<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
	<title><![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Youth delegates in Poznan stage mock &#8216;Jeopardy&#8217; game to get message out]]></title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.grist.org/rss/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<description>Grist Comment Feed</description>
	<language>en</language>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #1 by retroproxy</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/what-is-lack-of-political-will/</link>
			<pubDate>Thu, 04 Dec 2008 08:23:33 -0800</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/what-is-lack-of-political-will/1</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Anthropogenic Global Warming is a Lie</strong></p><p>It's a shame that youth have been brainwashed so terribly. Anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is one of the biggest lies in the history of mankind. Earth's climate is driven by natural cycles of the sun and the oceans and changes in the planet's tilt and orbit over long periods of time. 400 years ago the Earth began emerging from the harshest period of the Little Ice Age (LIA). The planet has naturally warmed by about 0.5 degrees Celsius per century since then. Glaciers began receding naturally as the planet recovered from the LIA. The warming is not linear. It has followed a distinct pattern of cooling and warming phases that coincide perfectly with sunspot activity and oscillating ocean temperatures. The last warming phase ended in about 1998. Since then the Pacific Ocean has switched to its cool phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), and we've had global cooling since 2002. Nobody can refute this data. It is available to anyone who seeks it. Each phase of the PDO lasts 20-30 years, so global cooling is likely until 2020 to 2030 before natural warming will resume. The radiative forcing of CO2 which comprises about 0.038 percent of all greenhouse gases has not had nor will it have any significant effect on climate. Look up the data. Do the research. Think for yourself. By all means I believe we should start investing in "green" energy technologies but we shouldn't drastically cut CO2 emissions before we have a viable "green" infrastructure. It would be economic suicide. Replacing our entire energy infrastructure will take decades and trillions of dollars. What we need is the political will to admit CO2 is not a dangerous pollutant. CO2 is an essential trace gas that makes life on Earth possible. </p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Anthropogenic Global Warming is a Lie</strong></p><p>It's a shame that youth have been brainwashed so terribly. Anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is one of the biggest lies in the history of mankind. Earth's climate is driven by natural cycles of the sun and the oceans and changes in the planet's tilt and orbit over long periods of time. 400 years ago the Earth began emerging from the harshest period of the Little Ice Age (LIA). The planet has naturally warmed by about 0.5 degrees Celsius per century since then. Glaciers began receding naturally as the planet recovered from the LIA. The warming is not linear. It has followed a distinct pattern of cooling and warming phases that coincide perfectly with sunspot activity and oscillating ocean temperatures. The last warming phase ended in about 1998. Since then the Pacific Ocean has switched to its cool phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), and we've had global cooling since 2002. Nobody can refute this data. It is available to anyone who seeks it. Each phase of the PDO lasts 20-30 years, so global cooling is likely until 2020 to 2030 before natural warming will resume. The radiative forcing of CO2 which comprises about 0.038 percent of all greenhouse gases has not had nor will it have any significant effect on climate. Look up the data. Do the research. Think for yourself. By all means I believe we should start investing in "green" energy technologies but we shouldn't drastically cut CO2 emissions before we have a viable "green" infrastructure. It would be economic suicide. Replacing our entire energy infrastructure will take decades and trillions of dollars. What we need is the political will to admit CO2 is not a dangerous pollutant. CO2 is an essential trace gas that makes life on Earth possible. </p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #2 by Pangolin</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/what-is-lack-of-political-will/</link>
			<pubDate>Thu, 04 Dec 2008 09:12:43 -0800</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/what-is-lack-of-political-will/2</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Tell it to the Ice Caps will you?<p>Because last time I checked both the northern and southern polar ice caps were losing mass. Still, it's nice to see that you have to put "anthropogenic" in that sentence now. After twenty years of denying global warming you are now forced to merely deny that it had anything to do with you. <p>
At this point it's insulting to Flat Earthers to compare climate change deniers with them. At least they have they wit and grace to deny ALL of the evidence against them rather than picking and choosing.

<p><a href="http://putcarbonback.blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">Put  the Carbon Back</a></p></p></p></strong></p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Tell it to the Ice Caps will you?<p>Because last time I checked both the northern and southern polar ice caps were losing mass. Still, it's nice to see that you have to put "anthropogenic" in that sentence now. After twenty years of denying global warming you are now forced to merely deny that it had anything to do with you. <p>
At this point it's insulting to Flat Earthers to compare climate change deniers with them. At least they have they wit and grace to deny ALL of the evidence against them rather than picking and choosing.

<p><a href="http://putcarbonback.blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">Put  the Carbon Back</a></p></p></p></strong></p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #3 by retroproxy</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/what-is-lack-of-political-will/</link>
			<pubDate>Thu, 04 Dec 2008 09:40:40 -0800</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/what-is-lack-of-political-will/3</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>I'm a Skeptic</strong></p><p>Nobody guides me, Russ. I've read it all, including your propaganda. I once believed the CO2-induced warming myth. I've researched this topic extensivly from all angles for many years. I think for myself. It's highly dangerous when politicians start claiming the science is settled and the debate is over. There is no consensus. That's a lie too. Skepticism is a necessary component of science. If skepticism is suppressed then science doesn't work. A large number of scientists in a variety of fields refute CO2-induced warming and numerous scientific data supports the skeptics (the deniers as you call them). The fact is CO2 is an essential trace gas that hasn't and can't by nature cause catastrophic warming. Anthropogenic global warming is based on computer models where it is assumed that CO2 will cause warming while ignoring all other natural climate variables. Those computer models didn't predict the current global cooling trend. They predicted steady warming until we all burst into flames. Instead we've had no net warming in 10 years and steady cooling since 2002 coinciding with a shift to the cool mode of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. The data doesn't lie. Only politicians do. I'm ready for more ad hominem attacks from the "believers" so go for it.</p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>I'm a Skeptic</strong></p><p>Nobody guides me, Russ. I've read it all, including your propaganda. I once believed the CO2-induced warming myth. I've researched this topic extensivly from all angles for many years. I think for myself. It's highly dangerous when politicians start claiming the science is settled and the debate is over. There is no consensus. That's a lie too. Skepticism is a necessary component of science. If skepticism is suppressed then science doesn't work. A large number of scientists in a variety of fields refute CO2-induced warming and numerous scientific data supports the skeptics (the deniers as you call them). The fact is CO2 is an essential trace gas that hasn't and can't by nature cause catastrophic warming. Anthropogenic global warming is based on computer models where it is assumed that CO2 will cause warming while ignoring all other natural climate variables. Those computer models didn't predict the current global cooling trend. They predicted steady warming until we all burst into flames. Instead we've had no net warming in 10 years and steady cooling since 2002 coinciding with a shift to the cool mode of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. The data doesn't lie. Only politicians do. I'm ready for more ad hominem attacks from the "believers" so go for it.</p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #4 by naught101</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/what-is-lack-of-political-will/</link>
			<pubDate>Thu, 04 Dec 2008 10:21:29 -0800</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/what-is-lack-of-political-will/4</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>sigh... deniers and skeptics<p>retroproxy: there is a significant difference between a "skeptic" - and there are many people who are skeptical of particular parts of AGW theory, but very few who are skeptical of the theory as aq whole - and deniers.<p>
The difference is that skeptics look for holes in data or logic, and try to correct them, where deniers cover up the data with lies.<p>
The point is, you are lying, either that <br>
a) I've read it all... I've researched this topic extensivly from all angles for many years. I think for myself.<br>
or in that<br>
b) you know all the crap you are pushing is false, as every single point of it has been disproven many times, both on this site and others. <p>
Russ already pointed you to a list that covers everything you brought up. If you have something NEW, that hasn't been dealt with (this is the action of a skeptic), or that you can't find an response to, please let us know, we'll be happy to help find an answer.

<p>check out <a href="http://www.envirowiki.info" rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow"> <a href="http://www.envirowiki.info" rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow">http://www.envirowiki.info, the knowledge database for environmentalists and activists.</a></a></p></p></br></br></br></p></p></p></strong></p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>sigh... deniers and skeptics<p>retroproxy: there is a significant difference between a "skeptic" - and there are many people who are skeptical of particular parts of AGW theory, but very few who are skeptical of the theory as aq whole - and deniers.<p>
The difference is that skeptics look for holes in data or logic, and try to correct them, where deniers cover up the data with lies.<p>
The point is, you are lying, either that <br>
a) I've read it all... I've researched this topic extensivly from all angles for many years. I think for myself.<br>
or in that<br>
b) you know all the crap you are pushing is false, as every single point of it has been disproven many times, both on this site and others. <p>
Russ already pointed you to a list that covers everything you brought up. If you have something NEW, that hasn't been dealt with (this is the action of a skeptic), or that you can't find an response to, please let us know, we'll be happy to help find an answer.

<p>check out <a href="http://www.envirowiki.info" rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow"> <a href="http://www.envirowiki.info" rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow">http://www.envirowiki.info, the knowledge database for environmentalists and activists.</a></a></p></p></br></br></br></p></p></p></strong></p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #5 by amazingdrx</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/what-is-lack-of-political-will/</link>
			<pubDate>Thu, 04 Dec 2008 13:49:37 -0800</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/what-is-lack-of-political-will/5</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>10 to 20 years?</strong></p><p>"By all means I believe we should start investing in "green" energy technologies but we shouldn't drastically cut CO2 emissions before we have a viable "green" infrastructure. It would be economic suicide. Replacing our entire energy infrastructure will take decades and trillions of dollars."</p><p>
Yep, no need to get excited retro, that's what most of us want here. &nbsp;A 10 to 20 year conversion from fossil fuel energy to renewable energy, not only for the good of the cliomate, but for the good of the global economy.</p><p>
These monopoly games, oil wars, market bubbles, and terrorism impelled by oil kleptocracies are killing our economic, political, and cultural health. &nbsp;Relying on limited, monopoly held commodities for the energy that powers civilization is not a good long term plan.</p><p>
Nothing more drastic than a longer version of WW II war production will be necessary. &nbsp;We have 10 to 20 years to win, instead of 3 1/2 years as in WW II.</p><p>
You go right ahead supporting this new energy economy and we won't mind at all if you disbelieve anthropogenic GHG climate change. &nbsp;BTW, "global warming" is an obsolete phrase.

<p>http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog     John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin </p></p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>10 to 20 years?</strong></p><p>"By all means I believe we should start investing in "green" energy technologies but we shouldn't drastically cut CO2 emissions before we have a viable "green" infrastructure. It would be economic suicide. Replacing our entire energy infrastructure will take decades and trillions of dollars."</p><p>
Yep, no need to get excited retro, that's what most of us want here. &nbsp;A 10 to 20 year conversion from fossil fuel energy to renewable energy, not only for the good of the cliomate, but for the good of the global economy.</p><p>
These monopoly games, oil wars, market bubbles, and terrorism impelled by oil kleptocracies are killing our economic, political, and cultural health. &nbsp;Relying on limited, monopoly held commodities for the energy that powers civilization is not a good long term plan.</p><p>
Nothing more drastic than a longer version of WW II war production will be necessary. &nbsp;We have 10 to 20 years to win, instead of 3 1/2 years as in WW II.</p><p>
You go right ahead supporting this new energy economy and we won't mind at all if you disbelieve anthropogenic GHG climate change. &nbsp;BTW, "global warming" is an obsolete phrase.

<p>http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog     John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin </p></p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #6 by Whiskerfish</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/what-is-lack-of-political-will/</link>
			<pubDate>Thu, 04 Dec 2008 21:11:07 -0800</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/what-is-lack-of-political-will/6</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Ooh! Retro!!</strong></p><p>Rub my smokestack would ya! </p><p>
I love a man who knows where he stands -- especially a dirty, smelly, coal-smudged, oil slick-soaked, traffic jam-inhabiting, sexually-inadequate old-fashioned sorta not-so-keen-on-the-details kinda fella.</p><p>
Rrrumphh!</p><p>
Whiskerfish</p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Ooh! Retro!!</strong></p><p>Rub my smokestack would ya! </p><p>
I love a man who knows where he stands -- especially a dirty, smelly, coal-smudged, oil slick-soaked, traffic jam-inhabiting, sexually-inadequate old-fashioned sorta not-so-keen-on-the-details kinda fella.</p><p>
Rrrumphh!</p><p>
Whiskerfish</p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #7 by amazingdrx</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/what-is-lack-of-political-will/</link>
			<pubDate>Fri, 05 Dec 2008 02:02:30 -0800</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/what-is-lack-of-political-will/7</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Hehehey</strong></p><p>Careful with that thing Whisker, you'll get mercury laced tar and fly ash all over.

<p>http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog     John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin </p></p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Hehehey</strong></p><p>Careful with that thing Whisker, you'll get mercury laced tar and fly ash all over.

<p>http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog     John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin </p></p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
 </channel>
</rss>