Birth control could help combat climate change

[ELVIS]

Seven days and eight years post 911 (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9APOM880&show_article=1)

"There is now an emerging debate and interest about the links between population dynamics, sexual and reproductive health and rights, and climate change," the commentary says.

In countries with access to condoms and other contraceptives, average family sizes tend to fall significantly within a generation. Until recently, many U.S.-funded health programs did not pay for or encourage condom use in poor countries, even to fight diseases such as AIDS.

The world's population is projected to jump to 9 billion by 2050, with more than 90 percent of that growth coming from developing countries.

It's not the first time lifestyle issues have been tied to the battle against global warming. Climate change experts have previously recommended that people cut their meat intake to slow global warming by reducing the numbers of animals using the world's resources.

The Lancet editorial cited a British report which says family planning is five times cheaper than usual technologies used to fight climate change. According to the report, each $7 spent on basic family planning would slash global carbon dioxide emissions by more than 1 ton.

Experts believe that while normal population growth is unlikely to significantly increase global warming that overpopulation in developing countries could lead to increased demand for food and shelter, which could jeopardize the environment as it struggles with global warming.


:elvis:

[Kristy]

1.

"If those women had access to free condoms or other birth control methods, that could slow rates of population growth, possibly easing the pressure on the environment, the editors say."

Fuck you, you bunch of sexist racist hippies

and...

2.

"There is now an emerging debate and interest about the links between population dynamics, sexual and reproductive health and rights, and climate change," the commentary says."

Oh, so it's the woman responsible for climate change according to this unfounded, researched stupid-as-shit sexist story, is it!?! In that case, why have condoms when you can depopulate a certain gender in its place? And as for this "emerging debate" who, exactly, are these emerging debaters? Horny males with small penises who want to drive their Hummers on private land? Hey, I have an idea - instead of condoms we just castrate 60% of the male population from birth? Why I'm sure the same of idiots who wrote this shit must also believe the testosterone is responsible for so much of the aggression in the world, right? And how is cutting down on meat intake supposed to help the planet when it takes just about as much carbon emissions to pull corn from the ground or vegetables from the vine?

Also

3. According to the report, each $7 spent on basic family planning would slash global carbon dioxide emissions by more than 1 ton.

People in developing counties populate because they suffer form a lack of proper education, dietary heath and environmental safety. Many don't have 1/1000th of penny to their name much less $7 to plan anything for the future. They fuck out of boredom as well as survival. Hardly a "lifestyle issue" when one considers the population growth in the poorest of the poor places on earth expounds out of necessity and not personal luxury. A true "lifestyle issue" is buying a lawnmower, a 2-stroke jet ski, outside bar-b-que with friends or burning wood to keep your sorry ass warm on cold winter nights which does have some founded scientific basis in climate change than a inefficient supply of condoms. As for condoms reducing the spread of AIDS (oh, and let's face it, this story is also cloaked in racism) in places such as Africa or the lower 1/3 of Asia is also a myth when you factor in the unsanitary conditions of these places; many recycle if you get my drift even to the point of using their own feces as fertilizer to grow food they can barely eat. Just how many of the estimated 9 billion will live past the age of 10?

Whenever I read shit like this draped in a veneer of lame unfounded scientific methods and sexist innuendoes it all comes down the haves and have nots with the haves feeling threatened by the latter.

[ELVIS]

You're mostly correct, except the innuendos are eugenicist in nature, not sexist...


;)

[Seshmeister]

Surely it's not eugenics to reduce the birth rate in 3rd world countries to the same as ours asap.

It's obvious that if humans are increasing climate change then more humans will increase climate change more. Current projections are that India is going to overtake China in population in our lifetime.

Population seems to be stable or falling in richer countries but it seems to be a danger that if things keep going the way they are then then the 3rd world countries may never get to that point.

The catholic and various evangelical US churches have to take a lot of blame in this in Africa.

That said there are pricks here on the fringes who want to try and ban people having more than 1 kid even when we have a falling population with 1.4 kids or whatever for every couple and these people need to fuck off.

[ELVIS]

But would there not still be climate change even if humans never existed ??

[bueno bob]

But would there not still be climate change even if humans never existed ??

Certainly not on the level we have now.

Of course, humans DO exist and global warming IS happening, so that's kind of a ridiculous question to ask. I could similarly ask "What if Krypton was actually real?", but it's not going to give us Superman.

[Nitro Express]

Global warming is a natural cycle and this has been proven by drilling ice samples out of the huge Antartic ice pack that has existed for several hundred thousand years. By carbon dating the particles in the ice layers an interesting pattern emerges. The earth has had an ice age every 100,000 years and then warms up for the last 20,000 years of the cycle. We peak out before we slide back into another ice age for 80,000 years. The earth will still be here but most of us won't.

[Nitro Express]

Most of the world's environmental and eugenics none sense comes from the Rothchilds clan. Their head spokesman on the matter is David Rothchild while his daddy buys up crashed assets like Leman Brothers cheap. So yeah, it's the haves using fear to have more.

[Nitro Express]

Africa is a victim of the International Monetary Fund and The World Bank. Both are ran behind the scenes by the Rothchilds who have been in banking for over 200 years. They want the raw resources and the agriculture but they also want vast parts of it as wildlife refuges so they can go and enjoy it. As far as the native black people, they want to kill them off. Maybe keep a few to use as slaves to run the agriculture and work in the mines. Maybe have some tribes left for interests. As one of the Rothchilds said,"Men are machines and women are toys." They view us as cattle.

[GO-SPURS-GO]

As one of the Rothchilds said,"Men are machines and women are toys."

Sounds about right to me! :biggrin: j/k

[standin]

GsG,
Your avatar, what is the name of the painting and the artist who created it ?
I like it a lot, just wondering...

[ELVIS]

Certainly not on the level we have now.



Prove it...

[bueno bob]

Prove it...

Without humans, we'd have neither of these on the planet. I don't need to "prove" that...it's pretty obvious that the following two pictures would NOT exist here without us.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-016-03/images/coalplant.jpg

http://www.stoth.com/wp-content/plugins/wp-o-matic/cache/84689_car-exhaust-fumes1.jpg

Motor vehicles are responsible for almost a quarter of annual US emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), the primary global-warming gas. The US transportation sector emits more CO2 than all but three other countries' emissions from all sources combined. And motor vehicle emissions will continue to increase as more vehicles hit America's roads and the number of miles driven grows.

Three factors contribute to CO2 emissions from cars and trucks:

* Amount of fuel used
* Amount of CO2 released when a particular fuel is consumed
* Number of vehicle miles traveled

Combating global warming requires reducing all of these factors. This necessitates increased fuel efficiency, switching to renewable fuels, and less driving.

NRDC: Global Warming Basics (http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/f101.asp)

Carbon dioxide and other air pollution that is collecting in the atmosphere like a thickening blanket, trapping the sun's heat and causing the planet to warm up. Coal-burning power plants are the largest U.S. source of carbon dioxide pollution -- they produce 2.5 billion tons every year. Automobiles, the second largest source, create nearly 1.5 billion tons of CO2 annually.

Global Warming - U.S. Autos Account for Half of Global Warming Linked to Cars Worldwide (http://environment.about.com/od/globalwarming/a/autoemissions.htm)

U.S. automobiles and light trucks are responsible for nearly half of all greenhouse gases emitted by automobiles globally, according to a new study by Environmental Defense.

The study, Global Warming on the Road [PDF], also found that the Big Three automakers—General Motors, Ford and DaimlerChrysler—accounted for nearly three-quarters of the carbon dioxide released by cars and pickup trucks on U.S. roads in 2004, the latest year for which statistics were available.

“Cutting greenhouse gas emissions from U.S. automobiles will be critical to any strategy for slowing global warming,” said John DeCicco, author of the report and senior fellow at Environmental Defense, in a press release. “To address global warming, we’ll need a clear picture of what sources are contributing to the problem. This report details, by automaker and vehicle type, the greenhouse gas contributions from America's auto sector, for the first time.”

***

There. Proof that global warming wouldn't exist on the (unnatural) level that we have now without human interference.

No humans = no coal burning = no auto emissions = LESS warming.

Very simple. Amazing that America is virtually the ONLY civilized country left on this planet that still has people arguing about that.

[Blackflag]

But the article isn't talking about the U.S. - it's talking about "developing countries." People are always trying to control populations in those damn "developing countries."

[Terry]

But the article isn't talking about the U.S. - it's talking about "developing countries." People are always trying to control populations in those damn "developing countries."


while simultaneously exploiting them.

What's gonna happen when all these developing countries become industrialized and embrace democracy?

Outlook not so good for America.

Ah, well. World is gonna end in 3 years anyway.

[GO-SPURS-GO]

GsG,
Your avatar, what is the name of the painting and the artist who created it ?
I like it a lot, just wondering...

I googled "Good vs. Evil" (the name of our upcoming CD) to look for a cool CD cover and I found this image. It was on a myspace page. I sent him a message asking for permission to use it as our CD cover, but he never responded. So I'm guessing it's not his work. Here's the code if you want to have it, just reply to this comment and use it. :)

<img src="http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/5917/goodvevil.jpg" alt="Image Hosted by ImageShack.us"/><br/> <a target="_new" href="http://profile.imageshack.us/user/"></a>

[Seshmeister]

You could check 5 results - TinEye (http://tineye.com/search/848320ffaabfdc86fe93a8966533a13cc09be217)

[standin]

Thanks GsG! I'll look it up...

Wow! Sesh! That tineye is absolutely a great link!

[GO-SPURS-GO]

You could check 5 results - TinEye (http://tineye.com/search/848320ffaabfdc86fe93a8966533a13cc09be217)

Man, that photobucket one looks cool, and you can blow it up and it doesn't lose it's quality. The one I have is only a 1 inch by 1 inch, so when you blow it up to CD size, it looks horrible.

[ELVIS]

Yo Bob, hate to break it to ya, but carbon dioxide is not a pollutant!


:biggrin:

[Seshmeister]

Mr E you keep posting that but it's either semantics or just plain incorrect depending on the definition of the word you choose.

from Homepage | Dictionary.com (http://www.dictionary.com)


pollutant

pol⋅lu⋅tant
  /pəˈlutnt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [puh-loot-nt] Show IPA
Use pollutant in a Sentence
See web results for pollutant
See images of pollutant
–noun
1. something that pollutes.
2. any substance, as certain chemicals or waste products, that renders the air, soil, water, or other natural resource harmful or unsuitable for a specific purpose.


It's maybe not a perfect way to describe it but an increase in CO2 renders our atmosphere harmful so can be described as a pollutant.

[ELVIS]

Explain how it renders the atmosphere harmful, please...

[bueno bob]

Explain how it renders the atmosphere harmful, please...

Did you not read what I posted?

"Motor vehicles are responsible for almost a quarter of annual US emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), the primary global-warming gas."

and as Sesh followed up:

"2. any substance, as certain chemicals or waste products, that renders the air, soil, water, or other natural resource harmful or unsuitable for a specific purpose."

Carbon dioxide and other air pollution that is collecting in the atmosphere like a thickening blanket, trapping the sun's heat and causing the planet to warm up. Coal-burning power plants are the largest U.S. source of carbon dioxide pollution -- they produce 2.5 billion tons every year. Automobiles, the second largest source, create nearly 1.5 billion tons of CO2 annually.

Can't make it any simpler than that.

[ELVIS]

I cannot believe you're falling for such an outright LIE!

[sadaist]

global warming IS happening

http://www.soillgang.com/images/timesbullshit.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_h4DmQs6KDaM/SM4cxapV-oI/AAAAAAAAACg/33qE2dDTcaA/s1600/global-cooling.jpg

[binnie]

Surely it's not eugenics to reduce the birth rate in 3rd world countries to the same as ours asap.

It's obvious that if humans are increasing climate change then more humans will increase climate change more. Current projections are that India is going to overtake China in population in our lifetime.

Population seems to be stable or falling in richer countries but it seems to be a danger that if things keep going the way they are then then the 3rd world countries may never get to that point.

The catholic and various evangelical US churches have to take a lot of blame in this in Africa.

That said there are pricks here on the fringes who want to try and ban people having more than 1 kid even when we have a falling population with 1.4 kids or whatever for every couple and these people need to fuck off.

Ding-ding, we have a winner.

That being said, the tone of the article was somewhat sexist. The idea that it is somehow the women of the third world who need to learn about condoms is laughable......

[standin]

Yo Bob, hate to break it to ya, but carbon dioxide is not a pollutant!


:biggrin:

Even oxygen can be a pollutant to humans.
Oxygen toxicity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_toxicity)
Oxygen therapy - infants: MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia (http://medlineplus.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/007242.htm)

[ELVIS]

Global Warming Lies (http://www.globalwarminglies.com/)

Every Climatologist will tell you the Earth's temperature has been much hotter and colder than it is now.

There was an Ice Age and it warmed up, there was a Mini Ice Age just 500 years ago and it has been warming up ever since. The Industrial Revolution was not around during those periods.

NASA reports because of Solar Flares the Sun is the hottest it has been in over 100 years. There are no cars on the sun.

Global warming is causing ice to melt on Mars. There are no cars on Mars.

Thousands and thousands of studies and experiments prove that more carbon dioxide produces better fruits, vegetables, trees and almost any sort of plant life.

Most of the temperature increase happened before 1940 (Before most carbon dioxide was released by cars and factories)

The hot year of 1998 was caused by El Nino.

Joining the Kyoto Protocol would cost the U.S. approximately $400 Billion every year and would have virtually no effect on earths temperature.

April 28, 1975 Newsweek printed an article about scientists predicting doom and gloom because of Global Cooling.

Climate models do not take into account water vapor that is 95&#37; of the atmosphere.

The United Nations left out two statements that were supposed to be in the final draft of a paper on Global Warming.

1) “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.”
2) “No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man–made causes”

There are six billion people on Earth, a colder climate and/or less carbon dioxide would have devastating effects worldwide.

If you don't believe global warming will destroy the earth you will be accused of working for an oil company.



Ways to stop producing carbon dioxide

Stop breathing - When you exhale you release carbon dioxide

Dont drive - We all know how bad driving is

Don't live in a house/apartment/condo or any building that uses gas or electricity - Homes produce 2-3 times as much carbon as cars.

Don't wear shoes or any sort of clothing produced in a factory. Grow a cotton field and make your own clothes by hand.

Quit school - Those school buildings produce more carbon in a year then you do in 20 years.

Eat meat raw - Whether you're using gas or electric both produce carbon dioxide.

Turn off this monitor and computer - You hypocrite.

Don't use toilets, urinate or poo in your back yard.- The water to your house is cleaned and sent to your house using pumps that use electricity.

Stop exercising - Increasing your heart rate increases the amount of oxygen you take in and turn into carbon dioxide.

Die - Dying younger means you will do all of the above less. Living one year less means you will save the earth 8.4 tons of carbon dioxide every year you're not here!

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/xzSzItt6h-s&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/xzSzItt6h-s&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>


:elvis:

[ZahZoo]

You forgot to mention the sun is in a downward 11 year cycle that produces significantly lower solar flares that started last year. Within that time period we recorded the most significant average drop in temperature globally since records were being kept since the 1800's...

During this time... human produced greenhouse gases were continuing to increase.

The solar cycles and effect on the earth's temperatures isn't crack-pot science. There's a far larger scope of things going on beyond this infestation of humans on this planet...

[ELVIS]

Thank you...

[Seshmeister]

Dumb and dumberer.

If the internet had been developed with the same scientific rigor as you guys bring to climatology this thread would be scribbled on some soggy papyrus. :)

[ELVIS]

UmmHmmm...

[Mushroom]

In the End Mother Earth will Win

[ELVIS]

No, God and his people will...

[Mushroom]

For all intents and purposes, Mother Earth is your God. When it's all said and done Earth will be the last one standing. In the End Mother Earth will Win.

[ELVIS]

Believe what you want. No WAY is earth my God!

[Mushroom]

it should be simple to figure out Humans cannot not have an effect on Earth's climate. But it's simply asinine to forget or ignore all natural causes that also affect climate. The Earth has been warming for the last 10,000 years.

[ELVIS]

Nooo!!!!!

It's cars and coal!!!

[Mushroom]

you forgot to include airplane contrails

[Nickdfresh]

Look at flatearther and Jeebus discuss "science." How quaint...:)

[ELVIS]

Hopefully, science will catch up...

[Seshmeister]

Hopefully the US education system will...

[jhale667]

Hopefully, science will catch up...

To superstition? Good luck with that...:biggrin:

[ELVIS]

Sesheep...:rolleyes:

[ZahZoo]

Dumb and dumberer.

If the internet had been developed with the same scientific rigor as you guys bring to climatology this thread would be scribbled on some soggy papyrus. :)

Wait a darn minute there Professor Sesh... when the heck did you become a climatologist??

I know I'm not educated in the field but it has been an interest of mine since I was kid. I read a lot of scientific journals and tend to take the internet and TV sources with a grain of salt.

So help me and Mr Elvis out here... what's your expert take on the climatology and where all this crap is taking the planet?

[Nitro Express]

If a virus killed all the human beings the earth would just consolidate anything we have done into itself and go on being the earth because all the matter we manipulated was from the earth. So the earth is going nowhere, we are.

If you want to talk natural pollution I can take you to the geyser basins of Yellowstone not far from where I live. The air smells like a nasty chemical plant. Then those of you in LA know all about the natural pollution of brush and forrest fires. Then we have the big polluters. Volcanoes.

[Seshmeister]

This is the third time the volcano misinformation has come up in these forums in the last few months.

I'm guessing it's some spin the gasoline lobby are throwing out over there at the moment?

I answered GAR on this before the figures are pretty easy to find.

http://www.rotharmy.com/forums/front-line/54701-retarded-manchild-allowed-speak-house-committee-2.html#post1342913


Not unusually there is a terrible fucking flaw in your argument. Someone has of course done the calculations. In fact lots of people have. Strangely enough the worlds scientists don't sit about doing nothing waiting for you to come up with ideas.

Secondly the answer is that each year volcanoes emit 200 million tons of CO2 which sounds a lot. It used to be a lot more than humans do. Unfortunately humans are now up to 27 billion metric tons, the US accounts for over 6 billion alone.

So to answer your question people create over 100 times more greenhouse gasses and the US over 20 times more than all the volcanoes in the world.

[Seshmeister]

Wait a darn minute there Professor Sesh... when the heck did you become a climatologist??


I am completely not which is my point.

Every climatologist in the world though thinks that human CO2 output is fucking us up and going to really fuck us up shortly. I trust this consensus of climatologist because I know the scientific method works.

The sunspots thing is a side issue, it does make things get warmer or cooler but that is beside the point. Again thats not my opinion, that's the opinion of all the people that are qualified to speak on it.

Cheers!

:gulp:

[Big Train]

And those scientists who disagree are generally unqualified to speak, or so the rationale goes...

[Nickdfresh]

I am completely not which is my point.

Every climatologist in the world though thinks that human CO2 output is fucking us up and going to really fuck us up shortly. I trust this consensus of climatologist because I know the scientific method works.

The sunspots thing is a side issue, it does make things get warmer or cooler but that is beside the point. Again thats not my opinion, that's the opinion of all the people that are qualified to speak on it.

Cheers!

:gulp:


This is absolutely correct. No serious climatologists dispute that man-made CO2 is altering the atmosphere as recent climate change acceleration directly corresponds with not only the industrial age, but with the dawning of organized agriculture. I see part of the fuckwit arguments here are that cows farting has more of an impact than say our cars. But the main contradiction in all that is that there would be no massive numbers of farting cows existing without the human need for agriculture and dairy farming. The only serious scientific debate now is how much we can actually do, or undo, about it...

The only debates is the retarded seeding of the interweb with misinformation by special interest groups that fool the undereducated simpletons like Jesus-Juice up there...

[Nickdfresh]

And those scientists who disagree are generally unqualified to speak, or so the rationale goes...

Those scientists of "dissenting opinion" are generally less than five percent of any given global climate change conference. Yet they're numbers and opinions are presented often way out of correspondence with their actual numbers, and even out of context as their arguments are often morphed into something they never intended...

[Big Train]

I didn't realize you were attending these conferences and taking copious notes on their positions....

Because they are a small number, they are considered unworthy, because the majority disagree? When they say history repeats itself, this is what they mean...the world is flat...

[Baby's On Fire]

I cannot believe you're falling for such an outright LIE!

So says Jesus Christ, our Holy Lord and saviour.

And of course our republican douchebags who put profits and re-election ahead of the health of the World populace....

My GAWD what a half-fuckwhit

[Nickdfresh]

I didn't realize you were attending these conferences and taking copious notes on their positions....


I didn't need to. It's well documented...


Because they are a small number, they are considered unworthy, because the majority disagree? When they say history repeats itself, this is what they mean...the world is flat...

I didn't say that. I'm saying that even a majority of climate scientists who question the precepts of global warming would not agree with how their work is being used by a corporate media...

[ELVIS]

I didn't realize you were attending these conferences and taking copious notes on their positions....



My thoughts exactly...

[Nickdfresh]

My thoughts exactly...

Which conferences have you two opinionated bozos attended?

[GAR]

I think the air is cleaner than ever before in history because we no longer burn coal or wood for our stoves.

With MORE CO2 in the atmosphere, things would get alot cooler due to solid particulates blocking the sun's rays..

[ELVIS]

"CO2 for different people has different attractions. After all, what is it? - it’s not a pollutant, it’s a product of every living creature’s breathing, it’s the product of all plant respiration, it is essential for plant life and photosynthesis, it’s a product of all industrial burning, it’s a product of driving – I mean, if you ever wanted a leverage point to control everything from exhalation to driving, this would be a dream. So it has a kind of fundamental attractiveness to bureaucratic mentality." - Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science, MIT

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is not pollution and Global Warming has nothing to do with pollution. The average person has been misled and is confused about what the current Global Warming debate is about, greenhouse gases. None of which has anything to do with air pollution.

People are confusing Smog, Carbon Monoxide (CO) and the pollutants in car exhaust with the life supporting, essential trace gas in our atmosphere, Carbon Dioxide (CO2). Pollution is already regulated under the Clean Air Act and regulating Carbon Dioxide (CO2) will do absolutely nothing to make the air you breath "cleaner". Regulating Carbon Dioxide (CO2) emissions through either 'Carbon Taxes' or 'Cap and Trade' policies will cause energy prices (electricity, gasoline, diesel fuel, propane, heating oil ect...) to skyrocket.


"CO2 is not a pollutant. In simple terms, CO2 is plant food. The green world we see around us would disappear if not for atmospheric CO2. These plants largely evolved at a time when the atmospheric CO2 concentration was many times what it is today. Indeed, numerous studies indicate the present biosphere is being invigorated by the human-induced rise of CO2. In and of itself, therefore, the increasing concentration of CO2 does not pose a toxic risk to the planet." - John R. Christy, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Alabama

"Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant but a naturally occurring, beneficial trace gas in the atmosphere. For the past few million years, the Earth has existed in a state of relative carbon dioxide starvation compared with earlier periods. There is no empirical evidence that levels double or even triple those of today will be harmful, climatically or otherwise. As a vital element in plant photosynthesis, carbon dioxide is the basis of the planetary food chain - literally the staff of life. Its increase in the atmosphere leads mainly to the greening of the planet. To label carbon dioxide a "pollutant" is an abuse of language, logic and science." - Robert M. Carter, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental and Earth Sciences, James Cook University

"Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. On the contrary, it makes crops and forests grow faster. Economic analysis has demonstrated that more CO2 and a warmer climate will raise GNP and therefore average income. It's axiomatic that bureaucracies always want to expand their scope of operations. This is especially true of EPA, which is primarily a regulatory agency. As air and water pollution disappear as prime issues, as acid rain and stratospheric-ozone depletion fade from public view, climate change seems like the best growth area for regulators. It has the additional glamour of being international and therefore appeals to those who favor world governance over national sovereignty. Therefore, labeling carbon dioxide, the product of fossil-fuel burning, as a pollutant has a high priority for EPA as a first step in that direction." - S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia

"Carbon and CO2 (carbon dioxide) are fundamental for all life on Earth. CO2 is a colorless, odorless, non-toxic gas. CO2 is product of our breathing, and is used in numerous common applications like fire extinguishers, baking soda, carbonated drinks, life jackets, cooling agent, etc. Plants' photosynthesis consume CO2 from the air when the plants make their carbohydrates, which bring the CO2 back to the air again when the plants rot or are being burned." - Tom V. Segalstad, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental Geology, University of Oslo

"To suddenly label CO2 as a "pollutant" is a disservice to a gas that has played an enormous role in the development and sustainability of all life on this wonderful Earth. Mother Earth has clearly ruled that CO2 is not a pollutant." - Robert C. Balling Jr., Ph.D. Professor of Climatology, Arizona State University

"Many chemicals are absolutely necessary for humans to live, for instance oxygen. Just as necessary, human metabolism produces by-products that are exhaled, like carbon dioxide and water vapor. So, the production of carbon dioxide is necessary, on the most basic level, for humans to survive. The carbon dioxide that is emitted as part of a wide variety of natural processes is, in turn, necessary for vegetation to live. It turns out that most vegetation is somewhat 'starved' for carbon dioxide, as experiments have shown that a wide variety of plants grow faster, and are more drought tolerant, in the presence of doubled carbon dioxide concentrations. Fertilization of the global atmosphere with the extra CO2 that mankind's activities have emitted in the last century is believed to have helped increase agricultural productivity. In short, carbon dioxide is a natural part of our environment, necessary for life, both as 'food' and as a by-product." - Roy Spencer, Ph.D. Meteorology

"I am at a loss to understand why anyone would regard carbon dioxide as a pollutant. Carbon dioxide, a natural gas produced by human respiration, is a plant nutrient that is beneficial both for people and for the natural environment. It promotes plant growth and reforestation. Faster-growing trees mean lower housing costs for consumers and more habitat for wild species. Higher agricultural yields from carbon dioxide fertilization will result in lower food prices and will facilitate conservation by limiting the need to convert wild areas to arable land." - David Deming, Ph.D. Professor of Geology and Geophysics, University of Oklahoma

"Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is a colorless, odorless trace gas that actually sustains life on this planet. Consider the simple dynamics of human energy acquisition, which occurs daily across the globe. We eat plants directly, or we consume animals that have fed upon plants, to obtain the energy we need. But where do plants get their energy? Plants produce their own energy during a process called photosynthesis, which uses sunlight to combine water and carbon dioxide into sugars for supporting overall growth and development. Hence, CO2 is the primary raw material that plants depend upon for their existence. Because plants reside beneath animals (including humans) on the food chain, their healthy existence ultimately determines our own. Carbon dioxide can hardly be labeled a pollutant, for it is the basic substrate that allows life to persist on Earth." - Keith E. Idso, Ph.D. Botany

"Atmospheric CO2 is required for life by both plants and animals. It is the sole source of carbon in all of the protein, carbohydrate, fat, and other organic molecules of which living things are constructed. Plants extract carbon from atmospheric CO2 and are thereby fertilized. Animals obtain their carbon from plants. Without atmospheric CO2, none of the life we see on Earth would exist. Water, oxygen, and carbon dioxide are the three most important substances that make life possible. They are surely not environmental pollutants." - Arthur B. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Chemistry

Defined

"Carbon Dioxide (CO2) - A colourless, odourless gas produced by burning carbon and organic compounds and by respiration, and absorbed by plants in photosynthesis." - Compact Oxford English Dictionary

"Carbon Dioxide (CO2) - A heavy colorless odorless atmospheric gas. Source: respiration, combustion. Use: during photosynthesis, in refrigeration, carbonated drinks, fire extinguishers." - Encarta Dictionary

"Carbon Dioxide (CO2) - A heavy colorless gas that does not support combustion, dissolves in water to form carbonic acid, is formed especially in animal respiration and in the decay or combustion of animal and vegetable matter, is absorbed from the air by plants in photosynthesis, and is used in the carbonation of beverages." - Merriam-Webster Dictionary

"Carbon Dioxide (CO2) - A colorless, odorless, incombustible gas, CO2, formed during respiration, combustion, and organic decomposition and used in food refrigeration, carbonated beverages, inert atmospheres, fire extinguishers, and aerosols." - The American Heritage Dictionary

"Carbon Dioxide (CO2) - A colorless, odorless, incombustible gas that is produced naturally in breathing, combustion, and decomposition, and commercially for use in dry ice, fire extinguishers, and carbonated beverages." - Wordsmyth Dictionary


Carbon Dioxide

- Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is a natural part of Earth's Atmosphere (NASA)
- Carbon Dioxide (CO2) levels in the atmosphere have risen from 0.028&#37; to 0.038% (380ppm) over the past 100 years (IPCC)
- Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is not toxic until 5% (50,000ppm) concentration (Source)
- Any detrimental effects of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) including chronic exposure to 3% (30,000ppm) are reversible (Source)
- OSHA, NIOSH, and ACGIH occupational exposure standards are 0.5% (5,000 ppm) Carbon Dioxide (CO2) (Source)


Kyoto Protocol

The Kyoto Protocol is a treaty to regulate 'Greenhouse Gases' only:
- Carbon dioxide (CO2)
- Methane (CH4)
- Nitrous oxide (N2O) (Laughing Gas, Nitrous, NOS)
- Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs)
- Perfluorocarbons (PFCs)
- Sulphur hexafluoride (SF6)


Car Exhaust

Car Exhaust consists of:
Harmless:
- Carbon dioxide (CO2)
- Nitrogen (N2)
- Water vapor (H2O)
Some Pollutants:
- Carbon monoxide (CO) *
- Hydrocarbons or Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) *
- Nitric oxide (NO) *
- Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) *
- Particulate matter (PM-10) *
- Sulfur dioxide (SO2) *

* Your car's Catalytic Converter removes about 95% of these pollutants by converting them to Water and Carbon Dioxide (CO2)


Smog

Smog consists of:
- Ozone (O3) * (formed from the photochemical reaction of Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) + Hydrocarbons)
- Particulate matter (PM-10) *
- Sulfur dioxide (SO2) *



:elvis:

[Nickdfresh]

LOL Water is good. We needz more waterz. Waterz is stuff of life. Water grate. How can water be bad?????


http://www.vetaid.org/assets/general&#37;20shots/content-image-flood.jpg

Gullible retards suckered by the oil and gas lobby...

[ELVIS]

No serious climatologists dispute that man-made CO2 is altering the atmosphere as recent climate change acceleration directly corresponds with not only the industrial age, but with the dawning of organized agriculture.

Hahahahaha!!!

What a dumbass...

[Nickdfresh]

Hahahahaha!!!

What a dumbass...

Don't be so hard on yourself, Flo...

[ELVIS]

Tell me, wise one, how organized agriculture increases CO2...

[Nickdfresh]

Tell me, wise one, how organized agriculture increases CO2...

Well retard, organized agriculture requires fertilizer and soil organics which drastically increase the dumping of carbons into the atmosphere while at the same time remove deciduous forests --and tree leaves-- which can soak up some of the carbon. Modern fertilizers are in fact made from petrochemicals which only makes things worse since we're dependent on oil not just for our cars, but for our food...

Do we have to explain everything to you? Or do you try to fill the abundant lapses in your basic prior-knowledge with only the shit you WANT to beLIEve?

[Seshmeister]

"CO2 for different people has different attractions. After all, what is it? - it’s not a pollutant, it’s a product of every living creature’s breathing, it’s the product of all plant respiration, it is essential for plant life and photosynthesis, it’s a product of all industrial burning, it’s a product of driving – I mean, if you ever wanted a leverage point to control everything from exhalation to driving, this would be a dream. So it has a kind of fundamental attractiveness to bureaucratic mentality." - Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science, MIT

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is not pollution and Global Warming has nothing to do with pollution. The average person has been misled and is confused about what the current Global Warming debate is about, greenhouse gases. None of which has anything to do with air pollution.

People are confusing Smog, Carbon Monoxide (CO) and the pollutants in car exhaust with the life supporting, essential trace gas in our atmosphere, Carbon Dioxide (CO2). Pollution is already regulated under the Clean Air Act and regulating Carbon Dioxide (CO2) will do absolutely nothing to make the air you breath "cleaner". Regulating Carbon Dioxide (CO2) emissions through either 'Carbon Taxes' or 'Cap and Trade' policies will cause energy prices (electricity, gasoline, diesel fuel, propane, heating oil ect...) to skyrocket.


"CO2 is not a pollutant. In simple terms, CO2 is plant food. The green world we see around us would disappear if not for atmospheric CO2. These plants largely evolved at a time when the atmospheric CO2 concentration was many times what it is today. Indeed, numerous studies indicate the present biosphere is being invigorated by the human-induced rise of CO2. In and of itself, therefore, the increasing concentration of CO2 does not pose a toxic risk to the planet." - John R. Christy, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Alabama

"Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant but a naturally occurring, beneficial trace gas in the atmosphere. For the past few million years, the Earth has existed in a state of relative carbon dioxide starvation compared with earlier periods. There is no empirical evidence that levels double or even triple those of today will be harmful, climatically or otherwise. As a vital element in plant photosynthesis, carbon dioxide is the basis of the planetary food chain - literally the staff of life. Its increase in the atmosphere leads mainly to the greening of the planet. To label carbon dioxide a "pollutant" is an abuse of language, logic and science." - Robert M. Carter, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental and Earth Sciences, James Cook University

"Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. On the contrary, it makes crops and forests grow faster. Economic analysis has demonstrated that more CO2 and a warmer climate will raise GNP and therefore average income. It's axiomatic that bureaucracies always want to expand their scope of operations. This is especially true of EPA, which is primarily a regulatory agency. As air and water pollution disappear as prime issues, as acid rain and stratospheric-ozone depletion fade from public view, climate change seems like the best growth area for regulators. It has the additional glamour of being international and therefore appeals to those who favor world governance over national sovereignty. Therefore, labeling carbon dioxide, the product of fossil-fuel burning, as a pollutant has a high priority for EPA as a first step in that direction." - S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia

"Carbon and CO2 (carbon dioxide) are fundamental for all life on Earth. CO2 is a colorless, odorless, non-toxic gas. CO2 is product of our breathing, and is used in numerous common applications like fire extinguishers, baking soda, carbonated drinks, life jackets, cooling agent, etc. Plants' photosynthesis consume CO2 from the air when the plants make their carbohydrates, which bring the CO2 back to the air again when the plants rot or are being burned." - Tom V. Segalstad, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental Geology, University of Oslo

"To suddenly label CO2 as a "pollutant" is a disservice to a gas that has played an enormous role in the development and sustainability of all life on this wonderful Earth. Mother Earth has clearly ruled that CO2 is not a pollutant." - Robert C. Balling Jr., Ph.D. Professor of Climatology, Arizona State University

"Many chemicals are absolutely necessary for humans to live, for instance oxygen. Just as necessary, human metabolism produces by-products that are exhaled, like carbon dioxide and water vapor. So, the production of carbon dioxide is necessary, on the most basic level, for humans to survive. The carbon dioxide that is emitted as part of a wide variety of natural processes is, in turn, necessary for vegetation to live. It turns out that most vegetation is somewhat 'starved' for carbon dioxide, as experiments have shown that a wide variety of plants grow faster, and are more drought tolerant, in the presence of doubled carbon dioxide concentrations. Fertilization of the global atmosphere with the extra CO2 that mankind's activities have emitted in the last century is believed to have helped increase agricultural productivity. In short, carbon dioxide is a natural part of our environment, necessary for life, both as 'food' and as a by-product." - Roy Spencer, Ph.D. Meteorology

"I am at a loss to understand why anyone would regard carbon dioxide as a pollutant. Carbon dioxide, a natural gas produced by human respiration, is a plant nutrient that is beneficial both for people and for the natural environment. It promotes plant growth and reforestation. Faster-growing trees mean lower housing costs for consumers and more habitat for wild species. Higher agricultural yields from carbon dioxide fertilization will result in lower food prices and will facilitate conservation by limiting the need to convert wild areas to arable land." - David Deming, Ph.D. Professor of Geology and Geophysics, University of Oklahoma

"Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is a colorless, odorless trace gas that actually sustains life on this planet. Consider the simple dynamics of human energy acquisition, which occurs daily across the globe. We eat plants directly, or we consume animals that have fed upon plants, to obtain the energy we need. But where do plants get their energy? Plants produce their own energy during a process called photosynthesis, which uses sunlight to combine water and carbon dioxide into sugars for supporting overall growth and development. Hence, CO2 is the primary raw material that plants depend upon for their existence. Because plants reside beneath animals (including humans) on the food chain, their healthy existence ultimately determines our own. Carbon dioxide can hardly be labeled a pollutant, for it is the basic substrate that allows life to persist on Earth." - Keith E. Idso, Ph.D. Botany

"Atmospheric CO2 is required for life by both plants and animals. It is the sole source of carbon in all of the protein, carbohydrate, fat, and other organic molecules of which living things are constructed. Plants extract carbon from atmospheric CO2 and are thereby fertilized. Animals obtain their carbon from plants. Without atmospheric CO2, none of the life we see on Earth would exist. Water, oxygen, and carbon dioxide are the three most important substances that make life possible. They are surely not environmental pollutants." - Arthur B. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Chemistry

Defined

"Carbon Dioxide (CO2) - A colourless, odourless gas produced by burning carbon and organic compounds and by respiration, and absorbed by plants in photosynthesis." - Compact Oxford English Dictionary

"Carbon Dioxide (CO2) - A heavy colorless odorless atmospheric gas. Source: respiration, combustion. Use: during photosynthesis, in refrigeration, carbonated drinks, fire extinguishers." - Encarta Dictionary

"Carbon Dioxide (CO2) - A heavy colorless gas that does not support combustion, dissolves in water to form carbonic acid, is formed especially in animal respiration and in the decay or combustion of animal and vegetable matter, is absorbed from the air by plants in photosynthesis, and is used in the carbonation of beverages." - Merriam-Webster Dictionary

"Carbon Dioxide (CO2) - A colorless, odorless, incombustible gas, CO2, formed during respiration, combustion, and organic decomposition and used in food refrigeration, carbonated beverages, inert atmospheres, fire extinguishers, and aerosols." - The American Heritage Dictionary

"Carbon Dioxide (CO2) - A colorless, odorless, incombustible gas that is produced naturally in breathing, combustion, and decomposition, and commercially for use in dry ice, fire extinguishers, and carbonated beverages." - Wordsmyth Dictionary


Carbon Dioxide

- Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is a natural part of Earth's Atmosphere (NASA)
- Carbon Dioxide (CO2) levels in the atmosphere have risen from 0.028% to 0.038% (380ppm) over the past 100 years (IPCC)
- Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is not toxic until 5% (50,000ppm) concentration (Source)
- Any detrimental effects of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) including chronic exposure to 3% (30,000ppm) are reversible (Source)
- OSHA, NIOSH, and ACGIH occupational exposure standards are 0.5% (5,000 ppm) Carbon Dioxide (CO2) (Source)


Kyoto Protocol

The Kyoto Protocol is a treaty to regulate 'Greenhouse Gases' only:
- Carbon dioxide (CO2)
- Methane (CH4)
- Nitrous oxide (N2O) (Laughing Gas, Nitrous, NOS)
- Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs)
- Perfluorocarbons (PFCs)
- Sulphur hexafluoride (SF6)


Car Exhaust

Car Exhaust consists of:
Harmless:
- Carbon dioxide (CO2)
- Nitrogen (N2)
- Water vapor (H2O)
Some Pollutants:
- Carbon monoxide (CO) *
- Hydrocarbons or Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) *
- Nitric oxide (NO) *
- Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) *
- Particulate matter (PM-10) *
- Sulfur dioxide (SO2) *

* Your car's Catalytic Converter removes about 95% of these pollutants by converting them to Water and Carbon Dioxide (CO2)


Smog

Smog consists of:
- Ozone (O3) * (formed from the photochemical reaction of Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) + Hydrocarbons)
- Particulate matter (PM-10) *
- Sulfur dioxide (SO2) *



:elvis:

This is spectacularly silly.

The body needs all sorts of chemicals to survive but you you need the correct amounts in the correct places.

Nothing is all good or all bad, this is the danger of your Sunday superstition classes getting mixed in with real life knowledge.

If the methane fart gas in your colon was mixed with the oxygen from your lungs you could explode the next time you make a post like that one... :)

[Nickdfresh]

Yeah, car exhaust is mostly "harmless."

Then Elvis, take your bullshit retarded semantics and sit in your garage with the door shut and the Dodge Neon&#174; idling. You'll be fine. You've "proved" that with you interweb cut-and-pastes....

[ELVIS]

this is the danger of your Sunday superstition classes getting mixed in with real life knowledge.

If the methane fart gas in your colon was mixed with the oxygen from your lungs you could explode the next time you make a post like that one... :)

I happen to have an education, Sir. My Sunday classes and other Bible studies have no impact on my ability to think, do research and sort out information...

My question is why are you so skeptic on many issues but seem to just buy into this whole CO2 pollution thing ??

And Mr. Dickforbreath, "carbons" has little or nothing to do with CO2...


:elvis:

[ELVIS]

A Neon is an excellent car for todays economy and it's also quite clean...

[ELVIS]

More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims (http://warofillusions.wordpress.com/2009/06/03/these-700-scientists-challenge-theory-of-manmade-global-warming/)


Update: March 17, 2009: 59 Scientists Joint Senate Report

Update: January 28, 2009: James Hansen’s Former NASA Supervisor Declares Himself a SkepticUpdate: December 22, 2008: More Prominent Scientists Join Senate Report

Link to Full Printable 255-Page PDF Report

(Updates Previous Report: “More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims” released on Decmeber 11, 2008)

INTRODUCTION:

Over 700 dissenting scientists (updates previous 650 report) from around the globe challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore. This new 2009 255-page U.S. Senate Minority Report — updated from 2007’s groundbreaking report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming “consensus” — features the skeptical voices of over 700 prominent international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC. This updated report includes an additional 300 (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the initial release in December 2007. The over 700 dissenting scientists are more than 13 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers. The chorus of skeptical scientific voices grow louder in 2008 and 2009 as a steady stream of peer-reviewed studies, analyses, real world data and inconvenient developments challenged the UN’s and former Vice President Al Gore’s claims that the “science is settled” and there is a “consensus.” On a range of issues, 2008 and 2009 proved to be challenging for the promoters of man-made climate fears. Promoters of anthropogenic warming fears endured the following: Global temperatures failing to warm; Peer-reviewed studies predicting a continued lack of warming; a failed attempt to revive the discredited “Hockey Stick”; inconvenient developments and studies regarding rising CO2; the Spotless Sun; Clouds; Antarctica; the Arctic; Greenland’s ice; Mount Kilimanjaro; Global sea ice; Causes of Hurricanes; Extreme Storms; Extinctions; Floods; Droughts; Ocean Acidification; Polar Bears; Extreme weather deaths; Frogs; lack of atmospheric dust; Malaria; the failure of oceans to warm and rise as predicted.

In addition, the following developments further secured 2008 and 2009 as the years the “consensus” collapsed. Russian scientists “rejected the very idea that carbon dioxide may be responsible for global warming”. An American Physical Society editor conceded that a “considerable presence” of scientific skeptics exists. An International team of scientists countered the UN IPCC, declaring: “Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate”. India Issued a report challenging global warming fears. International Scientists demanded the UN IPCC “be called to account and cease its deceptive practices,” and a canvass of more than 51,000 Canadian scientists revealed 68&#37; disagree that global warming science is “settled.” A Japan Geoscience Union symposium survey in 2008 “showed 90 per cent of the participants do not believe the IPCC report.”

This new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s office of the GOP Ranking Member is the latest evidence of the growing groundswell of scientific opposition challenging significant aspects of the claims of the UN IPCC and Al Gore. Scientific meetings are now being dominated by a growing number of skeptical scientists. The prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists’ equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Norway in August 2008 and prominently featured the voices of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears. [See: Skeptical scientists overwhelm conference: '2/3 of presenters and question-askers were hostile to, even dismissive of, the UN IPCC' & see full reports here & here - Also see: UN IPCC's William Schlesinger admits in 2009 that only 20% of IPCC scientists deal with climate ]
Even the mainstream media has begun to take notice of the expanding number of scientists serving as “consensus busters.” A November 25, 2008, article in Politico noted that a “growing accumulation” of science is challenging warming fears, and added that the “science behind global warming may still be too shaky to warrant cap-and-trade legislation.” Canada’s National Post noted on October 20, 2008, that “the number of climate change skeptics is growing rapidly.” New York Times environmental reporter Andrew Revkin noted on March 6, 2008, “As we all know, climate science is not a numbers game (there are heaps of signed statements by folks with advanced degrees on all sides of this issue),” Revkin wrote. (LINK) In 2007, Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics “appear to be expanding rather than shrinking.”
Skeptical scientists are gaining recognition despite what many say is a bias against them in parts of the scientific community and are facing significant funding disadvantages. Dr. William M. Briggs, a climate statistician who serves on the American Meteorological Society’s Probability and Statistics Committee, explained that his colleagues described “absolute horror stories of what happened to them when they tried getting papers published that explored non-‘consensus’ views.” In a March 4, 2008, report Briggs described the behavior as “really outrageous and unethical … on the parts of some editors. I was shocked.” (LINK) [Note: An August 2007 report detailed how proponents of man-made global warming fears enjoy a monumental funding advantage over skeptical scientists. LINK A July 2007 Senate report details how skeptical scientists have faced threats and intimidation - LINK & LINK ]
Highlights of the Updated 2008/2009 Senate Minority Report featuring over 700 international scientists dissenting from man-made climate fears:

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” – Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical…The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.” – Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”
Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” – Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.
“So far, real measurements give no ground for concern about a catastrophic future warming.” - Scientist Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, a chemical engineer at Abo Akademi University in Finland, author of 200 scientific publications and former Greenpeace member.
“Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time.” - Solar physicist Dr. Pal Brekke, senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in Oslo. Brekke has published more than 40 peer-reviewed scientific articles on the sun and solar interaction with the Earth.

“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC “are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” – Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico

“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” – U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.
“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri’s asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it’s hard to remain quiet.” – Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society’s Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.
“The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round…A large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact,” Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher.
“I am convinced that the current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken…Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science.” – Award Winning Physicist Dr. Will Happer, Professor at the Department of Physics at Princeton University and Former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy, who has published over 200 scientific papers, and is a fellow of the American Physical Society, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Academy of Sciences.
“Nature’s regulatory instrument is water vapor: more carbon dioxide leads to less moisture in the air, keeping the overall GHG content in accord with the necessary balance conditions.” – Prominent Hungarian Physicist and environmental researcher Dr. Mikl&#243;s Z&#225;goni reversed his view of man-made warming and is now a skeptic. Z&#225;goni was once Hungary’s most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol.
“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?” – Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.
“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” – Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.
“The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil… I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science.” – South Afican Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.
“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” – Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.
“All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinkers and give some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling instead.” – Geophysicist Dr. Phil Chapman, an astronautical engineer and former NASA astronaut, served as staff physicist at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” – Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.
“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” – Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.
“The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” – Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.
“Whatever the weather, it’s not being caused by global warming. If anything, the climate may be starting into a cooling period.” Atmospheric scientist Dr. Art V. Douglas, former Chair of the Atmospheric Sciences Department at Creighton University in Omaha, Nebraska, and is the author of numerous papers for peer-reviewed publications.
“But there is no falsifiable scientific basis whatever to assert this warming is caused by human-produced greenhouse gasses because current physical theory is too grossly inadequate to establish any cause at all.” – Chemist Dr. Patrick Frank, who has authored more than 50 peer-reviewed articles.

“The ‘global warming scare’ is being used as a political tool to increase government control over American lives, incomes and decision making. It has no place in the Society’s activities.” – Award-Winning NASA Astronaut/Geologist and Moonwalker Jack Schmitt who flew on the Apollo 17 mission and formerly of the Norwegian Geological Survey and for the U.S. Geological Survey.

“Earth has cooled since 1998 in defiance of the predictions by the UN-IPCC….The global temperature for 2007 was the coldest in a decade and the coldest of the millennium…which is why ‘global warming’ is now called ‘climate change.’” – Climatologist Dr. Richard Keen of the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at the University of Colorado.

“I have yet to see credible proof of carbon dioxide driving climate change, yet alone man-made CO2 driving it. The atmospheric hot-spot is missing and the ice core data refute this. When will we collectively awake from this deceptive delusion?” – Dr. G LeBlanc Smith, a retired Principal Research Scientist with Australia’s CSIRO. (The full quotes of the scientists are later in this report)


#
This Senate report is not a “list” of scientists, but a report that includes full biographies of each scientist and their quotes, papers and links for further reading. The scientists featured in the report express their views in their own words, complete with their intended subtleties and caveats. This Senate report features the names, biographies, academic/institutional affiliation, and quotes of literally hundreds of additional international scientists who publicly dissented from man-made climate fears. This report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own words, biographies, and weblinks to their peer reviewed studies, scientific analyses and original source materials as gathered from directly from the scientists or from public statements, news outlets, and websites in 2007 and 2008.

The distinguished scientists featured in this new report are experts in diverse fields, including: climatology; geology; biology; glaciology; biogeography; meteorology; oceanography; economics; chemistry; mathematics; environmental sciences; astrophysics, engineering; physics and paleoclimatology. Some of those profiled have won Nobel Prizes for their outstanding contribution to their field of expertise and many shared a portion of the UN IPCC Nobel Peace Prize with Vice President Gore. Additionally, these scientists hail from prestigious institutions worldwide, including: Harvard University; NASA; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR); Massachusetts Institute of Technology; the UN IPCC; the Danish National Space Center; U.S. Department of Energy; Princeton University; the Environmental Protection Agency; University of Pennsylvania; Hebrew University of Jerusalem; the International Arctic Research Centre; the Pasteur Institute in Paris; the Belgian Weather Institute; Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; the University of Helsinki; the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S., France, and Russia; the University of Pretoria; University of Notre Dame; Abo Akademi University in Finland; University of La Plata in Argentina; Stockholm University; Punjab University in India; University of Melbourne; Columbia University; the World Federation of Scientists; and the University of London.

Background: Only 52 Scientists Participated in UN IPCC Summary

The notion of “hundreds” or “thousands” of UN scientists agreeing to a scientific statement does not hold up to scrutiny. (See report debunking “consensus” LINK) Recent research by Australian climate data analyst John McLean revealed that the IPCC’s peer-review process for the Summary for Policymakers leaves much to be desired. (LINK) (LINK) (LINK) & (LINK) (Note: The 52 scientists who participated in the 2007 IPCC Summary for Policymakers had to adhere to the wishes of the UN political leaders and delegates in a process described as more closely resembling a political party’s convention platform battle, not a scientific process – LINK)

One former UN IPCC scientist bluntly told EPW how the UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers “distorted” the scientists work. “I have found examples of a Summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said,” explained South Afican Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications. [Also see: Internal Report Says U.N. Climate Agency Rife With Bad Practices - Fox News – December 4, 2008 ]

Proponents of man-made global warming like to note how the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the American Meteorological Society (AMS) have issued statements endorsing the so-called “consensus” view that man is driving global warming. But both the NAS and AMS never allowed member scientists to directly vote on these climate statements. Essentially, only two dozen or so members on the governing boards of these institutions produced the “consensus” statements. This report gives a voice to the rank-and-file scientists who were shut out of the process. (LINK) [ Also See: MIT Climate Scientist Exposes ‘Corrupted Science’ in Devastating Critique – November 29, 2008 ]

One of the more recent attempts to imply there was an overwhelming scientific “consensus” in favor of man-made global warming fears came in December 2007 during the UN climate conference in Bali. A letter signed by only 215 scientists urged the UN to mandate deep cuts in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050. But absent from the letter were the signatures of these alleged “thousands” of scientists. (See AP article: - LINK ) The more than 700 scientists expressing skepticism, comes after the UN IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri implied that there were only “about a dozen” skeptical scientists left in the world. (LINK) Former Vice President Gore has claimed that scientists skeptical of climate change are akin to “flat Earth society members” and similar in number to those who “believe the moon landing was actually staged in a movie lot in Arizona.” (LINK) & (LINK)

Examples of “consensus” claims made by promoters of man-made climate fears:

Former Vice President Al Gore (November 5, 2007): “There are still people who believe that the Earth is flat.” (LINK) Gore also compared global warming skeptics to people who “believe the moon landing was actually staged in a movie lot in Arizona.” (June 20, 2006 – LINK)

CNN’s Miles O’Brien (July 23, 2007): “The scientific debate is over,” O’Brien said. ”We’re done.” O’Brien also declared on CNN on February 9, 2006 that scientific skeptics of man-made catastrophic global warming “are bought and paid for by the fossil fuel industry, usually.” (LINK)

On July 27, 2006, Associated Press reporter Seth Borenstein described a scientist as “one of the few remaining scientists skeptical of the global warming harm caused by industries that burn fossil fuels.” (LINK)

Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, Chairman of the IPCC view on the number of skeptical scientists as quoted on Feb. 20, 2003: “About 300 years ago, a Flat Earth Society was founded by those who did not believe the world was round. That society still exists; it probably has about a dozen members.” (LINK)

Agence France-Press (AFP Press) article (December 4, 2007): The article noted that a prominent skeptic “finds himself increasingly alone in his claim that climate change poses no imminent threat to the planet.”

Andrew Dessler in the eco-publication Grist Magazine (November 21, 2007): “While some people claim there are lots of skeptical climate scientists out there, if you actually try to find one, you keep turning up the same two dozen or so (e.g., Singer, Lindzen, Michaels, Christy, etc., etc.). These skeptics are endlessly recycled by the denial machine, so someone not paying close attention might think there are lots of them out there — but that’s not the case.” (LINK)

The Washington Post asserted on May 23, 2006 that there were only “a handful of skeptics” of man-made climate fears. (LINK)

UN special climate envoy Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland on May 10, 2007 declared the climate debate “over” and added “it’s completely immoral, even, to question” the UN’s scientific “consensus.” (LINK)

The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer said it was “criminally irresponsible” to ignore the urgency of global warming on November 12, 2007. (LINK)

ABC News Global Warming Reporter Bill Blakemore reported on August 30, 2006: ”After extensive searches, ABC News has found no such [scientific] debate” on global warming. (LINK)

#

While the scientists contained in this report hold a diverse range of views, they generally rally around several key points. 1) The Earth is currently well within natural climate variability. 2) Almost all climate fear is generated by unproven computer model predictions. 3) An abundance of peer-reviewed studies continue to debunk rising CO2 fears and, 4) “Consensus” has been manufactured for political, not scientific purposes.


:elvis:

[Nickdfresh]

Elvis, you're such a gullible little bitch. That infamous article has been debunked as politicized fraud with few of the "scientists" at all involved in climatology:


After assessing 687 individuals named as "dissenting scientists" in the January 2009 version of the United States Senate Minority Report, the Centre for Inquiry's Credibility Project found that:

- Slightly fewer than 10 per cent could be identified as climate scientists.
- Approximately 15 per cent published in the recognisable refereed literature on subjects related to climate science.
- Approximately 80 per cent clearly had no refereed publication record on climate science at all.
- Approximately 4 per cent appeared to favour the current IPCC-2007 consensus and should not have been on the list.

New Statesman - Fraser Nelson's climate change denial (http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/mehdi-hasan/2009/09/climate-global-monbiot)


Newsroom | Center for Inquiry (http://www.centerforinquiry.net/newsroom/ranking_members_senate_minority_report_on_global_w arming_not_credible_says_/)

[Nickdfresh]

A Neon is an excellent car for todays economy and it's also quite clean...

I never said it wasn't...

[ELVIS]

Too bad Chrysler turned it into a Caliber, although the SRT-4 Caliber is pretty cool with 285 hp from the Neon DOHC engine...

[ELVIS]

Where's the Runaway Warming? (http://www.dondodd.com/avery/042009.html)


By Dennis T. Avery
Hudson Institute's Center


April 20, 2009

The global cooling trend that began early in 2007 continues. America's official global reading for March, 2009 has been issued by Goddard Space Institute. The month was the coldest of this young century and colder than March of 1990. The satellite records show an even stronger recent cooling trend.

Equally interesting, Goddard says this year's March was just 0.03 degrees warmer than March of 1981, a year when the El Nino/La Nina index was approximately the same as today's. Does that mean the planet's net warming is only three hundredths of a degree C over the last 30 years? Thanks to Czech physicist Lubos Motl for spotting that relationship.

Meanwhile, the Director of the Goddard Institute, James Hansen, recently sent a letter to President Obama saying that Obama has "only four years left to save the earth" from "runaway warming." He told the London Observer in February that "The trains carrying coal to power plants are death trains. Coal-fired power plants are factories of death." Hansen maintains that recent warming has pushed the planet close to a "tipping point" for runaway warming. What recent warming? Three hundredths of a degree C over 30 years, with temperatures still declining, doesn't seem worth ruining the world's economies.

Goddard's famous computerized climate warming predictions continue to be wrong. In contrast, sunspots predicted the temperature rise from 1976-98, and sunspots began predicting the current cooling in 2000. Earth's temperatures have demonstrably been following changes in the earth's cloudiness, which are linked--evidently thru cosmic rays--to the recently-declining level of solar activity.

The sunspots and cosmic rays have a 79 percent correlation with our thermometer record since 1860. Meanwhile the CO2 correlation is a mere 22 percent. I love repeating that comparison! The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change already admitted in 2001 that it's modeled "scenarios" cannot accurately predict cloud impacts on temperatures.

In addition to the sunspots, NASA's Jason satellite has confirmed the Pacific Ocean moving into its cool phase. Such cooling phases last 30 years or so. During our last cooling phase, from 1940-75, global warming should have surged if caused by industrial CO2 emissions. The world's whole industrial revolution really kicked off in 1945. Soon after that, the postwar explosion in auto emissions hit worldwide.

Hansen still claims that global warming is occurring rapidly but has been masked by aerosols in the atmosphere. The "lost heat" was supposedly lurking in the oceans. However, 3000 new Argo floats are giving us the most accurate sea temperatures ever recorded, and they say the oceans stopped warming in 2003. If the oceans aren't warming, neither is the planet.

The ongoing cooling makes it horribly difficult for President Obama to issue his long-promised multi-trillion-dollar tax on energy. Twenty-six Blue Dog Democrats recently voted against letting a carbon cap-and-trade "tax" be attached to the budget--and thus pass with less than the 60 votes otherwise required. It may now be left to the Environmental Protection Agency to declare CO2 a human health hazard and try to regulate global warming under the Clean Air Act.

We'll need still-bigger "global warming tea parties" if the EPA issues regulations to control greenhouse emissions. The ballooning cost of such regulations, in both carbon taxes and exported jobs, would dwarf even our huge new federal debt load in the long term.

Sources:

March global temperatures: Goddard Institute for Space Studies web site, Global Land-Ocean Temperature Index, giss/nasa.gov/tabledata.GLB.Ts+dSST.txt, 4/15/ 2009.

Net warming of 0.03 degree C over 30 years: Lubos Motl, The Reference Frame, motls.blogspot.com/2009/04/giss-march-2009-coolest-march-in-this.html.

James Hansen quotes:

"NASA's Hansen Warns Barack Obama on Climate Change," The Guardian, Jan. 1, 2009.

"Coal-fired Power Plants are Death Factories. Close Them," Commentary by James Hansen, The Observer, London, Feb 15, 2009.

IPCC's inability to model cloud impacts: IPCC Report AR-3, 2001, section 7.2.2.4 Cloud-radiative feedback processes.


:elvis:

[Seshmeister]

Where's the Runaway Warming? (http://www.dondodd.com/avery/042009.html)


By Dennis T. Avery
Hudson Institute's Center


:elvis:

Hudson Institute has received at least $25,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.

1995
$unknown Exxon Corporation
Source: Hudson Institute Literature 1995

2000
$15,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
general support
Source: ExxonMobil Foundation 2000 IRS 990

2005
$10,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
Source: ExxonMobil 2005 Worldwide Giving Report

Nick is right you are gullible.

This joker is funded by the oil companies and is NOT a climatologist.

The oil companies pay these people to come up with shit like this so that they can continue to pollute. It's very very sad that it is working on you.

You've been OWNED by big oil and they are laughing at you.

[ELVIS]

No, maybe you have...

[Guitar Shark]

No, maybe you have...

In his next post, look for ELVIS to entertain the crowd with his favorite witticism, "I know you are, but what am I?"

[Seshmeister]

ELVIS and EXXON sitting in a tree

K-I-S-S-I-N-G

[ELVIS]

No dude...

All of these sources can't be debunked...


Show me one source that proves CO2 as a pollutant...


:elvis:

[Seshmeister]

Show you one source that CO2 causes climate change?

Would you like to try moving to another planet that only had a CO2 atmosphere?

[ELVIS]

No, I need oxygen and the plants I eat need CO2...

[Kristy]

Elvis, you're such a gullible little bitch. That infamous article has been debunked as politicized fraud with few of the "scientists" at all involved in climatology:

Although it does make you wonder who was funding this research.

[Big Train]

Which conferences have you two opinionated bozos attended?

About as many as the opinionated bozo who thinks he knows what happened there..none.

[Nickdfresh]

Too bad Chrysler turned it into a Caliber, although the SRT-4 Caliber is pretty cool with 285 hp from the Neon DOHC engine...


Don't worry, you'll be driving Fiats in no time...:)

[Nickdfresh]

Where's the Runaway Warming? (http://www.dondodd.com/avery/042009.html)


By Dennis T. Avery
Hudson Institute's Center


...

Who would have a better grasp of science than a op-ed fraud operating out of a stated right wing think tank?

Hudson Institute - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudson_Institute)

[Nickdfresh]

Hudson Institute has received at least $25,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.

1995
$unknown Exxon Corporation
Source: Hudson Institute Literature 1995

2000
$15,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
general support
Source: ExxonMobil Foundation 2000 IRS 990

2005
$10,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
Source: ExxonMobil 2005 Worldwide Giving Report

Nick is right you are gullible.

This joker is funded by the oil companies and is NOT a climatologist.

The oil companies pay these people to come up with shit like this so that they can continue to pollute. It's very very sad that it is working on you.

You've been OWNED by big oil and they are laughing at you.

The thing is that even Exxon-Mobil is too embarrassed by this asshattery and they have largely stopped funding moronic sophistry and denying the inevitable...

But it was as late as ten years ago they were funding fraudulent, pseudo-scientific research into exploring how oil comes from rocks and not dead dinosaurs (then we'd NEVER run out! Get it?)

[ELVIS]

We're not running out...

[Mushroom]

"we're not running out" :lmao:

not today, but someday, as it gets too expensive to drill and process. Also read Hubbert's Peak Oil Theory. If there is any saving grace in this "Climate Change" hysteria, I believe it will be the innovation for new technology that could replace petroleum in may aspects of our daily life. "Could" is a big word, because it's going to cost $,$$$,$$$,$$$,$$$ to change infrastructure, and we, or our children, will have to pay that $,$$$,$$$,$$$,$$$.

[Big Train]

Hot Air » Blog Archive » About that Arctic ice disappearance … (http://hotair.com/archives/2009/09/23/about-that-arctic-ice-disappearance/)

National Geographic in summer 2008:

Arctic warming has become so dramatic that the North Pole may melt this summer, report scientists studying the effects of climate change in the field.

“We’re actually projecting this year that the North Pole may be free of ice for the first time [in history],” David Barber, of the University of Manitoba, told National Geographic News aboard the C.C.G.S. Amundsen, a Canadian research icebreaker. …

But this summer’s forecast—and unusual early melting events all around the Arctic—serve as a dire warning of how quickly the polar regions are being affected by climate change.

National Geographic this week:

This year’s cooler-than-expected summer means the Arctic probably won’t experience ice-free summers until 2030 or 2040, scientists say.

Some models had previously predicted that the Arctic could be ice free in summer by as soon as 2013, due to rising temperatures from global warming.

Scientifically, what does this tell us about the climate-change models used to make this hysterical claim?

They’re completely wrong and should be jettisoned — or,

They speak to a larger truth and should be used and heretics skeptics shunned

Which option would a real scientist choose, and which one would a political hack with interests in glomming onto big government grants choose?

[ELVIS]

LMAO!


:biggrin:

[Mushroom]

climate models are too simple to replicate a complex universe. we can hardly explain how and why it all works environmentally, cosmically, or atmospherically. we will never be smart enough to control, fix or alter Mother Nature. it will rain when earth needs water. ice caps will stop melting when the atmosphere and the planet decide there is enough water in the oceans and it is time to allow them to recede. last weekend, my weatherman's model told me it will be overcast today, and he's 100&#37; off base.

[Seshmeister]

No, I need oxygen and the plants I eat need CO2...

<object width="873" height="525"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/vFGU6qvkmTI&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x402061&color2=0x9461ca&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/vFGU6qvkmTI&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x402061&color2=0x9461ca&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="873" height="525"></embed></object>

[ELVIS]

Give me a break...:rolleyes:

Yeah, that 300 plus ppm of one percent is going to kill us...

When exactly did CO2 become a pollutant, when algore said so ???

[Seshmeister]

It's funny that you live in Lousiana.

You're going to be wiped out and my Summers might get nicer and you're the one in denial.

[ELVIS]

Wiped out by what, the rising waters ??

[Nickdfresh]

It's funny that you live in Lousiana.

You're going to be wiped out and my Summers might get nicer and you're the one in denial.

My summers too... :)