.

Keystone Sludge Asks: "May We Borrow America?"

Climate change is not in America's best interests. We need the Keystone Pipeline like a hole in the head.

 “We can be the generation that finally frees America from the tyranny of oil.”
— President Barack Obama


I am strongly opposed to the approval of the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline. And, brothers and sisters, you should be, too—passionately, adamantly, with the urgency of fleeing a burning building, with your child in your arms.

There will be a march against permitting Keystone XL Pipeline to “borrow” America, on Feb. 17 at City Hall in Los Angeles.* 

It will be in support of the largest climate march in history—in Washington D.C. on the same day.


I hope I can convince you to join the local march, or at least explain why it is so important to me. Here is why I will be there:

Keystone XL of Canada wants to pump extremely “dirty” tar sands – 800,000 barrels/day - thousands of miles, through our country, to be exported overseas.   And forcing some off their land to do it.

Producing and processing tar sands oil results in roughly 14 percent more greenhouse gas emissions than the average oil used in the U.S.  See

 

How Much Will Tar Sands Oil Add to Global Warming?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=tar-sands-and-keystone-xl-pipeline-impact-on-global-warming


Looking at the historical records of carbon-dioxide levels and global temperatures, we see a strong connection between the two. Temperatures have rapidly increased. Climate scientists have carefully looked for the reasons: Is it changing Earth orbits, sunspots, solar intensity, cosmic rays, water vapor, volcanoes, Earth’s “wobble” on its axis, etc.?


Answer: For our current rapid warming, increased carbon-dioxide levels (up almost 40 percent) emerge as by far the main factor in resetting the earth’s “thermostat." Click here to read a comparison of "Is it Fact or Fraud?" see

 

Global Warming Debate is No Debate At All

 http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2013/01/global-warming-debate-is-no-debate-at-all/



We have known about carbon dioxide's warming effects for more than 116 years (first published by Svante Arrhenius), so it is not such a surprise. One can easily demonstrate its warming ability in a high school science lab. It's like a blanket you can't take off - for hundreds of years.

So, how would using the Keystone tar sands effect Americans? Is it a boon, or a boondoggle? Click here and decide for yourself whether Dr. James Hansen, chief climate scientist at NASA, is right or wrong about the arguments in his New York Times oped, "Game Over for the Climate". See

 

Game Over for the Climate

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/10/opinion/game-over-for-the-climate.html?_r=1&



"Moving to tar sands, one of the dirtiest, most carbon-intensive fuels on the planet, is a step in exactly the opposite direction, indicating either that governments don't understand the situation or that they just don't give a damn," writes Dr. Hansen. "People who care should draw the line."
“If Canada proceeds, and we do nothing, it will be game over for the climate," he adds.

Why? We are currently at 390 ppm (parts per million) of carbon-dioxide. If only 50 percent of the tar sands were exploited, carbon-dioxide would increase by about 62 ppm, bringing us past the "red line" of 450 ppm, where our climate would likely be out of control and nothing we do could stop the tragic consequences for us all.   At this point, sea levels would rise to 50 feet higher than now.


To see what a large sea level rise looks like, check out the global sea level rise map by clicking here. The link will take you to a website where you can explore what, for example, a 40-foot (13M) sea level rise looks like in maps of New York, Venice, San Francisco, New Orleans, the Netherlands, the East Coast, etc. See

Cost: Trillions of dollars and hundreds of millions of climate refugees and battered lives.

Global Sea Level Rise Map

http://geology.com/sea-level-rise/



And of course, it is the poor who will be most hurt. So, this is also a social justice issue.  A wise man once asked,  "If I am for myself only, what am I?"


Exploiting the Canadian tar sands would also gobble up boreal forests the size of Florida and destroy their ability to take up carbon dioxide.

Some in Congress will tell you America will benefit greatly from Keystone. They say it will reduce the price of oil. Actually, it may actually raise the price of Midwest oil, according to the Christian Science Monitor. See

 

How much would Keystone pipeline help US consumers?

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/46689167/ns/us_news-christian_science_monitor/t/how-much-would-keystone-pipeline-help-us-consumers/%22%20/l%20%22.UQVUzOj-2IY

 

Or, they say, we need the 6 billion dollars the project would bring.  But, if the CO2 emissions bring just one more Katrina and one more Sandy and just one more Midwest drought than “normal” (and it will, at least!) our nation will be hit with a $200 billion bill.

Some will tell you we need this oil because it will create jobs. Will it? Not much.  Not only are those jobs numbers exaggerated*** but far more jobs are created in stimulating Green Energy.**

Some will say it will increase “energy security,” and there is no reason not to approve Keystone. (Yet I feel far less secure, looking at Keystone.)  That is like a junkie saying, “I would feel so much better if I could get my heroin locally.”

Tell Mr. Obama we just don’t want to gamble that virtually every climate scientist—and our own citizens’ experience with a pattern of off-the-charts drought, storms, forest fires, sea level rise, and rapid melting of ancient Arctic ice—is wrong.

Tell Mr. Obama we strongly support his views given in his recent inaugural speech.  He is asking for  your support.


Come to the march against the Keystone XL Pipeline gathering on Feb. 17 at City Hall.*

Me? I’m going to take the Gold Line to Union Station and walk from there.
 ----------------------------------
*http://www.wilderutopia.com/february-17th-rally-solve-the-climate-crisis-take-a-stand-mr-obama/
Sunday, Feb. 17, 1 p.m.
Starting Place: Olvera Street, the southwest side of Paseo De La Plaza.
Destination: City Hall, South Side Steps.

** About 136,000 people work in the coal industry, according to the National Mining Association. However, the number of green employees far exceeds this—in each of three states along. For example, New York has more than 185,000 green workers, already bypassing the national coal employee numbers. On top of that, Texas has upwards of 144,000 green employees, and California—not surprisingly—has a whopping 318,000-plus green laborers.
U.S. Green Technology (http://s.tt/1wvTY)

*** In Pipe Dreams? Jobs Gained, Jobs Lost by the Construction of Keystone XL, (PIPE DREAMS? - Cornell University School of Industrial and Labor)

 

The Global Labor Institute says more jobs could be destroyed than created by the pipeline. 

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

not Carl Peterson lll February 24, 2013 at 07:21 AM
More government: Obama's science adviser John Holdren wrote about the coming ice age. He also wrote an essay in the 70's with Paul Ehlrlich. ” appears in a 1971 Washington Post article that warns of an impending ice age within 50 years. Ehlrich wrote The population bomb in 1968. The essay was about overpopulation and the potential for ecocide. James Hansen One of the high priests of global warming, and head at NASA, ” appears in a 1971 Washington Post article that warns of an impending ice age within 50 years. http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=873 “U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming,” blares the headline of the July 9, 1971, article, which cautions readers that the world “could be as little as 50 or 60 years away from a disastrous new ice age, a leading atmospheric scientist predicts.” As we read one after another all in unison about a new ice age, and sure enough to cause extreme concern and action. It was so far, 100% wrong. These are the same agencies and THE SAME PEOPLE, that want to give not only the opposite doom and gloom, but now with falsified data, and trillions of dollars in the balance. The amount of money is a million time more than any oil company has ever seen. THIS is big money. Every government agency was on the new ice age in the 70's, is following the leader, and jobs, grants, carbon trading are all in the balance of this train that had a lot of momentum. It has peaked I believe.
not Carl Peterson lll February 24, 2013 at 07:37 AM
Mr Freed, No one wants to believe that politics, and money are in the way of truth. As I wrote the first sentence, I had tob laugh at myself. "Politics, and money in the way" is not a stretch in anyone's mind. However we really want our scientists to give the truth. I suggest that the great majority do. But it is agenda's, politics, and money that have clouded the climate debate. When someone wants to check real data, and question, to be labeled derogatory names, and shunned is a cult, not science. I am not 100% sure of any of this. I never have. But what I see is a little science, fraud, questionable motives, trillions of dollars, and no real answers. So yes I question it. I am not in full conclusion. But if it was real, they wouldn't have to lie. Since when is questioning questionable scientific method, a reason to be shunned? Respectfully Jiggy....."Marty"
not Carl Peterson lll February 24, 2013 at 07:43 AM
Just a little add-on to the end of 10:46 P.M. sat If the temperatures had not risen from the 1850 period, we would still be in a little ice age.
not Carl Peterson lll February 24, 2013 at 08:46 AM
EXTRA CREDIT: Wikipedia: Had eliminated thousands of refferences to the truth about hockystickgate. I understand things might have changed now. It was a surprise to me to learn this is only one of many other subjects that have been selectively altered.....politics again. This is the version now, and it is long http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy Here is the wiki selective editing: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020515/climategate-the-corruption-of-wikipedia/ This would be a view from the other side, which just gets right down to the emails http://www.conservapedia.com/Climategate_emails So, if you ever wonder why people can be so polarized, it begins in our minds, but now our media is allowing us to travel down that road like never before. It is both sides, and the gap is growing.
not Carl Peterson lll February 25, 2013 at 12:49 AM
Steve, It is a bit confusing where we are in regards with "akdart". Because of the amount of links, and the broad spectrum the sources come from, I won't link the site as a refference. He is all over the place, and might be fun as a spin the wheel and read what comes up surprise. As this comment section continued, I found better links, that so far pass the smell test. I might even change my overall thought a quarter turn.My stance was: *** It's not real ***They are conspiring ***Their isn't any global warming Even if that was 100% accurate, it will not change anyones mind. There is just way to big of an immediate rejection. Can you change someones political party in an hour? No. An easier to digest stance, also seams to be my clarification on the subject. It is as follows: Weather or not there is global warming, it depends on the time period, who's graph and charts you believe. I want to know as much as anyone. However with all of the skewed data, peer pressure, A toss out of the true "scientific method", and billions of dollars in the balance, It is impossible to come to a conclusion either way. Those who have been fraudulent have actually hurt the cause, and are in the way of what needs to be done.
not Carl Peterson lll February 25, 2013 at 07:54 AM
Mr. Freed, If I wrote an article, I sure would not want someone like me attacking every point. It takes way to much time to respond with all the different perspectives. Every comment I made, I was sincerely torn between my wanting to call out what i think is false, and being more low key by simply asking for back-up for statements. Also, Your name is out there for all to see, as I am pretty much anonymous. As I commented to Steve B. earlier, my position has changed a bit. ...... .....Weather or not there is global warming, it depends on the time period, who's graph and charts you believe. Weather or not to include data that may be compromised, or altered. I want to know as much as anyone. However with all of the skewed data, peer pressure, A toss out of the true "scientific method", and billions of dollars in the balance, It is impossible to come to a conclusion either way. Those who have been fraudulent have actually hurt the cause, and are in the way of what needs to be done. You are working for your good cause. I applaud you for that. .
Jan Freed February 25, 2013 at 06:46 PM
The $100 million doubt machine would have you believe that there are significant "differences in scientific views" about climate change, that we can't possibly make up our minds because there is legitimate scientific controversy. Your charts or my charts, your data or my data - it's all a matter of "choice" which ones to believe. How convenient for the fossil fuel industry is this muddling, dithering attitude. They would call the opposing views of The National Academy of Sciences and writers for wattsupwiththat a "tie", or views of The Royal Academy of Sciences (once Sir Isaac Newton was a member) and "scientists" who used to work for Big Tobacco (and now work for Big Oil) as somehow equivalent. Just differences of opinion, right? We need to be far more selective when we consider the sources of data, interpretation, and policy. The World Bank (not easily duped, I would think; not socialists either, but ardent capitalists) tell us what will happen when earth's expected temperatures increase by 4 degrees C. http://climatechange.worldbank.org/sites/default/files/Turn_Down_the_heat_Why_a_4_degree_centrigrade_warmer_world_must_be_avoided.pdf
not Carl Peterson lll February 26, 2013 at 02:59 AM
Jan Freed, We trash each others sources. You claim Fossil fuel industry, and "scientists" who used to work for big tobacco. I state that politics, agenda's, and big money cloud the issue. The amount of money backing a rebuttal to the climate debate is a spoonful compared with the proponents of this hoax. Have you read any material from the sites I link? You link a report by the "not easily duped" world bank. Bank? They are the duper, not the dupee. 1) Reuters continues: Last year, the Bank doubled its funding for countries seeking to adapt to climate change, and now operates $7.2 billion in climate investment funds in 48 countries. World Bank President and Bilderberg elitist Robert Zoellick openly admitted the plan to eliminate national sovereignty and impose a global government during a speech on the eve of the G20 summit. .THE REPORT YOU LINKED: in the first paragraph, we see the report is a what if.... Gee what if no one changes anything, and lets what if that means temps rise 4% C. If that report is 100% accurate, its' still a what if, compounded by an assumption of zero changes to our trajectory of our interaction with our enviromnet. 2) "Boundaries between politics and science are completely blurred in the structure of the IPCC". that statement was made by Hans schellinburger who has been a longstanding member of the IPCC. HE IS THE FOUNDER OF THE POSTDAM INST. that made this what if report. The report then uses the false data from the IPCC!!! continued.
not Carl Peterson lll February 26, 2013 at 03:08 AM
So, the report is a what if. It uses the same corrupt data, by the same corrupt people already mentioned above. That is the common thread here. Same data, and same people recycled to different governments and people. This is a good example why i state it is not some grand conspiricy, but people with different reasons going with the flow. My information is gathered from everywhere. I don't quote things without checking other sources. Let me ask: 1) Have you read from the sites I link? 1) On a scale from 1-100%. how sure are you that global warming is.....as urgent and/or dire as you state?
not Carl Peterson lll February 26, 2013 at 07:44 AM
We were in a little ice age until the late 1800's, hit a peak in 1933, which we are about there again, and I would be worried if it continues this slide back down. The earth was warmer 7,000 of the last 10,000 years. Most of the greenhouse effect is water vapor Co2 is...... Plant food. Plants take the co2, and give us oxygen. A symbiotic relationship. The long history of the earths temps, and Carbon show that Carbon FOLLOWED increases in warmth by centuries. Cause does not follow its effect. Humans share of the greenhouse effect is less than 1%. During the cap-and-trade debates in 2009 and 2010, proponents cited scientific studies predicting that curtailing American CO2 emission reductions would shave a few hundredths of a degree off future temperatures. And the costs? The United Nations published an estimate that the total planetary cost could reach $552 trillion. Who would benefit from this catastrophically expensive agenda? Only the political and politically connected elite—the Goldman Sachs outfits that would reap billions from trading carbon permits; the Al Gores and corporate and political insiders that would amass fortunes from their ties to a government-rigged energy market and investments in politically correct technologies. No wonder governments have spent tens of billions of dollars promoting this scenario and supporting political panels like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to disseminate the desired “findings.”
SteveB February 27, 2013 at 12:43 AM
Speaking of ice, Arctic sea ice that is, there is a clear trend to be seen from 1979 (the onset of the satellite record) to the record low set in 2012: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2013/02/Figure3.png
William Korn February 27, 2013 at 01:27 AM
Indeed, SteveB. Not only that, but a number of climate researchers were caught by surprise, because their climate models didn't show the sea ice receding this fast. Subsequent research suggested that there were synergistic effects going on that earlier models did not include. That research explained those effects. That's why I say the science isn't settled yet, as Jan Freed has suggested. Not because I'm on the fence about whether or not global warming is happening, but about the size of the various factors contributing to global warming, as well as the size and nature of the effects. I don't think anyone "knows" those for sure yet. As for the continuing argument between Jiggy (aka Buzz) and Jan Freed, I notice they haven't taken my suggestion yet.
Jan Freed February 27, 2013 at 04:27 AM
"Climate Change and the Integrity of Science" Signed by 255 members of the National Academy of Sciences. "... For a problem as potentially catastrophic as climate change, taking no action poses a dangerous risk for our planet. ... The planet is warming due to increased concentrations of heat-trapping gases in our atmosphere. ...Most of the increase in the concentration of these gases over the last century is due to human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation." (2010) who go on to say There is always some uncertainty associated with scientific conclusions; science never absolutely proves anything. When someone says that society should wait until scientists are absolutely certain before taking any action, it is the same as saying society should never take action. For a problem as potentially catastrophic as climate change, taking no action poses a dangerous risk for our planet. Those wishing more facts my explore The National Climate Assessment www.globalchange.gov/what-we-do/assessment
not Carl Peterson lll February 27, 2013 at 08:57 AM
Mr.Freed, This game of wackamole is evovled into beating a dead horse. Your link above has a report. The chairman was the lead author of the IPCC climate report for 1990, and 1995. 8 of 13 of top people resposible for the report are also associated with the ICPP. Impartial? The majority are also linked with activist organizations. One of the main sources of info for the report came from.. the IPCC. Look at the beginning of the 1,400 page report. It is a sales job, using language that is not science, in order to stir up images of doom. Haven't we been here before? It is the same story EVERY SINGLE TIME. IT IS THE SAME PEOPLE, USING THE SAME FALSE DATA , REPACKAGED, AND RUBBERSTAMPED. You can keep throwing spagetti on the wall. Nothing will stick Think of it this way. It is not that scientist have gone bad and are conspiring. An agenda that some people have. They hire each other. They, with the government then hire a group of like minded to make a report that they need. So the report is concluded before it begins. Frankly I never knew it was anywhere as deep a problem as I am aware of know. I am on a new mission in life to expose this as much as I can. This criminal hoax must stop. Thank you for the push to learn more. But please do your own homework before you throw another panel, or report that uses the same data, and same people as all the others. Just remember this. We had a little ice age until the late 1800's. Lets hope we don't fall back into it.
not Carl Peterson lll February 27, 2013 at 09:13 AM
We all make mistakes. Perhaps you should recheck your science behind one of your facts. If Iread in correctly, you stated that this Keystone pipeline would be enough to raise the oceans 50 feet. Are you still with that? Take all your passion, and energy to do good, an put it in another direction. 20,000-30,000 children die every single day from starvation, and preventable diseases. Every single day.......Right now, this second thousands are slowly breathing their last painful breath. This is not a maybe.Thsi is real and now. I will spend the last 20 years of my life dedicating everything I have in probably the philippines feeding, and giving micro gifts, or micro loans to give families an opportunity to a path of self support. It is real, and now.
not Carl Peterson lll February 27, 2013 at 09:23 AM
Steve. I don't know which is correct, But they are different pictures. http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png That picture came from here. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/09/19/antarctic-sea-ice-sets-another-record/
Jan Freed February 27, 2013 at 01:01 PM
These folks are neither paid deniers (i.e. murderers and whores), dupes, or socialists. Before you dismiss it, check it out. LETTER RELEASE: Thirty-Eight Leading U.S. National Security Experts Urge Action on International Climate Change Initiatives http://www.psaonline.org/article.php?id=976 Mobilizing public and private support for international mitigation and adaptation projects in vulnerable communities must be a priority, the letter states. Signatories including seventeen former Senators and Congress members, nine retired generals and admirals, both the Chair and Vice Chair of the 9/11 Commission, and Cabinet and Cabinet-level officials from the Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush (41), Clinton, and Bush (43) administrations.
Jan Freed February 27, 2013 at 01:05 PM
Climate Change May Dry Up Important U.S. Reservoirs | The Energy ... http://theenergycollective.com/josephromm/191396/study-climate-change-may-dry-important-us-reservoirs-lake-powell-and-lake-mead By JosephRomm As climate change makes the regions of the West, Southwest, and Great Plains warmer and drier, water demand will continue to increase, and the combined effect will place an ever greater burden on the country's fresh water supplies.
William Korn February 27, 2013 at 05:30 PM
That's a low blow, Jan. From the beginning of this colloquy, I've agreed with the notion that the Keystone XL project should be deep-sixed, and that human beings should stop leaving giant carbon footprints all over our ecosphere. I've followed carbon-reducing practices to the extent my personal economics allow me to since well before they became popular, including the car I drive, which light bulbs and appliances I use in my home, recycling, and what I choose to carry my groceries around in. When home-based solar power becomes inexpensive enough for me to afford it (and it will), I'll use that, too. Your problem with me is not that I agree with your opinion about Keystone or carbon, but that I don't agree with it strictly and exclusively on your terms. You'll just have to live with that.
SteveB February 27, 2013 at 06:22 PM
Marty - they can both be correct - the one I linked to is the Arctic, those you linked to are for the Antarctic. Very different things going on in different locations. Both climates are changing, albeit in different ways. Incidentally, if you look at the site for the first pic you linked to, http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu, they have a lot of interesting discussion about the Arctic changes.
William Korn February 27, 2013 at 07:46 PM
Perhaps Jiggy/Buzz doesn't understand that global warming doesn't mean that God is putting the Earth in a cosmic oven. It's not going to heat up everywhere. Some places might get a lot colder than they are now. One interesting article I read presented a model that suggested if enough Arctic sea ice and ice-pack on Greenland were to melt, changes in oceanic currents could shut down the long-standing ocean circulation we call the Gulf Stream. The Gulf Stream helps keep north- and west Europe from having a climate like Siberia's.. Will that actually happen? I don't know, and neither did the author of the article. But it is a good example of how the effects of global warming could be distributed unevenly.
not Carl Peterson lll February 27, 2013 at 10:39 PM
W. Korn, Yes, climates do not change uniformly. My own visual (don't give this to the Skeptical science website), when I am traiL running on a hot day, as I am sweating, and breathing hard, my stomach feels cold. It is attempting to counter balance the overheating. "Thats a low blow Jan" you wrote at 9:30....did I miss something good?
not Carl Peterson lll February 28, 2013 at 12:11 AM
J Freed, This has become non sensical. If you followed up anything I mentioned, you might realize throwing up more names of groups does zero. Communication is not happening. As I prove my points, you attempt the same strategy of throwing up names. Your previous names, and points thus being abandoned must be concluded to be conceded. Your calling me complacent in the deaths of thousands per day, as I at the same time compliment your passion to de good, I believe expresses the tone of this discussion on a larger scale, as is here.
not Carl Peterson lll February 28, 2013 at 12:19 AM
THIS IS THE FIRST LINK http://seeker401.wordpress.com/2011/01/13/ipcc-green-doctor-prescribes-end-to-democracy-to-solve-global-warming-an-elite-warrior-leadership-to-battle-for-the-future-of-the-earth/
not Carl Peterson lll February 28, 2013 at 04:59 AM
copied, and reposted because it is still pendingf all day gitinjiggywitit 4:18 pm on Wednesday, February 27, 2013 Ladys and gentelmen, I have never mentioned this scam has a central conspiricy. However, I will let Professoror David Shearman speak for himself. professor who lectures in mainstream education and is involved in compiling the IPCC reports. The book is published by a respectable publisher for a recognized academic institute http://www.amazon.com/Climate-Challenge-Democracy-Politics-Environment/dp/031334504X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1361918245&sr=1-1&keywords=the+climate+challenge+and+the+failure+of+democracy The second link above is where you can buy it on Amazon ...
not Carl Peterson lll February 28, 2013 at 05:39 AM
More, Your link above... http://www.globalchange.gov/what-we-do/assessment It uses the word extreme over 600 times. "Certain types of extreme" ".intensity of extreme", "more extreme" "extreme high" "extreme low".... "Precipitation averaged over the entire U.S. has increased during the period 3 since 1900,"....but wait Freed, You state that it means less rain. Perhaps it is the same deal as always.... WHATEVER HAPPENS WITH ANY WEATHER IN THE WORLD, BLAME IT ON GLOBAL WARMING. It goes on..."Precipitation averaged over the entire U.S. has increased during the period 3 since 1900, but regionally some areas have had increases greater than the 4 national average, and some areas have had decreases" Wow! weather can vary year to year huh? Wow the end of the world! "U.S. average temperature has increased by about 1.5°F since record keeping 34 began in 1895";......We were beginning to come out of an ice age, the most major of climate changes for hundreds or thousands of years. Yet absolutely no mention of that when they make their alarmism report. A TRUE SCIENTIFIC REPORT WOULD NOT ELIMINATE THAT. It is the continual example of a sales job. Everything in all these reports are the same. Anyone with logic, and not pre-biased, can sit back and see this throughout this and the other reports. It is scary how people have sat back and inhaled all this garbage. This is the polution.
not Carl Peterson lll February 28, 2013 at 06:04 AM
MORE ." More winter and spring precipitation is projected for 8 the northern U.S., and less for the Southwest, over this century" "Droughts in the Southwest and heat waves everywhere are projected to become more intense in the future." "With regard to other types of storms that affect the U.S., winter storms have increased slightly in frequency and intensity",..o.k .. The report goes on to name every type of weather in all regions, it then claims that every one of the points are because of global warming, it is extreme of course, and listen to this......every single which way of these reports is speciffically the correct way it would go because of global warming,...and much more is EXPECTED. Just in case the point is lost here. All weather events...all..as in more or less rain, for every single region, more, or less snow, cold, hot, wind etcc is ALL GOING THIS WAY BECAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING. So a region that had lets say more rain, is not going to be a drought area in the future. Because they know!!! Therefore, If one state is getting more snow, THAT WILL INCREASE. Now, what are the odds that all of the weather events everywhere is indicating global warming? Anyone with a fifth grade education, can see this does not pass the logic test. My god, Stop, look, and do logic I am now going to take on "skeptical science", once I see who is really backing them. (still hidden), I will let you know. Buzz Lightyear..To infinity.. and beyond>>>>>>>>
not Carl Peterson lll March 02, 2013 at 07:14 AM
I thought that perhaps Freed was seeing the logic, and reflecting. But as I look at his last posts which calls people who are questioning the blatent lies... -----"paid deniers (i.e. murderers and whores)"------ And directly at me from an earlier post: -----"complacent in the deaths of thousands per day---" But he had no content with a scientific answer. I was embarrassed for you, and did not want to press the issue when you were folding. However, you are on automatic mode, and can not bring yourself to look. Sometimes our greatest moments in life are the ones that cause pain. We have all been there, me many times. If you want this whole blog erased somehow, I will leave it at that. And by the way ....No global warming?.....remember, thats a good thing. Celebrate!
not Carl Peterson lll March 04, 2013 at 08:55 AM
CLOSING THE OZONE HOLE ACTUALLY SPEEDS UP MELTING OF THE POLAR ICE CAPS!! http://www.livescience.com/9899-happened-hole-ozone-layer.html The ozone hole can be another whole debate, however, my first statement i read from reading a global warming alarmist website. But as it is now, I can't buy primatine mist anymore, because that lifesaving little bit of mist that I inhale, savesme....but somehow, this whole planet will die from it..... Now one would have to go to a doctor, get a prescription, and a pharmacy Cost before $22.00 available almost anywhere over the counter. cost now $300.00-400.00 including doctor. If you need it "now". Go to emergency, then your $22 over the counter is $1,000 plus.....They, or we taxpayers pay....THIS is what the scam, hoax brings, and is only the beginning.. In the meantime G.E among others got to make tons of money of the ozone Disclaimer: there might be one in the works that will be over the counter.
not Carl Peterson lll March 08, 2013 at 08:39 AM
I spent some time looking at the suggested site "skeptical science". I really am concerned for our country. This site is simply the same garbage, in an organized fashion. One with a thinking brain, and the ability to allow a new thought will be able to learn the truth. If anyone spent a liitle time researching both sides, the whole alarmist hoax falls apart. We are in the end stage of this social phenomenon where junk science is swallowed so easily by so many. People stuck thinking through emotions and propaganda, for a length of time is dangerous. If one simply learns what b.s the "consensus" lie is it would open your eyes. I have read every point. It falls apart quickly. As the "coming ice age", and the "population bomb" that would "kill off hundreds of millions" in the 70's, and the Alar scare twenty five years ago, this will fade away. The liars and crooks will tell more lies that will allow ego's of the kool-aid drinkers to walk away unscathed, and ready for the next hoax. Some of the same key players will rise again to begin a new scheme. But I believe this one, here now, will go down in history, and our grankids will laugh and wonder how could we of fallen for such filth. Well, I believe there is a Mr. Ponzi somewhere in the after life, wanting to ask Bernie Madoff the same thing. I won't change anyones mind hitting hard. Ego's won't allow that. Good luck to those who refuse to simply look. I can't help you anymore

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »