http://www.theotherpaper.com/articles/2009/02/07/front/doc498b07c3e889d326202045.txt This guy is a weather expert and has tons of degrees on the subject. Al Gore has zero degrees. Jym Ganahl studied weather for 30+ years. Did I mention he has tons of degrees so he knows what he's talking about. Unlike Al Gore he also debates people on the subject too.[:)]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Io-Tb7vTamY This video is also pretty intresting. We had one of the coldest winters on record. Brrrr!
Counterpoint:
http://norvig.com/oreskes.html
I'd say these institutions hold some weight:
'This conclusion is endorsed by the National Academy of Sciences, The American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union and its parent organization, the American Institute of Physics, the national science academies of the G8 nations, Brazil, China, and India. and the American Association for the Advancement of Science.'
Why don't you and Jim Inhofe go have lunch...oh, wait a minute, he's not your representative seeing that you're not from Tulsa!
[:O]
Let's focus on the facts about global warming not political agendas. Scientists do not agree with Al Gore.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfHW7KR33IQ&feature=related
quote:
Originally posted by sauerkraut
Let's focus on the facts about global warming not political agendas. Scientists do not agree with Al Gore.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfHW7KR33IQ&feature=related
How was the previous a political agenda? I'd say the only agenda here was yours and Jim Inhofe's. But let's not let the National Academy of Sciences, The American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union and its parent organization, the American Institute of Physics, the national science academies of the G8 nations, Brazil, China, and India. and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have any credence here. Your agenda smacks somewhat of isolationism.
But then again, I guess you can't get people in Columbus to listen to you, so you turn your attentions to that place you haven't lived in 20 years. Not surprising.
[xx(]
It seems fairly easy to line up experts, professional associations and government agencies on each side of this issue. The politics of it is immense. Did you vote for Gore? I side with the preponderence of scientific thought which is that climate change is already upon us and is easily measurable. Denying it is more political than scientific. Now, how to adjust to that change is a different, arguable matter.
The reading I did about this subject gave me a couple of key words and phrases to look for when deciding if the user is conversation worthy. The first key is the term itself. The term Global Warming is misleading. People think that it means we should be experiencing warmer weather, easier winters etc. So when that doesn't happen and you hear someone mention record cold winters (your post) or a cool summer you know you got a dead fish on the line.
The warming of the planet sets off extremes in weather conditions and changes in set patterns. An extremely cold winter, an increase in hurricanes and tornadoes (or their intensity), dry mild summers punctuated with blazing hot periods, snow in the South of France are all symptoms of that warming.
The truth may be that a weather man with 30yrs experience may trump all the other viewpoints. If so Gary England in OKC should be on the lecture circuit. But, science is always evolving. Questioning each side is fine as long as you're willing to suffer the consequences of the defeat. If Global Warming proponents are wrong and we have invested in efforts to clean the air and water while adjusting lifestyles in response to perceived change, there seems to be little loss. In fact it may stimulate new industries and improve life.
However, if the proponents were right and we invest little in those efforts, we may evaporate as a species or be very uncomfortable as we battle each other to survive.
Hmmm. I'll risk it all on Door #1.
If global warming makes it colder why is it called "global warming" instead of "global cooling"? back in the 1970's this same stuff was going but they called it global cooling switch the words in todays talk and it's the same stuff from the 1970's recycled.
quote:
Originally posted by sauerkraut
If global warming makes it colder why is it called "global warming" instead of "global cooling"? back in the 1970's this same stuff was going but they called it global cooling switch the words in todays talk and it's the same stuff from the 1970's recycled.
QED.
Didn't I hear on the news that yesterday, Feb. 6th, we had a record high temperature for Tulsa?
Today's record high is 78, and its currently 74...
quote:
Originally posted by sauerkraut
If global warming makes it colder why is it called "global warming" instead of "global cooling"? back in the 1970's this same stuff was going but they called it global cooling switch the words in todays talk and it's the same stuff from the 1970's recycled.
Get out and read a book about it or do some research on it aside from regurgitating anti-climate-change talking points. I think you and Fatstrat need to make a club.
quote:
Originally posted by sauerkraut
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Io-Tb7vTamY This video is also pretty intresting. We had one of the coldest winters on record. Brrrr!
"We" may have had one of the coldest winters on record, but that doesnt mean that the poles are colder or that other places in the world arent warmer. Remember, its the entire globe that is being talked about, its "global warming" not US warming only lol. This is one reason they have shifted to "climate change" to describe whats going on. It may be that areas of the world get colder, but on average, the entire earth will be warmer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAkKHet16Sc&feature=related
quote:
Originally posted by sauerkraut
Let's focus on the facts about global warming not political agendas. Scientists do not agree with Al Gore.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfHW7KR33IQ&feature=related
Who gives a crap about Al Gore? Most people have loooong forgotten about the guy. And whats your continued fascination with him anyway lol? I didnt believe a lot of what the guy had said, and it doesnt change my views on global warming and whether its real or not, nor should it change anyones, one way or the other.
quote:
Originally posted by sauerkraut
If global warming makes it colder why is it called "global warming" instead of "global cooling"? back in the 1970's this same stuff was going but they called it global cooling switch the words in todays talk and it's the same stuff from the 1970's recycled.
We have been over this before. Course your hoping that everyone else has forgotten.
Back in the 70s scientists were just starting to consider the impact that humans could be having on the global environment.
Remember smog? Remember seeing all those pics of California and the Grand canyon where you could barely see the sun lol? Low level ozone cools the earth. We cleaned up our act on smog and its not nearly as bad as it was in the US. Plus as they started to look into the matter further they noticed that cars and industry were putting out other stuff that you couldnt see... aka Greenhouse Gasses. They started calculating the impacts those would have and discovered that over time they would counter the smog. Plus Smog doesnt last as long in the atmosphere where as greenhouse gasses do. So at first glance it looked like the earth could cool, then they realized as they took more into consideration, that the over all impact would be warming. Since then scientists have learned more and more and more... and are getting more and more detailed. Some things cool a bit, some things warm, this counters that, this add to the other, etc. but the more they keep learning, the over all balance keeps leaning ever more assuredly towards the warming side of things.
One other thing about smog. China is producing a lot of it so is producing a lot of cooling effects. But they are also producing a lot of longer lasting, warming gasses as well. As they become "cleaner" the cooling effects will lessen and the heating effects will increase. If they werent producing as much air pollution/smog as they are now, we would currently be seeing even more warming.
Yes the media hypes, distortes and misrepresents stuff all the time. They did it in the 70s too. They always seem to leave out the qualifying words which are very important because they can make the difference between what is being said meaning one thing or entirely another lol. Its frustrating to see because then Kooks like you point to their hype and distortions as proof that scientists are wrong. And indeed many scientists themselves are wrong or use inaccurate language to describe things. As they did in the 70s. But over all, science is self correcting and after a while concensus builds, information builds, things are challenged and corrected, and you get closer and closer agreement. In the beginning when science is just starting to ask a question, the various pieces of info can produce wild swings to the answers. Is the earth 50,000 years old, perhaps even as old as a million years, hundreds of millions, Billions? At first the answers and debates swung wildly. Then the swings get less dramatic and concensus builds and settles on ever more precise answers. Now the general consensus is that it is Billions of years old and the entire universe is not just the solar system, or just the galaxy (as it was assumed even as recently as during Einsteins lifetime). As I have watched the climate change debate unfold over the last decades, I have seen more and more info being gathered, science learning more on so many fronts, and during the last several decades especially,,, the "swings" are so much smaller and settling out to the concensus that we are warming the global climate.
As for, "the climate changes, always has and will". No duh. Its the amount of change and the rapidity of that change, currently being considered, that is important.
I know those answers seem to be a lot for some people to handle lol. But thank goodness there seems to be a good number of people who can grasp it lol.
quote:
Originally posted by sauerkraut
Let's focus on the facts about global warming not political agendas. Scientists do not agree with Al Gore.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfHW7KR33IQ&feature=related
The men you are talking about as "scientists" are two TV weatherman, one of which doesn't even have a degree in meteorology or any other related discipline. These are not scientists.
There really isn't a lot of debate in the scientific community about this. Just on conservative talk radio and in Jim Inhofe's head.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
It seems fairly easy to line up experts, professional associations and government agencies on each side of this issue.
My experts are better than your experts. (Doesn't matter which side I/you support.) [:D]
Now, how to adjust to that change is a different, arguable matter.
I saw on TV (Animal Planet, Discovery, or History, I forget which.) that Polar Bears evolved as a response to global cooling many years ago. Before then, there were only brown/grizzly type bears. That's about adjusting to the change. Whether we can affect/stop the change is another topic. That depends on whether you believe the change is caused by mankind or not.
The reading I did about this subject gave me a couple of key words and phrases to look for when deciding if the user is conversation worthy. The first key is the term itself. The term Global Warming is misleading.
So far we have only been able to check spot areas and their history, not the entire globe. That can lead to cherry picking of data by either side. I believe some recent satellites have been launched that will better be able to measure the true balance of energy transfer to and from the entire earth. The results will be interesting either way.
Questioning each side is fine as long as you're willing to suffer the consequences of the defeat. If Global Warming proponents are wrong and we have invested in efforts to clean the air and water while adjusting lifestyles in response to perceived change, there seems to be little loss.
Clean air and water are a worthy goal indepent of Global Climate Change. As long as the environmental wackos are kept in check by the other side, I agree the overall effect will be beneficial. The cost may be another issue. Ethanol from corn is a knee jerk reaction only feasible through government subsidies. How much is this taking away from research for a real sustainable alternate fuel?
However, if the proponents were right and we invest little in those efforts, we may evaporate as a species or be very uncomfortable as we battle each other to survive.
It may be that we are unable to control the change. Period. It might be better that some money is spent figuring out how to adapt to the change rather than a futile effort to control the change.
Hmmm. I'll risk it all on Door #1.
I think I'll invest in Door #1 but not bet the entire farm on it.
There's lots of stuff I can post that debunks global warming, but it's ignored. There are 4 science climate experts one has a Phd who debunk global warming with facts they did a article about the subject, and they shread Al Gore's movie piece by piece. It seems some people just like political dogma and the global warming agenda over the facts. Happy carbon credit trading to you.[}:)]
quote:
Originally posted by Hawkins
Didn't I hear on the news that yesterday, Feb. 6th, we had a record high temperature for Tulsa?
Today's record high is 78, and its currently 74...
I find it interesting that the dates of some of those record high temperatures are from so long ago, such at the early 1900s. How far back do we have official temperature records for Oklahoma?
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by sauerkraut
Let's focus on the facts about global warming not political agendas. Scientists do not agree with Al Gore.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfHW7KR33IQ&feature=related
The men you are talking about as "scientists" are two TV weatherman, one of which doesn't even have a degree in meteorology or any other related discipline. These are not scientists.
There really isn't a lot of debate in the scientific community about this. Just on conservative talk radio and in Jim Inhofe's head.
yeah~ and Al Gore is a scientist and he got his degree in climate study from where? I understand Al Gore almost flunked out of his science class he got a "D" and now he's a self-made expert on the subject, he's also selling carbon credits. I made up my mind on the subject with the facts, not global warming dogma. I wish the planet was warming up I don't like cold weather. A warmer planet is better than a cold planet. I see no advantage of a colder planet. A warmer planet offers longer growing seasons and less heating oil, but it is not happening. [B)]
quote:
Originally posted by sauerkraut
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by sauerkraut
Let's focus on the facts about global warming not political agendas. Scientists do not agree with Al Gore.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfHW7KR33IQ&feature=related
The men you are talking about as "scientists" are two TV weatherman, one of which doesn't even have a degree in meteorology or any other related discipline. These are not scientists.
There really isn't a lot of debate in the scientific community about this. Just on conservative talk radio and in Jim Inhofe's head.
yeah~ and Al Gore is a scientist and he got his degree in climate study from where? I understand Al Gore almost flunked out of his science class he got a "D" and now he's a self-made expert on the subject, he's also selling carbon credits. I made up my mind on the subject with the facts, not global warming dogma. I wish the planet was warming up I don't like cold weather. A warmer planet is better than a cold planet. I see no advantage of a colder planet. A warmer planet offers longer growing seasons and less heating oil, but it is not happening. [B)]
The difference is that Al Gore doesn't claim to be a scientist and states that. Keep trying.
Where's your doctorate. You get it from Ohio State?
[xx(]
quote:
Originally posted by sauerkraut
There's lots of stuff I can post that debunks global warming, but it's ignored. There are 4 science climate experts one has a Phd who debunk global warming with facts they did a article about the subject, and they shread Al Gore's movie piece by piece. It seems some people just like political dogma and the global warming agenda over the facts. Happy carbon credit trading to you.[}:)]
I have NEVER even seen this movie you keep mentioning lol. And who cares whether someone debunked this guys silly little movie lol? Again, why this fascination with this guy and some movie he made,,, What, wasnt it like ages ago? You keep bringing up this one guy and seemingly putting the whole of authority about global warming on him, so that if he is wrong everything else on the subject is wrong?
From what I gather it sounds like it was a "sensationalist" movie meant to get peoples attention, it apparently played loose with the facts and wasnt scientifically accurate. (like that video you showed us lol) And so what, they do that on the news every day it seems lol. We all know that, but apparently you, I dont know, just think everyone thinks he was somehow the be all end all of the global warming debate lol. Disproving something that was silly and never credible in the first place,,, don't do much for ya dude lol. You sound reeeally strange. I dont know, do they still talk about Gore and that movie on those conservative channels and stuff and thus you mistakingly think everyone does? Its actually kind of telling that they have to reach back to Gore and that movie to try and find fault with things lol. If thats the best they can do, its a sorry state of affairs lol[}:)].
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
One other thing about smog. China is producing a lot of it so is producing a lot of cooling effects. But they are also producing a lot of longer lasting, warming gasses as well. As they become "cleaner" the cooling effects will lessen and the heating effects will increase. If they werent producing as much air pollution/smog as they are now, we would currently be seeing even more warming.
At last, a logical reason why the Kyoto (that city in Japan) Accords allow developing countries to keep polluting. The developed countries have to pay more to control everything. The jobs and manufacturing go to developing countries that spew pollution to counteract greenhouse gasses while they keep manufacturing costs down. Their citizens get to choke on soot like we had to do while we were developing. Their life expectancy goes down as they change from agrarian to urban lifestyles. Their population then becomes self limiting. The world achieves cooling/warming balance at the expense of the health of the developing countries. Carbon credits are bought and sold, creating yet another non-productive "industry" that does nothing more than transfer money to a select few.
As I have watched the climate change debate unfold over the last decades, I have seen more and more info being gathered, science learning more on so many fronts, and during the last several decades especially,,, the "swings" are so much smaller and settling out to the concensus that we are warming the global climate.
Concensus is not the same as proof. Most times it will be correct but occasionally there appears someone like the MD that determined that stomach ulcers were caused by something other than the concensus. (I believe he determined the cause to be either a virus or bacteria.)
Unfortunately the topic of Climate Warming/Change/Whatever has become so political that the proponents have snapped their minds shut like a steel trap to any data that does not support their hypothesis of that change being caused by mankind.
As for, "the climate changes, always has and will". No duh. Its the amount of change and the rapidity of that change, currently being considered, that is important.
More important is the attitude that we must do "whatever it takes" (I hate that concept with the possible exception of something like the WWII Battle of the Bulge because usually people don't really mean it) to stop the change when it is not proven that it is caused by mankind or that it is controllable. We may be forced to learn to live with it as "we" did with the "Little Ice Age". The point of this is that all of this effort to control climate change has an economic and social cost. As I posted elsewhere, some of the programs are good as a stand alone goal, regardless of climate change. The cost/benefit ratio must be kept realistic. Of course, everyone's opinion of realistic will be different.
Artist,
I am not picking on you. You just happened to post some items I wanted to respond to for a while.
RA
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
quote:
Originally posted by sauerkraut
There's lots of stuff I can post that debunks global warming, but it's ignored. There are 4 science climate experts one has a Phd who debunk global warming with facts they did a article about the subject, and they shread Al Gore's movie piece by piece. It seems some people just like political dogma and the global warming agenda over the facts. Happy carbon credit trading to you.[}:)]
I have NEVER even seen this movie you keep mentioning lol. And who cares whether someone debunked this guys silly little movie lol? Again, why this fascination with this guy and some movie he made,,, What, wasnt it like ages ago? You keep bringing up this one guy and seemingly putting the whole of authority about global warming on him, so that if he is wrong everything else on the subject is wrong?
From what I gather it sounds like it was a "sensationalist" movie meant to get peoples attention, it apparently played loose with the facts and wasnt scientifically accurate. (like that video you showed us lol) And so what, they do that on the news every day it seems lol. We all know that, but apparently you, I dont know, just think everyone thinks he was somehow the be all end all of the global warming debate lol. Disproving something that was silly and never credible in the first place,,, don't do much for ya dude lol. You sound reeeally strange. I dont know, do they still talk about Gore and that movie on those conservative channels and stuff and thus you mistakingly think everyone does? Its actually kind of telling that they have to reach back to Gore and that movie to try and find fault with things lol. If thats the best they can do, its a sorry state of affairs lol[}:)].
I also have never seen his movie, but I have read reviews of it and read where science experts rip his movie dogma to shreads. The thing is some schools take his movie as gospel and that's dangerous and a few schools are brain washing our children with this global warming dogma. Al Gore gave a talk to 12 year old kids telling them to believe in global warming. (Glenn beck played that tape on his radio show).. Al Gore is one of the self-made major leaders of this global warming movement. When people think Al Gore people think Global Warming the two go hand in hand. He's pushing a dangerous agenda that can ruin our economy and make life tuff for people in the western world. Al Gore also will not and refuses to debate anyone on this subject,and he has no degrees in science. President Obama buys into Al Gore's theory and wants to start carbon credits and "Cap & Trade".. Open up that wallet, it's going to cost every American big time and all for a hoax. This nonsense needs to stop before it's too late.
quote:
Originally posted by sauerkraut
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
quote:
Originally posted by sauerkraut
There's lots of stuff I can post that debunks global warming, but it's ignored. There are 4 science climate experts one has a Phd who debunk global warming with facts they did a article about the subject, and they shread Al Gore's movie piece by piece. It seems some people just like political dogma and the global warming agenda over the facts. Happy carbon credit trading to you.[}:)]
I have NEVER even seen this movie you keep mentioning lol. And who cares whether someone debunked this guys silly little movie lol? Again, why this fascination with this guy and some movie he made,,, What, wasnt it like ages ago? You keep bringing up this one guy and seemingly putting the whole of authority about global warming on him, so that if he is wrong everything else on the subject is wrong?
From what I gather it sounds like it was a "sensationalist" movie meant to get peoples attention, it apparently played loose with the facts and wasnt scientifically accurate. (like that video you showed us lol) And so what, they do that on the news every day it seems lol. We all know that, but apparently you, I dont know, just think everyone thinks he was somehow the be all end all of the global warming debate lol. Disproving something that was silly and never credible in the first place,,, don't do much for ya dude lol. You sound reeeally strange. I dont know, do they still talk about Gore and that movie on those conservative channels and stuff and thus you mistakingly think everyone does? Its actually kind of telling that they have to reach back to Gore and that movie to try and find fault with things lol. If thats the best they can do, its a sorry state of affairs lol[}:)].
I also have never seen his movie, but I have read reviews of it and read where science experts rip his movie dogma to shreads. The thing is same schools take his movie as gospel and that's dangerous. Al Gore is one of the self-made major leaders of this global warming movement. When people think Al Gore people think Global Warming the two go hand in hand. He's pushing a dangerous agenda that can ruin our economy and make life tuff for people in the western world. Al Gore also will not and refuses to debate anyone on this subject, even though he has no degrees in science. President Obama buys into Al Gore's theory and wants to start carbon credits and "Cap & Trade".. Open up that wallet, it's going to cost every American big time and all for a hoax. This nonsense needs to stop before it's too late.
Typical. You back up your stance on climate change/global warming with a video YOU YOURSELF admits to have never seen.
Brilliant!
(http://www.mustangmods.com/data/10900/brilliant.jpg)
Hoss, he has proven to be non-conversation worthy. Red Arrow on the other hand is more of a pragmatist. Yes, RA, trying to control nature is dumb. Making fuel from corn is even dumber. But we are at the top of the food chain because of our ability to reason, adapt, think etc. If we can modify our behavior to positively affect change based on our own reasonable determination of facts, it seems we should do so rather than sit back and just let stuff happen because we are so powerless against nature. We've done so before with the refinement of industrial processes, combustion engines, flood abatement, etc.
I like your example of stomach ulcers. It was widely held that they were the result of diets too high in processed foods, acidic foods, spicy foods, alcohol etc, combined with stress. The prescribed cures were to avoid those items, reduce stress and drink less. This cure was backed up by the executive monkey stress ulcers you may know about. It turns out that a researcher of little repute determined that a bacteria was responsible for the common ulcer and could be treated with common anti-biotics. He was castigated and ignored for years. Now its pretty much accepted.
However, the original treatment for ulcers was good advice for a litany of ailments and caused no harm to patients who followed the regime. We can sit back and wait for the perfect cure, or we can work with what we know as the truth is revealed.
In general terms, the planet has normally been warmer than it is at present. We are possibly at the end of an ice age or merely in a brief warming period between them. There's no good way to know. However, if global warming is real (and I believe that it is) we're hastening that warm up. Regardless, the odds are that the planet will warm up anyway.
We've already seen the climatological effects of a slight warming of the Pacific along with changes in ocean currents associated with that warming. "Don't mess with Mother Nature" was the tag line for some ad once upon a time, but I think it speaks to the consequences of tinkering with forces we do not fully understand. The Gaia Hypothesis states that the planet is a self regulating system. I think we'd be foolish to interfere with it, like children playing with the heating and air conditioning in a house.
http://news.bostonherald.com/news/national/general/view/2009_02_15_Former_astronaut_speaks_out_on_global_warming/srvc=home&position=recent
Former astronaut speaks out on global warming
SANTA FE, N.M. - Former astronaut Harrison Schmitt, who walked on the moon and once served New Mexico in the U.S. Senate, doesn't believe that humans are causing global warming.
"I don't think the human effect is significant compared to the natural effect," said Schmitt, who is among 70 skeptics scheduled to speak next month at the International Conference on Climate Change in New York.
Schmitt contends that scientists "are being intimidated" if they disagree with the idea that burning fossil fuels has increased carbon dioxide levels, temperatures and sea levels.
"They've seen too many of their colleagues lose grant funding when they haven't gone along with the so-called political consensus that we're in a human-caused global warming," Schmitt said.
Dan Williams, publisher with the Chicago-based Heartland Institute, which is hosting the climate change conference, said he invited Schmitt after reading about his resignation from The Planetary Society, a nonprofit dedicated to space exploration.
Schmitt resigned after the group blamed global warming on human activity. In his resignation letter, the 74-year-old geologist argued that the "global warming scare is being used as a political tool to increase government control over American lives, incomes and decision making."
Williams said Heartland is skeptical about the crisis that people are proclaiming in global warming.
"Not that the planet hasn't warmed. We know it has or we'd all still be in the Ice Age," he said. "But it has not reached a crisis proportion and, even among us skeptics, there's disagreement about how much man has been responsible for that warming."
Schmitt said historical documents indicate average temperatures have risen by 1 degree per century since around 1400 A.D., and the rise in carbon dioxide is because of the temperature rise.
Schmitt also said geological evidence indicates changes in sea level have been going on for thousands of years. He said smaller changes are related to changes in the elevation of land masses — for example, the Great Lakes are rising because the earth's crust is rebounding from being depressed by glaciers.
Schmitt, who grew up in Silver City and now lives in Albuquerque, has a science degree from the California Institute of Technology. He also studied geology at the University of Oslo in Norway and took a doctorate in geology from Harvard University in 1964.
In 1972, he was one of the last men to walk on the moon as part of the Apollo 17 mission.
Schmitt said he's heartened that the upcoming conference is made up of scientists who haven't been manipulated by politics.
Of the global warming debate, he said: "It's one of the few times you've seen a sizable portion of scientists who ought to be objective take a political position and it's coloring their objectivity."
The problem with SK's rants is that he contents Global Warming is a Hoax.
The real hoax is Man Made Global warming. The world may be going through climate change but the climate is always changing therefore it is a natural occurrence.
The real problem is the Owl Gore's of the world are trying to profit from the changes by fanning the flames of hysteria.
If you want to buy some carbon credits from me. Just give me a call at BR-549. [8D]
quote:
Originally posted by unreliablesource
The real hoax is Man Made Global warming. The world may be going through climate change but the climate is always changing therefore it is a natural occurrence.
You honestly believe digging up carbon that has been sequestered deep underground and spewing it into the atmosphere is having no effect on our climate?
The biggest global warming gas around is water vapor and no one even brings up that. They put the focus on carbon, because carbon can be taxed and can open up "Cap & Trade" laws. I posted articles by experts and scientists that debunk global warming, yet some people are heck bent on believing political dogma for global warming. Al Gore is in the business of selling carbon credits, he wants to feed the hoax. Al Gore still flys around in his private jet and tells everyone else to take a bus, walk, or ride a bike to work. I bet Al Gore (and people like him) keep their A/C cranked up full in the summer, Al Gore has a 10,000 square foot home and I'd also bet he keeps his house warmer than 68 degrees in the winter. He sets no example to follow and if this crisis is so real and doom & gloomish you'll never know it with Al Gores massive carbon footprints.[xx(]
quote:
Originally posted by sauerkraut
The biggest global warming gas around is water vapor and no one even brings up that. They put the focus on carbon, because carbon can be taxed and can open up "Cap & Trade" laws. I posted articles by experts and scientists that debunk global warming, yet some people are heck bent on believing political dogma for global warming. Al Gore is in the business of selling carbon credits, he wants to feed the hoax. Al Gore still flys around in his private jet and tells everyone else to take a bus, walk, or ride a bike to work. I bet Al Gore (and people like him) keep their A/C cranked up full in the summer, Al Gore has a 10,000 square foot home and I'd also bet he keeps his house warmer than 68 degrees in the winter. He sets no example to follow and if this crisis is so real and doom & gloomish you'll never know it with Al Gores massive carbon footprints.[xx(]
But if you think global warming is a hoax, then why should you care what ANYONE'S carbon footprint is?
[xx(]
quote:
Originally posted by sauerkraut
The biggest global warming gas around is water vapor and no one even brings up that.
We aren't digging up water from deep underground where it has been locked away for millions of years and putting it into the atmosphere.
Do you even have critical thinking skills? [:O]
Sauerkraut don't believe in global warming because he hates Al Gore. Al Gore is a politician. He is a self-appointed spokesperson.
It ain't just the air temperature this winter. Look at the ocean temperature the last decade and you will believe.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
Sauerkraut don't believe in global warming because he hates Al Gore. Al Gore is a politician. He is a self-appointed spokesperson.
It ain't just the air temperature this winter. Look at the ocean temperature the last decade and you will believe.
Ocean temp shifts, penguins migrating northward, polar bears drowning, and my kids being born naked still isn't conclusive proof that any climate change is man-made or carbon-based.
The facts are the facts. I've stopped fighting this battle. It's similar to arguing with 911-conspiracy morons, or arguing with a Republican on how the economy should run.
Unfortunately in Oklahoma we've been cooling at an alarming rate. We really need to produce some more CO2.
http://www.co2science.org/data/ushcn/ok/ok.php
I've said this before and I'll say it again.
Earth has been around for approximately 6,000,000,000 years.
Earth has been far hotter and far colder in the past.
Humans have infested this planet for a couple hundred thousand years, give or take a couple hundred thousand more. We won't make enough significant change on the planet to make any difference.
Those who think we'll change this planet's temperature to any significant degree believe they/we are more important then we/they really are.
The concern isnt whether the earth will survive or not, or even whether we will survive or not. Its not whether its been warmer or colder either. Its how rapid the change will be and what thats going to cost us. Usually there seem to be rapid and dramatic changes during the relatively short "shifting periods" between longer times when the planet has settled into one pattern or another, an "ice age pattern" or an "interglacial". The earth is at a phase in its orbital cycle when we should be on a steady cooling trend coming out of an interglacial, heading towards another glacial period. Its amazing that there is any potential warming at all since the 100,000 year orbital pattern of entire planet should be cooling things.
Already the CO2 is higher than its been in 600,000 years,,, and its gotten that way in a VERY short amount of time. If the green house gasses keep at a high level, the earth will warm to match that level and do so in a short time. There have been times within that 600,000 years where the earth has been warmer than it is now, with a lot less ice, higher sea levels, etc. Yes the planet obviously survived lol. But again we shouldnt be warming at this point, and this rapidly. And during those other warmer times we didnt have cities and hundreds of millions of people we will have to move out of coastal areas. We werent trying to feed, and and have fresh water, for billions during a time of rapid climate change. Not to mention we will have to make sure the critters which we have increasingly shoved into smaller areas and preserves, still have viable areas to live in. We will manage no doubt, but its gonna be costly and there could be some hurting along the way. We could deal with the usual, much slower, global climate change or deal with a rapid shift into a warmer climate.
Saw some images from one of Japans new satellites that tracks the global production of some green house gasses. It was interesting to see the image of the entire planet and the "hot spots". They showed the area in and around Bejing before and during the Olympics. Before it was a huge red blob showing a lot of greenhouse gasses. During, when they reduced the amount of cars, factories, old power plants, etc. it was reduced dramatically. They were actually startled at how much of a difference there was. We DO have an impact and you can see it, and it adds up, day after day after day after day...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081217190433.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090109115047.htm
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
Unfortunately in Oklahoma we've been cooling at an alarming rate. We really need to produce some more CO2.
http://www.co2science.org/data/ushcn/ok/ok.php
Thanks, that is a super post, but facts are ignored for global warming believers. They like the global warming dogma. Al Gore who has no science degrees is their leader.. The polar ice sheets are growing NOT melting. That Hensen guy of NASA has been doctoring temp. records, he put September's readings in for October and when he got caught he called it a honest mistake, and that was not the only time he doctored temp readings.. if global warming was real there would be no need to doctor temp. records. This winter was one of the coldest ever world-wide parts of Alaska hit -80 below zero as did parts of Russia. Cold temp records were broken all over the planet. The ocean temp has fallen almost a full degree. Snowfall is up all over the globe. I wish the planet was warming up, but sadly there are no facts to support that. A planet growing colder is bad. shorter growing seasons and more heating oil is needed.
quote:
Originally posted by sauerkraut
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
Unfortunately in Oklahoma we've been cooling at an alarming rate. We really need to produce some more CO2.
http://www.co2science.org/data/ushcn/ok/ok.php
Thanks, that is a super post, but facts are ignored for global warming believers. They like the global warming dogma. Al Gore who has no science degrees is their leader.. The polar ice sheets are growing NOT melting. That Hensen guy of NASA has been doctoring temp. records, he put September's readings in for October and when he got caught he called it a honest mistake, and that was not the only time he doctored temp readings.. if global warming was real there would be no need to doctor temp. records. This winter was one of the coldest ever world-wide parts of Alaska hit -80 below zero as did parts of Russia. Cold temp records were broken all over the planet. The ocean temp has fallen almost a full degree. Snowfall is up all over the globe. I wish the planet was warming up, but sadly there are no facts to support that. A planet growing colder is bad. shorter growing seasons and more heating oil is needed.
Would love to see the articles or stories where your getting this info. It seems the general trend has consistantly been that the winters have been getting warmer over the years and decades, and ice cover less. Would not suprise me at all to see a year here and there where one was cooler than the last and we gained some ice. Its hard to imagine consistantly breaking warming and melting records in any scenario.
Plus how do the record cold temps in one place balance out with the record highs in another (Australia for instance)? Plus its not just one month or year its the trends over decades. Also, more snowfall in certain areas is predicted as an indicator of global warming. If the warmer air masses carrying moisture are warmer and have more moisture in the air and say the temp is 27 instead of 25... its still cold enough to snow, its warmer but you will have more snow. Parts of Antarctica are virtually a desert. Gets very little snow because that part gets very little moisture. Parts of Antarctica do get snow from air flows that come from other parts of the globe, if those air masses are warmer and have more moisture and clash with the cold air... more snow... in that area.
Summer Arctic Sea Ice Expected To Be Among Lowest On Record
ScienceDaily (July 9, 2008)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080709113704.htm
Arctic Sea Ice At Lowest Recorded Level Ever
ScienceDaily (Sep. 16, 2008)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080915162428.htm
Greenland's Glaciers Losing Ice Faster This Year Than Last Year, Which Was Record-setting Itself
ScienceDaily (Dec. 16, 2008)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081215091015.htm
Much Of Antarctica Is Warming More Than Previously Thought
ScienceDaily (Jan. 22, 2009)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090121144049.htm
2008 Global Temperature Ties As Eighth Warmest On Record
ScienceDaily (Jan. 19, 2009) —
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090116163206.htm