The ocean has risen one foot over the last 150 years. Yet if you ask any 100 year-old woman what the
"big events" were over their lifetime, they won't even mention the ocean rising. They are likely to talk
about world wars, atomic bombs, civil rights, the vote for women, etc. Yet many locations had to make
sea walls higher to compensate for the rise in sea water.
This is changing because of hype. Hyping a problem to make it seem bigger than it is. The crop yield
has increased by 15% due to the extra CO2 which the plants breath.
When volcanoes go off big, we have global cooling.
Just keep thinking that nature is goody goody and "on your side" and that humans are "anti-nature" and
do "the bad things".
Your problem is that when the earthquakes tremble and volcanoes spew, they don't do it close enough
to you for you to realize who the real enemy is.
The enemy is nature. That is why I have a home I live in. My home keeps me warm in winter, dry when it
rains and cool in summer.
I just saw the movie "Into the Wild" about a fellow who lived in a natural environment and nature was a
little too dangerous for him to survive. Oh, sure. The view from his windows was beautiful. He ended
up dead. He was a nice guy...kind and thoughtful of others...loved nature. Nature put poison berries
out there and he ate them. He could have survived if he had read the book more carefully and had
determined which berries were good to eat and which were poisonous. The book was written by humans
to help other humans avoid being poisoned by nature. But nature was too dangerous for him and he
died.
--- In Why_VHEMT@yahoogroups.com, "Michael (Frish) Frishberg" <frishberg@...> wrote:
>
> Fred - you quote S. Fred Singer? Debunked all over the place since 1997 and
> before! The title of his presentation says it all - Global Warming - Man
> Made or Natural! He doesn't dispute that change is happening, just that
> humans aren't responsible somehow. Which flies in the face of all
> scientific evidence, but hey, why should he worry about that?!?
>
> Being a contrarian, he ought to know a little something about making money
> during global climate change. He gets paid big bucks to buck the trend,
> (Not a trend exactly, simply total consensus by every major scientific body,
> NASA, the US Military (Pentagon Report on Security Threats due To Global
> Warming) and by every major government in the world and a lot of minor ones
> too (cities and states and etc. that human activities are affecting climate
> change!).
>
> Fred, c'mon, what kind of conspiracy theory is that, when there is consensus
> world wide that climate change due to human action is true and
> happening...could all those scientists and governments be in on something
> nefarious??? Why?
>
> Do you even wonder why F. Fred Singer is the only guy you can quote? No one
> else in the climatological field agrees with him. What makes him so smart?
> LOL
>
> Get real, follow the real money. He thinks that Greenpeace somehow benefits
> from global warming scares? With "billions" (not likely) of dollars?
>
> Do you think that global OIL doesn't benefit to the TRILLIONS of dollars by
> keeping the status quo?
>
> Greenpeace didn't cause all the governments in the world to "capitulate" to
> some phony theory! How real is that Fred, C'mon!
>
> Science my friend, that is the key. Not arm waving, rhetoric filled crap
> from S. Fred Singer, who cherry picks what he says to you...For example,
> sure, a "slight" increase in CO2 might have beneficial effects.
>
> Did he fail to mention that the CURRENT LEVEL OF CO2 IS HIGHER THAN IT HAS
> BEEN IN 500,000 YEARS OR MORE?
>
> Fred, you turn on your stove and put a kettle of water to boil.
>
> The burners are on really hot for a long time before the water boils, no?
>
> Same thing with the Earth's atmosphere and biosphere. The CO2 is like the
> burner, and it has been turned WAY WAY UP! No one disputes this, see any
> "hockey stick" diagram.
>
> Think about how water boils in the pan. There are chaotic currents set up,
> and eventually a bubble of steam forms at some imperfection in the bottom of
> the pan. That sets up an entirely different set of currents, and more chaos
> ensues, until boiling occurs...
>
> Now, the items being heated are the atmosphere and the oceans. The evidence
> is the thinnest and smallest polar ice cap ever, for example. And, just
> like in the pan, not everything is nice and even. Some years are warmer or
> dryer or cooler, it is a chaotic response to the CO2 input into the system.
> However, the warming is insidious and continues, all the time, AND WE
> CONTINUE TO INCREASE OUR OUTPUT OF CO2, THUS INCREASING THE MOMENTUM OF
> CHANGE, LIKE WE'RE TURNING UP THE STOVE!
>
> Fred, if we wait to try to fix things after the water is boiling, it will be
> way way way too late. (In the reality in which I live, that we only
> partially share it seems, it is already too late Fred, the momentum of
> warming is already beyond our capability to change, and it will lead to a
> greatly diminished human carrying capacity in the biosphere (in other words,
> great numbers of humans will die due to the heat waves, flooding, ice
> melting, forest fires, and other climate catastrophes that will be ever
> increasing. It may already be too late, the balance of the climatic
> equilibrium may already be so far off kilter that as the pendulum swings it
> will simply wipe humanity off the planet...as it rebounds like a ringing
> bell from man's intervention.)
>
> Can't imagine why you choose not to believe this, it is not only rational it
> is real.
>
> The true irony is that S. Fred Singer's mis-information simply increases the
> probability that the deleterious effects of human climate disruption will be
> far more serious than otherwise.
>
> Fred, I don't have kids, so in truth, I don't care that much...too bad you
> can't see through whatever fog-lensed glasses you choose to wear.
>
> *The Global Warming Scare
> *
> "We asked the important question of whether there is appreciable man-made
> warming today. We presented evidence that indicates there is not, thereby
> suggesting that attempts by governments to control greenhouse-gas emissions
> are pointless and unwise. Nevertheless. we have state governors calling for
> CO2 emissions limits on cars; we have city mayors calling for mandatory CO2
> controls; we have the Supreme Court declaring CO2 a pollutant that may have
> to be regulated; we have every industrialized nation (with the exception of
> the U.S. and Australia) signed on to the Kyoto Protocol; and we have ongoing
> international demands for even more stringent controls when Kyoto expires in
> 2012. What's going on here? [. . .]
>
> "It is [. . .] worth noting that tens of thousands of interested persons
> benefit directly from the global warming scare -- at the expense of the
> ordinary consumer. Environmental organizations globally, such as Greenpeace,
> the Sierra Club, and the Environmental Defense Fund, have raked in billions
> of dollars. Multi-billion-dollar government subsidies for useless mitigation
> schemes are large and growing. Emission trading programs will soon reach the
> $100 billion a year level, with large fees paid to brokers and those who
> operate the scams. In other words, many people have discovered they can
> benefit from climate scares and have formed an entrenched interest. [. . .]
>
> "The irony is that a slightly warmer climate with more carbon dioxide is in
> many ways beneficial rather than damaging. Economic studies have
> demonstrated that a modest warming and higher CO2 levels will increase GNP
> and raise standards of living, primarily by improving agriculture and
> forestry. It's a well-known fact that CO2 is plant food and essential to the
> growth of crops and trees -- and ultimately to the well-being of animals and
> humans."
> -- "Global Warming: Man-Made or Natural?" by S. Fred Singer, *Imprimis,* the
> National Speech Digest of Hillsdale College, August 2007, pages 4-5.
> *Subscription
> free upon request. *Address: Hillsdale College, Hillsdale, Michigan 49242.
> Phone: 800-437-2268.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
"big events" were over their lifetime, they won't even mention the ocean rising. They are likely to talk
about world wars, atomic bombs, civil rights, the vote for women, etc. Yet many locations had to make
sea walls higher to compensate for the rise in sea water.
This is changing because of hype. Hyping a problem to make it seem bigger than it is. The crop yield
has increased by 15% due to the extra CO2 which the plants breath.
When volcanoes go off big, we have global cooling.
Just keep thinking that nature is goody goody and "on your side" and that humans are "anti-nature" and
do "the bad things".
Your problem is that when the earthquakes tremble and volcanoes spew, they don't do it close enough
to you for you to realize who the real enemy is.
The enemy is nature. That is why I have a home I live in. My home keeps me warm in winter, dry when it
rains and cool in summer.
I just saw the movie "Into the Wild" about a fellow who lived in a natural environment and nature was a
little too dangerous for him to survive. Oh, sure. The view from his windows was beautiful. He ended
up dead. He was a nice guy...kind and thoughtful of others...loved nature. Nature put poison berries
out there and he ate them. He could have survived if he had read the book more carefully and had
determined which berries were good to eat and which were poisonous. The book was written by humans
to help other humans avoid being poisoned by nature. But nature was too dangerous for him and he
died.
--- In Why_VHEMT@yahoogroups.com, "Michael (Frish) Frishberg" <frishberg@...> wrote:
>
> Fred - you quote S. Fred Singer? Debunked all over the place since 1997 and
> before! The title of his presentation says it all - Global Warming - Man
> Made or Natural! He doesn't dispute that change is happening, just that
> humans aren't responsible somehow. Which flies in the face of all
> scientific evidence, but hey, why should he worry about that?!?
>
> Being a contrarian, he ought to know a little something about making money
> during global climate change. He gets paid big bucks to buck the trend,
> (Not a trend exactly, simply total consensus by every major scientific body,
> NASA, the US Military (Pentagon Report on Security Threats due To Global
> Warming) and by every major government in the world and a lot of minor ones
> too (cities and states and etc. that human activities are affecting climate
> change!).
>
> Fred, c'mon, what kind of conspiracy theory is that, when there is consensus
> world wide that climate change due to human action is true and
> happening...could all those scientists and governments be in on something
> nefarious??? Why?
>
> Do you even wonder why F. Fred Singer is the only guy you can quote? No one
> else in the climatological field agrees with him. What makes him so smart?
> LOL
>
> Get real, follow the real money. He thinks that Greenpeace somehow benefits
> from global warming scares? With "billions" (not likely) of dollars?
>
> Do you think that global OIL doesn't benefit to the TRILLIONS of dollars by
> keeping the status quo?
>
> Greenpeace didn't cause all the governments in the world to "capitulate" to
> some phony theory! How real is that Fred, C'mon!
>
> Science my friend, that is the key. Not arm waving, rhetoric filled crap
> from S. Fred Singer, who cherry picks what he says to you...For example,
> sure, a "slight" increase in CO2 might have beneficial effects.
>
> Did he fail to mention that the CURRENT LEVEL OF CO2 IS HIGHER THAN IT HAS
> BEEN IN 500,000 YEARS OR MORE?
>
> Fred, you turn on your stove and put a kettle of water to boil.
>
> The burners are on really hot for a long time before the water boils, no?
>
> Same thing with the Earth's atmosphere and biosphere. The CO2 is like the
> burner, and it has been turned WAY WAY UP! No one disputes this, see any
> "hockey stick" diagram.
>
> Think about how water boils in the pan. There are chaotic currents set up,
> and eventually a bubble of steam forms at some imperfection in the bottom of
> the pan. That sets up an entirely different set of currents, and more chaos
> ensues, until boiling occurs...
>
> Now, the items being heated are the atmosphere and the oceans. The evidence
> is the thinnest and smallest polar ice cap ever, for example. And, just
> like in the pan, not everything is nice and even. Some years are warmer or
> dryer or cooler, it is a chaotic response to the CO2 input into the system.
> However, the warming is insidious and continues, all the time, AND WE
> CONTINUE TO INCREASE OUR OUTPUT OF CO2, THUS INCREASING THE MOMENTUM OF
> CHANGE, LIKE WE'RE TURNING UP THE STOVE!
>
> Fred, if we wait to try to fix things after the water is boiling, it will be
> way way way too late. (In the reality in which I live, that we only
> partially share it seems, it is already too late Fred, the momentum of
> warming is already beyond our capability to change, and it will lead to a
> greatly diminished human carrying capacity in the biosphere (in other words,
> great numbers of humans will die due to the heat waves, flooding, ice
> melting, forest fires, and other climate catastrophes that will be ever
> increasing. It may already be too late, the balance of the climatic
> equilibrium may already be so far off kilter that as the pendulum swings it
> will simply wipe humanity off the planet...as it rebounds like a ringing
> bell from man's intervention.)
>
> Can't imagine why you choose not to believe this, it is not only rational it
> is real.
>
> The true irony is that S. Fred Singer's mis-information simply increases the
> probability that the deleterious effects of human climate disruption will be
> far more serious than otherwise.
>
> Fred, I don't have kids, so in truth, I don't care that much...too bad you
> can't see through whatever fog-lensed glasses you choose to wear.
>
> *The Global Warming Scare
> *
> "We asked the important question of whether there is appreciable man-made
> warming today. We presented evidence that indicates there is not, thereby
> suggesting that attempts by governments to control greenhouse-gas emissions
> are pointless and unwise. Nevertheless. we have state governors calling for
> CO2 emissions limits on cars; we have city mayors calling for mandatory CO2
> controls; we have the Supreme Court declaring CO2 a pollutant that may have
> to be regulated; we have every industrialized nation (with the exception of
> the U.S. and Australia) signed on to the Kyoto Protocol; and we have ongoing
> international demands for even more stringent controls when Kyoto expires in
> 2012. What's going on here? [. . .]
>
> "It is [. . .] worth noting that tens of thousands of interested persons
> benefit directly from the global warming scare -- at the expense of the
> ordinary consumer. Environmental organizations globally, such as Greenpeace,
> the Sierra Club, and the Environmental Defense Fund, have raked in billions
> of dollars. Multi-billion-dollar government subsidies for useless mitigation
> schemes are large and growing. Emission trading programs will soon reach the
> $100 billion a year level, with large fees paid to brokers and those who
> operate the scams. In other words, many people have discovered they can
> benefit from climate scares and have formed an entrenched interest. [. . .]
>
> "The irony is that a slightly warmer climate with more carbon dioxide is in
> many ways beneficial rather than damaging. Economic studies have
> demonstrated that a modest warming and higher CO2 levels will increase GNP
> and raise standards of living, primarily by improving agriculture and
> forestry. It's a well-known fact that CO2 is plant food and essential to the
> growth of crops and trees -- and ultimately to the well-being of animals and
> humans."
> -- "Global Warming: Man-Made or Natural?" by S. Fred Singer, *Imprimis,* the
> National Speech Digest of Hillsdale College, August 2007, pages 4-5.
> *Subscription
> free upon request. *Address: Hillsdale College, Hillsdale, Michigan 49242.
> Phone: 800-437-2268.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
 | |  | |  | |  |