Cuba
Junior Member
"In the 1950s the polar bear population up north was estimated at 5,000. Today it's 20- to 25,000, a number that has either held steady over the last 20 years or has risen slightly. In Canada, the manager of wildlife resources for the Nunavut territory of Canada has found that the population there has increased by 25 percent."
Ask The Experts - Polar Bears International
These are rough estimates, but they support the 500% increase claim.
I think we agree on a lot of this, but for me I don't really believe that we humans are the major contributor to climate change nor do I believe that humans have the power to control the weather at this point. Just opinions, but there apparently isn't much raw data available to either support or refute those opinions. Due to fraud. Why is it that these scientists, and the UN, and Obama and Gore, only seem focussed on the human contribution to climate change? Gore's movie was a propaganda piece painting us as the root cause of climate change (then called global warming), but it was based on this same fraudulent data and seems to have ignored the millions of years of data that show massive climate swings throughout history, preindustrial history. We can't effect sun spots, or supernovae, or the Earth's fluctuating distance from the sun, or the amount of CO2 that our oceans contain or fail to contain. We can reduce CO2 emissions caused by the burning of fossil fuels, but this has a direct effect on quality of life if done too rapidly or without proper planning. Drastic increases in cost, as cap and tax would cause, has a direct effect on the entire economy. Unemployment, reinvestment, research and development, innovation, etc. It's not a simple, black and white argument, yet that is the picture they have tried to sell us. Do it now or we all die. Now we find that these scientists have an agenda and have comitted fraud to support that agenda, it casts the facts themselves into doubt, let alone the theories based on those "facts".
I am actively involved in reducing carbon footprints in the US, we founded a company specifically for this purpose focussed on energy controls- smart buildings that actively track, report, and reduce energy consumption. Convia is the product I mentioned before, but it also includes simpler fixes such as high efficiency lighting, lighting design for less waste, thermal screens, etc. The goal is to reduce total energy consumption for buildings as much as possible without reducing the quality of the space, meaning you could greatly reduce your usage by working in the dark and wearing thermal underwear but we'd rather just reduce as much of the waste and inefficiency without impacting quality of life. I believe we can and should make significant changes, but not based on armeggedon scares and massive government controls and taxation.
Businesses can and are making these changes due to cost more than goodwill if we're being honest. If you can reduce your utilities expenses by 30% a year without feeling it, you will. The same is true for government agencies, schools, hospitals, state agencies facing budget constraints. And yes an unnatural increase in costs would further increase this pressure, but balance is needed. Technology and innovation are the creative responses to reduction, taxation and government control of production are over simplistic and penalty based responses to a perceived emergency that is in serious doubt right now. We are being led rather than being involved, they are using fear and fraud to create the change they want, which also happens to afford them control and personal wealth. Obama helped to found the only carbon exchange in the country, I think he's still on the board? Al Gore's investments and potential gains from cap and tax legislation are public knowledge, and huge.
2009 is the coldest of the past 10 years according to NOAA:
Global Average Temperatures Are Down - Planck Time
and the cooling trend began at the turn of the century:
A record cool summer has descended upon many parts of the U.S. after predictions of the "year without a summer." There has been no significant global warming since 1995, no warming since 1998 and global cooling for the past few years. (Also see: Scientists Write Open Letter to Congress: 'Earth has been cooling for ten years' - 'Present cooling was NOT predicted by the alarmists' computer models, and has come as an embarrassment to them' - July 1, 2009)
Earth's 'Fever' Breaks! Global temperatures 'have plunged .74°F since Gore released An Inconvenient Truth' | Climate Depot
There just seems to be too much conflicting and unexplained data, separate from the recent fraud concerns, to make the types of conclusions and wild claims that have been going around. Scientists who have chosen to ignore and discredit conflicting data and theories are not advancing our knowledge or ability to make educated decisions. The Inconvenient Truth implies that Al Gore actually knows the truth, based on selected incomplete and fraudulent data that flies in the face of recent cooling trends. He has made no statements explaining the cooling or the fraudulent practices of his partners in the climate change game. Why is that? Transparent analysis of sound scientific data, open debate supported by the facts, honest assumptions on cause and effect, a plan with a clear goal in terms of what the human race actually thinks it can do to improve overall quality of life in the long term- more Obama type rhetoric that I believe in but am not seeing here.
China, India, Eastern Europe, and other emerging industrial nations are the keys to curbing global emissions and without them on board the only thing the US gets from cap and trade is massive tax increases on virtually everything we buy, making us even less competitive globally and reducing our quality of life without the plus side of halting global armeggedon in it's path. Copenhagen never was going to be the answer, but with this scandal showing up it is not looking good. Hopefully the outcome of all of this will be a call for open, transparent, honest debate, where dissenting opinions are not only allowed but encouraged, with the goal of greater understanding being paramount to partisan political gain.
Ask The Experts - Polar Bears International
These are rough estimates, but they support the 500% increase claim.
I think we agree on a lot of this, but for me I don't really believe that we humans are the major contributor to climate change nor do I believe that humans have the power to control the weather at this point. Just opinions, but there apparently isn't much raw data available to either support or refute those opinions. Due to fraud. Why is it that these scientists, and the UN, and Obama and Gore, only seem focussed on the human contribution to climate change? Gore's movie was a propaganda piece painting us as the root cause of climate change (then called global warming), but it was based on this same fraudulent data and seems to have ignored the millions of years of data that show massive climate swings throughout history, preindustrial history. We can't effect sun spots, or supernovae, or the Earth's fluctuating distance from the sun, or the amount of CO2 that our oceans contain or fail to contain. We can reduce CO2 emissions caused by the burning of fossil fuels, but this has a direct effect on quality of life if done too rapidly or without proper planning. Drastic increases in cost, as cap and tax would cause, has a direct effect on the entire economy. Unemployment, reinvestment, research and development, innovation, etc. It's not a simple, black and white argument, yet that is the picture they have tried to sell us. Do it now or we all die. Now we find that these scientists have an agenda and have comitted fraud to support that agenda, it casts the facts themselves into doubt, let alone the theories based on those "facts".
I am actively involved in reducing carbon footprints in the US, we founded a company specifically for this purpose focussed on energy controls- smart buildings that actively track, report, and reduce energy consumption. Convia is the product I mentioned before, but it also includes simpler fixes such as high efficiency lighting, lighting design for less waste, thermal screens, etc. The goal is to reduce total energy consumption for buildings as much as possible without reducing the quality of the space, meaning you could greatly reduce your usage by working in the dark and wearing thermal underwear but we'd rather just reduce as much of the waste and inefficiency without impacting quality of life. I believe we can and should make significant changes, but not based on armeggedon scares and massive government controls and taxation.
Businesses can and are making these changes due to cost more than goodwill if we're being honest. If you can reduce your utilities expenses by 30% a year without feeling it, you will. The same is true for government agencies, schools, hospitals, state agencies facing budget constraints. And yes an unnatural increase in costs would further increase this pressure, but balance is needed. Technology and innovation are the creative responses to reduction, taxation and government control of production are over simplistic and penalty based responses to a perceived emergency that is in serious doubt right now. We are being led rather than being involved, they are using fear and fraud to create the change they want, which also happens to afford them control and personal wealth. Obama helped to found the only carbon exchange in the country, I think he's still on the board? Al Gore's investments and potential gains from cap and tax legislation are public knowledge, and huge.
2009 is the coldest of the past 10 years according to NOAA:
Global Average Temperatures Are Down - Planck Time
and the cooling trend began at the turn of the century:
A record cool summer has descended upon many parts of the U.S. after predictions of the "year without a summer." There has been no significant global warming since 1995, no warming since 1998 and global cooling for the past few years. (Also see: Scientists Write Open Letter to Congress: 'Earth has been cooling for ten years' - 'Present cooling was NOT predicted by the alarmists' computer models, and has come as an embarrassment to them' - July 1, 2009)
Earth's 'Fever' Breaks! Global temperatures 'have plunged .74°F since Gore released An Inconvenient Truth' | Climate Depot
There just seems to be too much conflicting and unexplained data, separate from the recent fraud concerns, to make the types of conclusions and wild claims that have been going around. Scientists who have chosen to ignore and discredit conflicting data and theories are not advancing our knowledge or ability to make educated decisions. The Inconvenient Truth implies that Al Gore actually knows the truth, based on selected incomplete and fraudulent data that flies in the face of recent cooling trends. He has made no statements explaining the cooling or the fraudulent practices of his partners in the climate change game. Why is that? Transparent analysis of sound scientific data, open debate supported by the facts, honest assumptions on cause and effect, a plan with a clear goal in terms of what the human race actually thinks it can do to improve overall quality of life in the long term- more Obama type rhetoric that I believe in but am not seeing here.
China, India, Eastern Europe, and other emerging industrial nations are the keys to curbing global emissions and without them on board the only thing the US gets from cap and trade is massive tax increases on virtually everything we buy, making us even less competitive globally and reducing our quality of life without the plus side of halting global armeggedon in it's path. Copenhagen never was going to be the answer, but with this scandal showing up it is not looking good. Hopefully the outcome of all of this will be a call for open, transparent, honest debate, where dissenting opinions are not only allowed but encouraged, with the goal of greater understanding being paramount to partisan political gain.
