here are some thoughts about global warming; etc...

http://thecourier.typepad.com/rightonthemark/2007/05/global_warming.html

http://thecourier.typepad.com/rightonthemark/2007/07/live-earth.html

http://thecourier.typepad.com/rightonthemark/2007/07/duped.html

http://thecourier.typepad.com/rightonthemark/2007/06/getting_hot_ove.htm...

http://thecourier.typepad.com/rightonthemark/2007/07/ban-dihydrogen-.htm...

Fire and Ice

SOME say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I’ve tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To know that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.

-Robert Frost (1874-1963)

Just as the Dinosaurs became extinct, humans will eventually become extinct. Many species have come to dominate life on this planet and have passed into extinction.

At one point the earth's atmosphere consisted mostly of Carbon dioxide and this gave rise to a tremendous amount of plant life which "ruined" the atmosphere by converting much of it to oxygen. This changed atmosphere allowed for human life to develop. The atmosphere has always been influenced by whatever life forms were thriving on earth during a given epoch. This is a basic scientific understanding of our atmosphere.

Whether or not the global warming "hysteria" is founded in truth or lies is a topic of debate. My opinion is that humans are changing the atmosphere by burning large amouns of fossil fuels. This MAY be a reason why there has been so much extreme weather recently - from an abundance of forest fires to "100 year" storms or floods happening pretty often, to the entire southwest being in a prolonged drought. I don't think this is all due to media hype.

It is likely that Humans, like Dinosaurs (and so many other species) will eventually dissapear from the earth.

Al Gore claims there are very few scientists who disagree with anthropogenic global warming. That statement is disingenuous at best. There are many scientists who disagree with the anthropogenic global warming theory. Following are three separate lists of scientists who disagree with AGW:

60 scientists signed a letter to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, urging him not to sign any Kyoto like treaties. The letter states :“The study of global climate change is, as you have said, an "emerging science," one that is perhaps the most complex ever tackled. It may be many years yet before we properly understand the Earth's climate system. Nevertheless, significant advances have been made since the protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases. If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.” Ref http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87...

100 scientists signed a letter to the secretary general of the UN stating:“UN climate conference (is) taking the world in entirely the wrong direction” Ref http://www.nationalpost.com/most_popular/story.html?id=164002

19,000 scientists signed a petition stating:“We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.” Ref http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p1845.htm
Each of the above letters or petitions contains a list of the signatories who disagree with AGW.

Now let me ask; where is the list of scientists who do agree with AGW? And don’t settle for Al Gore saying that 2500 scientists participated in the IPCC report. Many of those people are not scientists and many of those who are scientists were not asked if they agree with the conclusions.

Environmentalists' Wild Predictions

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2008/05/07/environmen...

Remain calm all is well

Wow! Excellent job here people!

Though I would expect nothing else from this excellent & well informed crowd.

All environmental concerns will correct themselves in the long run --- humans just might be dead in the short run!

The earth will be fine.... Save the humans!

I personally believe there is a very good chance that Global Warming is real and it is human caused. However, I believe these globalists are in fact lying to us about some of the details and using it as an excuse to expand the powers of the government.

The problem with changing our light bulbs is that those compact flourescents contain mercury in them. There is nothing wrong with riding a bike but if the goverment ever thinks of forcibly taking your car away, that's tyranny.

There's the real environmentalists and the establishment environmentalists.
real environmentalists see a potential threat from global warming but they are much more concerned about air pollution, water purity, deforestation, pesticides, chemicals in our food, wildlife extinction, etc. They recognize that many things can be done to decrease the size of government before we ever do anything to increase it, such as eliminating oil subsidies and corporate welfare to polluters, ending wars (pentagon emits more CO2 than Sweden), granting private property rights, and observing the tenth amendment.

these phony establishment environmentalists are just tax and spenders. They try to persuade us that the only thing that will save us from global warming is some massive government program. As we have learned though, government programs don't work! Just look at the disaster that is Ethanol. All they offer is a tax on the gas we exhale, and I'm willing to bet that tax revenue isn't going towards research for solutions. It'll be going to companies that keep making promises that a solution is on the way but never actually find a cure. Like Big Pharma.

Just because the temperature goes up 5 degrees, it won't be the end of the world. We can all just move to Canada. I really doubt the sea level will rise 24 feet and flood the coasts since a large chunk of the Ice caps has apparantly already melted and how much have sea levels risen? Plus wouldn't the oceans end up being warmer too and thus more of the water would have to evaporate in the sky, which would have net effect of keeping the sea level steady?

Finally, considder this: there is a finite quantity of fossil fuels in the ground and once they are burned and the CO2 is released into the atmosphere, they can never be used again. Currently it is becoming harder and harder to dig for fossil fuels as they are depleting, eventually, there comes a point where it would be cheaper to rely on renewable energy than to continue digging for harder to find fossil fuels. This applies to other commodities as well as extraction becomes more and more costly, It becomes more cost efficient to recycle the waste already produced. When this occurs and the consumption of fossil fuels inevitably stops completely, isn't it therefore impossible to emit any more CO2 into the atmosphere. When this finally occurs, shouldn't global warming, if it is caused by CO2, eventually cease and possibly reverse itself due to the earth's natural return to equillibrium. Finally, due to the principle that resources are finite, shouldn't all environmental concerns inevitably correct themselves over the long run.

The single largest Greenhouse Gas in our atmosphere is water vapor. Accounting for about 95% of the earths greenhouse effect. What we should be doing is just getting rid of all that damned water! :)
Tell that to Al Gore.

A young man out there named Jason Bast wrote a piece on Michael Crichton (yes, the famed author of Jurassic Park and the E.R. television show), and it was written on a piece where Charlie Rose was interviewing Crichton on his book, State of Fear. In case you aren't aware, Michael Crichton is VERY well educated with a medical background, and he has done EXTENSIVE research on global warming, and every point made by those who proclaim the validity of global warming.

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=16260

Now, Michael Crichton is not saying global warming is not an issue (or won't become one). He's really speaking out against the validity of the "issues" when it is so politically based and not scientifically based. (Anyone know where Al Gore got his environmental PhD?) he's merely stating that the so-called facts that are presented by politicians and the media are unfounded and unsubstantiated, and he is trying to hold them to account for their statements - tring to force themselves to prove their theories (Remember, that's all they are right now).

Obviously this article is very biased against the notion of global warming, but don't let that dissuade you from consuming it, and at least beginning to open your eyes to more facts and less fears. Michael Crichton, as I said before, has done a lot of research, and substantiates every point of refute with the facts, period. He's not using fear and politics to push an agenda. He's simply stating AND substantiating facts as all good debaters do -- choosing to separate the emotions of fear from the objectivity of facts.

Pollution, bad.

Giving permission to pollute your neighbors land (carbon credits), worse

If the issue were scientific > political would we be taxing solar panel production?

Cleaner air, more wide open spaces, clean water - that you can drink, less traffic! THese are great goals --

but I'm only going along with killing off 90% of the population if I get to decide who lives....

and the ad agencies, the dirty air, and the inflated fuel prices should be enough to encourage more fuel efficient cars without a tax

Then again I'd be in favor of a tax if all the money went to me -- trust me I'd do something good with it

The focus on CO2 as being evil takes away from really serious threats to our environemnt; mercury, sulfur dioxide, nitrus oxide, depleted uranium weapons, contaminated drinking water etc. History has shown us that the biggest threat to the environment is from countries that do not respect private property rights, the ecological disasters in the USSR and East Germany are two big examples. The biggest consumer of gas int his country and int he world is the US military, the war subsidies towards oil amount to 180 dollars per barrel...if they are goignt o absolutely waste that 180 dolars per barrel then you would have to be insane to believe the next trillion dollars is goign to make cars "more fuel efficient". The US government has already shownt hat it's spending priorities do not revolve around making petroleum energy obsolete...in fact the government is there to work with and protect the regime of the established oil industry...fromt he house of Saud to Shell Oil.

If you force me to buy more expensive light bulbs filled with mercury you may very well cause harm to my young children when they inevitably get broken in my house filled with ruckus activity.

I agree that the issue is all about more Government control. Mainly about taxation. Just look at all the proposals for carbon credits and carbon taxes. Once they achieve their agenda it will be a tax on life itself since we are all carbon based lifeforms. Life would not exist if there was no carbon.
Think about it. Just what makes Al Gore an expert on this subject? is he a scientist?
There are so many factors that can cause the earths temperature to change. The number one thing is that big ball of fire up in the sky better know as the sun. It can fit over 1 million earths inside of it and one monstrous solar flare could do more to effect the temperature than all us humans combined.
If you want to fall for this propaganda it is only because you are not that well informed
Read about the little ice age, solar cycles, maunder min and max, gulf stream and water temps. Did you also know that since they (Nasa, Hadley etc) have been keeping records that this past year we have experienced the largest single decrease in world temps? Not something you will read or hear about in the MSM. Do some more research.

http://www.eworldvu.com/international/2008/3/1/the-year-of-sun-made-glob...

A very candid interview with The Weather Channels Founder on the subject.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8369245786817112251&hl=en

Movie here -

"The Great Global Warming Swindle " It has is own problems but, at least it might moderate your perspective.

"The Universe is a big place - maybe the biggest." Kilgore Trout

Two thirds of Brits think the green agenda has been hijacked

Two thirds of Brits (67 per cent) believe the green agenda has been hijacked as a ploy to increase taxes.
Just over a third (34 per cent) believe that extreme weather is becoming more common but that it has nothing to do with global warming while one in 10 believe that climate change is a totally natural phenomenon.
The report by research group Opinium provides a valuable glimpse into the way in which people now view the green movement.
The over 55’s, for example, are the most cynical about of all about global warming with 43 per cent believing that extreme weather and global warming are completely unconnected.
While the report showed more and more people are willing to take steps to live greener lifestyles, scepticism surrounding the green movement persists.
Is it justified? Does it jeopardise the aims of the environmental movement?

http://timesonline.typepad.com/environment/2008/05/two-thirds-of-b.html

-----------------------------------
http://www.irdial.com/blogdial

And worse than just selling more light bulbs to the corporations, letting this lie take place is causing millions to starve RIGHT NOW its starting, we will soon feel it in the US, already are with Gas, and their taking all the crops to feed the ethanol systems, they have bought, or stolen all the food the nations depend on world wide.. Its depopulation through genocide. Just like they planned years ago.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/01/08/eafred...

http://www.oldthinkernews.com/Articles/oldthinker%20news/global_warming_...

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/11410,opinion,the-rumblings-of-a-food-cris...

http://freeofstate.org/new/?p=733

You can do whatever you wish however, once you force other people to buy new light bulbs or ride their bike you cross the line. Theres a movie out there entitled "The Great Global Warming Swindle" it used to be on Youtube but apparently due to a copyright violation the producer has asked YouTube to pull the movie. I'm sure you could find it floating around the internet somewhere. It outlines why "environmentalists" lie to you and the negative effects they have on the third world.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle

The concept/religion of man-made global warming is really about the next level of economic control, with the side effect of the loss of sovereignty.