Global warming is dead. What's the ne...

Global warming is dead. What's the next eco-scare?

There are 238 comments on the Men's News Daily story from Jan 20, 2010, titled Global warming is dead. What's the next eco-scare?. In it, Men's News Daily reports that:

As the man-made global warming fear movement collapses and the climate establishment lay in a Climategate ridden tatters , many are asking what next? As man-made global warming fears enter the ashbin of history, what will environmentalists, UN activists and politicians do to fill the void of a failed eco-scare? Well, wonder no more.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Men's News Daily.

Mr Giblets

Liverpool, UK

#21 Jan 21, 2010
Pokay1kaduB wrote:
<quoted text>I know you'll tell me how responsible you are with your solar water tank and your frugal energy use, but you are irresponsible with your support of a continued descent into the unsustainability pit and the continued denial of the consequences of warming. Why should we not increase subsidy to green tech? Why should we keep giving them to coal and oil? You think oil and coal will stay cheap? They're not even really cheap now, especially for you guys in Europe.
As far as your idea that no one will ever notice a warming climate, I'm noticing it right now and have been for the last decade in my area. We haven't had a normal winter in ten years. It's in the '40s (F) when we should be having bouts of below zero weather. If we were in an all out ice age 150 yrs ago we would have had 5 degrees C to play with before getting into an extreme warm period. Well we were already warmer than an all out ice age then and now we are 1.5 degrees warmer in 150 yrs. That's incredibly fast warming. By 2100 and surely by 220 we will be into an all out extreme warm period complete with all the emerging consequences. You won't be around so you can get away with saying whatever you want, especially since you lack a conscience as well.
What will it take for you to admit it's warming? You already said you're not a denier. A sceptic admits it's warming. So you must just think that it is never going to warm enough to be big deal. So what will it take? When all the glaciers melt in a couple centuries? Will that be enough? You don't think people will live that long before we go extinct? What? When an ice sheet falls into the ocean? I know, not until you are forced from *your* home.
I agree with you that it is probably a losing battle to try limiting emissions. What else do you want? Why should we not subsidize green energy for the sake of sustainability?
neither myself nor Earthling have any fear of our homes being drowned by melting ice caps, as we both live in mountainous areas. I am 800 feet above sea level here in Wales.
Pokay1kaduB

Uniontown, OH

#22 Jan 21, 2010
Mr Giblets wrote:
<quoted text>neither myself nor Earthling have any fear of our homes being drowned by melting ice caps, as we both live in mountainous areas. I am 800 feet above sea level here in Wales.
So warming will be good for you, who cares about the others right? You'll care when you can't afford to buy food or gas. Hopefully that never happens but it sure may tend toward that, seems like it is already trending that way. You'll be ready to wage war if gas and food get too expensive but there won't be anything you can do about it. At least they could drill for more of our own oil while we wait for you boneheads to accept the need for sustainabililty.
Pokay1kaduB

Uniontown, OH

#23 Jan 21, 2010
Earthling wrote:
To all sceptics (and the denier).
We are dealing with cranks, folks.
Seems *you're* the crank. I tell you I agree with you that acting will probably not be good enough anyway, and that makes me a crank? You just ignore that part. I'm taking your side there pal. You seeem to dislike everyone except those that wish to continue into the unsustainability pit. Maybe it's time you start talking about subsidies then, what other way is there to start in the right direction? I asked you a simple question so many times without answer, what is your vision for the future? Do you see no problem with continuing on with oil and coal while ignoring the need for suatainable energy? You think coal and oil will never become too expensive and low in supply? I mean I'm willing to hear your side of the story, maybe you have something worthwhile to say, but you refuse to take part in a discussion. That makes you the crank.
Earthling

Hellín, Spain

#24 Jan 21, 2010
Pokay1kaduB wrote:
So warming will be good for you, who cares about the others right?
How much do you care about, "the others right?"
Pokay1kaduB wrote:
You'll care when you can't afford to buy food or gas.
That will never happen in my lifetime.
Why?
Because over 20 years ago, I made sure it wouldn't unless the global economy collapsed.
Pokay1kaduB wrote:
Hopefully that never happens but it sure may tend toward that, seems like it is already trending that way.
No matter what happens, the fittest will survive.
Pokay1kaduB wrote:
You'll be ready to wage war if gas and food get too expensive but there won't be anything you can do about it.
I sincerely believe that Mr Giblets and I are both well past the age when we could, "wage" any type of war other than verbal and we both know you're too unfit to do much yourself.
Pokay1kaduB wrote:
At least they could drill for more of our own oil while we wait for you boneheads to accept the need for sustainabililty.
The final crackpot comment that sets you apart from those of us who accept what life throws at us, but would be ready to adapt if necessary.

You really do belong in the crank section of humanity.
mr Giblets

London, UK

#25 Jan 21, 2010
Pokay1kaduB wrote:
<quoted text>So warming will be good for you, who cares about the others right? You'll care when you can't afford to buy food or gas. Hopefully that never happens but it sure may tend toward that, seems like it is already trending that way. You'll be ready to wage war if gas and food get too expensive but there won't be anything you can do about it. At least they could drill for more of our own oil while we wait for you boneheads to accept the need for sustainabililty.
also, I don't believe the Gore theory about absurd ocean rises. It isn't happening and won't happen. What did Gore predict ? 220Ft? 22Meters? 10 meters ? 7 meters? It depends on what day he said it , I suppose.
Unbelievable

Bethesda, MD

#26 Jan 21, 2010
UN climate chief admits mistake on Himalayan glaciers warning

The UN’s top climate change body has issued an unprecedented apology over its flawed prediction that Himalayan glaciers were likely to disappear by 2035.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said yesterday that the prediction in its landmark 2007 report was “poorly substantiated” and resulted from a lapse in standards.“In drafting the paragraph in question the clear and well-established standards of evidence, required by the IPCC procedures, were not applied properly,” the panel said.“The chair, vice-chair and co-chairs of the IPCC regret the poor application of IPCC procedures in this instance.”

The stunning admission is certain to embolden critics of the panel, already under fire over a separate scandal involving hacked e-mails last year.

The 2007 report, which won the panel the Nobel Peace Prize, said that the probability of Himalayan glaciers “disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high”. It caused shock in Asia, where about two billion people depend on meltwater from Himalayan glaciers for their fresh water supplies during the dry seasons.

It emerged last week that the prediction was based not on a consensus among climate change experts but on a media interview with a single Indian glaciologist in 1999. That scientist, Syed Hasnain, has now told The Times that he never made such a specific forecast in his interview with the New Scientist magazine.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environ ...

Just more proof that this global warming/climate changes is a scam!! Every time you turn around more and more is coming out that they are lying to us!!

GORE IS A SCAM ARTIST!!! Notice he's been in hiding since Copenhagen... guess he's waiting for things to "cool" off (pun intended)!!

Since: Mar 09

The Left Coast

#27 Jan 21, 2010
Algore, as with many of the liberal left elitists, has figured out a way to make an insane amount of money off a 'noble' cause. Been done for the whales, the rain forests, the butterflies and now the earth. Algore chuckles about it all the way to the bank
Pokay1kaduB

Uniontown, OH

#28 Jan 21, 2010
mr Giblets wrote:
<quoted text>also, I don't believe the Gore theory about absurd ocean rises. It isn't happening and won't happen. What did Gore predict ? 220Ft? 22Meters? 10 meters ? 7 meters? It depends on what day he said it , I suppose.
I certainly don't either. Don't know why you guys deny warming just because of an extremist.'Denial' is an extreme POV itself.
Pokay1kaduB

Uniontown, OH

#29 Jan 21, 2010
Earthling wrote:
<quoted text>How much do you care about, "the others right?"
Unlike you I don't want to be the cause of someone else's suffering. I do have a conscience. I'm not flippin over backwards to green up my house overnight, but the point is I would back up an effort to develop green tech, as in I would be all for moving subsidies toward it and away from areas we don't need them. But I do plan on buying an electric or hybrid car.
That will never happen in my lifetime.
Why?
Because over 20 years ago, I made sure it wouldn't unless the global economy collapsed.
Who says it will never collapse? You think the oil supply will wait for the economy to collapse before it runs low? When it runs low it runs low and that's it. And what do you mean you "made sure it wouldn't.."?
No matter what happens, the fittest will survive.
That's not the point. I don't really care what happens to this place, but again, I don't want to be the reason for someone else's suffering. THAT's the point. You on the other hand make it very clear that you don't care about the consequesnces of your actions, long as someone doesn't sh*t on *your* parade.
I sincerely believe that Mr Giblets and I are both well past the age when we could, "wage" any type of war other than verbal and we both know you're too unfit to do much yourself.
Verbal is about all we have no matter how fit we are. I can still do thirty pullups in one shot, but if you fire up the diesel I might drop dead if I don't have my respirator.
The final crackpot comment that sets you apart from those of us who accept what life throws at us, but would be ready to adapt if necessary.
You really do belong in the crank section of humanity.
Excuse me? I thought you'd be pleased to hear I would support drilling for oil over buying foreign oil? Nothing pleases you, that makes YOU the crank. Oh it must be the sustainability comment. Just because it won't likely happen in our lifetime, and especially because we can't just switch to green overnight,(it may take a century to switch over a significant portion of the load to green, gotta develop it first, duh),.......so why again is it a good idea to keep waiting? So we can make sure to screw over the future generations really good?
Earthling

Hellín, Spain

#30 Jan 22, 2010
Pokay1kaduB wrote:
Don't know why you guys deny warming
You just don't get and probably never will.
NO ONE DENIES that warming has occurred since the last ice age.
I don't know anyone who DENIES that Earth has warmed 1ºF over the last 100 years, of which a small percentage must be AGW.
The LIA only ended approximately 160 years ago, some warming has occurred since then and we should all be thankful to be living in a warm period.
1.5 to 2ºC of cooling would be disastrous for animal life.
skeptic

Houston, TX

#31 Jan 22, 2010
Pokay1kaduB wrote:
So this has become the "science that cried wolf"? How will we ever know if something's legit if the deniers deny everything by reflex, with no thinking involved?
I guess heavy metals have separated themselves from their ores all on their own and dispersed themselves around the planet slowly poisoning it more and more. And same with petroleum based chemicals/solvents/etc. Another few hundred years of this inundation will really do the earh good, huh? Everything has a natural cause, humans couldn't possibly influence this planet.
Without even considering global warming, who can say that we are carrying on a sustainable lifestyle? We should be working on sustainability regardless of global warming. Why would it be a bad idea to subsidize green tech and reduce subsidies where we don't need them? How else can it become a contender?
I hope I live to see the day that oil and coal run low, so that I can watch the deniers and the NIMBYs finally give in to 'whatever it takes in anyone's backyard to keep the power flowing'. Can't wait for a little 'humbling of the human race'. Won't be too many more lifetimes before humans are forced to act.
I doubt you will live that long. Even the models forecasting global warming also forecast that fossil fuels will provide about 80% of world energy needs in 2100.

“Peak oil” is real but the Energy Information Agency forecasts liquid fuels from crude plus natural gas will still be a dominant energy source in 2100 as well.

Coal and uranium will last even longer.

Windpower and solar thermal are cost competitive in some places now but solar voltaic and most of the other so-called “green” energy sources definitely are NOT. LOTS of expensive additional research is required.
skeptic

Houston, TX

#32 Jan 22, 2010
Curmudgeon wrote:
Axis shift. 2012 theplanets will alighn and the poles will reverse? That is more believeable than the golwbull warming myth. I want the greenies to explainjust how al gores carbon credit reduces outpuit? We could have clean hydrogen power but it would be almost impossible to tax.If I had a hydrogen fuel cell . A small wind generator could power my home and car for almost free!
And how do you get that hydrogen? Electrolysis of water consumes more energy than is provided by burning the hydrogen and laws of chemistry and physics state that will always be true.

Most hydrogen produced for use today is from reaction of methane with water…the “water gas reaction.”

What happens if the wind dies in your area? Expensive batteries are required to store electrical energy. Further, your generator wouldn’t be that small. Look at your electric bill and estimate the number of kilowatts you need at times of peak demand.
skeptic

Houston, TX

#33 Jan 22, 2010
Pokay1kaduB wrote:
<quoted text> Unlike you I don't want to be the cause of someone else's suffering. I do have a conscience. I'm not flippin over backwards to green up my house overnight, but the point is I would back up an effort to develop green tech, as in I would be all for moving subsidies toward it and away from areas we don't need them. But I do plan on buying an electric or hybrid car. <quoted text> Who says it will never collapse? You think the oil supply will wait for the economy to collapse before it runs low? When it runs low it runs low and that's it. And what do you mean you "made sure it wouldn't.."? <quoted text>That's not the point. I don't really care what happens to this place, but again, I don't want to be the reason for someone else's suffering. THAT's the point. You on the other hand make it very clear that you don't care about the consequesnces of your actions, long as someone doesn't sh*t on *your* parade. <quoted text> Verbal is about all we have no matter how fit we are. I can still do thirty pullups in one shot, but if you fire up the diesel I might drop dead if I don't have my respirator. <quoted text>Excuse me? I thought you'd be pleased to hear I would support drilling for oil over buying foreign oil? Nothing pleases you, that makes YOU the crank. Oh it must be the sustainability comment. Just because it won't likely happen in our lifetime, and especially because we can't just switch to green overnight,(it may take a century to switch over a significant portion of the load to green, gotta develop it first, duh),.......so why again is it a good idea to keep waiting? So we can make sure to screw over the future generations really good?
I assume you do realize that most electricity is generated by burning coal and that releases more CO2 to the atmosphere than using any other fossil fuel. Just how does your electric or hybrid car reduce the purported global warming?

We COULD produce more oil by drilling off both coasts of Florida, the rest of our East and West coasts and Area 1002 of NAWR but even at best that would NOT provide enough crude to replace that we import.
Curmudgeon

Mountain Home, AR

#34 Jan 22, 2010
skeptic wrote:
<quoted text>
And how do you get that hydrogen? Electrolysis of water consumes more energy than is provided by burning the hydrogen and laws of chemistry and physics state that will always be true.
Most hydrogen produced for use today is from reaction of methane with water…the “water gas reaction.”
What happens if the wind dies in your area? Expensive batteries are required to store electrical energy. Further, your generator wouldn’t be that small. Look at your electric bill and estimate the number of kilowatts you need at times of peak demand.
Thats why i stated (hydrogen Fuel cell) Not a battery. We need to spend money developing a viable fuel cell home energy system. Charge the fuel cell by wind solar and water. Before rual electric coop were started a company called Homelite sold wind powered home lighting systems also you could get a gas powerd one for backup. They now make chain saws. If everbody where to make 10% of their energy needs it would be a significant step in reducing oil consumption. But i dont believe that man causes glowbull warming.
Earthling

Hellín, Spain

#35 Jan 22, 2010
Curmudgeon:
There's no one kit that fits all vehicles, he said of a kit now being tested on a Chevrolet Corvette and Mitsubishi Endeavor sport-utility.

"You'd have to custom-tailor the kit to each vehicle, and as it now stands, you'd have to be a mechanic to do that."

Another teeny problem.

"It takes two days to fill [the car's tank]."
http://www.energybulletin.net/node/1861
As for other hydrogen ideas:
http://www.google.es/search...
If the advert speaks highly of its product, always check elsewhere!
Pokay1kaduB

Uniontown, OH

#36 Jan 22, 2010
Earthling wrote:
<quoted text>You just don't get and probably never will.
NO ONE DENIES that warming has occurred since the last ice age.
I don't know anyone who DENIES that Earth has warmed 1ºF over the last 100 years, of which a small percentage must be AGW.
The LIA only ended approximately 160 years ago, some warming has occurred since then and we should all be thankful to be living in a warm period.
1.5 to 2ºC of cooling would be disastrous for animal life.
Another equivalent amount of warming may also be disastrous.
No comment on sustainability? We all know politics muddies everything up, and when you have this many people, politics can be disastrous itself. We can't even come to an understanding among a few posters, imagine how hard it is for the entire world to agree on this crap? All I'm saying is if they somehow by some miracle decided to get serious about supporting green tech, quit their threats of legislation and replace that with actual subsidies that can be redirected from areas they aren't needed as much, then I would support that. But it doesn't seem like that will happen.

BTW, now that Copenhagen failed,(thank God), what exactly are you so worried about that you have to keep on acting like warming will never pose any real threat to any significant number of people in any way? How much is a liter of gas over there? Why do you care what we do over here when you are getting bent over for gas? If we get serious about green how is that going to hurt you guys over there? It might even turn out to lower gas prices for everyone?
Pokay1kaduB

Uniontown, OH

#37 Jan 22, 2010
If warming were the only problem caused by industrialization, I sure wouldn't be as concerned.
We have pollution, sustainability, and the direct consequences of the warming, like eco-change/damage/death, crop failure leading to higher food prices, etc etc. I'll defend your position for a second by saying if we never industrialized, 7 billion people using wood for energy would probably exert an even larger GHG effect and unsustainability factor. BUT the catch is that it is highly unlikely that the population would have ever boomed without the "machine" (and modern medicine).

I'll tell ya a little secret though. We wouldn't have these problems if the human race went extinct, so maybe I should support the madness instead? Burn more, pollute more, GMO more, yea, ramp it up for God's sakes. More petroleum products. More prescriptions. Double up the pesticide/herbicide/chemlawn treatments, paint your car every year even though it doesn't need it, forget about goin green, that'll just prolong the agony. We should just continue on with our built-in depopulation program, eventually it will kick in in a big way.

I'll tell ya another secret. This place sure isn't "heaven" (though my first 40 years were heavenly enjoyable much of the time). A place where we are unsure of what we even are is not my idea of heaven, and a place where we are constantly at war with eachother. No big reason to go crazy trying to "save" it. But the problem is that it won't be that easy to put us all into extinction, it'll just make it more hellish for the ones that have to live in an increasingly hellish environment.

Gas is 10% ethanol. In a century or two breast milk might be 10% jet fuel and birth defects and disease might be 50% if not more. "take the blue pill for that".

Whatever though. I am not a crank about it, am I screaming about it? I'm just putting in my two cents.
skeptic

Houston, TX

#38 Jan 22, 2010
Curmudgeon wrote:
<quoted text> Thats why i stated (hydrogen Fuel cell) Not a battery. We need to spend money developing a viable fuel cell home energy system. Charge the fuel cell by wind solar and water. Before rual electric coop were started a company called Homelite sold wind powered home lighting systems also you could get a gas powerd one for backup. They now make chain saws. If everbody where to make 10% of their energy needs it would be a significant step in reducing oil consumption. But i dont believe that man causes glowbull warming.
Better take a refresher course on fuel cells. They need hydrogen as their feedstock and produce electricity. They cannot be “charged” by electricity generated by ANY method.

Homelite has been in business since 1921. They DO manufacture generators of from 1800 to 5000 watt capability but I believe gasoline engines power all of them. That INCREASES crude demand since almost no electricity is generated from oil commercially.

You burning a fossil fuel to generate electricity will release MORE CO2 than a large facility does to generate the same amount…even if that large facility is burning coal.

You may spend YOUR money any way you wish but please don’t attempt to direct research on MY dollars!
Pokay1kaduB

Uniontown, OH

#39 Jan 22, 2010
skeptic wrote:
<quoted text>
I doubt you will live that long. Even the models forecasting global warming also forecast that fossil fuels will provide about 80% of world energy needs in 2100.
Alright! Can't wait to breath diesel exhaust in my mext earth-life. There is hope that we might be able to put ourselves into extinction after all. If everyone knows we will never get serious about green energy then why waste money on climate research, let's get back to the business of ruining the future.
“Peak oil” is real but the Energy Information Agency forecasts liquid fuels from crude plus natural gas will still be a dominant energy source in 2100 as well.
Coal and uranium will last even longer.
Windpower and solar thermal are cost competitive in some places now but solar voltaic and most of the other so-called “green” energy sources definitely are NOT. LOTS of expensive additional research is required.
That's exactly why I was suggesting they receive subsidy. Should the human race wait until oil/coal actually does run low to get serious when we know it could take a century or more to develop the technology? Should we sleep while China and Germany and Japan get so far ahead in green tech that we are forced to buy from them forever and ever? We can easily afford to redirect subsidies to accomodate.

Speaking of redirecting or even downright stealing, the ungodly amount of money it cost to build HAARP is one thing, but why don't we ever hear of it? Did we spend all that money for nothing? WHat's going on over there? What benefit do we get out of it? Is it some defense weapon against aliens? They claim it is a climate research devide. My @$$$$ is a climate research device.
Pokay1kaduB

Uniontown, OH

#40 Jan 22, 2010
Device not devide

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Al Gore Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Republicans need to shut down Trump's election ... 2 hr barefoot2626 87
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 4 hr Into The Night 61,094
News RICO Charges Against 'Climate Deniers': A Case ... 8 hr Gov Corbutt of th... 3
News Hillary Clinton should apologize Mon Emerald 6
News Take a stand to fight climate change Aug 28 Actual Science 1
News Your vote doesn't count Aug 27 Stephany McDowell 1
News Trump bounces into the lead Aug 2 Fit2Serve 398
More from around the web