skip to main content









Donation Heart Ribbon

Avatar for Dougetit

( Dougetit )

Comments made by Dougetit

Climate Change Challenges

“I have generally found it to be that if a person associates themselves closely with the Republican party they think anyone who is concerned about these things is a wacko tree hugging liberal.”

Not me. I despise the republican party, but dislike the democrats even more for their foolish representation of AGW as a means to “Scare” us into taxing us into oblivion… All for a NON PROBLEM. Their solution is to tax oil and coal companies which will mean higher energy costs for all of us. Remember that the oil companies had their record profits in 2008 when gas was at all time highs. This is because their profits are 8-10 cents out of every dollar collected. The more dollars collected, the more profit they make. If congress passes the Cap and Tax legislation, the big winners will be energy companies. The poorest of people will be the biggest losers as they spend a higher percentage of their income on energy.

So what we have here is a bogus science scare, turned into a political issue while all of the “true” environmentalists should be steamed about this… that is, the ones that can see past the smoke and mirrors.

Unfortunately, with all the hidden motives and agendas out there, a lot of intelligent people, including yourself, have been mislead away from real science fact, and into real science fiction. Frankly, I don’t blame you, my friend.

I suggest you view a film I have recently found that was produced a few years back that explains how AGW got it’s start. The AGW crowd would not want you to view it because it spells out what we are seeing unfold before our eyes today.

February 4, 2010 at 2:35 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Climate Change Challenges


“if life on the planet is affected, it's very much an environmental issue, and if it is in fact true that fossil fuels (oil & coal) are involved, it also becomes very much a political issue.”

You have misunderstood me. I’m in agreement with you. I consider myself an environmentalist. I am all for conservation, clean air and water. A cleaner environment is good for all of us.

Global Warming has been miss-associated in our conscience with environmentalism. Since the revelations over the past few months, I have learned that AGW has been revealed to be a total fraud. If the science consensus is so settled, why are they compelled to shout down the skeptics and fiddle with the data and methods? They have fooled and frightened us into thinking that Co2 is some kind of pollutant that is going to destroy our ecosystem. We could not survive without Co2. It’s super-food for trees and all plant life. We have spent $50 billion here and abroad for mostly Pro AGW research. How many streams, lakes and rivers could we have cleaned up with this money. How many nuclear waste dumps could be cleaned up or managed with this money? How much of this money could have better been spent to maintain our national parks? How many animal sanctuaries or rescues could this have funded? It deeply infuriates me that my concerns have been hijacked by shoddy science. Do you really think that believing in AGW is good for the environment? It hurts the environment.

“Does that then negate the volumes of information coming from a variety of scientific fields that show something odd is going on in Kansas?”

The “variety of scientific fields” you refer to are basing their observations on fraudulent data. Garbage in, Garbage out. This has resulted in the prevailing knee jerk response to blame any unusual event on Man Made Global Warming. It’s too easy for them to fall into this trap, but if we had accurate temperatures for the past few hundred years, AGW would not be a term in use today. This would make their job more difficult in determing "what odd is going on in Kansas".

I did my own research….

If you look at the most accurate temperature record available today, you will find that global temperatures for more than 30 years have been increasing by 13 hundredths (.13) of a degree C per DECADE since the inception of the satellite record, (which at great cost was begun to investigate the scare of global cooling at the time). This is not anywhere near what we were told was going to happen. It is certainly NOT out of the ordinary when considering past temperature history. James Hansen at NASA had said in 1988 that NY would be underwater as early as 2008. But unbelievably, no one seems to recognize this for what it is. Our contribution of Co2 is measured in megatons, while the ocean’s Co2 contribution is measured in Giga tons. Following the PRO AGW logic, suppressing the ocean should our first concern, not man. Would you agree?

February 4, 2010 at 2:35 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Climate Change Challenges


"I always use the example that if people honestly and truly think CO2 is not dangerous or even harmful they only need to shut the garage door and run the car for a few minutes."

You have your "Carbons" confused..

The earths atmosphere contains about 480ppm of Co2. The atmosphere in your own home contains about 600ppm of Co2. Co2 needs te reach about the level of 20,000 ppm before you would even notice it. If you shut the garage door and ran your car a few minutes, you would die from carbon monoxide well before you reached the level that you would even notice any effects from Co2. Carbon is a good thing!

February 3, 2010 at 8:45 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Climate Change Challenges


This is not a matter of environmentalism, oil companies or even a political party. It’s about the science.

Science is a process which starts with a hypothesis in an attempt to prove a theory.
The hypothesis here being that Humans are causing global warming. To prove the hypothesis a theory, the one promoting the theory, (AGW), must provide the data and methods to the scientific community which in turn, through duplication, can repeatedly recreate the same result. The burden of proof is on the ones promoting the theory. Since the original raw data, (temperature records), have been destroyed, the theory is immediately proved invalid. This fact alone would be enough to kill the theory on it’s face, let alone all of the scandals that have surfaced lately concerning the methods used to bolster the theory. The “real” scientists are the skeptics as it is an integral part of the scientific process. Considering the proclaimed consequences, the crimatologists involved here should have been screaming from the rooftops for a single experiment to prove them wrong. We find through the CRU Emails that the opposite was the case. This would be viewed as “anti-science” within the science community.

“No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right, a single experiment can prove me wrong.” Albert Einstein

February 3, 2010 at 1:50 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Climate Change Challenges


Everyone wants a cleaner environment, but you can't blame oil tycoons for being skeptical. They had record profits in 2008 because gas was expensive. You see, 8-10% of every dollor goes to profit. Higher prices, higher profits.

"Global warming skeptics have seized on the scandal."

There is more than one scandal. In fact you may call it a consensus of scandals. So many it is getting hard to keep up.

Google “CLIMATEGATE” along with any of the following words: GlacierGate, AmazonGate, PachauriGate/PachuriGate, FloodGate, HurricaneGate, TempGate/TemperatureGate, IceGate, DisasterGate, HimalayaGate, GoogleGate, EmailGate, GreenpeaceGate, NASAGate, SternGate, CRUGate, WikipediaGate/WikiGate, World Wildlifegate, RainForestGate, WaterGate II, Crimatologist, RussiaGate, NOAAGate, StormGate, HockeystickGate, OceanGate, PeerGate, PolarBearGate, SaharaGate, IPCCGate, WarmingGate, RainGate, GlobalWarmingGate, WeatherGate, GISSGate, YamalGate, GoreGate, NatureGate, StudentDissertationGate, HadleyGate, Crimatology, HansenGate, CopenhagenGate, JonesGate, METGate, WarmGate, Co2Gate and the most recent scandal, ChinaGate.

February 2, 2010 at 6:34 p.m. ( | suggest removal )