NASA moonwalker, and Harvard PhD says what many have thought

I know we have had lots of discussions about global warming on this board...and there are some very smart people here, who come from very different perspectives.

I found it compelling that this guy is pointing out what many have already said...that the human caused global warming proponents are using their theory to mold political and social realities...based on erroneous causal conclusions.

The cost we all will pay from this perspective will be greater than the "cost" of global warming itself (which we could NOT control, even if we wanted to).

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/national/general/view/2009_02_15_Former_astronaut_speaks_out_on_global_warming/srvc=home&position=recent

Tony

Mars is warming also. Must be because of Martian CO2 emmissions.

But...Al Gore says it is true!

Be very careful Anthony...on this subject dissent is not tolerated.

BTW, can someone explain to me why the CO2 "green house roof," which is rather porus at just .04% of the atmosphere, only radiates captured heat toward the surface and not into space? See, I'm thinking that radiant heat from the sun hitting a CO2 molecule would radiate captured heat across a 180 degree spectrum up back into space and across a 180 degree spectrum down to the surface. And on the rebound when surface heat is radiated back into the atmosphere and absorbed by CO2, why does it only radiate back down to the surface? Are there some physical principals of atmospheric gases that I'm missing?

And another....when ever we have a cooling trend of either a season, a year or a few years....the IPCC types tell us (correctly I believe) "you can't judge long term climate change based on short term weather." BUT, whenever we have a few hotter than average years, a few big hurricanes, an unusual drought, or even a levy failure, it is 100% attributed as proof of man-made global warming.

Forget Al Gore.
Read " With Speed and Violence" By Fred Pearce and get back to me with your thoughts.

FEAR sells. With FEAR, people can make lots of money (Al Gore, scientists looking for grants, producers seeking to sell advertising)...and people can make societal/political changes with it (how else did the "stimulus package" get through).

FEAR sells.

Truth becomes irrelevant.

GT caretaker Wrote:

Fear gets people elected, too.

GT caretaker Wrote:

Steve... speed reader... can I casually throw in here that Tony was talking about causal, not casual connections! As in cause and effect...

Gerry Wrote:

auctionwatch Wrote:

Hey...wait a minute...I DID type it correctly as "causal" rather than "casual." Steve O....you rat...I felt terrible, until I realized that you sir...are dyslexic! :-)

As I have said before...this is one of the few forums where I find people (mostly) open to good dialog, and I have tried to avoid making derisive personal comments...that's why I was worried about making such an error. I have much respect for our members here, and do not want to undermine our discussions/arguments by bringing in personal attacks.

Anyway...here is a great photo of me from 20 years ago...I hope this lightens the mood. I admit that I don't look quite as good as I did then, but I at least still have a neat red hat:

I before E except after C... as soon as I get my left eye uncrossed I'll check back with you guys!

Tigerhawk Wrote:

Gerry Wrote:

Tigerhawk Wrote:

auctionwatch Wrote:

"That's very interesting - I'm not sure how I managed to miss that series. Though when watching something like this, I do tend to have my salt shaker handy... funnily enough, exactly as I do when people suggest global warming is being utilised to further a liberal agenda."

I'm no expert on "global warming" but I would like to know for those who are, how do they explain where all the heat from the 5000 to 7000 degrees K earth center temperature goes?? Or point me to an article where this is explained??

GT caretaker Wrote:

CraigFL Wrote:

GT caretaker Wrote:

............fear.....FDR........promoted it while denouncing it...the original fear monger......

JNickell Wrote:

People using short-term weather conditions as evidence for long-term trends need to be called out whenever they do so. As I've said before, both "sides" do it, and they need to be made aware that it's entirely fallacious.

I need to be educated on what the down-side of using less resources is.

If the arguments claiming there is global warming are wrong, what problems does that cause.

But, if they are correct, ignoring it could be disastrous, no?


Peter

..........Europe circa 750.........

wyatt Wrote:

Peter, there is very little doubt that the earth's climate is trending warmer. The points in contention are how much warmer and what is the cause. The follow-up questions are - do possess the ability to change the climate, and would our resourses be better spend adapting to warmer climate?

Some of us challenge Al Gore's statement that "the debate is over." There are hundreds of climatologists and thousands of scientists who dispute the conclusion of the IPCC. Many former IPCC contributors now oppose the theories the IPCC floats in its assessments. The mainstream media labels them "global warming deniers" to equate them with "holocaust deniers" and thereby devalue their work. Some posters here label those of us who question GW as "flat earthers" meaning we also don't accept that the earth is round. I suppose name-calling is easier than intelligent debate.

Following up to what Jay said, even if there is anthropogenic global warming going on, is the cure worse than the problem? Some of the proposed solutions are draconian and would require absolute coercive government power on a global scale in order to be implemented.

....again.... as has been posted...........
"That's very interesting - I'm not sure how I managed to miss that series. Though when watching something like this, I do tend to have my salt shaker handy... funnily enough, exactly as I do when people suggest global warming is being utilised to further a liberal agenda."

I don't know if "liberal agenda" is an accurate discriptive....but the Kyoto program of cap and trade basically requires the developed world (Europe, US & Canada) to pay the developing world (Africa, China, India) for any carbon emission which exceed their 1990 levels of carbon output through 2007, and which exceed 1990 levels with an average 7-8% reduction for 2008-1212.

So European businesses who produce carbon emissions above the 1990 cap just send cash payments to China to "off-set" those emissions. The Chinese must think we are silly, silly people....and it's hard to argue with them.

....Koyoto was written and concieved when the USA was NOT financially crashing.....it was nothing more than an attempt to destroy our place in the sun..........

but forget the treaty alltogether......I have/had the green maifesto from the late 80's maybe earlier.....it cares little for the enviro, it is all about controlling the weather, the ultimate power goal....so if not actually the weather, then peoples minds about the weather....virtually the same difference. It truely is the chicken little agenda.

Although I claim to be a liberal, my gut reaction has always been to be very conservative when it comes to mucking up the environment.

Some Republicans agree with this:

http://www.repamerica.org/AboutREP/philosophy.html

.......PeterC....resources......to not use them efficently is economically foolish and makes us poorer, money and time is a resource also............. as in the stupidity of the church in 750+or- that whole post Roman era for western civ....just look where the Arab civ was going at the same time.

How about we stop using imported oil because it wrecks our economy and supports people we don't like?

Likewise, our use of coal for electrical power is trashing our lands producing costs that are not factored into current electric bills.

We can fix this, we have the technology.

Soyokaze 72MGB Wrote:

showroomgarage Wrote:

Now if someone could figure out how to harness the Washington wind..........

...thats CNG........