over and over and over and over and over again until it eventually becomes the truth. I'm sorry, I'm immune to that.
May 3rd, 2007 at 17:02:42  From: Mother nature
Independent
"As the sun has been originating the same amount of solar radiation for millions of years" This is complete and total bullshit and you know it, you just can't make it up as you go along.
May 3rd, 2007 at 17:09:34  From: Independent
"Mother Nature"
You really are a dolt aren't you? And how much deviation over the past say 1-2 million years has this intensity varied by percentage? If you want to prove this wrong, show me the numbers. I like numbers pal.
May 3rd, 2007 at 17:19:37  From: Mother Nature
Indopendant
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/56456.stm
May 3rd, 2007 at 17:26:24  From: Morrigan
(sing)Row row row your boat. Gently down your street. Never mind the polar ice caps, they melted away last week. ******** Which will come first? The Bush regime change or an Ice age? Humans will kill the planet with their pollution long before the sun will burn us to a crisp. Expect large die offs of animals, plants and humans to occur before the planet is done with its human assisted climate change. I'm tired of the corporate/political blame game on this issue. By the time we do figure it out our children will be wearing SPF 1000 and in some parts of the world we'll hole up in caves until night to avoid the heat. Or we can change how we treat the Earth and she may forgive us in a couple hundred years.
May 3rd, 2007 at 17:31:02  From: Independent
Took You a While
Don't crash the Google servers. I see you finally found an article to fit your agenda, which is easily done given enough time. The point remains that I'm not talking about 11 year cycles as they were. I'm talking about the rate of change (acceleration) of the climate change process over the thousands of years is unprecedented and is reason for concern. You quote a BBC article from a AAAS meeting from back in 1998. I visited the AAAS site. Here is an official statement from their recent meeting just a few months ago: ***************"The scientific evidence is clear," the AAAS Board says in a new statement. "Global climate change caused by human activities...is a growing threat to society." The statement was approved on 9 December 2006 and released on 18 February at the AAAS Annual Meeting in San Francisco.**************Go check it yourself. If all you can conjur up is a nearly 10 year old article from the BBC, I'm afraid you will have to do better than that. Science doesn't move that slowly.
May 3rd, 2007 at 17:41:03  From: RDenison
Mother Nature
You're a pretty stupid and quite arrogant mother fucker aren't you? Tell us, who's paying you to be such an immature ass? One can't really be so ignorant and proud of it too. You have no concept of anything scientific and therefore you're preprogrammed, robotic argument that shows no ability for reason, completely lacks credibility. Enough of your childish idiocy. Come back when you're dry behind the ears, little one.
May 3rd, 2007 at 18:03:55  From: Mother Nature
Independant
Ok, I'm done eating. To the contrary, you haven't shown me any data that proves man is causing global warming, and especially the USA.. I guess the data I posted was BG(before gore) before he went delusional on mankind and global warming, that was before scientists were attacked for not blindly agreeing with gore, now they live in fear of intimidation when they question the GWC(global warming cult). You can't prove anything, it is all based on fear, scaring the unwashed masses into a socialistic pipe dream society where some scientists have foresaken true research for politics. "Science doesn't move that slowly".. another amatuerish statement, science moves very slowly, a good scientist carefully weighs all the data, pro and con, no such thing as consensus in science. With the launch of the new satellite by Japan to observe the sun, scientist have already made new discoveries in the last month about the sun that we never knew before, they realize how little we know, and how flawed some data is based on old observations.
May 3rd, 2007 at 18:15:46  From: Independent
Gore was Always an Environmentalist
I can still hear George Herbert Walker Bush calling Gore "Bozo Ozone Man" during the 1992 campaign. Most of what you're saying is political conjecture, Gore is not trying to scare anyone, but he IS trying to bring attention to an important matter. By the tone of your posts, I can see you have not been classically trained in the physical sciences. Ten years in modern times is a long time to look at scientific data- thanks mainly to computer technology and modeling. The only bone I will throw you at this point is that more work needs to be done, more analysis must be made on global climate change, but that's an obvious statement. In the meantime, I would like to step outside my door and see a clear sky that affords me the view of the mountains, and not pink haze. That much is undisputable.
May 3rd, 2007 at 18:34:37  From: 
"By the tone of your posts, I can see you have not been classically trained in the physical sciences. Ten years in modern times is a long time to look at scientific data- thanks mainly to computer technology and modeling." I am not the issue, and any scientist knows that ten years of data means nothing when it comes to climate change on the earth, if you are old enough you would remember back in the 70's the chicken littles were predicting another ice age and we would all be frozen solid by now. What about all the computer modeling that predicted all the hurricanes last season and how many were going to hit the Gulf and Atlantic coasts?, nobody brings that up anymore.
May 3rd, 2007 at 18:35:25  From: Mother Nature
May 3rd, 2007 at 18:34:37
May 3rd, 2007 at 18:50:53  From: Independent
I don't remember a big scare of an ice age, and I was paying attention. That appears more in the realm of urban myth. And I'm not talking about 10 years of geological time, I'm talking about 10 years of research time- a long time for that activity in todays' world when you can analyze samples of ice core that goes back thousands upon thousands of years. As for the hurricanes, yes I understand it was lighter than expected, but now your grasping at individual red herrings when we are talking about the big picture here. Hell, half the time the weatherman doesn't even get the daily forecast right, but that isn't a reason to ignore a long term problem that could very well affect the way we live in a few short years. I'm not sure why anyone would be so hostile to the existence of such a problem to the point were they would make the posts you have made on this thread unless they have a predisposed ideology that wants to shelter industry or they hate personal responsibility. If it doesn't exist, let the science take its course, but don't ignore it and make fun of it.
May 3rd, 2007 at 19:13:15  From: Raw Reader
Want more interactivity? More content? Better comments? We're on the homestretch: Just 281 readers needed to meet goal.......................................... THANK YOU! WE DO NEED BETTER COMMENTS....: )
May 3rd, 2007 at 21:10:09  From: Deputy Frawg
"back in the 70's the chicken littles were predicting another ice age???" Nope! That one flew by me. And I'm plenty old enough to remember.
May 4th, 2007 at 01:38:43  From: 
Monday, February 12, 2007 Time, Like Newsweek, Predicted a coming Ice age in the 70's. Now it's "global warming" that's in fashion Earlier we explored Newsweek Magazine's "global cooling" alarmist article in 1975. Now lets us explore Time Magazine's alarmist "global cooling" article from June of 1974. As it turns out, the press was awash with warnings of a new ice age in the 1970's, a decade known for strange cults. Of course at the time (just as now) people thought that they were at the peak of scientific knowledge and that they had a firm grasp on the science, which proved to be complete bunk... and will likely be proven as such again; Time's recent scarry headline (in image) not withstanding. So I give you Time Magazine's 1974; the coming ice age: In Africa, drought continues for the sixth consecutive year, adding terribly to the toll of famine victims. During 1972 record rains in parts of the U.S., Pakistan and Japan caused some of the worst flooding in centuries. In Canada's wheat belt, a particularly chilly and rainy spring has delayed planting and may well bring a disappointingly small harvest. Rainy Britain, on the other hand, has suffered from uncharacteristic dry spells the past few springs. A series of unusually cold winters has gripped the American Far West, while New England and northern Europe have recently experienced the mildest winters within anyone's recollection. 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. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age. Telltale signs are everywhere —from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest.Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F. Although that figure is at best an estimate, it is supported by other convincing data. When Climatologist George J. Kukla of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory and his wife Helena analyzed satellite weather data for the Northern Hemisphere, they found that the area of the ice and snow cover had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since. Areas of Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic, for example, were once totally free of any snow in summer; now they are covered year round. Scientists have found other indications of global cooling. For one thing there has been a noticeable expansion of the great belt of dry, high-altitude polar winds —the so-called circumpolar vortex—that sweep from west to east around the top and bottom of the world. Indeed it is the widening of this cap of cold air that is the immediate cause of Africa's drought. By blocking moisture-bearing equatorial winds and preventing them from bringing rainfall to the parched sub-Sahara region, as well as other drought-ridden areas stretching all the way from Central America to the Middle East and India, the polar winds have in effect caused the Sahara and other deserts to reach farther to the south. Paradoxically, the same vortex has created quite different weather quirks in the U.S. and other temperate zones. As the winds swirl around the globe, their southerly portions undulate like the bottom of a skirt. Cold air is pulled down across the Western U.S. and warm air is swept up to the Northeast. The collision of air masses of widely differing temperatures and humidity can create violent storms—the Midwest's recent rash of disastrous tornadoes, for example. Sunspot Cycle. The changing weather is apparently connected with differences in the amount of energy that the earth's surface receives from the sun. Changes in the earth's tilt and distance from the sun could, for instance, significantly increase or decrease the amount of solar radiation falling on either hemisphere—thereby altering the earth's climate. Some observers have tried to connect the eleven-year sunspot cycle with climate patterns, but have so far been unable to provide a satisfactory explanation of how the cycle might be involved. Man, too, may be somewhat responsible for the cooling trend. The University of Wisconsin's Reid A. Bryson and other climatologists suggest that dust and other particles released into the atmosphere as a result of farming and fuel burning may be blocking more and more sunlight from reaching and heating the surface of the earth. Climatic Balance. Some scientists like Donald Oilman, chief of the National Weather Service's long-range-prediction group, think that the cooling trend may be only temporary. But all agree that vastly more information is needed about the major influences on the earth's climate. Indeed, it is to gain such knowledge that 38 ships and 13 aircraft, carrying scientists from almost 70 nations, are now assembling in the Atlantic and elsewhere for a massive 100-day study of the effects of the tropical seas and atmosphere on worldwide weather. The study itself is only part of an international scientific effort known acronymically as GARP (for Global Atmospheric Research Program). Whatever the cause of the cooling trend, its effects could be extremely serious, if not catastrophic. Scientists figure that only a 1% decrease in the amount of sunlight hitting the earth's surface could tip the climatic balance, and cool the planet enough to send it sliding down the road to another ice age within only a few hundred years. The earth's current climate is something of an anomaly; in the past 700,000 years, there have been at least seven major episodes of glaciers spreading over much of the planet. Temperatures have been as high as they are now only about 5% of the time. But there is a peril more immediate than the prospect of another ice age. Even if temperature and rainfall patterns change only slightly in the near future in one or more of the three major grain-exporting countries—the U.S., Canada and Australia —global food stores would be sharply reduced. University of Toronto Climatologist Kenneth Hare, a former president of the Royal Meteorological Society, believes that the continuing drought and the recent failure of the Russian harvest gave the world a grim premonition of what might happen. Warns Hare: "I don't believe that the world's present population is sustainable if there are more than three years like 1972 in a row."
May 4th, 2007 at 01:56:48  From: 
Newsweek Magazine, April 28th 1975: 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. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas - parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia - where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon. The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree - a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars’ worth of damage in 13 U.S. states. To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world's weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth's climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. "A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale," warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, "because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century." A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972. To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth's average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras - and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the "little ice age" conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 - years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City. Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery. "Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data," concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. "Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions." Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases - all of which have a direct impact on food supplies. "The world’s food-producing system," warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA's Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, "is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago." Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during past famines. Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.
May 4th, 2007 at 02:01:36  From: Mother Nature
Deputy Frawg
Time Magazine's alarmist "global cooling" article from June of 1974.Newsweek Magazine, April 28th 1975.. "And I'm plenty old enough to remember." You are plentifull of shit, young un'
May 4th, 2007 at 07:05:07  From: 
If they want to believe that man is destroying the planet, let them. Let them bow before their High Priest, Gore. Let them feel smug. This nonsense too shall pass and the earth will abide.
May 4th, 2007 at 10:01:52  From: Dave
Bobo the Clown you are the lying fool who has never read the science on the global warming debate because if you had you would understand:(1)the entire argument is based on a 1/10,000 increase in greenhouse gas,co2, creating enough additional heat in the atmosphere that(2) a positive feedback through increaed water vapor in the atmosphere will multiply the co2 heat holding effect many fold. There is simply no proof in either lab experiments or otherwise that this happens. It is a judgment call not science and anyone who says otherwise is either ignorant or has an agenda. The historical record instead proves by simple correlation analysis that temperature increases cause co2 increases, not the other way around.That is not to say increased co2 may not have an effect but the historical correlation and the lack of solid evidence to date certainly leaves the issue open to debate in any reasonable mind, something you don't possess.
May 4th, 2007 at 11:59:09  From: atlas spanked
Dave's a fool
Dave's full of it. I'm a journalist who's spent the last two months interviewing climatologists, ecologists, botanists, biologists, and glaciologists about climate change. Climate change is very real. It's tied to a 50% increase in CO2 since the industrial revolution began, and there are numerous very, very obvious correlations between observed weather anomalies, particularly at high latitudes and in Western North America, and radically increased human greenhouse gas output since 1980. In the western half of North America, the climate regime change is well underway. Within the scientific community there is some debate about the actual, specific mechanisms of climate change and feedback loops, but only a handful of contrarian scientists, many of them old and cantankerous in that way so peculiar to male seniors, or industry-funded, seriously debate the reality of anthropogenic climate change. And these contrarians can't get their work published in peer-reviewed scientific journals because it doesn't hold up. Most of them have quit trying, spending their efforts instead on cursory reviews of solid scientific studies, looking for supposed holes in the methodology. And often their critiques are a joke, even to a layman. Earth's climate has always been variable, but the change that's being seen now is much faster than large scale changes seen in tree rings, sediment strata or glacial ice cores. It is not correlated to orbital cycles, or sun spot increases, or any of the other 'Unsolved Mystery' pop explanations that climate change deniers keep tossing into the mainstream media machine. Nature can adapt, but not quickly. But don't take my word for it. Within 3-10 years, we're going to watch the boreal conifer forests burn. And if you live in the Southwest, expect a 30% decrease in rainfall and stream run-off, and a much greater decrease in the reservoir effect of snowpacks. "the historical correlation and lack of solid evidence to date....." What a crock! You look, you'll find an overwhelming swell of evidence. Dave, you're just another knee-jerk comment board egomaniac, and I don't feel like debating fools and liars. So go stand in front of a mirror and tell yourself you're a 'reasonable mind.' Nobody else thinks so.
May 4th, 2007 at 12:16:42  From: Mother Nature
atlas spanker
Your words betray you, you are totally focused in on mankind as the cause of global warming, which makes all your conjecture suspect. People are beginning to see through all the fear mongering and hype. You have tunnel vision, you need to do some more homework and study the effects of the earth's molten core on climate change, including volcanic activity. The main thing you need to research is the effects of the sun on earths climate, you will be enlightened. Also, check out the recent discovery of pre- historic dinosaur tracks in the arctic, and explain the "computer modelling" that called for all those hurricanes last summer?? You must be an ex "ice age" chicken little, are you a journalist for Time, or Newsweek?
May 4th, 2007 at 12:32:40  From: Bobo the Clown
Dave & MoFo Nature
Why don't you two get a room and count up your Exxon-paid dollars together? Hmmmm? Either you're paid off, or you are complete and utter retards. LOL!!! What idiots. I bet you have only read what you WANT to read to back up your idiotic claims. Sorry, but Al Gore has been working on this 25+ years. There's no way you have more information than he does. He also has access to the top scientists in the world. Also, Al Gore has already proven w/out a shadow ofo a doubt that any scientist who debunks global warming can be tied to big oil, and so far, whenever I research one I find out he is right. So, you are the idiots. Get a clue. Or don't! I'll be prepared, you won't. Goddamn morons.
Add Comment:
Name:
Location:
Subject:
Message:
Verification Code
Verification Code: