|
||||||||||
James William Smith has worked in Senior management positions for some of the largest Financial Services firms in the United States for the last twenty five years. He has also provided business consulting support for insurance organizations and start up businesses. He has always been interested in writing and listening to different viewpoints on interesting topics. Visit his website at www.eworldvu.com. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
Comments on all articles by James Smith (1,185)     Taking The Temperature Of Global Climate Change Comment by Joel Hendon (4,368)    Joel Hendon  (14 days 20 hours ago.) Another outstanding article James, but the chances are you may as well be talking to a fence post. Those of the Chicken Little mindset will freeze to death before they admit that our CO2 isn't going to burn us to death. It is not even a pollutant but a naturally occurring and necessary element. Ash, soot, and various other solids expelled into the air are pollutants. It does absorb heat but it is so infinitesimal in comparison to the main heat carring element..water vapor, that is sheer stupidity to thank it was causing the atmospheric heat increase. Keep writing, your doing great. Beijing 2008 Was A Bad Bet By The I.O.C. Hannah Quinn from Australia: (29 days 16 hours ago.)  James, Some thoughtful comments here. Let's hope there is enough of the right type of pressure, mostly governmental/diplomatic to clean up their act in more ones than one. And let's hope all the elite athletes come home healthy, especially in the long term. Cheers, Hannah Comment by Steve Radford (765)   Steve Radford (30 days 15 hours ago.)Excellent article James. With seven years to prepare, I'm a little surprised that China hasn't done more to at least mask their problems. Unless they just refuse to recognize human rights and the environment as problems. The Year of Sun-Made Global Cooling James Smith: (73 days 3 hours ago.) I read the article on texas that you suggested. The air is indeed a sorry mess and should be cleaned up in the lone star state. However, if this sorry mess is responsible for global warming why is the earth now dramatically. cooling. Sorry, but the co2 in texas has as much to do with global warming as the hot air coming from the United Nations on this subject. Comment by James P Krehbiel (1,686)  James P Krehbiel (73 days 10 hours ago.)You guys must be friends with Texas Governor Perry. He doubts that global warming is a man-made problem. The states former governor President George W. Bush (mentioned above) disagrees. He thinks that global warming exists and that it is man-made. Have you guys driven through Texas, Pennsylvannia or Gary, Indiana lately? Is the sun causing these CO2 emissions which are affecting my eyes and our environment? Keep trying, maybe you'll get a few believers who deny the reality of our polluted environment and think the crisis is over! Please! Comment by Joel Hendon (4,368) Joel Hendon (73 days 23 hours ago.)Great article James. What is actually going to happen is that most of the grantees are going to vehemently deny any such evidence in order to milk every cent they can from their grantors. Then finally when it becomes undeniably evident they are wrong, all will join hands and blame George Bush for lieing to them about WMD's. The same bunch of grantees are also adamantly boosting naturalistic origins and macroevolution when the rug has been jerked from under them in the past couple of decades. Their credibility is running out. Too Chicken to use name: (75 days 19 hours ago.) Interesting points James. But the global warming crowd is way ahead of you. They quit talking about warming months ago. It's all about climate change. Prepare for comments discounting your sources as being on some right wing payroll. Man-Made Global Warming Is Tulip Bulb Mania Comment by Joel Hendon (4,368) Joel Hendon (79 days 1 hour ago.)Thank you James for an outstanding article. Well written and substantiated. I have been trying to bring out these points now for a year or two, but not nearly as eloquent as yours. You might want to take the time to read the couple I have here on Searchwarp. Especially did you do an excellent job on the underlying causation of this "BIG" deal. Money, which brings on deception, lies and anything else you can think of. Surviving The Hype Of The Apocalypse of 2012 Comment by Robert Melaccio, Sr. (3,629)  Robert Melaccio, Sr. (126 days 19 hours ago.)Interesting article and I agree no one knws for sure the day or the hour. Now please don't get me wrong I don't know if that date or any date will signal the actual date, if any at all. However, perhaps you have a slant for article #2 on religious end time prophesy? I find it strange that many pagan and religious prophesy coincides with this time period. Then again part of End Time Prophesy is unbelievers and scoffers. They are required. It really shouldn't matter to any "true" believer what the day or hour becuase they expectit could come at any moment. However, if I were a skeptic or unbeliever I would at least, as they say in Las Vegas, cover the bet. Perhaps research and expansion of this topic will make more good reading for all? Thanks for the input RTM. Response from James Smith (1,185) The Voters' New Year's Resolution Comment by Avis Ward (7,719)  (130 days 13 hours ago.)I agree with Krehbiel's comment! Global Warming Is An Issue, Not A Crusade Comment by Gorazd Andrejc (65)   Gorazd Andrejc (137 days 3 hours ago.) It is of course always interesting to hear pros and cons, and consider carefully any cons in this matter as well. But again, without presenting the arguments that speak so strongly in favor of man-caused global warming hypotheses, the cons simply lack the background. The sceintific consensus of which James Krehbiel writes is a real one and very critically achieved with tens of thousands of sceptical minds testing it. Please. Thanks God you have poeple who try to find holes in explanations, because in this way they get better. But to confuse objections and possible shortcoming of the explanation with its being simply wrong, is not helpful. Comment by James Carrick (147) (139 days 15 hours ago.)To James Krehbiel: I mention Crichton's book because A) Its plot runs along the lines of the debate on this article and B) I recently read the book so it is fresh in my mind. I don't think Crichton is anymore an expert on global warming because he wrote "State Of Fear" than Al Gore is because he did "AN Inconveinient Truth"! You mention the Brookings Institute review of Crichton's book which I looked up and read. You are correct that they denounce the book as nonsense. But I also found an article by the Heartland Institute that backs up Crichton's book. So you have two differing views, one for the validity of Crichton's book, one against. You state to James Smith that "bonafide" scientists agree on global warming. Does that mean that the scientists that disagree are not "bonafide"? And how do you define bonafide? Meaning that only scientists that agree with your view are bonafide? I feel there is room for discussion. I do agree with you that many scientists think there is a global warming threat and that man is responsible for it. But there are also many that don't agree with that view. And all of them are good, respected scientists. I don't think there is a global warming catastrophe. I'm certainly no expert, just a regular Joe with an opinion. And like many times before, my opinion could very well be wrong! Thanks James for your comments! Comment by James P Krehbiel (1,686) James P Krehbiel (141 days 10 hours ago.)This last comment was not supposed to be annonymous. It was directed to James Carrick's comments. Anonymous: (141 days 11 hours ago.) James Carrick, Michael Crichton's book, The State of Fear is exactly what it is, science fiction. No one in the scientific community is taking his "facts" seriously. In fact he has been mocked for his exaggerated claims. The Brookings Institute wrote a review which clearly puts this book where it belongs, in the realm of fiction. I DO NOT prove any point. I am not a believer in global warming. I am merely trusting the scientific consensus of climate change that has been well established by the scientific community. There are those who would like to stir up this issue after the fact for ideological and political reasons. I am not one of them. I am merely reflecting what the majority of the major scientific community have concluded. It is interesting that you brought up Michael Crichton's name. You could have done better than that! There are opinions, beliefs, theories, hypothesis and then there is FACT. The scientific facts were thwarted by the Bush Administration until they had no choice but to accept reality or face on-gong global embarrassment. Comment by James Carrick (147) (144 days ago.)James Smith, good, insightful article. I recently read a book by Michael Crichton called "State Of Fear" which tackles this very issue. It is a fiction book written with real "facts" about the world's climate. He even uses footnotes on the pages to tell exactly where he got his information. If you get the chance, check it out if you haven't already. I tend to agree with your article here. I remember when I was in school in the late 70's my science teachers saying we were going into a new ice age! Of course, that didn't happen. After the bad hurricanes in 2005 that destroyed New Orleans, I listened to weather "experts" saying how this was going to be the norm from now on due to global warming. As you state in your article, the last two hurricane seasons were very mild. Weather people cannot accurately predict what the weather's going to be like 8 days from now, let alone 20, 30 or 50 years from now. There should be an open debate and there definately are two sides to the global warming story. However, James Krehbiel proves your point about "true believers" not accepting any other view but their own. To James Krehbiel: I applaud your passion for this issue and agree we should work to clean up our environment. However, I believe Mr. Smith does not disagree that there is a warming trend, just that there are two sides to this story and both sides should be given its due course. In reading your comments to Mr. Smith, you are proving him right by disregarding everything in his article. Thanks to both of you for this lively debate! The Voters' New Year's Resolution Comment by James P Krehbiel (1,686) James P Krehbiel (146 days 21 hours ago.)James, Excellent synopsis of our current politcal landscape. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year! Comment by LM Davids (5,429)  LM Davids (146 days 23 hours ago.)I may be wrong, but didn't Bill Clinton come out of nowhere about a year before he was elected, kind of like Huckabee is doing now? Global Warming Is An Issue, Not A Crusade Comment by James P Krehbiel (1,686) James P Krehbiel (147 days ago.)James, I thought you wanted dialogue. I answered your questions, how about mine? Comment by James P Krehbiel (1,686) James P Krehbiel (147 days 12 hours ago.)Your first question is loaded. However, I will answer it. The United Nations does the best job they can. There are pitfalls and the United States is one of them. By the way, I have perused your blogs and find them quite interesting. We criticized the UN and then we unilaterally went to war in Iraq after lying to the world body about our motives. That doesn't bode well for this country, especially since we owe the UN millions and use the excuse of the ineffectiveness of the charter which we have contributed to disrespecting. With regards to your second question, if the following bodies have second thoughts... Let me reiterate: The American Geophysical Union, The American Meteorolgical Society, The Amercian Association for the Advancement of Science, the National Academy of Sciences, the Climate Change Program,and the George W. Bush Coordinating Agency I would reconsider. By the way, what happened to your hot news about late breaking changes in the global warming issue posted on the website? I can't seem to find it tonight. I have a couple of questions. What governing body would you propose that we use other than the UN? Did you think that the President of Columbia University conducted himself appropriately? Did the Bush Administration try to thwart efforts of the scientific community to spread the word about global warming? Response from James Smith (1,185) Comment by James Smith (1,185) (147 days 15 hours ago.)James, So let me see if I understand your position. You believe that the United Nations is correct in saying that "all scientists speak with one voice" and that man made global warming is "unequivocal". Next, You believe that the entire scientific community has reached a consensus on global warming and there is no longer any debate on this issue in the scientific community? Just a couple of questions 1. Do you find the United Nations effective as an organization? 2. What facts would you have to discover to change your mind on your position on man made global warming.? Comment by James P Krehbiel (1,686) James P Krehbiel (147 days 16 hours ago.)Please! Mr. Inhofe gave his politically right wing speech on Fox News to try to muddy the waters about man-made global warming. He said, "God is still up there" and all of this is "due to the sun." The IPCC with thousands of scientists from over 120 countries have weighed in. Many are currently meeting in Paris to complete work on a global warming treaty. As I said, this is merely an ideological bunch of nonsense - "it's all about Hollywood elitists, etc." The report you site will prove to be worthless. No major media outlet will take it seriously. Stick with the facts not political or religious ideology. Comment by James P Krehbiel (1,686) James P Krehbiel (147 days 18 hours ago.)James, Once again you are going down this road. The issue of "beliefs" is for those who get their religious and political ideology mixed with "fact." There is not a bonifide scientist out there who does not provide sound evidence that global warming exists. I provided you with a list of various scientific communities that support global warming. This has nothing to do with the United Nations. This country, on this issue, is an embarassment to the world. This a money driven issue to protect the oil industry and political ideology. There is no discussion on this issue because it is like trying to debate creationism vs. evolution. You can't mix beliefs with scientific fact. Let's move on and clean up the environment for God's sake! Response from James Smith (1,185) Comment by Joel Hendon (4,368) Joel Hendon (147 days 20 hours ago.)Great article James, and I appreciate it. I've written a number of articles on this subject but none as well researched and organized as this one. You are absolutely correct about the firm believers. There is no possibility that they are wrong. I read an article recently where some are now saying that the sun may save us from the horrific global warming because of the present sunspot activity. Of course, they won't acknowledge that dozens of leading scientists have been trying to tell them that all along. Global Warming Relief May Come From The Sun Comment by Dianne Lehmann (1,833)  Dianne Lehmann (153 days 21 hours ago.)Hi James. It has been on my mind since people first started talking about global warming, that warming and cooling of the earth has been going on for a very long time; for much longer that human kind has been industrialized. When I read an article in Discover magazine about sunspots and global temperatures several months back, it made good sense to me. But there are people who do not agree with the findings. It's my guess that these people have an axe to grind and the sunspot cycle theory effectively removes their grinding stone. Comment by Joel Hendon (4,368) Joel Hendon (156 days 19 hours ago.)Another great article, James. But now you see what they are doing. They, who have staked everything on their insistance that man made pollution or carbon dioxide has brought on this spell of global warming are now saying the sun may save us. In other words, they are in no way going to admit they were wrong when 19,000 honest scientists tried to tell them all the time. They can now see the handwriting on the wall so they must never admit wrong, but can only save face by blessing the sun for snatching us out of doom. I have not read all of the 19,000 scientists comments who have tried to calm people down, but the few that I have read have said all along that the sun's activity cycle should start changing soon. I hope the Nobel people will rescind Al Gore's share of this years prize. The Secret Scientific Debate On Global Warming robert melaccio sr: (169 days 23 hours ago.) Your talking about money here so be careful. Also, as Ebeneezer Scrooge once said "decrease the surplus population". The only thing is it could be the entire population. Oh well "money talks nobody walks", as the car dealers slogan used to say.Best wishes and keep writing, rtm Comment by Joel Hendon (4,368) Joel Hendon (175 days ago.)James, I would like to commend you for an article of facts and reason. You gave the information but you can depend upon those such as Al Gore (who invented the internet) to yell with the "Chicken Little" mindset. As you said, there is the 19,000 who have signed the petition denouncing the issue. Everything that Gore and his followers can say is global warming is a fact. We all know that. It takes no rocket scientist to understand it. But this period of warming is not...NOT...the first or the worst warming trend that has been recorded. And there is also the fact that the rise in carbon monoxide in the atmosphere is a phenomenon that follows, not precedes, the rise in temperature. I have written on the same subject listed in my Searchwarp articles but not nearly as well written as yours. Many want to know why then are so many "scientists" insisting that the "sky is falling". It all boils down to lucrative grants being poured into the scientific establishments to look into it further. They will "milk" it as long as they can. Comment by Ben Jones (4,549)  Ben Jones (175 days 1 hour ago.) In one breath you quote John Coleman who said "Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives" to suggest that scientists who are warning of Global Warming are involved in a world wide conspiracy but then in the next breath you start espousing views from Dr William Gray who, introduced one of his latest papers with a quote from an ideologically rigorous politician, who has a vested interest in advocating for the regulatory interests of the fossil fuel industry. Sounds down right conspiratorial... More than this, and to the point, Gray's papers are almost never submitted for peer review. This is the process where a scientific paper is submitted to peers in the scientific community before being published and is required before being submitted to credible and respected journals to ensure that they are well researched and based on scientific evidence (ie not unsubstantiated, floored or full of errors and miscalculations). The reason he does not submit for peer reviews is because Gray provides no evidence or researched data behind his arguments, he puts forth theories and then announces them as fact and he passes of junk science as gospel and proceeds to decry anyone who disagrees with him. That's not science, that's blind dogma. As for Roger Pielke Snr, it might be noteworthy to point out that he was on of the advisors for Bush until 2005. Can anyone say political motives? Comment by James P Krehbiel (1,686) James P Krehbiel (175 days 11 hours ago.)James, In the 1990's there is was still considerable skepticism about global warming by the scientific community. At this point there is near unanimous scientific consensus among credentialed researchers regarding artificial warming as a significant phenomenon of danger. Take into account: The American Geophysical Union, The American Meterological Society, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, The National Academy of Sciences - United Kingdom, Japan, Germany, China, and other nations. Consider the Climate Change Science Program, the George W. Bush coordinating agency which found "clear evidience of human conditions affecting climatic change." I find your premise unreasonable and lacking in scientific crediblility. Response from James Smith (1,185) Health Care And The Fairness Of High Cigarette Taxes Comment by James P Krehbiel (1,686) James P Krehbiel (182 days 10 hours ago.)James, Amen! Tax the heck out of the cigarette smokers. It is effective in reducing useage and it benefits all aspects of society. Thanks. The Insecurity of the RFID Chip Comment by Ben Jones (4,549) Ben Jones (191 days 7 hours ago.)The long term goal is to put all financial transactions through the RFID chip. This means that not only will people be able to be tracked in terms of where they are, what they buy, who they interact with, how much money they have and on and on, but more importantly it could very well end up a means of population manipulation and control. If everything goes through the chips then you can control disobedient or unwanted actions (such as protesting these types of controls) by simply turning a persons RFID chip, taking them off the grid. Your savings, personal information and security could one day be turned off as simply as one turns off a light. No RFID chip, no food, no gas, no hope... People should be raging against this type of control; we're rapidly losing our civil liberties and our rights with little or no noise from most of us, and this type of technology used in this way is a huge step in the wrong direction. Good article and I hope a lot more people read it and understand the potential dangers that it could lead too. Comment by Robert Melaccio, Sr. (3,629) Robert Melaccio, Sr. (191 days 21 hours ago.)Wow another Bible prophecy right before our eyes. A small chip placed in the forehead or under the skin of the hand which will track and identify and will allow people to buy and sell, or NOT! Laugh if you want to, thats one of the others. I call it another sign and symbol even though it isn't here yet, one day it will come to pass. Good job, RTM The Politics Of Illegal Immigration Comment by Robert Melaccio, Sr. (3,629) Robert Melaccio, Sr. (194 days 19 hours ago.)Good article. It all started with Jimmy Carter, The Thousand Points of light, NAFTA, The UN, SPP and the G8 all run by the same bunch of Free market thinkersBest Wishes, Give all incumbebts the boot! Good article. The Media Age Of Celebrity Faux News JL from US: (213 days 21 hours ago.) Kinda makes you scratch your head and wonder what could possibly be the next trend. In Myanmar, “Its Not Power That Corrupts, But Fear” Comment by Steve Radford (765) Steve Radford (217 days 13 hours ago.)James, Interesting and informative article. I don't understand the UN's position. It seems they would support the elected government. The I-35W Was A Bridge Too Far Comment by Robert Melaccio, Sr. (3,629) Robert Melaccio, Sr. (225 days 21 hours ago.)Good job but a dead issue if you are looking for any politican to do something? Just like everything else it is on the very bottom of the agenda. Not enough money you know. Its all going south. If you want something done then vote them all out and start fresh! Best wishes. Barry Bonds And Major League Baseball's Home Run Record Comment by Cari Jones (189)  (277 days 7 hours ago.)The controversy has created at least 29 consecutive sellout crowds at Candlestick Park in the pursuit of the record, which could explain why he was allowed to attain the record, but don't worry, they won't allow him, McGwire, Rose and many other great players that have the "taint" into the hall of fame. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
last updated 8/2/2007 |
||||||||||
