Monday October 6, 2008, 9:44 pm
Awesome! Thanks Jollygirl.

Monday October 6, 2008, 10:36 pm
thank you, Jollygirl

Monday October 6, 2008, 10:36 pm
As always, very useful. 3 cheers, Jolly!

Monday October 6, 2008, 11:09 pm
Cool find!! TY Jollygirl.

Tuesday October 7, 2008, 1:05 am
noted thanks Jollygirl

Tuesday October 7, 2008, 3:40 am
Thank you Jollygirl!
It is not the first time you give us a treasure of links.You are such a talented Internet-treasure-finder.

Tuesday October 7, 2008, 4:10 am
very good thank you jollygirl

Tuesday October 7, 2008, 4:54 am
Great find Jollygirl, thank you for sharing it.

Tuesday October 7, 2008, 5:04 am
Noted With Thanks Jollygirl.

Tuesday October 7, 2008, 7:45 am
THANKS FOR THE LIST.

Tuesday October 7, 2008, 9:15 am
hi, can anyone point me in the direction to research on the icecaps and weather change. I was told by a good source that when she researched it, she found that satelite configurations and pictures of the icecaps have shown that the mass of the polor icecaps have actually increased and not decreased. Im not sure what going on, but I would like to know. I would like credible information. I also don't want opionated information. Just plain truth and then i can form my own. Any suggestions?

Tuesday October 7, 2008, 9:23 am
thanks for such a wonderful website.

Tuesday October 7, 2008, 9:33 am
ok, so im confused why i was sent a thank you for a website when i didnot send a webiste. and why there are thank you for list, etc, but on the blog i just don't see any list or suggestions. am i missing a page?

Tuesday October 7, 2008, 9:54 am
green LA girl blog (Siel Ju) tops my list!!! It's not just LA-oriented! It's Earth-Oriented!!!
http://greenlagirl.com

Check it out!

Tuesday October 7, 2008, 10:47 am
Katie P. the Antarctic increased while the Arctic decreased. Immediately that should tell you that something else is going on other than supposed warming by a beneficial trace gas found at 385 PARTS PER MILLION....that's like 39 cents out of $10,000.

See:http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/Antarctic.html
ANTARCTIC ICE DISAPPEARING? DON’T YOU BELIEVE IT!!!


The warming is over and it was natural.

Sun Warms and Cools the Earth
Excerpt:
Suicidal conspiracy

A conspiracy stratagem was openly presented by Maurice Strong, a godfather of the global environmental movement, and a former senior advisor to Kofi Annan, the U.N. Secretary-General. In 1972 Strong was a Secretary-General of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, which launched the world environment movement, and he has played a critical role in its globalization. In 1992 Strong was the Secretary-General of the “World Summit” conference in Rio de Janeiro, where on his instigation the foundations for the Kyoto Protocol were laid.

In an interview Strong disclosed his mindset: "What if a small group of world leaders were to conclude that the principal risk to the Earth comes from the actions of rich countries? And if the world is to survive, those rich countries would have to sign an agreement reducing their impact on the environment. Will they do it? The group’s conclusion is "no." The rich countries won’t do it. They won’t change. So, in order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about? This group of world leaders form a secret society to bring about an economic collapse." (Wood,1990) .

The climatic issue became now perhaps the most important agenda of the United Nations and politicians, at least they say so[1]. It became also a moral issue. In 2007 addressing the UN General Assembly Gro Harlem Brundtland, the UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy on Climate Change, pointing at climatic skeptics stated: “It is irresponsible, reckless and deeply immoral to question the seriousness of the real danger of climate change”. But earlier “scare them to deaths!” morality of “climatists”[2] was explained by Stephen Schneider, one of their top gurus: "On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but … On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well … we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have …Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest” (Schneider, 1989) .

The same moral standard is offered by Al Gore: “I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are” (Gore, 2006) . In similar vein Rajendra K. Pauchari, the chairman of IPCC, commented in the last Fourth PCCC Report: “I hope this will shock people and governments into taking more serious action” (Crook, 2007) . Thus IPCC does not have ambition to present an objective climatic situation, but rather “to shock” the people to take actions which would bring no climatic effects (NIPCC, 2008) , but rather disastrous global economic and societal consequences. Implementation of these actions would dismantle the global energy system, the primary driving force of our civilization. This is what Maurice Strong and other leaders of Green Movement apparently have in mind."
http://www.nzcpr.com/guest116.htm

Check out real information at:http://www.climatescience.org.nz/ http://www.icecap.us/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/

There are fewer sites run by skeptics because the NWO is behind the Big Green Machine and sees that it it well funded by your tax dollars.

Tuesday October 7, 2008, 12:27 pm
Judy Cross -wow! thanks for the information. Is anyone hear researching the other side of things? That there is global warming going on? Especially in any research done with the polar ice caps.
-katie

Tuesday October 7, 2008, 6:24 pm
noted with special thanks

Tuesday October 7, 2008, 10:09 pm
Wow, thank you. Noted. :)

I didn't see greenlivingtips.com though.

Tuesday October 7, 2008, 10:10 pm
But, of course, how much can one ask for? 100 is quite a lot. :) lol thank again

Tuesday October 7, 2008, 10:12 pm
Judy, and Katie, I enjoyed your post's, it's great to see that they're still inquisitive minds, in the world!!! I don't understand how people can be so gullible, as to trust the government, and the scientist, who would have been the blame for this man made crisis, if indeed there even was a crisis!!! Like Edgar Casey, and others, I believe that there is a pole shift, that is causing it to warm up in some spots, and get cooler in others!!! I also believe that this pole shift, is man made, and well planned!!! Simple physics, teaches that for every action, there is an equal, and opposite reaction!!! Every time a rocket takes off to go into space, it takes a tremendous amount of thrust, and all of these rockets, be it from the U.S., Russia. or China, are all launched from strategic southern locations!!! Your mission: if you choose to accept it, would be to research, how many degrees of the 33 degrees, that i suspect is their goal, that they have already achieved, since the beginning of the orchestrated space race began??? I think that they are running out of time, to achieve their desired goal!!! Please read (ISIAH 14:12-14), AND YOU MIGHT JUST SEE WHAT I DO, that they are trying to build a high tech tower of babel, in order to rule as gods!!! Or prove me wrong!!!

Tuesday October 7, 2008, 11:31 pm
"the Antarctic increased while the Arctic decreased. Immediately that should tell you that something else is going on other than supposed warming by a beneficial trace gas"

Correct, Judy! There is indeed a major difference between the two, of course. The Arctic is land surrounding ocean. The land radiates heat towards the north pole, causing the ice floating on water in the center to melt. Meanwhile, in Antarctica, we have a land mass with ice on top of it, surrounded by ocean which has cold currents that insulate the continent from the warming going on up north, plus there is much more ocean in the Southern hemisphere than in the Northern hemisphere. So it stands to reason that Antarctica would be warming much slower than the Arctic. How one can think that disproves the man-made global warming hypothesis is a puzzle to me. It's just lame and misleading cherry-picking, nothing more.

"supposed warming by a beneficial trace gas found at 385 PARTS PER MILLION....that's like 39 cents out of $10,000."

You know nothing about the heat retaining power of CO2, do you, Judy? Have you ever done experiments on that issue?

Wednesday October 8, 2008, 12:04 am
The God that failed. This must be so hard for you to take, eh Dale? An Old Believer like you being hit with science that totally ruins The Cult's hogwash.

New Detailed Analysis of Global Temperature Data Does Not Support Significant Role for CO2

By Jennifer Marohasy, Politics and Environmental Blog

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has stated that: Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations, mainly carbon dioxide. This conclusion is based on output from global climate computer models known as General Circulation Models (GCM). David Douglass and John Christy, in a paper recently accepted for publication and already available on the internet, have come to a different conclusion. By considering observed, as opposed to modelled, temperature changes and at different latitude bands they conclude that:

1. El Nino and La Nina effects in the tropics have a more significant affect on global temperature anomalies than carbon dioxide, in particular it was an El Nino event that drove the 1998 global temperature maximum.
2. Variations in global temperatures since 1978 have mostly been due to climate effects in the northern hemisphere (northern extratropics) and these effects cannot be attributed to carbon dioxide.

3. Carbon dioxide has contributed a small amount to an increase in global temperatures but without what is commonly referred to as feed-back.

David Douglas and John Christy are practicing climate scientists from the Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester, and Department of Atmospheric Science and Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama, respectively. Their paper entitled ‘Limits on CO2 Climate Forcing from Recent Temperature Data of Earth’, was recently accepted for publication in Energy and Environment.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.0581.pdf

A regular at this blog, Cohenite, comments on the Douglass-Christy paper in a fairly technical note already posted at the community webpage of this blog, and entitled ‘Temperature Trends and Carbon Dioxide’, suggests that there is no evidence for a contribution from carbon dioxide to global temperatures and that the role of the sun has been underestimated. http://www.icecap.us/

Wednesday October 8, 2008, 7:20 am
WTF? How can anyone even doubt global warming is a direct consequence of human activity?

Some of the previous comments prove humans are a bunch of zombies! How easy it is to mislead them into the wrong conclusions! The majority of 'real' scientists have already agreed that the increase in global temperature is a result of our activities. CO2 is just one of many greenhouse gases and its increase is the direct consequence of deforestation, burning fossil fuels, etc.

So, if the answer doesn't suit you, because you realize you're going to have to change your lifestyle, science is wrong and you believe in conspiracy theories, absurd hypothesis and pseudo-scientists!

Wake up you and smell the coffee people! Global warming is a reality and we're to blame for it! Either we open our eyes and do something about it or we bury our heads in the sand, deny it and will suffer the catastrophic consequences.

Maybe when category 5 hurricanes start constantly hitting the US territory you will realize (too late) that you were wrong after all!

Wednesday October 8, 2008, 7:58 am
"So, if the answer doesn't suit you, because you realize you're going to have to change your lifestyle, science is wrong and you believe in conspiracy theories, absurd hypothesis and pseudo-scientists!"

Yay Cid! Thank you for sharing this. Some folks will never get it and that's why I sometimes despair about the future of the planet (but rebound again and again to fight against this ignorance and the destruction of the planet by greedy corporate capitalism).

Getting back to the original topic of this post, The List, I will say again, please check out the "green LA girl" blog (which belongs on any list of eco-blogs!)...another kindred spirit fighting against the ignorance.

For folks wanting to expand their green awareness, attend a green event near you, there's lots for all of us to learn! We need "The List" for green events I guess, but until it comes along, check out Ecopalooza Green Events Network for a green event near you (on Turtle Island, at least): www.ecopalooza.net

Wednesday October 8, 2008, 9:38 am
Larry, that doesn't follow. This isn't about whether or not I might be inconvenienced. It is about a SCIENTIFIC FRAUD.

Gore is a pseudo-scientist and Hansen and Mann are perpetrators of fraud. The evidence points to everything from the Sun,sunspots, the Milankovitch Cycle and the change in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation as being able to change climate. There is NOTHING that shows CO2 can do it.

IMPLICATIONS OF PDO, NAO, GLACIAL FLUCTUATIONS, AND SUN SPOT CYCLES FOR GLOBAL CLIMATE IN THE COMING DECADES

In a Geological Society of America abstract, Dr. Don Easterbrook, Professor of Geology at Western Washington University, presents data showing that the global warming cycle from 1977 to 1998 is now over and we have entered into a new global cooling period that should last for the next three decades. He also suggests that since the IPCC climate models are now so far off from what is actually happening that their projections for both this decade and century must be considered highly unreliable.
The Pacific Ocean has a warm temperature mode and a cool temperature mode and in the past century has switched back forth between these two modes every 25-30 years (known as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation or PDO). In 1977 the Pacific abruptly shifted from its cool mode (where it had been since about 1945) into its warm mode, and this initiated global warming from 1977 to 1998. The correlation between the PDO and global climate is well established. The announcement by NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) had shifted to its cool phase is right on schedule as predicted by past climate and PDO changes (Easterbrook, 2001, 2006, 2007). The PDO typically lasts 25-30 years and assures North America of cool, wetter climates during its cool phases and warmer, drier climates during its warm phases. The establishment of the cool PDO, together with similar cooling of the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), virtually assures several decades of global cooling and the end of the past 30-year warm phase. It also means that the IPCC predictions of catastrophic global warming this century were highly inaccurate."
Read the rest here http://icecap.us/images/uploads/GSA.pdf

So, Larry, be as green as you want, but stop pushing an outright scam!

Wednesday October 8, 2008, 9:59 am
Larry...Thank you for respecting science, facts and your fellow man. Rather than undermine your country and the world, you have chosen to use your intelligence to wake up the world and educate us. Your wisdom and concern for humanity is much appreciated!

Wednesday October 8, 2008, 10:23 am
Sanctimoniousness aside,Larry isn't "respecting science" He is helping to perpetrate a fraud, and so is everyone who continues to push the idea that CO2 can change climate.

What is amazing about the brainwashing that has gone on is that it manages to survive the obvious change to a cooler climate. It's called "cognitive dissonance", experienced when belief in a grand narrative persists blindly even when the facts in the real world begin to contradict what the narrative is saying.

This is from New Zealand and is from a speech given by Rodney Hide, an MP with a Masters in Environmental Science:

"There is no evidence that CO2 drives climate or that industrialisation is warming the world.

In fact, the evidence is the reverse. The world temperature has increased in the past 150 years by about half a degree. But the bulk of that increase was in the first half of the 20th Century - before the post-war economic boom. During that boom, the world temperature dropped.

When I started out as an environmentalist the fear was global cooling.

There are many anomalies in the evidence. Ice-core samples show that CO2 levels lag temperature by 800 years. And the increase in temperature in the past 150 years has been at the Earth's surface - not the troposphere, as the theory of CO2-induced temperature change predicts.

The only thing going for the man-made global warming theory is the computer models - but they're just a direct result of the assumptions fed into them. Their predictions are the result of what's fed in, and the e vidence doesn't back the models' predictions.
..

That's why ACT is campaigning this election to dump the ETS (Emissions Trading Scheme". We should dump the ETS and withdraw from Kyoto. We should not have to send our hard-earned dollars to the Russians.

We were told in Parliament that Europe was also rushing ahead to have an ETS.

Well, here's a newsflash: German chancellor Angela Merkel last week backed an almost total exemption for German industry from new rules to force companies to pay for greenhouse gas emissions. Merkel said that, although she supported the need to tackle climate change, she "could not support the destruction of German jobs through an ill-advised climate policy".

What you guys who rant on about "conspiracy theories" fail to recognize is conspiracy fact.

The same people who are benefiting from the economic crash will be benefiting from "cap and trade" policies. How long do you want to continue to be" suckers"?

Wednesday October 8, 2008, 11:00 am
Cid ~ Excellent comment!! I almost missed it for the smoke screens in the path, LOL!

Is it any wonder that aging citizens who went to school years ago when polluting the environment was the name of the game, don't want to face the fact that their ignorance has contributed HUGELY to today's problems will fight the facts tooth and nail? It's the ultimate in selfishness.

I've told my children that when I get really old and start talking crap because of ego, greed and stubbornly maintaining the status quo, just put me in a rest home. I'm serious because I don't ever want to become a detriment to my children's future or the world.

_______
"Ignorance is bliss, but stupidity is forever..."

Wednesday October 8, 2008, 11:28 am
Give me a break, Marion! That's AGISM. How terribly politically incorrect of you.

You are going to have to do better than that. The obvious ploy of attacking me is a substitute for being able to uphold the the AGW/CC scam with evidence.

Where is it?

Prove that CO2 changes climate. Even the corrupt IPCC says they are only 90% sure .

It IS a conspiracy and if you value the lives of your children, get your head out.

Global Warming Or Global Governance? (1 of 8)
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=drfqbdEGi8Q&feature=related

Wednesday October 8, 2008, 11:49 am
Dear, Dear Judy ~ No need to take offense. Why, there are plenty of instances above and throughout Care2 where you have offended commenters. If they aren't hollering 'foul!' why should you, LOL?

The reason they aren't crying foul like you is because you are not their audience. Your claims are outdated, outmoded and belong in the annals of Exxon and BP's historical records of the 1950's when polluting and cigarette smoking was considered chic. Frankly, I suspect you are on Exxon's payroll.

Try to convince anyone under 50 years old today of your tired lies and you would get laughed right out of the discussion as you are today. The rest of us boomers merely tolerate you.

Like McCain, the more you lie for your 'cause,' the less relevance and credibility you maintain when the facts are glaring everyone in the face.

Wednesday October 8, 2008, 12:01 pm
Gee, Marion...all the old chestnuts, even Exxon. My "claims" are up to date. it is the claim of man-made global warming that is old and disproven by Mother Nature herself. CO2 levels continue up even while the temperature drops.

You don't have a scientific OR moral ground to stand on. Perpetualing a fraud IS a criminal activity. Ageism is the least of your offences.

Wednesday October 8, 2008, 12:04 pm
And I'm an old Canadian and member of the Canadian Action Party....McCain has no relevance to this discussuion except as a blatent attempt to smear me with him.

Wednesday October 8, 2008, 12:27 pm
Interesting information and a lot to read.

With appreciation,

G

Wednesday October 8, 2008, 2:43 pm
thanks all. i will read tonight and hopefully have a well rounded after thought tomorrow. ;) katie

Thursday October 9, 2008, 8:31 am
Some of you are really zombified beyond any kind of cure!!!! You, the zombies are accusing the rest of us of being brainwashed and manipulated? Hilarious!!!

Global warming isn't real? CO2 is not a greenhouse gas? What kind of pseudo scientists are saying that? Only if it's in the US!! Not in the rest of the world!!! Recently there was a summit in Europe where hundreds of scientists from all over the world gathered to finally reach some consensus about this issue! Guess what? Global warming and thus climate changes are a result of human activity! If you think they are all wrong, then you should consider the hypothesis that there could be something mentally wrong with you!!!

What have you been reading and who have you been talking to?

Check out some of this and which was posted on this very site:
http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE4968HQ20081007

http://eco-beat.com/?p=169

Who 'rules' the IPCC? I don't know!! But I do know that there are many scientists out there who are not on the payroll of any corporation or government and who tell the truth regarding global warming!

It is a fact, it's real and it's here to stay! I just hope the first ones to really (what has been happening is just the beginning) feel it first hand are the ones who reject it and say everything is just f****** swell!!!

Thursday October 9, 2008, 8:34 am
Judy, thank you for all the information and the back up to your statements. I am not familiar with many of the terms and organization, etc, but it’s a starting point of learning. I wish that I was able to receive more information on the fact that global warming was happening, however the more I research the more I do not get hard evidence.
I do think individual efforts to make sure global warming slow down are good practices even if it’s not happening. So my thoughts are if the intentions are good, then we can't be blamed for doing bad if our efforts and hearts are in the right place.

Proverbs 3:5-6
Trust in the LORD with all your heart,
and do not lean on your own understanding.
In all your ways acknowledge him,
and he will make straight your paths.

Thursday October 9, 2008, 10:14 am
Katie...you quote the Old Testament bible above and include Christianity on the religion line of your profile...so do you know that there is a large population of bible believers that believe global warming is real and work to raise the awareness of other believers?

"The Evangelical Environmental Network (EEN) is a non-profit organization that seeks to educate, inspire, and mobilize Christians in their effort to care for God's creation, to be faithful stewards of God's provision, and to advocate for actions and policies that honor God and protect the environment. "

The Evangelical Environmental Network publishes a wonderful magazine called "Creation Care" and I highly recommend that you check it out...it just may make a believer of you! I'm not even a "christian" and I love the magazine and always learn something new about caring more for the only planet we have! If you live in the US, you can receive a sample copy of the current issue, or read it at their website as a pdf doc. To get to their free issue page, go to my website, Ecopalooza: www.ecopalooza.net, and click on the "Creation Care" image on the right side of Ecopalooza's home page.

I hope you'll check it out Katie!

Namaste, Larry

Thursday October 9, 2008, 10:51 am
Larry,
The organization and the magazine sound great thank you for the suggestion.

Thankfully the website is something i can browse instead of having more paper printed ;)

Thursday October 9, 2008, 10:58 am
okay, well there is a lot of print, so maybe ill just subscribe ;)

Thursday October 9, 2008, 11:30 pm
Katiie, this might help clarify some issues about the appropriateness of using a religiously oriented site to push a scientific hypothesis. It might do Larry some good to read it too.

Commonwealth Club.San Francisco, CA.September 15, 2003

This was not the first discussion of environmentalism as a religion, but it caught on and was widely quoted. Michael Crichton explains why religious approaches to the environment are inappropriate and cause damage to the natural world they intend to protect.

"I have been asked to talk about what I consider the most important challenge facing mankind, and I have a fundamental answer. The greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda. Perceiving the truth has always been a challenge to mankind, but in the information age (or as I think of it, the disinformation age) it takes on a special urgency and importance.
Continues:
http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speech-environmentalismaseligion.html

Friday October 10, 2008, 6:42 am
Larry,
I did not take it that you were trying to push anything. I think you were just sharing other resources that might have been of interest. I liked the thought because I like the sense of community coming together with good intent.