• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

More reasons to doubt Global Warming alarmists

IL Rancher

Well-known member
The Shawnee is a lovely area... I drove through there, oh must have been 2-3 years ago, to go to a family reunion down near Paducah, KY... It was the first time I had been in that part of the state since I was 10 years old and I didn't remember much from that trip except the car stank real bad from some pine cones that we picked up at my Grandfather's place out near Pittsburgh (Long trip, Illinois, Pittsburgh, Washington, DC, South Carolina) Or maybe they were from Carolina, either way they stank something fierce...

That being said, driving through it back on 04 was a definate WOW, this is Illinois? type of feeling..

Doesn't surprise me about them closing down the trails... Probably something they really have to do for the Quads.. The horses can do damage but in a much different way IMO.. Those Quads and the bogging they do really can tear an area up.. I remember them banning them a few other places for the same reason.. Generally, it was one of those things where one or two folks playing around doesn't do much but 20 dozen or so can leave a mark.
 

andybob

Well-known member
Soapweed said:
Today my wife, son, and I journeyed to Rapid City to take in some of the Stock Show. We traveled across much pastureland that is infested with prairie dogs. Their habitat strongly resembles piles of pimples on a teenie-bopper's face. How in the world the Liberals can justify protecting those sorry little terrain tearer-uppers, is way beyond me. If the whole species went extinct, the whole country would be ever so much better off. We should take truckloads of the little varmints back east and dump them on golf courses and lawns of Liberal animal rights protection people.
I agree that an overpopulation of burrowing, grazing, rodents is a major problem to landowners infested by them. We should also consider this overpoulation as a syptm of a greater problem, identifying the underlying reasons for the population explosion and addressing the actual problem will be a better and more permanent solution than merely eliminating the prarie dogs, causing the entry of another, possibly invasive species to occupy the vaccum or causing the remaining predators to become the next problem species. I had several burrowing species from spring hares, ground sqirrels, to meerkat and antbears, our populations of native cats, birds of prey and jackals prevented any of the above from becoming overpoplated, and our livestock management took the presence of the rodents and predators alike into account. Holistic management is not an exact science, and is still developng, in fact it will always continue to do so as environments themselves are never stable however, I believe that this system of planning and management is a big stp in the right direction.
www.holisticmangment.org
 

Cal

Well-known member
Soapweed said:
Today my wife, son, and I journeyed to Rapid City to take in some of the Stock Show. We traveled across much pastureland that is infested with prairie dogs. Their habitat strongly resembles piles of pimples on a teenie-bopper's face. How in the world the Liberals can justify protecting those sorry little terrain tearer-uppers, is way beyond me. If the whole species went extinct, the whole country would be ever so much better off. We should take truckloads of the little varmints back east and dump them on golf courses and lawns of Liberal animal rights protection people.
I really enjoyed sightseeing around Boulder, CO a couple of years ago and witnessing these destructive varmints rampaging the lawns of some of the residences of this liberal mecca. If we cannot extinct them, at least we need to somehow move them to more liberal environments.
 

Cal

Well-known member
I am just curious, since we get most of our imported oil from Canada, are they able to produce it without horrendous environmental hazards?

It would just seem like the sensible thing to do, to keep from sending more money to the Middle East and South America, and having a portion of it helping to fund those that would like us dead. We really ought to be aggressively drilling and exploring in our own country in an effort to keep more of the money here....oh, but gosh, we'd have to do it in a way as not to benefit "Big Oil"....what was I thinking :???:
 

Hanta Yo

Well-known member
Cal wrote:

We really ought to be aggressively drilling and exploring in our own country in an effort to keep more of the money here....


Doggone enviros won't let us do that. I think we've already screwed ourselves by allowing the enviros to gain so much power :mad: :mad:
 

HrsRdr

Member
The real deal?
Against the grain: Some scientists deny global warming exists
Lawrence Solomon, National Post
Published: Friday, February 02, 2007
Astrophysicist Nir Shariv, one of Israel's top young scientists, describes the logic that led him -- and most everyone else -- to conclude that SUVs, coal plants and other things man-made cause global warming.


Step One Scientists for decades have postulated that increases in carbon dioxide and other gases could lead to a greenhouse effect.


Step Two As if on cue, the temperature rose over the course of the 20th century while greenhouse gases proliferated due to human activities.

Step Three No other mechanism explains the warming. Without another candidate, greenhouses gases necessarily became the cause.

Dr. Shariv, a prolific researcher who has made a name for himself assessing the movements of two-billion-year-old meteorites, no longer accepts this logic, or subscribes to these views. He has recanted: "Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media.

"In fact, there is much more than meets the eye."

Dr. Shariv's digging led him to the surprising discovery that there is no concrete evidence -- only speculation -- that man-made greenhouse gases cause global warming. Even research from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change-- the United Nations agency that heads the worldwide effort to combat global warming -- is bereft of anything here inspiring confidence. In fact, according to the IPCC's own findings, man's role is so uncertain that there is a strong possibility that we have been cooling, not warming, the Earth. Unfortunately, our tools are too crude to reveal what man's effect has been in the past, let alone predict how much warming or cooling we might cause in the future.

All we have on which to pin the blame on greenhouse gases, says Dr. Shaviv, is "incriminating circumstantial evidence," which explains why climate scientists speak in terms of finding "evidence of fingerprints." Circumstantial evidence might be a fine basis on which to justify reducing greenhouse gases, he adds, "without other 'suspects.' " However, Dr. Shaviv not only believes there are credible "other suspects," he believes that at least one provides a superior explanation for the 20th century's warming.

"Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming," he states, particularly because of the evidence that has been accumulating over the past decade of the strong relationship that cosmic- ray flux has on our atmosphere. So much evidence has by now been amassed, in fact, that "it is unlikely that [the solar climate link] does not exist."

The sun's strong role indicates that greenhouse gases can't have much of an influence on the climate -- that C02 et al. don't dominate through some kind of leveraging effect that makes them especially potent drivers of climate change. The upshot of the Earth not being unduly sensitive to greenhouse gases is that neither increases nor cutbacks in future C02 emissions will matter much in terms of the climate.

Even doubling the amount of CO2 by 2100, for example, "will not dramatically increase the global temperature," Dr. Shaviv states. Put another way: "Even if we halved the CO2 output, and the CO2 increase by 2100 would be, say, a 50% increase relative to today instead of a doubled amount, the expected reduction in the rise of global temperature would be less than 0.5C. This is not significant."

The evidence from astrophysicists and cosmologists in laboratories around the world, on the other hand, could well be significant. In his study of meteorites, published in the prestigious journal, Physical Review Letters, Dr. Shaviv found that the meteorites that Earth collected during its passage through the arms of the Milky Way sustained up to 10% more cosmic ray damage than others. That kind of cosmic ray variation, Dr. Shaviv believes, could alter global temperatures by as much as 15% --sufficient to turn the ice ages on or off and evidence of the extent to which cosmic forces influence Earth's climate.

In another study, directly relevant to today's climate controversy, Dr. Shaviv reconstructed the temperature on Earth over the past 550 million years to find that cosmic ray flux variations explain more than two-thirds of Earth's temperature variance, making it the most dominant climate driver over geological time scales. The study also found that an upper limit can be placed on the relative role of CO2 as a climate driver, meaning that a large fraction of the global warming witnessed over the past century could not be due to CO2 -- instead it is attributable to the increased solar activity.

CO2 does play a role in climate, Dr. Shaviv believes, but a secondary role, one too small to preoccupy policymakers. Yet Dr. Shaviv also believes fossil fuels should be controlled, not because of their adverse affects on climate but to curb pollution.

"I am therefore in favour of developing cheap alternatives such as solar power, wind, and of course fusion reactors (converting Deuterium into Helium), which we should have in a few decades, but this is an altogether different issue." His conclusion: "I am quite sure Kyoto is not the right way to go."

Lawrence [email protected]
 

HrsRdr

Member
Note increase in conservation funding by republican administration

JOHANNS UNVEILS 2007 FARM BILL PROPOSALS

WASHINGTON, Jan. 31, 2007 - Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns today unveiled the U.S. Department of Agriculture's 2007 farm bill proposals. The more than 65 proposals correspond to the 2002 farm bill titles with additional special focus areas, including specialty crops, beginning farmers and ranchers, and socially disadvantaged producers.

"We listened closely to producers and stakeholders all across the country and took a reform-minded and fiscally responsible approach to making farm policy more equitable, predictable and protected from challenge," said Johanns. "We started with the 2002 farm bill and propose to improve it by bolstering support for emerging priorities and focusing on a market-oriented approach."

USDA began preparations for the 2007 farm bill in 2005 by conducting 52 Farm Bill Forums across the country. More than 4,000 comments were recorded or collected during forums and via electronic and standard mail. These comments are summarized in 41 theme papers. USDA economists, led by Dr. Keith Collins, studied the comments and authored five analysis papers.

The proposals unveiled today represent the final phase of a nearly two year process. Each detailed proposal provides information about why a change is needed, the recommended solution, and relevant background information about the impacted program or policy.

Highlights of the proposals include (funding reflects ten year totals):

Increase conservation funding by $7.8 billion, simplify and consolidate conservation programs, create a new Environmental Quality Incentives Program and a Regional Water Enhancement Program
Provide $1.6 billion in new funding for renewable energy research, development and production, targeted for cellulosic ethanol, which will support $2.1 billion in guaranteed loans for cellulosic projects and includes $500 million for a bio-energy and bio-based product research initiative
Target nearly $5 billion in funding to support specialty crop producers by increasing nutrition in food assistance programs, including school meals, through the purchase of fruits and vegetables, funding specialty crop research, fighting trade barriers and expanding export markets
Provide $250 million to increase direct payments for beginning farmers and ranchers, reserve a percentage of conservation funds and provide more loan flexibility for down payment, land purchasing and farm operating loans
Support socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers by reserving a percentage of conservation assistance funds and providing more access to loans for down payments, land purchasing and farm operating
Strengthen disaster relief by establishing a revenue-based counter-cyclical program, providing gap coverage in crop insurance, linking crop insurance participation to farm program participation, and creating a new emergency landscape restoration program
Simplify and consolidate rural development programs while providing $1.6 billion in loans to rehabilitate all current Rural Critical Access Hospitals and $500 million in grants and loans for rural communities to decrease the backlog of rural infrastructure projects
Dedicate nearly $400 million to trade efforts to expand exports, fight trade barriers, and increase involvement in world trade standard-setting bodies
Simplify, modernize, and rename the Food Stamp Program to improve access for the working poor, better meet the needs of recipients and States, and strengthen program integrity
The Administration's 2007 farm bill proposals would spend approximately $10 billion less than the 2002 farm bill spent over the past five years (excluding ad-hoc disaster assistance), upholding the President's plan to eliminate the deficit in five years. These proposals would provide approximately $5 billion more than the projected spending if the 2002 farm bill were extended.

The proposals are available at www.usda.gov/farmbill. Also posted on USDA's website are the Farm Bill Forum transcripts, farm bill comments submitted by the public, theme papers summarizing the comments and USDA analysis papers.

Fact Sheet: A Commitment to Rural America
 

Texan

Well-known member
Cal said:
I am just curious, since we get most of our imported oil from Canada, are they able to produce it without horrendous environmental hazards?

It would just seem like the sensible thing to do, to keep from sending more money to the Middle East and South America, and having a portion of it helping to fund those that would like us dead. We really ought to be aggressively drilling and exploring in our own country in an effort to keep more of the money here....oh, but gosh, we'd have to do it in a way as not to benefit "Big Oil"....what was I thinking :???:
I wouldn't mind having more of the Canadian oil if they would label the nasty crap so that the consumer could decide whether or not they really wanted it. It just doesn't seem fair to our domestic oil producers to participate in the FRAUD of selling that nasty Canadian oil as U.S. Big Oil company-produced oil. Maybe the dems will give us a new law to stop that...
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Texan said:
Cal said:
I am just curious, since we get most of our imported oil from Canada, are they able to produce it without horrendous environmental hazards?

It would just seem like the sensible thing to do, to keep from sending more money to the Middle East and South America, and having a portion of it helping to fund those that would like us dead. We really ought to be aggressively drilling and exploring in our own country in an effort to keep more of the money here....oh, but gosh, we'd have to do it in a way as not to benefit "Big Oil"....what was I thinking :???:
I wouldn't mind having more of the Canadian oil if they would label the nasty crap so that the consumer could decide whether or not they really wanted it. It just doesn't seem fair to our domestic oil producers to participate in the FRAUD of selling that nasty Canadian oil as U.S. Big Oil company-produced oil. Maybe the dems will give us a new law to stop that...

Somebody already beat you to the idea Texan....

------------------
Group Plans 'Terror Free' Gas Station in Omaha
Tuesday, January 23, 2007




Jan. 22: The country's first Terror-Free Oil gas station under construction in Omaha, Neb.
OMAHA, Neb. — The Terror-Free Oil Initiative is planning to open the nation's first "terror free" gas station in Omaha.

The Florida-based group claims U.S. dollars used to purchase gas made from Middle East oil funds terrorism. It urges Americans to only buy oil products that originate from countries that do not support terrorism.

The Terror-Free Oil station in west Omaha will sell gas from oil companies that do not do business in the Middle East. Signs calling for the use of non-Middle Eastern oil were up at the station today.

Spokesman Joe Kaufman says the station will open Feb. 1, with a grand opening scheduled for Feb. 12.

Other Terror-Free Oil stations are planned.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,245900,00.html
 

Mrs.Greg

Well-known member
Texan said:
Cal said:
I am just curious, since we get most of our imported oil from Canada, are they able to produce it without horrendous environmental hazards?

It would just seem like the sensible thing to do, to keep from sending more money to the Middle East and South America, and having a portion of it helping to fund those that would like us dead. We really ought to be aggressively drilling and exploring in our own country in an effort to keep more of the money here....oh, but gosh, we'd have to do it in a way as not to benefit "Big Oil"....what was I thinking :???:
I wouldn't mind having more of the Canadian oil if they would label the nasty crap so that the consumer could decide whether or not they really wanted it. It just doesn't seem fair to our domestic oil producers to participate in the FRAUD of selling that nasty Canadian oil as U.S. Big Oil company-produced oil. Maybe the dems will give us a new law to stop that...
You do of course realise most of the Canadian oil is owned by American companys.I'm not being rude,just telling the truth.
 

Texan

Well-known member
Yeah, I saw that, OT. Not quite the same as having a law to make them do it, but it's still a great idea. Surely it won't work without government involvement, will it? :wink:

I know I'd pay extra to buy some "Terror Free" gasoline, though. Sounds like a good idea to me.
 

Texan

Well-known member
Mrs.Greg said:
You do of course realise most of the Canadian oil is owned by American companys.I'm not being rude,just telling the truth.
:shock: Multi-nationals? Say it ain't so, Mrs.Greg. :wink:
 

Work Hard and Study Hard

Well-known member
Soapweed said:
schnurrbart said:
Soapweed said:
Does it really matter? All we can do is take one day at a time and live it. By the time anything changes too much, one way or another, we will all be dead and gone. Leave it to the Liberals to worry themselves sick over something they can't do anything about anyway.

Unlike you self-centered rightwingers, we try to think about our fellow man, not to mention our grandchildren and great-grandchildren. Of course, most of those living right now will be quite old or dead before, hopefully, anything really drastic happens--maybe. But why wouldn't you want to protect the land and the seas and save species for future generations? Because big business and big oil know that anything that improves the environment costs them big money and you wouldn't want that to happen.

You have it all wrong, schnurrbart. The Liberals are the wasteful ones. They won't allow lumbering and the logical thinning of trees, which are a renewable natural resource. They want to take cattle out of our national forests. Thus the grass doesn't get grazed and the trees die and fall down. All of this unused underbrush makes gargantuan forest fires. Not only is this completely wasteful, but if anything is causing "global warming," this is as big of a factor as any.

Same way with slaughtering horses. They are a renewable resource. Process the old unusable horses and get some good out of them.

You Liberals put yourself on a pedestal and think you are thinking of your fellow man, your children, and your grandchildren. No, you are wasteful and illogical. Liberals like to gripe about the status quo but they never have any solutions to any problems. Their ideas reek of stupidity and completely lack in any common sense.

You should quit making things up. Some Repubs and some dems have the right idea, generalizing people only makes you and I more ignorant.
 

Soapweed

Well-known member
Work Hard and Study Hard said:
You should quit making things up. Some Repubs and some dems have the right idea, generalizing people only makes you and I more ignorant.

I am not making things up. I've pretty well got you liberals pegged. You are what you are.
 

HrsRdr

Member
Global warming propaganda
Global Warming Hypocrisy
By Henry Lamb

Monday, February 5, 2007

The up-tick in global warming propaganda in recent days is to set the
stage for the release of the Fourth Assessment Report from the
International Panel on Climate Change. Surprise, surprise, the report
will say the sky is falling - faster and faster.

For people who have watched this process since the beginning, this
report, at least the executive summary of the report, is mostly hogwash,
word-smithed by policy wonks and media specialists, to scare the gas out
of the economy.

The First Assessment Report was developed by a fairly balanced group of
scientists from around the world, and released in 1990. The report was
quite extensive, and dealt primarily with capturing and storing carbon
dioxide.

The Second Assessment Report was adopted by a fairly balanced group of
participating scientists in December, 1995. Then, the lead author of the
report, B. D. Santor, acting with the consent of the Co-chair of the
Working Group, John Houghton, and with the consent of the Executive
Secretary of the Framework Convention on Climate Change, Michael Cutajar- changed the report significantly, without the approval of the
scientists.

Dr. Freidrich Seitz, President emeritus of Rockefeller University, and
former President of the National Academy of Sciences, said:

"I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review
process than the events that led to this IPCC report. Nearly all the
changes worked to remove hints of the skepticism with which many
scientists regard global warming claims."

A hundred distinguished scientists, meeting in Leipzig, Germany,
released a joint statement on July 10, 1966 which said:

"There is still no scientific consensus on the subject of climate
change. On the contrary, most scientists now accept the fact that actual
observations from earth satellites show no climate warming whatsoever."

From that point forward, any scientist who dared to offer research
results that did not affirm the conclusions of the IPCC, has been denied
invitations to participate in the IPCC studies, denied funding, and/or
denigrated publicly by politically motivated scientists and/or the
media. Any scientist who dares express skepticism is at once denounced
as a pawn for the oil and coal industry.

The opposite is true: advocates of global warming are pawns of the
global warming industry. And, indeed, global warming is an industry. In
1996, at the same U.N. meeting at which the Second Assessment Report was
released, Mohamed T. El-Ashry, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of
the Global Environment Facility (GEF), released its quarterly report. He
told the delegates that his agency had leveraged $462.3 million into
$3.2 billion in climate change projects. And that was just the
beginning.

In the last decade, billions and billions of dollars have been spent by
governments and foundations on research and mitigation programs related
to global warming. To the endless bureaucracies, recipients of grant
awards, and non-government organizations, it is imperative that the
global warming hysteria continue - to produce the funding that provides
their livelihood. Their incessant hype has convinced many people,
including legislators, that ridiculous policies should be enacted to
prevent carbon dioxide from reaching the atmosphere.

Senator James Inhofe is one of the few in Congress who really knows that
the science of climate change is in its infancy, and no one really knows
whether human activity has any impact on the climate at all. After all,
the earth was warmer during the "Global Medieval Optimum," (1100-1250)
when gas-guzzlers didn't exist. The same global warming zealots who
manipulated the science to distort the Second (and subsequent)
Assessment Reports, reinterpreted the science that has stood for more
than a century, to now deny that there was a Global Medieval Optimum.

This study, produced by Michael E. Mann and Raymond S. Bradley in 1999,
was shown to be flawed in a subsequent study by Drs. Willie Soon and
Sallie Baliunas. Global warming advocates extol the Mann study and decry
the Soon/Baliunas study. Real science welcomes conflict as a challenge,
and evidence that further study is required.

Global warming hypocrits, such as the Weather Channel's Heidi Cullen,
who wants the American Meteorological Society to decertify any
weatherman who doesn't toe the global warming line, continues to
disparage scientists and others who dare to disagree with her/their
conclusions.

The Second Assessment Report was released in 1996 to instill fear, and
stir up support for the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. This current round of
global warming hype, including the Fourth Assessment Report, is designed
to instill fear, and stir up support for forcing the U.S. to join the
Kyoto crowd in adopting energy restrictions that will have no effect on
the climate, but will severely impact the economy.

U.S. policy makers, and the public, would do well to reject the
propaganda from the global warming hypocrites.

Henry Lamb is the executive vice president of the Environmental
Conservation Organization (ECO), and chairman of Sovereignty
International
 

Steve

Well-known member
My favorite Global warming lie is the one about Glaciers retreating.

facts:
Glaciers form where more snow falls than melts.

So if the amount of snow,.... is reduced,... Then the glacier some years later would appear to retreat?...

Why don't they mention that when discussing the so-called glacier retreat?,... Isn't it unscientific to factor out a variable and only look at one component?


Or that the glaciers have been retreating for thousands of years? if not Millions of years.....12.5 to be precise.....

And the shift in climate was caused by a shift in the earth's orbit?

why not explain all this?,...because it does not suit the liberal agenda....
 

Latest posts

Top