• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The truth of Global Warming

Status
Not open for further replies.
Of course but then the IPCC and NASA are always truthful |226| The fact is the melting is so slow the doom and gloom is a big lie


get The Smilies @ https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/14455

As I said before, it is every scientific organization on Earth vs. the silly bloggers and pundits. You can believe who you want to believe, of course, and will, but that is what the argument boils down to. There really is no debate about the basic findings: The Earth is warming up, the warming process is being accelerated by human activity, and the warming is causing changes in local climates.

Are you back to saying that there is no global warming now? Your argument keeps shifting from "It isn't real" to "it has nothing to do with human activities" and back again, just like that of those silly bloggers and pundits you keep listening to.
 
As I said before, it is every scientific organization on Earth vs. the silly bloggers and pundits. You can believe who you want to believe, of course, and will, but that is what the argument boils down to. There really is no debate about the basic findings: The Earth is warming up, the warming process is being accelerated by human activity, and the warming is causing changes in local climates.

Are you back to saying that there is no global warming now? Your argument keeps shifting from "It isn't real" to "it has nothing to do with human activities" and back again, just like that of those silly bloggers and pundits you keep listening to.

Wrong!! There is natural climate change. Unless you can prove how much of warming is caused by man.
 
Wrong!! There is natural climate change. Unless you can prove how much of warming is caused by man.

Yes, there is natural climate change, regardless of how much more is caused by man. Are you back to the "It's real, but not human caused" argument? What happened to the "new ice age" stuff you found?
 
Yes, there is natural climate change, regardless of how much more is caused by man. Are you back to the "It's real, but not human caused" argument? What happened to the "new ice age" stuff you found?

That just shows the melting is not the doom and gloom BS we hear from the GW scientist
 
That just shows the melting is not the doom and gloom BS we hear from the GW scientist

Does it, or does it show that the melting is not the doom and gloom BS we hear from Al Gore?

The Earth has warmed up by less than one degree C over the past half century or so. That warming is causing changes to local climates. The warming is being accelerated by human activities.

That is the "doom and gloom" that the scientists are telling us.

I suppose I need to stand corrected on one thing: It is not only an argument between the scientists and the silly pundits and bloggers who deny plain facts. We also have to include the silly bloggers and politicians who are telling us that the sky is falling.

Maybe it is the rejection of the "sky is falling" theory that is fueling the absurd practice of standing fact and reason on it's head trying to deny global warming. It is certain that it is a lot easier to argue against them than it is to argue with established science.
 
Oh, silly me. Of course "And if you look at changes in sea ice in that region they all show very strong negative trends" actually means that the sea ice is increasing. I just left off the parallel universe part of the post, in which everything is the opposite of what it says.

Well, you started your post off correctly, then went downhill. I'll be glad to read some papers from accredited organizations or peer reviewed authors showing what you claim. Of course, for every paper you produce claiming ice loss , I can produce two showing increasing ice extent.

But feel free to actually post some verifiable proof for once.
 
Well, you started your post off correctly, then went downhill. I'll be glad to read some papers from accredited organizations or peer reviewed authors showing what you claim. Of course, for every paper you produce claiming ice loss , I can produce two showing increasing ice extent.

But feel free to actually post some verifiable proof for once.

What fault do you find with NASA's satellite measurements that show Antarctica's mass is decreasing at an accelerated rate? Also, how do you explain the 3.5% of loss of mass in the Arctic annually?
 
Last edited:
Why is it that the atmosphere seems slightly colder?

Is it that the cooler atmosphere is related to global warming?

Perhaps pro-environmentalists deem that increases or decreases in temperatures are a part of global warming...

What do you mean "seems slightly colder?"

Did you poke your head outside and say "Hmm, seems colder?" Because that would be a silly way to measure. Especially in December.

As a global average, temperatures have been rising, not falling. This is clearly indicated by the temperature record. Science does not go with "seems like."
 
Well, you started your post off correctly, then went downhill. I'll be glad to read some papers from accredited organizations or peer reviewed authors showing what you claim. Of course, for every paper you produce claiming ice loss , I can produce two showing increasing ice extent.

But feel free to actually post some verifiable proof for once.

Your own source, the NSIDC, said as a whole that the mass was decreasing.
 
Last edited:

Two or three years of increasing sea ice extent? Well, that settles it! Sea ice is growing! I wonder how long this has been happening? Let's look at a bigger dataset to see how long those propagandists have been hiding this fact! Let's see how long the ice has been growing for!!


Oh.

Uhhh....
 
That has been confirmed for decades: "The greenhouse gas qualities of carbon dioxide have been known for over a century. In 1861, John Tyndal published laboratory results identifying carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas that absorbed heat rays (longwave radiation). Since then, the absorptive qualities of carbon dioxide have been more precisely quantified by decades of laboratory measurements (Herzberg 1953, Burch 1962, Burch 1970, etc)."

"An enhanced greenhouse effect from CO2 has been confirmed by multiple lines of empirical evidence. Satellite measurements of infrared spectra over the past 40 years observe less energy escaping to space at the wavelengths associated with CO2. Surface measurements find more downward infrared radiation warming the planet's surface. This provides a direct, empirical causal link between CO2 and global warming."
How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?

Again, I'm not saying that it is not a factor, I'm not even saying that CO2 doesn't create a warmer atmosphere then if there it's concentration is lower.

What I AM saying is that NOONE understands the climate well enough to say for certain WHAT is causing the warming, anymore then we'll know what causes the next cooling trend.

There IS a correlation with climate and CO2... typically a lag time, ie: the warming trend begins, and there is more life, more animals, more people, etc... but there's certain cross points where there's the CO2 seems to move ahead... SO, already that demonstrates that the relationship is NOT cause effect, but something different.

And don't ask me WHAT that is, because I don't claim to know... and those that DO claim to know are offering the correlation AS causation. When the reality is that's at the least a misunderstanding of a complex system OR a flat out lie.

We know through direct measurements that solar activity has been minimum during the current warming. What else you got?

Solar activity has hit a minimum, but who said that this was the ONLY factor?
1 - Stellar radiation has an impact on the percentage of the earth under cloud cover
2 - The moons' magnetic fields might divert solar energy away from the earth, or in other positions might direct energy from the sun focusing it more on the earth.
3 - The level of solar energy
4 - The earths gravitational field is also not a constant, reasonably close to, but it's not constant. The magnetic north pole is continuously
5 - Activities on the earth... if 10 mt st helens went off sporadically around the world you would be likely to see a level of cooling.
6 - The Jet stream...

And a whole list of other factors that have lesser or greater impacts on the overall climate in such an intricate system that there isn't a computer on earth that could POSSIBLY calculate all the variables in order to generate an ACCURATE prediction what the climate will hold in the future.

Scientist didn't just look at CO2, they looked at all the things that have caused the earth to warm in the past and, through research, methodically eliminated other possible causes.

Are you sure that's the case?? Are you sure that they didn't start out with the theory of how evil CO2 is and then find all the evidence to support that case?

The Club of Rome is a global think tank that deals with a variety of international issues such as sustainability of our resources, a very noble and conservative cause.

At face value, yes.

They are "composed of "scientists, economists, businessmen, international high civil servants, heads of state and former heads of state from all five continents who are convinced that the future of humankind is not determined once and for all and that each human being can contribute to the improvement of our societies."

That sounds like something they would put on their website for PR purposes...

In 1993, the Club published The First Global Revolution.

[4] According to this book, divided nations require common enemies to unite them, "either a real one or else one invented for the purpose."

Yes... that's why back in the late 60's the talk was of creating a fake alien invasion to unify the population and wage war with the alien beings... but that document was long ago labelled a fake, not that I could blame the person 'debunking' this for saying so... it's hard to conceive of a person that is making plans in the several generations down the line. When was the last time you thought about planning for the lives of your great grand childrens life??

But, yes, that's a key theme as to the WHY of the conspiracy theory, that humans NEED to be controlled or else society would devolve into anarchy.

[5] Because of the sudden absence of traditional enemies, "new enemies must be identified."[5] "In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill....All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself."

This is THE choice quote pulled out from the book... this is a summary of the thesis of this report.

But, just as telling is the opening quote :
"Oh Love! Could thou and I with fate conspire,
to grasp this sorry scheme of things entire,
would we not shatter it to bits and then,
Remould it nearer to the hearts desire?" - Edward Fitzgerald, The Rubalyat of Omar Khayyam.

The thing is, that just like with 'limits to growth', it is written in a manner that is palatable for the most part... but you really need to read through either or of these books to truly understand the 'new society' they are talking about... I can sum it up for you :

- Controlled population
- drugged to be kept sterile,
- every human born in vitro and raised by the state.
- no education, only training for your selected job.
- completely controlled actions through 'calorie cards' and once you've used up your calorie alotment it is your turn to die, you've used your share of resources.

Club of Rome: The First Global Revolution

If you ever read the book 'brave new world'... that's pretty much exactly the type of world these people are describing.



(In his own words on the subject.)


You need to read their own words... NOT the wikipage...

What they are talking about is uniting people to help solve problems we have in common.

Yes... a 'noble' goal, but once you read through you'll understand that it is ONLY a 'noble goal' if you believe in Machiavellian 'the ends can justify any means'.

As I agree with the conservative principles behind sustainability, I'm afraid I just don't see this as a nefarious conspiracy. It is not logical to me whereas the science behind AGW is logical and is confirmed by a consensus of the world's top scientists.

Right, the thing is the concept of 'greenhouse effect' does not translate to 'overall global warming'... yes, it's part of the equation, but it is NOT the whole equation. This is why people can't / won't answer specifics as to how much specific levels of CO2 will increase the global climate, it's that the system is so complex that while there is a correlation, and maybe a level of 'causation', since Co2 levels are such a minute part of the equation that the projections have only been accurate in the sense that there was an overall warming trend for more then a century already... and to an extent before even the industrial revolution which is considered the CAUSE of the overall warming.

So, these people are working on plans to recreate society into a 'stable and balanced society', and they are using environmentalism as a tool, along with famines, disease, war, etc... as a means to that end. So, if you agree that the ends justify the means, and can accept that there's only about a 1:8 to 1:10 chance that you will live to see this new world... then I guess you can view this as an overall good thing...

So, I can't tell you what to think if you actually see the facts for yourself, but if you DO take the time to see what is REALLY going on... and these people (not these specific people, but I mean the same calliber of individuals that make up these types of groups, in the past)... but I DO know for sure that since one of your motives is to do good for your grandchildren, that once you realize what's at stake you'll have to do some real soul searching as to what the best approach really is... ie; continuing to believe what the 'experts' tell you, or to denounce the whole 'green' movement as little more then a scam in the name of 'fighting for the earth'.

But, I am so insistent that this side of the equation at least be accepted and looked at, so at the very least you will understand that whether it's collaborative or conspiracy IT IS NOT THEORY.

that is certain to be ignored

No, not ignored, just pointed out as reinforcing correlation... not causation.

It is tough. I mean, energy in exactly the spectrum that CO2 absorbs is escaping the atmosphere in smaller quantities, directly proportional to what you'd expect from the increase in CO2 levels in the atmosphere. The increase in CO2 in the atmosphere matches what humans emit (in fact, its less because nature is absorbing some of it for us)

Again, is it the CO2 jumping up because we're in a warming trend and there's more animal life on earth then there was 150 years ago and so CO2 is rising as well, causing a slight boost to those temperatures because of the greenhouse effect?? Or do you have the proof that the Co2 is CAUSING the overall warming trend?

Nobody knows when this warming trend will end...

Bman, I have to ask: What WOULD constitute proof to you that CO2 is causing warming? There's direct observational evidence of what CO2 does in that particular spectrum of energy, direct observational evidence that this energy is what the earth radiates, and direct observational evidence that this same energy is being absorbed by CO2 in the atmosphere. From there it's just a matter of running the math to see if the amount of warming matches expectations, right? Guess what? They did that too.

The proof is simply : X concentration of CO2 over a year will create a climate temperature of Y degrees for that year.

That's why they need a 'margin of error' that's just huge...

As I said before, it is every scientific organization on Earth vs. the silly bloggers and pundits. You can believe who you want to believe, of course, and will, but that is what the argument boils down to. There really is no debate about the basic findings: The Earth is warming up, the warming process is being accelerated by human activity, and the warming is causing changes in local climates.

Are you back to saying that there is no global warming now? Your argument keeps shifting from "It isn't real" to "it has nothing to do with human activities" and back again, just like that of those silly bloggers and pundits you keep listening to.

No no... the warming is real, the cause is not understood... and just because it's been overall warming for some time, does not mean it will continue to do so.

The people that claim to know are really just making a guess... and if it wasn't for a large margin of error, most of their guesses would have been too high.
 
Well, you started your post off correctly, then went downhill. I'll be glad to read some papers from accredited organizations or peer reviewed authors showing what you claim. Of course, for every paper you produce claiming ice loss , I can produce two showing increasing ice extent.

But feel free to actually post some verifiable proof for once.

That one was from a link you posted above. Mine was from the National Geographic Society, a tool of the great conspiracy, so it wasn't acceptable.
 
What I AM saying is that NOONE understands the climate well enough to say for certain WHAT is causing the warming, anymore then we'll know what causes the next cooling trend.

Nothing in life is certain except death and taxes they say. To me, its all about risk management. The consensus among the world's top scientists is that humans are influencing the earth's climate by the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation by overwhelming the earth's capacity to sequester all of the excess CO2. I have looked at the science behind their consensus and found it to be reasonable to me.

Should we ignore science and risk a less hospitable future for future generations or do what we can to reduce our burning of fossil fuels? If the scientists turn out to be wrong then we are that much further along in kicking our dependence on foreign oil and fighting wars in the Middle East to keep oil flowing in the future. If the scientists are right however, we have shirked our responsibility to future generations to leave the planet in as good as shape as we found it, because of our own personal greed.

Like I said, I see no downside to acting but much potential for shame if we do not.
 
Nothing in life is certain except death and taxes they say. To me, its all about risk management. The consensus among the world's top scientists is that humans are influencing the earth's climate by the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation by overwhelming the earth's capacity to sequester all of the excess CO2. I have looked at the science behind their consensus and found it to be reasonable to me.

Should we ignore science and risk a less hospitable future for future generations or do what we can to reduce our burning of fossil fuels? If the scientists turn out to be wrong then we are that much further along in kicking our dependence on foreign oil and fighting wars in the Middle East to keep oil flowing in the future. If the scientists are right however, we have shirked our responsibility to future generations to leave the planet in as good as shape as we found it, because of our own personal greed.

Like I said, I see no downside to acting but much potential for shame if we do not.

Just playing Devil's Advocate here, but conservatives would say that policies, regulations, and taxes associated with trying to curb emissions would kill the economy.
 
Just playing Devil's Advocate here, but conservatives would say that policies, regulations, and taxes associated with trying to curb emissions would kill the economy.

Ah yes, conservative fear mongering has generated that myth. However, the non-parisan CBO has stated that Cap and Trade for CO2 emissions would cost the average family about 40 cents per day, the cost of a postage stamp. The future lives of my grandchildren and great grandchildren are worth much more to me than 40 cents a day.

Besides, if we don't take now action to protect our environment, our economy is going down the crapper anyway.
 
Last edited:
Just playing Devil's Advocate here, but conservatives would say that policies, regulations, and taxes associated with trying to curb emissions would kill the economy.

Actually, that IS the case, in places that have funded 'green jobs' they found that for every job created 2 jobs were lost somewhere else in the economy.

Nothing in life is certain except death and taxes they say. To me, its all about risk management. The consensus among the world's top scientists is that humans are influencing the earth's climate by the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation by overwhelming the earth's capacity to sequester all of the excess CO2. I have looked at the science behind their consensus and found it to be reasonable to me.

Again, the 'consensus' is only relevant if you're talking about greenhouse gases affecting the weather. When you scale up to the global level, there's only a correlation.

Should we ignore science and risk a less hospitable future for future generations or do what we can to reduce our burning of fossil fuels? If the scientists turn out to be wrong then we are that much further along in kicking our dependence on foreign oil and fighting wars in the Middle East to keep oil flowing in the future. If the scientists are right however, we have shirked our responsibility to future generations to leave the planet in as good as shape as we found it, because of our own personal greed.

First off, Alaska's got more oil in their fields then probably even Saudi Arabia...

Second, while I agree that oil is a dirty business... I don't think you truly grasp the far-reaching implications of not using oil... Most products you buy are by-products of the refining process of oil... but that's more to touch on your last point...

Third, controlling CO2 is NOT just a matter of 'not using oils' it's about effectively total control over the economy on a global scale. The thing is that it's usually the west that must get hit the hardest, meanwhile, places like China are not forced to put on ANY regulations... so EVEN moving all production to China on an equal basis would be WORSE for the environment...

Finally, CO2 itself is even a non-concern when dealing with pollution... there are far more devastating pollutants then CO2, that HAVE NO benefits and are causing VERIFIABLE and PERMANENT damage, warmer summers and milder winters are hardly a bad thing anyway... consider the economic benefits of having 2 growing seasons in a year rather then 1,.

Like I said, I see no downside to acting but much potential for shame if we do not.

I see the warming as a GOOD thing... the alternative is that the trend shifts to a cooling trend overall... that means less food right off the top.

The downside to acting is that nothing these people want to do will do ANYTTHING HELPFUL. I mean come on, let's just sign a blank check to Al Gore so that his 'carbon trading company' (yes, it was Blood And Gore running the carbon trading deal they had going before it effectively went bankrupt after the failures of copenhagen and cancun)... they promise to plant a tree on their 10 acre oceanfront property, it just costs our potential to have anything of a meaningful economy.
 
There are a lot of inconvenient truths about global warming.

First, it's real, it's happening now. No amount of blogging or punditry is going to make it not be happening.
Second, it is being accelerated by the CO2 humans have and continue to pour into the atmosphere. We can argue, deny, and come up with absurd conspiracy theories, but it's still the truth.
Third, it is highly unlikely that we can do anything about it at this point. We can't stop using fossil fuels without going back to the stone age. Even if we did, the CO2 we've already put into the atmosphere would still be there. Further, any substantial reduction in carbon emissions would take global cooperation unprecedented in human history. If the US cuts emissions, for example, other nations will take up the slack.
Fourth, no one knows what the eventual result will be. It may actually be a positive thing in some parts of the world, but others are going to have some real challenges. The problem is, no one really knows what to expect in any given location.
Fifth, the process is accelerating. There are some feed back loops starting to operate. The oceans have about reached their capacity for absorbing carbon dioxide. Melting ice leaves water or land, neither of which is as reflective as ice.

So, brace yourselves. Change is coming to your part of the world, and no one really knows what to expect. No one really knows how much of the extreme weather we've experienced in the past few years is due to global warming, either, but it is likely that at least some of it is.

And neither Al Gore nor Rush Limbaugh can save you.
 
Ah yes, conservative fear mongering has generated that myth. However, the non-parisan CBO has stated that Cap and Trade for CO2 emissions would cost the average family about 40 cents per day, the cost of a postage stamp. The future lives of my grandchildren and great grandchildren are worth much more to me than 40 cents a day.

Besides, if we don't take now action to protect our environment, our economy is going down the crapper anyway.

You know the income tax was originally at 1% as well ;);).

There are a lot of inconvenient truths about global warming.

Especially for the alarmist camp, but go on...

First, it's real, it's happening now. No amount of blogging or punditry is going to make it not be happening.

Yes, the earth has been warming for the past 150 years, and this has allowed our society to develop riches that were INCONCEIVABLE even 59 years ago. The warming trend has been a boon.

Second, it is being accelerated by the CO2 humans have and continue to pour into the atmosphere. We can argue, deny, and come up with absurd conspiracy theories, but it's still the truth.

Yes, there is a relationship between the climate temperature and CO2 that is not full understood... Maybe in a hundred years will have the necessary computing power to fully track and monitor all aspects of the climate, until then all we got is empty claims of prophecy.

Oh, and those 'conspiracy theories' are only 'theory' in the sense that you won't bother to check out just how factual this is.

Third, it is highly unlikely that we can do anything about it at this point. We can't stop using fossil fuels without going back to the stone age. Even if we did, the CO2 we've already put into the atmosphere would still be there.

You make it sound like we had the capacity to control the climate for several hundred years and just didn't know it.... there's no basis in fact that Co2 has caused even a majority of the warming. I mean, if not for the industrial revolution, the warming trend might have been slowed by like 5% (as a guess, nobody has any actual figures, just projections based on faulty models of climate)...

If you're talking about environmental damage, then I'd point to GMO foods, heavy metals, heavy industry, to a lesser extent the individual consumer, pharmaceuticals (most drugs do pass through you and into the sewer system and then wherever that flows in your particular area), etc... etc...

Further, any substantial reduction in carbon emissions would take global cooperation unprecedented in human history. If the US cuts emissions, for example, other nations will take up the slack.

Yes... and that's what's being attempted, except the facts about the real agenda behind these meetings and agreements, all hidden in colorful bureaucratic language exactly what 'agreement' would entail... meanwhile it's supported by fools in polar bear costumes dancing around the streets in blissful ignorance of what they are supporting.

Fourth, no one knows what the eventual result will be.

Exactly, so stop cramming this AGW BS down our throats and stop trying to claim these projections as indisputible proof of anything tbetter then what a monkey might scratch on graph paper if given a pen...

It may actually be a positive thing in some parts of the world, but others are going to have some real challenges. The problem is, no one really knows what to expect in any given location.

Life has challenges regardless... everyone has their troubles with god, and they cope as best they can... it's just the way it works...

Fifth, the process is accelerating. There are some feed back loops starting to operate. The oceans have about reached their capacity for absorbing carbon dioxide. Melting ice leaves water or land, neither of which is as reflective as ice.

It's always accellerating.. even when it's decelerating it's accelerating... the problem must get worse and worse or else these scientists might not get further funding for future studies demonstrating how much worse CO2 has caused things and how detrimental it will be only 1 year in the future... OMG AL GORE SAVE US!!!

So, brace yourselves. Change is coming to your part of the world, and no one really knows what to expect. No one really knows how much of the extreme weather we've experienced in the past few years is due to global warming, either, but it is likely that at least some of it is.

And you call me 'paranoid conspiracy theorist'... the climate is ALWAYS CHANGING... if it's not warmer, it's cooler... either way things will carry on in that department.

And neither Al Gore nor Rush Limbaugh can save you.

Umm... they are on the alarmist team...
 
Again, the 'consensus' is only relevant if you're talking about greenhouse gases affecting the weather. When you scale up to the global level, there's only a correlation.

Thanks for your opinion on the weather, I'll stick with the consensus by the world's top scientists on climate change however.

First off, Alaska's got more oil in their fields then probably even Saudi Arabia..
.

If that were true, the oil executives would not have recommenced, in Cheney's Energy Task Force, setting up a government in Iraq receptive to foreign investment. We passed peak oil in this country in 1971. Since then we have never, not a single year, produced as much oil as we consumed. And we are approaching peak oil for the planet. We can either begin to transition away from fossil fuels now or keep paying ever increasing prices for gas and keep fighting endless ME wars to keep the oil flowing. We should have started when we passed peak oil in this country in 1971.

Second, while I agree that oil is a dirty business... I don't think you truly grasp the far-reaching implications of not using oil... Most products you buy are by-products of the refining process of oil... but that's more to touch on your last point...

I've been thinking about it since we passed peak oil in this country in 1971. I have been thinking about it since we went to war with Iraq to gain reentry of Western oil investment in Iraq for which they had been locked out of for 35 years. I was thinking about it when we killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians so we could maintain our addiction to cheap oil.

Third, controlling CO2 is NOT just a matter of 'not using oils' it's about effectively total control over the economy on a global scale. The thing is that it's usually the west that must get hit the hardest, meanwhile, places like China are not forced to put on ANY regulations... so EVEN moving all production to China on an equal basis would be WORSE for the environment..
.

China is already acting to reduce CO2 emissions. Their scientists came to the same conclusion the rest of the world's scientists have concerning AGW. While China is gaining on us, the US remains the biggest CO2 polluter.

Finally, CO2 itself is even a non-concern when dealing with pollution... there are far more devastating pollutants then CO2, that HAVE NO benefits and are causing VERIFIABLE and PERMANENT damage, warmer summers and milder winters are hardly a bad thing anyway... consider the economic benefits of having 2 growing seasons in a year rather then 1,
.

Other pollutants are being regulated. CO2 is not. And no other pollutant has the capacity to drastically alter the earths environment in a negative way as quickly as CO2, not to mention that we may reach a tipping point, some think we already have passed it like Dittohead Not, where the global warming will become irreversible setting future generations on a coarse for a rocky future just for survival, much less any kind of healthy economy.

I see the warming as a GOOD thing...

Then you obviously need to start boning up on what a global temperature change of just a few degrees over such a short period of geologic time will have on the planet's climate and the wildlife and crops we depend on for food.
 
Last edited:
Yes, the earth has been warming for the past 150 years, and this has allowed our society to develop riches that were INCONCEIVABLE even 59 years ago. The warming trend has been a boon.

<1 degree is a boon, how again?


Oh, and those 'conspiracy theories' are only 'theory' in the sense that you won't bother to check out just how factual this is.

Factual? Silly bloggers and pundits vs every scientific organization on Earth, and you claim those organizations are engaged in a great conspiracy.

Sorry, my bad. I should have said "wacky conspiracy theory."


You make it sound like we had the capacity to control the climate for several hundred years and just didn't know it....

Now, when have I ever claimed anything as absurd as that? Even now, it is not likley we can do anything about global warming, let alone control the climate.

If you're talking about environmental damage,

I wasn't.



Yes... and that's what's being attempted, except the facts about the real agenda behind these meetings and agreements, all hidden in colorful bureaucratic language exactly what 'agreement' would entail... meanwhile it's supported by fools in polar bear costumes dancing around the streets in blissful ignorance of what they are supporting.

Ah, yes, that wacky conspiracy theory.



Exactly, so stop cramming this AGW BS down our throats and stop trying to claim these projections as indisputible proof of anything tbetter then what a monkey might scratch on graph paper if given a pen...

No BS from me. Just the facts, maam, as Joe Friday used to say. Remember Joe Friday? Great show.


Life has challenges regardless... everyone has their troubles with god, and they cope as best they can... it's just the way it works...

Not with god, but with nature. Nature really doesn't love us or care whether we prosper or not.


It's always accellerating.. even when it's decelerating it's accelerating... the problem must get worse and worse or else these scientists might not get further funding for future studies demonstrating how much worse CO2 has caused things and how detrimental it will be only 1 year in the future... OMG AL GORE SAVE US!!!

You do understand what accelerating means, don't you? Why, then, post something as meaningless and silly as that?



And you call me 'paranoid conspiracy theorist'... the climate is ALWAYS CHANGING...

Then why try to claim that it's not? What's the point?


Umm... they are on the alarmist team...

Rush is on the alarmist team? When did that change?
 
What do you mean "seems slightly colder?"

Did you poke your head outside and say "Hmm, seems colder?" Because that would be a silly way to measure. Especially in December.

As a global average, temperatures have been rising, not falling. This is clearly indicated by the temperature record. Science does not go with "seems like."

Global? You mean the manipulated data that shows warming?

Tell me Duece do greenhouse gases completely cover all the earth like a canopy? Are there places where they are weaker? I am curious how this is supposed to be
 
Two or three years of increasing sea ice extent? Well, that settles it! Sea ice is growing! I wonder how long this has been happening? Let's look at a bigger dataset to see how long those propagandists have been hiding this fact! Let's see how long the ice has been growing for!!


Oh.

Uhhh....

Funny how you use Semptember which is the end of summer when ice melts. What is it like in say Feburary or March
 
Ah yes, conservative fear mongering has generated that myth. However, the non-parisan CBO has stated that Cap and Trade for CO2 emissions would cost the average family about 40 cents per day, the cost of a postage stamp. The future lives of my grandchildren and great grandchildren are worth much more to me than 40 cents a day.

Besides, if we don't take now action to protect our environment, our economy is going down the crapper anyway.

What is the point I have seen no tecnology that will make a big difference or that is affordable for the average family. Were it not for government subsidies there would be few wind mills and no ethanol both of which do almost nothing to stop pollution. I would say they both cause more damage than good
 
There are a lot of inconvenient truths about global warming.

First, it's real, it's happening now. No amount of blogging or punditry is going to make it not be happening.
Second, it is being accelerated by the CO2 humans have and continue to pour into the atmosphere. We can argue, deny, and come up with absurd conspiracy theories, but it's still the truth.
Third, it is highly unlikely that we can do anything about it at this point. We can't stop using fossil fuels without going back to the stone age. Even if we did, the CO2 we've already put into the atmosphere would still be there. Further, any substantial reduction in carbon emissions would take global cooperation unprecedented in human history. If the US cuts emissions, for example, other nations will take up the slack.
Fourth, no one knows what the eventual result will be. It may actually be a positive thing in some parts of the world, but others are going to have some real challenges. The problem is, no one really knows what to expect in any given location.
Fifth, the process is accelerating. There are some feed back loops starting to operate. The oceans have about reached their capacity for absorbing carbon dioxide. Melting ice leaves water or land, neither of which is as reflective as ice.

So, brace yourselves. Change is coming to your part of the world, and no one really knows what to expect. No one really knows how much of the extreme weather we've experienced in the past few years is due to global warming, either, but it is likely that at least some of it is.

And neither Al Gore nor Rush Limbaugh can save you.

Sounds like more GW propaganda. You keep saying humans add to it but can not prove how much. That maens you have no proof
 
<1 degree is a boon, how again?

Over 80% of the population of the west lives off the labor of a relatively small number of farmers, to list just 1 example.

Factual? Silly bloggers and pundits vs every scientific organization on Earth, and you claim those organizations are engaged in a great conspiracy.

Sorry, my bad. I should have said "wacky conspiracy theory."

OH, cute, you confused the word argument with the word ignorance and just rolled with it.

I could smack you upside the head with the books these people have written and you'd still think it was a theory...

Now, when have I ever claimed anything as absurd as that? Even now, it is not likley we can do anything about global warming, let alone control the climate.

If you believe CO2 causes warming, then you believe that since the industrial revolution we've been heating the planet... and yes, it does sound absurd every other time you make these claims, but you just won't stop.... it gets painful to hear sometimes.


I wasn't.

I know... I've said it repeatedly that the alarmists don't give a s**t about the environment..

Ah, yes, that wacky conspiracy theory.

Yet once you read their books you'll be like "oh man, we really do need to start killing people for the earth."

Two other posters have come to defend the positions of these elitists once they've read maybe a page or so of their words...

No BS from me. Just the facts, maam, as Joe Friday used to say. Remember Joe Friday? Great show.

Just cause you don't notice the smell doesn't mean it's a pile of roses you keep dropping everywhere.

You do understand what accelerating means, don't you? Why, then, post something as meaningless and silly as that?

I'm saying that the warming trend is decelerating for some 10 years or so now... but you still call it 'accelerating change'...

Then why try to claim that it's not? What's the point

I'm not, I'm pointing out how ridiculous this belief that it's CO2 CAUSING the warming... at best these scientists are finding neat ways to turn correlation into causation without providing proof... You'd think the scientists would be smart enough to put 2 +2 together, but they've decided to roll with this warming theory that doesn't even hold water (in multiple senses pun intended)

Rush is on the alarmist team? When did that change?

Al Gore definitively IS...

Thanks for your opinion on the weather, I'll stick with the consensus by the world's top scientists on climate change however

How many years of consecutive cooling would it take before you might question that they might be wrong??

How many elementary level science books would it take to accept the difference between 'a greenhouse effect' and a 'furnace for the earth'??.

If that were true, the oil executives would not have recommenced, in Cheney's Energy Task Force, setting up a government in Iraq receptive to foreign investment. We passed peak oil in this country in 1971. Since then we have never, not a single year, produced as much oil as we consumed. And we are approaching peak oil for the planet. We can either begin to transition away from fossil fuels now or keep paying ever increasing prices for gas and keep fighting endless ME wars to keep the oil flowing. We should have started when we passed peak oil in this country in 1971.

That was a really good joke... I wish I had more time to write a novel on the hundreds of ways this statement is just absolutely false.... on a word to word basis almost.


I've been thinking about it since we passed peak oil in this country in 1971. I have been thinking about it since we went to war with Iraq to gain reentry of Western oil investment in Iraq for which they had been locked out of for 35 years. I was thinking about it when we killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians so we could maintain our addiction to cheap oil.

You do realize that since the 70's the estimated reserves of oil is probably 10-15 TIMES MORE then was estimated in the 70's... I'll find the numbers when I have more time...

.
China is already acting to reduce CO2 emissions. Their scientists came to the same conclusion the rest of the world's scientists have concerning AGW. While China is gaining on us, the US remains the biggest CO2 polluter.

OH Man, you should save this for your comedy routine... look up the Chinese rivers and lakes that have occasionally caught on fire because they are so polluted...

.
Other pollutants are being regulated. CO2 is not. And no other pollutant has the capacity to drastically alter the earths environment in a negative way as quickly as CO2, not to mention that we may reach a tipping point, some think we already have passed it like Dittohead Not, where the global warming will become irreversible setting future generations on a coarse for a rocky future just for survival, much less any kind of healthy economy.

Not even CO2 has that capacity... the rest of your post is little more then propaganda funded by club of rome members among other groups... think about that.

Then you obviously need to start boning up on what a global temperature change of just a few degrees over such a short period of geologic time will have on the planet's climate and the wildlife and crops we depend on for food.

Yes... I have, I also have family that run a farm... and common sense tells you that if you can get two harvests in a year rather then just one, or the ability to plant exotic crops that sell for more because the climate has warmed up enough to be favorable... then yes... =you start to see warming as a good thing.


Relatively speaking... how well did life work out during the great ice age, just to offer another extreme??

You do realize that the earth used to be pangea, right??
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom