Comments on: Costs Will Soar Due To ‘Global Warming’

By: Gila Monster

Gila Monster — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 14:58:29 +0000

Pssssst, psssst, …. hey Colonel, that’s the 800 pound gorilla in the room that the Goracle and his fellow ~~snake-oil salesmen~~ alarmist ilk refuse to talk about.

From Wiki;

In order, Earth’s most abundant greenhouse gases are:
water vapor
carbon dioxide
methane
nitrous oxide
ozone
CFCs
When these gases are ranked by their contribution to the greenhouse effect, the most important are:
water vapor, which contributes 36–70%
carbon dioxide, which contributes 9–26%
methane, which contributes 4–9%
ozone, which contributes 3–7%
The major non-gas contributor to the Earth’s greenhouse effect, clouds, also absorb and emit infrared radiation and thus have an effect on radiative properties of the greenhouse gases.[6][7]

http://tinyurl.com/ycdeae

And further down in the entry, we get this tidbit;

Water vapor accounts for the largest percentage of the greenhouse effect, between 36% and 66% for water vapor alone, and between 66% and 85% when factoring in clouds.[7]

In the Goracle’s pseudo-bible of anthropogenic global warming, it is specifically forbidden to speak about “water vapor”, the single largest reason we have any type of global warming, or global cooling for that matter.

By: Colonel1961

Colonel1961 — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 03:04:11 +0000

Isn’t water vapor classified as a greenhouse gas, now? I mean, it looks so evil – it has to be!

By: Perdido

Perdido — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 02:33:36 +0000

Cool. Longer growing seasons equal better wild bird populations and cheaper hay for my horses. It will also mean less pressure on fossil fuel stocks, especially the oils that I use to fuel my RV.

These guys are arguing there way out of any plausible stance.

A lot of these “Climate Concernees” are also busy fretting about over-population. If they were right about the increase in ocean originating storms they should, logically speaking, be happy about the whole megastorm aspect of hot oceans. These big storms are going to hit huge, poor, earth defiling populations concentrated in coastal areas. It smells bad for a few weeks, but hey, look at the upside…

By: mrfocus

mrfocus — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 23:02:29 +0000

nice photo of those cooling towers emitting the greenhouse gas water vapor

By: sheehanjihad

sheehanjihad — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 20:11:27 +0000

They talk about household expenses going up in the next 90 years due to global warming…..that is NOTHING compared to household expenses going up during the last 90 days due to Obama’s socialist warming. The climate at it’s worst will do little monetary damage compared to the Obama administration’s cost of destroying our economy. We dont need to worry about a tenth of a thousandth of a degree increase in atmospheric tempurature, we need to worry about a job, food, clothing, and shelter first. Keep throwing this phantom menace in our way Obamy! Keep the focus off of your rape of the United States.

By: Right of the People

Right of the People — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 19:59:14 +0000

I think selective removal of certain humans could be quite beneficial to society as a whole beginning with the 535 and the moron in the Oval Orifice.

10-7

By: pdsand

pdsand — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 17:58:56 +0000

As all global warming alarmism does, they used the statistical fallacy of taking a correlation or trend, and applying it outside of the sample. They discovered a trend of increases in certain costs during a heatwave year in 2003 and 1995. It’s fair to observe that trend, but it’s unacceptable to extrapolate way out into the future, and say, ‘if this happens every year for the next 90 years, and if the heatwaves get worse, then you can see that this cost will really skyrocket!’. That is pure junk science.

By: proreason

proreason — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 17:21:54 +0000

The truth, of course, is that global warming, if it were actually happening instead of being a scam cooked up to improve Al Toad’s ego and portfolio, would be a huge benefit to mankind in almost every respect.

A benefit, that is, unless your goal was to remove humans from the planet.

By: nuthingbettertodo

nuthingbettertodo — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 16:04:07 +0000

Meantime….it was 17 degrees when I woke up with a windchill in the single digits.

By: BillK

BillK — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 15:51:55 +0000

The media has to begin pumping out articles like this so that when your energy bills triple and fuel costs go equally high due to Obama’s carbon taxes, he’ll play it as saving the American consumer – the way he’s trying to push socialized medicine right now as the way to save GM and other industries.

By: TheChicagoWay

TheChicagoWay — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 15:48:09 +0000

Ask yourself…All things being equal…Is it cheaper to live on the beach in some tropical location or is it cheaper to live where you have to obtain shelter from temperatures that will kill exposed humans?…

Using the logic posed by these idiots, man would have evolved on the artic wastes and then, through expanding population, been forced to migrate to much harsher climates like those found in the garden of eden…..

When is the populace going to see through this nonsense?