The KGB Oracle Forums General Public Discussion (SPECIAL ACCESS) KGB Political Debate Central Climate Change, it's whats for DINNER!

but in this case you are denying that is false, that 2 billions is not to help drilling oil, because is not for that.

Uncle Sam is lending money to be spent on U.S.A products and services(companies), is that not smart enough? You should be thanking Obama for that, but was not him doing that.

About you Oil, I agree that not drilling oil around your coast would be bad, but even that has a good point, after all countries drained theirs oil stock, yours will still intact to explore, also from another point of view those countries that you bought oil spent billions of dollars in US weapons and services for decades, was not bad at all.

OPEC isnt all Middle Eastern.......

you forgot everyones favorite Western despot....

Take tax money from US citizens and give it to another country to buy US goods. Yep sounds like a Liberal plan.

Got to love the global warming talk, if you want to make money start a research company called GLOBAL WARMING AND HOW IT WILL KILL YOU, then the government and movie stars will give you lots of cash to prove Global Warming.

The fact is that Global warming is now a money maker and people will lie and cheat to keep it going.


Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics:

"Most of the increase in the air's concentration of greenhouse gases from human activities--over 80 percent--occurred after the 1940s. That means that the strong early 20th century warming must be largely, if not entirely, natural."[26]"The coincident changes in the sun's changing energy output and temperature records on earth tend to argue that the sun has driven a major portion of the 20th century temperature change."

"[T]he recent warming trend in the surface temperature record cannot be caused by the increase of human-made greenhouse gases in the air." "One can have surface warming from a variety of reasons. So the key layer of air to look at is the one-to-five-mile up layer of air. ... Now, this is the layer of air sensitive to the human-made warming effect, and the layer that must warm at least as much as the surface according to the computer simulations. Yet, the projected warming from human activities can't be found in the low troposphere in any great degree."

Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa:

"That portion of the scientific community that attributes climate warming to CO2 relies on the hypothesis that increasing CO2, which is in fact a minor greenhouse gas, triggers a much larger water vapour response to warm the atmosphere. This mechanism has never been tested scientifically beyond the mathematical models that predict extensive warming, and are confounded by the complexity of cloud formation – which has a cooling effect. ... We know that [the sun] was responsible for climate change in the past, and so is clearly going to play the lead role in present and future climate change. And interestingly... solar activity has recently begun a downward cycle."

Tom Segalstad, head of the Geology Museum at the University of Oslo:

"The IPCC's temperature curve (the so-called 'hockey stick' curve) must be in error, because the Medieval warm period (the "Climate Optimum") and the Little Ice Age both are absent from their curve, on which the IPCC bases its future projections and recommended mitigation. All measurements of solar luminosity and 14C isotopes show that there is at present an increasing solar radiation which gives a warmer climate (Willson, R.C & Hudson, H.S. 1991: The Sun's luminosity over a complete solar cycle. Nature 351, 42-44; and Coffey, H.E., Erwin, E.H. & Hanchett, C.D.: Solar databases for global change models. www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/SOLAR/solarda3.html). Warmer climate was previously perceived as an optimum climate and not catastrophic. ... On a wet basis the Earth's atmosphere consists by mass of ~73.5% nitrogen, ~22.5% oxygen, ~2.7% water, and ~1.25% argon. CO2 in air is in minimal amount, ~0.05% by mass, and with minimal capacity (~2%) to influence the "Greenhouse Effect" compared to water vapor"

Fred Singer, Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia:

"The greenhouse effect is real. However, the effect is minute, insignificant, and very difficult to detect."[51][52] “It’s not automatically true that warming is bad, I happen to believe that warming is good, and so do many economists.”[53]

"The current warming cycle is not unusual. ... The Earth consistently goes through a climate cycle marked by alternating warmer and cooler periods over 1,500 years (plus or minus 500 years)." "When the sun is less active, its solar wind weakens and provides less shielding for the Earth from the cosmic rays that bounce around space." "We have a number of shorter-term proxies (cave stalagmites, tree rings from trees both living and buried, boreholes and a wide variety of other temperature proxies) that testify to the global nature of the 1,500- year climate cycles. ... Models that posit a human impact on the climate must better take this evidence into account before any conclusions are drawn regarding humanity’s ability to prevent future climate change."[52]

"The IPCC summary report presents selected facts and omits important information. The summary (correctly) reports that climate has warmed by 0.3 °C to 0.6 °C in the last 100 years, but does not mention that there has been little warming if any (depending on whose compilation is used) in the last 50 years, during which time some 80% of greenhouse gases were added to the atmosphere. ... The summary does not make it explicit that the IPCC time scale for warming has now been stretched out — doubled, in fact, from 2050 to 2100 — making any possible impact less dramatic. The summary also does not mention an authoritative U.S. government statement; it quotes a global warming as low as 0.5 °C by 2100 — only half of the IPCC's lowest 1995 prediction."


Petr Chylek, Space and Remote Sensing Sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory:

"Carbon dioxide should not be considered as a dominant force behind the current warming...how much of the [temperature] increase can be ascribed to CO2, to changes in solar activity, or to the natural variability of climate is uncertain"



I can already hear Jet making up reasons these scientist are wrong like a good socialist liberal co2 hating Californian he is.

here is lots of data on the internet countering all of these folks, I just wen after two of them.

It's a pretty simple concept.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas, noone disputes that. We spew millions of tons of in in the atmosphere for a couple centuries, the levels are the highest in many thousands of years, and the planet is getting warmer.



If that doesn't convince you, then nothing will. This report sites THOUSANDS of researchers, and you produce 6.

Hey Helemoto. The world is NOT flat and we DID land on the moon.

Well, where is NY under 20 feet of water and the ice free summers?
Climatologist have been wrong 20 years ago, why do you think they're currently right? Lot of their "science" is based on botched statistical analysis (lot of papers spew shit never reviewed by statistic experts) and computer models for which lot of feedback is not even understood (clouds being one of them).

Even the quality of the last hundred of temperature measurement can be questioned when you see the quality of the measurement stations (even in the US) and their positioning (check how temperatures were recorded across oceans which are 75% of the earth surface).

Whoa Whoa Whoa..let me say it again, and I will have to go dig up the sources. I agreed there was a climate change issue going on....NOT GLOBAL WARMING. The very concept if Global Warming is total fabricated bullshit, proven total fabricated bullshit.

Lets not confuse the two.

Jet, using anything with U.N. as part of the name is not likely to convince anyone who is not tying to be convinced, TBH. Especially since that particular UN climate organization has been shown to be generally incompetent and scandal ridden.

Anyhow, as previously stated... CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas, scientists have always piled on "consensus" even when that consensus turns out to be wrong 5,10 or 20 years down the road. You should know that has happened to o many times to count, like I said - if the consensus is the same and better understood in 20 years, then it can be considered likely to be true. Until then, it is just one more scientific fad... one with an epic shit ton of money and propoganda piling on behind it.

I agree there's been climate change. Everything has a cycle, including earth. The North & South Poles are moving, and some scientists believe it maybe heading to reversal. So to think man is the cause of everything, maybe you should have a look at the poles, and what magnetic fields do.
http://www.salem-news.com/articles/february042011/global-superstorms-ta.php




2011 has been a wild weather year. Here in Oklahoma we've had the coldest day on record (-30 degree's) the hottest day on record (116 degrees) in the same year. We've had a record snowfall in the states history, along with a record in snowfall within a 48 hour period. From that, to having one of the hottest & dryest summers.

You guys are amazing!

Well I guess you know more than THOUSANDS of researchers from 194 countries, and like to quote Exxon Mobil backed bullshit.

I give up.