Still More on Global Warming

hype7 writes "The Daily Telegraph is running a piece on the world's temperature. Apparently, it was a lot hotter in the middle ages: "A review of more than 240 scientific studies has shown that today's temperatures are neither the warmest over the past millennium, nor are they producing the most extreme weather - in stark contrast to the claims of the environmentalists.""

Comments

Not a surprise really

[Timesprout]

It never ceases to amaze me the level of arrogance among many environmentalists and conservationsist. Forever telling us how they feel things are supposed to be, and completely overlooking the billions of years of evolution, change and constant fluctuations it has taken us to get here. Its perfectly natural for our temperatures to fluctuate. Its not that long since we had a fucking Ice age so a bit of warming is not an inherently bad thing.

Re:25 years ago, it was Global Cooling

[alkali]

in the 70's, many of today's Global Warming researchers were claiming that the Earth was falling into an Ice Age.

Really? Name one.

The actual facts

[ChaoticLimbs]

Okay folks- take this quiz- What is the largest contributor of CO2 to the atmosphere?
A: vulcanism.
What is the second largest contributor of CO2 to the atmosphere?
A: Decomposition of organic materials. (soil production)
What is the Third largest contributor of CO2 to the atmospere?
A: Rocks.
ROCKS? How can that be?! Rocks are inert!
A: Igneous rocks are naturally carbonated due to the high levels of CO2 dissolved in the earth's magma. (boiling hot MAGMA) . This CO2 is released anytime a rock gets wet and erodes. It's a small amount, but unfortunately there are a great many rocks. Like, a million.
I do not deny that humans impact the environment with our activity. Certainly any feasable action to limit our impact should be undertaken. I am not sure that we need to bicycle to work, though. Environmentalism is reasonable and prudent. Environmental activism is a disease. Hug a tree if it makes you feel good, but realize that extreme lefty environmental activism is a ruse for marxism, and that most of the damage men used to wreak upon the ecology has been outlawed. Our cars are cleaner every year. Hell, even our sport utility vehicles get 18-25 mpg. The main reason we buy THOSE is because the CARB emission rules killed the full size car. There was an exemption for light trucks, so people who needed large cars just buy them higher off the ground. There is no way for a family of seven to use a Toyota Prius for anything worthwhile.
Many environmental activists have a conspiracy theory based mindset, and believe all corporate entities want to fuck up the world. If this was insanely profitable, I would agree with them. In real life, auto manufacturers see fuel cell tech and other high mileage/high efficiency technology as a huge selling point. They see it as a sales advantage. Believe it or not, there is no conspiracy between auto manufacturers and oil companies. Car companies want to sell cars that use less fuel. Oil companies want to use their oil to make more profitable things than gasoline. As a complex hydrocarbon, petroleum has immense potential as a base for synthetic material production. From it, even sugar can be synthesized. (but I'm sure you wouldn't eat sugar made from motor oil no matter what, would you?-- If it was pure and identical to cane sugar, why not?)

Environmentalist = Communist in Drag

[jgardn]

Your chemicals that are purported to have such a harmful affect on the environment are not as dangerous as you think.

DDT got a lot of bad rap in the newspapers, but there isn't solid science yet to prove that it is dangerous to the environment. It was banned purely for political reasons that had nothing to do with science and everything to do with sensationalism.

And as far as cancer-causing agents? I think this is hilarious. The "scientific" community takes rats that are genetically predisposed to cancer, even in a clean environment, and then feed them enormous amounts of these chemicals. When one or two of them get cancer, it is declared as a carcinogen.

The environmental movement has nothing to do with hard facts or real science. They are motivitated by the same thing that motivates most people out there: sensationalism and "feelings".

And you claim that environmentalists rely on scientific observations. Balogna. The only observation they pay attention to is the observation of their bank accounts, and the effect of their dumb-headed propaganda on the masses.

The environmental movement in America is best described as "Communism in drag". All they want to do is disrupt American industry, our right to eat, drink, wear, and use the things we want, and our right to drive whatever car we would like. They are all about limiting freedom and expanding government. They are never about increasing individual rights.

True environmentalists realize that taking away rights from people is not the way to go about preserving the environment. The best way is to operate within the bounds of law and common sense and buy land and turn it into a preserve. Another good way is to do responsible research and show the facts to the companies, and have them cooperate willingly rather than at the opoint of a gun.

This myth about companies being unwilling to clean up their act is hogwash. The presidents of these companies are people like you and I. They want to see the world as clean as the next guy. They aren't willing to spend millions of dollars on an environmental fad that has no solid background, just like you aren't willing to buy snake oil.