AdamT
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2011
- Messages
- 17,773
- Reaction score
- 5,746
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
There was never anything remotely like a consensus on global cooling. It was barely a blip in scientific journals.
-
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!
-
Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.
Why no body talks about Ron Paul?
- Thread starter katsung47
- Start date
There was never anything remotely like a consensus on global cooling. It was barely a blip in scientific journals.
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2009
- Messages
- 65,981
- Reaction score
- 23,408
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
An example here is banning repairs to residential seawalls claiming doing so would harm the waterways. As a result, ground water is not contained and instead runs directly into the waterways along with all the pollutants from road run off, fertilizers, pesticides etc. In a matter of just a few short years pristine clean water has turned into a virtual cesspool as a result of the zippy pin head "environmentalists." Actually, the list of examples around here of such infringements on private property rights harming both the community and environment is a rapidly growing one.
Most professional and governmental "environmentalists" have tunnel vision, blind to any effects or considerations outside their own perception of a problem and solution. That is for the few who are legitimate. Most are just professional whores now.
As another example, to protect the most environmentally sensitive area of all, a 100% totally undisturbed natural setting that is critical to an endangered species was taken over by the federal government. Until then, locals of the community had protected it. Immediately, the federal government came in with chainsaws, bulldozens, concrete and gravel to begin the project of turning it into an "education center" about the environment, complete with parking lots, gift shop, snack bar, and lots and lots of concrete. In doing so, they have created many more government jobs for themselves plus potential promotions - along with many other claimed environmental rules and regs claiming to protect nature. Those are resulting in an increasing slaughter of rare and endangered species, meaning they use that as justification for more power, more staffing and more of a budget. They also use it as reason to seize more private property. By creating a crisis they personally profit.
Sadly, when anyone with the government says "this is necessary to protect the environment" most people assume the claim is true, rather than an exact lie.
Most professional and governmental "environmentalists" have tunnel vision, blind to any effects or considerations outside their own perception of a problem and solution. That is for the few who are legitimate. Most are just professional whores now.
As another example, to protect the most environmentally sensitive area of all, a 100% totally undisturbed natural setting that is critical to an endangered species was taken over by the federal government. Until then, locals of the community had protected it. Immediately, the federal government came in with chainsaws, bulldozens, concrete and gravel to begin the project of turning it into an "education center" about the environment, complete with parking lots, gift shop, snack bar, and lots and lots of concrete. In doing so, they have created many more government jobs for themselves plus potential promotions - along with many other claimed environmental rules and regs claiming to protect nature. Those are resulting in an increasing slaughter of rare and endangered species, meaning they use that as justification for more power, more staffing and more of a budget. They also use it as reason to seize more private property. By creating a crisis they personally profit.
Sadly, when anyone with the government says "this is necessary to protect the environment" most people assume the claim is true, rather than an exact lie.
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2009
- Messages
- 27,254
- Reaction score
- 9,350
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
What??? The whole world (including the US) needs to lower CO2 output and soon, before we reach the tipping point when we will not be able to stop the warming trend!
There is no global cooling occurring, there was never a consensus of scientists saying there was, as there has been worldwide since 2007 for AGW.
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2009
- Messages
- 65,981
- Reaction score
- 23,408
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/11-01-2009/106922-earth_ice_age-0/
The earth is now on the brink of entering another Ice Age, according to a large and compelling body of evidence from within the field of climate science. Many sources of data which provide our knowledge base of long-term climate change indicate that the warm, twelve thousand year-long Holocene period will rather soon be coming to an end, and then the earth will return to Ice Age conditions for the next 100,000 years.
Ice cores, ocean sediment cores, the geologic record, and studies of ancient plant and animal populations all demonstrate a regular cyclic pattern of Ice Age glacial maximums which each last about 100,000 years, separated by intervening warm interglacials, each lasting about 12,000 years.
Most of the long-term climate data collected from various sources also shows a strong correlation with the three astronomical cycles which are together known as the Milankovich cycles. The three Milankovich cycles include the tilt of the earth, which varies over a 41,000 year period; the shape of the earth’s orbit, which changes over a period of 100,000 years; and the Precession of the Equinoxes, also known as the earth’s ‘wobble’, which gradually rotates the direction of the earth’s axis over a period of 26,000 years. According to the Milankovich theory of Ice Age causation, these three astronomical cycles, each of which effects the amount of solar radiation which reaches the earth, act together to produce the cycle of cold Ice Age maximums and warm interglacials.
The central piece of evidence that is cited in support of the AGW theory is the famous ‘hockey stick’ graph which was presented by Al Gore in his 2006 film “An Inconvenient Truth.” The ‘hockey stick’ graph shows an acute upward spike in global temperatures which began during the 1970s and continued through the winter of 2006/07. However, this warming trend was interrupted when the winter of 2007/8 delivered the deepest snow cover to the Northern Hemisphere since 1966 and the coldest temperatures since 2001. It now appears that the current Northern Hemisphere winter of 2008/09 will probably equal or surpass the winter of 2007/08 for both snow depth and cold temperatures.
The main flaw in the AGW theory is that its proponents focus on evidence from only the past one thousand years at most, while ignoring the evidence from the past million years -- evidence which is essential for a true understanding of climatology. The data from paleoclimatology provides us with an alternative and more credible explanation for the recent global temperature spike, based on the natural cycle of Ice Age maximums and interglacials.
The earth is now on the brink of entering another Ice Age, according to a large and compelling body of evidence from within the field of climate science. Many sources of data which provide our knowledge base of long-term climate change indicate that the warm, twelve thousand year-long Holocene period will rather soon be coming to an end, and then the earth will return to Ice Age conditions for the next 100,000 years.
Ice cores, ocean sediment cores, the geologic record, and studies of ancient plant and animal populations all demonstrate a regular cyclic pattern of Ice Age glacial maximums which each last about 100,000 years, separated by intervening warm interglacials, each lasting about 12,000 years.
Most of the long-term climate data collected from various sources also shows a strong correlation with the three astronomical cycles which are together known as the Milankovich cycles. The three Milankovich cycles include the tilt of the earth, which varies over a 41,000 year period; the shape of the earth’s orbit, which changes over a period of 100,000 years; and the Precession of the Equinoxes, also known as the earth’s ‘wobble’, which gradually rotates the direction of the earth’s axis over a period of 26,000 years. According to the Milankovich theory of Ice Age causation, these three astronomical cycles, each of which effects the amount of solar radiation which reaches the earth, act together to produce the cycle of cold Ice Age maximums and warm interglacials.
The central piece of evidence that is cited in support of the AGW theory is the famous ‘hockey stick’ graph which was presented by Al Gore in his 2006 film “An Inconvenient Truth.” The ‘hockey stick’ graph shows an acute upward spike in global temperatures which began during the 1970s and continued through the winter of 2006/07. However, this warming trend was interrupted when the winter of 2007/8 delivered the deepest snow cover to the Northern Hemisphere since 1966 and the coldest temperatures since 2001. It now appears that the current Northern Hemisphere winter of 2008/09 will probably equal or surpass the winter of 2007/08 for both snow depth and cold temperatures.
The main flaw in the AGW theory is that its proponents focus on evidence from only the past one thousand years at most, while ignoring the evidence from the past million years -- evidence which is essential for a true understanding of climatology. The data from paleoclimatology provides us with an alternative and more credible explanation for the recent global temperature spike, based on the natural cycle of Ice Age maximums and interglacials.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2009
- Messages
- 65,981
- Reaction score
- 23,408
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
To the contrary, it was considered essentially scientific fact upon the geological record for over a century and until Al Gore's video came along. Western governments then jumped on the bandwagon claiming it justification for massive new taxes and increases in government power.
It is foolishness to believe humans can stop the earth's climate from ever changing again. Just the geology of New York shows it ranged from being 200 feet underwater to a jungle to arid. There are winners and losers in climate change. Egypt used to be fertile, now primarily arid. not that ancient of history in terms of rapid climate change to the extreme. Are you claiming that building the pyramids changed the climate? If the Northern hemishere loses, the equator wins.
"Global warming" - replaced with "climate change" to deal with the real science showing a coming ice age - is like a religion to many people. To not agree to the edict of it is to declare a person is anti-earth. Yet in the long run the ability to warm earth, if that is possible, may save civilization.
Are you claiming there were no ice ages or that the climate never changed in the past? Or is your view that humans should use technology to prevent the earth's climate from ever changing again?
BTW, even many global warming believers claim a result will be an ice age for the Western portion of earth within 50 to 100 years, but blame that on Co2 rather than astrological effects and the wobble of earth. They have had to manipulate "global warming" to "climate change" due to legitimate evidence says the next ice age is coming again soon to the Northern Hemisphere like it always does.
There are winners and losers in the climate changing. The next future favors the equator, where the recent past favored the northern hemisphere. The earth will continue to evolve in cycles. Personally I don't believe humans can stop it from continuing to do so.
Why do you claim they changed "global warming" to instead "climate change?"
What is Ron Paul's position on Climate Change?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2009
- Messages
- 27,254
- Reaction score
- 9,350
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
You are trying to compare an internet blog with the consensus of every scientific organization of national or international standing in the world since 2007.
BTW, when you quote others words, you should use quotation marks.
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2009
- Messages
- 65,981
- Reaction score
- 23,408
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Your claim that there is universal concensus is just false.
Since I included the link quotations didn't seem necessary, but I added it here.
I don't think there was an Internet in 8175.
"Elements of the astronomical theory of Ice Age causation were first presented by the French mathematician Joseph Adhemar in 1842, it was developed further by the English prodigy Joseph Croll in 1875, and the theory was established in its present form by the Serbian mathematician Milutin Milankovich in the 1920s and 30s. In 1976 the prestigious journal “Science” published a landmark paper by John Imbrie, James Hays, and Nicholas Shackleton entitled “Variations in the Earth's orbit: Pacemaker of the Ice Ages,” which described the correlation which the trio of scientist/authors had found between the climate data obtained from ocean sediment cores and the patterns of the astronomical Milankovich cycles. Since the late 1970s, the Milankovich theory has remained the predominant theory to account for Ice Age causation among climate scientists, and hence the Milankovich theory is always described in textbooks of climatology and in encyclopaedia articles about the Ice Ages."
You ignore the obvious. The climate has always been changing throughout the millions of years and does so fairly rapidly. Al Gore's alarm was to prove the climate is changing and then express alarm. Yet it is the alarm of proving the sun's position in the sky is changing during the day and proving temperature changes as it does. Of itself, he proved exactly nothing than the known truism that the climate is changes as it always is.
There are many parts of the world that will benefit from the climate change. Why do you say WE have an inherent right to the superior climate condition?
Personally, I believe the real upcoming and enduring environmental crisis is the poisoning of the oceans as they have little ability to cleanse themselves. What is dumped in the ocean in terms of chemicals and contaminants tends to stay therefore forever. Mercury, nickle, radioactive materials... Those are caused by humans and is a solveable problem, and in a way that doesn't cause mass poverty, has little cost and virtually no inconvenience to anyone. But government can't make money off it much so there is little interest. Not much profit it in for the "scientific community" either.
Since I included the link quotations didn't seem necessary, but I added it here.
I don't think there was an Internet in 8175.
"Elements of the astronomical theory of Ice Age causation were first presented by the French mathematician Joseph Adhemar in 1842, it was developed further by the English prodigy Joseph Croll in 1875, and the theory was established in its present form by the Serbian mathematician Milutin Milankovich in the 1920s and 30s. In 1976 the prestigious journal “Science” published a landmark paper by John Imbrie, James Hays, and Nicholas Shackleton entitled “Variations in the Earth's orbit: Pacemaker of the Ice Ages,” which described the correlation which the trio of scientist/authors had found between the climate data obtained from ocean sediment cores and the patterns of the astronomical Milankovich cycles. Since the late 1970s, the Milankovich theory has remained the predominant theory to account for Ice Age causation among climate scientists, and hence the Milankovich theory is always described in textbooks of climatology and in encyclopaedia articles about the Ice Ages."
You ignore the obvious. The climate has always been changing throughout the millions of years and does so fairly rapidly. Al Gore's alarm was to prove the climate is changing and then express alarm. Yet it is the alarm of proving the sun's position in the sky is changing during the day and proving temperature changes as it does. Of itself, he proved exactly nothing than the known truism that the climate is changes as it always is.
There are many parts of the world that will benefit from the climate change. Why do you say WE have an inherent right to the superior climate condition?
Personally, I believe the real upcoming and enduring environmental crisis is the poisoning of the oceans as they have little ability to cleanse themselves. What is dumped in the ocean in terms of chemicals and contaminants tends to stay therefore forever. Mercury, nickle, radioactive materials... Those are caused by humans and is a solveable problem, and in a way that doesn't cause mass poverty, has little cost and virtually no inconvenience to anyone. But government can't make money off it much so there is little interest. Not much profit it in for the "scientific community" either.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2007
- Messages
- 11,862
- Reaction score
- 10,300
- Location
- New York
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
| Moderator's Warning: |
 Please carry on any climate change-related discussions in the Environment & Climate Forum: Environment & Climate IssuesThank you. |
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2009
- Messages
- 27,254
- Reaction score
- 9,350
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
No it is fact:
" An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.[1]
No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position."
Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Document the 4 year world scientific consensus for Global Cooling as I have just done for AGW, and we can discuss it further.
Edit: Just noticed your comment DonaldSutherland. Will do!
Last edited:
Centinel
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2011
- Messages
- 2,984
- Reaction score
- 1,366
- Location
- Penn's Woods
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Independent
I did not forget your example. In fact, I totally agree. If I am not the exclusive owner of the fort, then I must respect the property rights others have in the fort, and I cannot go around crapping in it. It's a simple matter of property rights.
I wasn't making a comparison. I was asking you a question in order to further understand your utilitarian philosophy. Your refusal to answer a simply question gives me no further insight into your argument. Too bad.
I don't disagree with our system of government. I disagree with certain laws, namely laws that gratuitously violate the life and property of the citizenry.
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2009
- Messages
- 27,254
- Reaction score
- 9,350
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
And I've asked you twice now to name them.
Centinel
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2011
- Messages
- 2,984
- Reaction score
- 1,366
- Location
- Penn's Woods
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Actually, you haven't asked me that twice. What you did ask me was, "Please list the law and regulations you "think" infringes on property rights without benefit to the community as a whole?"
If you simply wish for me to provide an example of a law that gratuitously violates the life and property of the citizenry, I can certainly oblige. Oh, so many to choose from...
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Federal Reserve Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Social Security (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Troubled Asset Relief Program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
National Firearms Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Those are a couple off the top of my head, but you get the idea...
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2009
- Messages
- 27,254
- Reaction score
- 9,350
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
That is the same as "an example of a law that gratuitously violates the life and property of the citizenry"
"The stated purpose of the act is “to move the United States toward greater energy independence and security," This helps protect the environment that we all depend on (public property) and US security. Nothing gratuitous there.
"After various financial panics, particularly a severe one in 1907, some Americans became persuaded that the country needed some sort of banking and currency reform that would,[1] when threatened by financial panics, provide a ready reserve of liquid assets, and furthermore allow for currency and credit to expand and contract seasonally within the U.S. economy." Nothing gratuitous there.
The US has the most expensive health care system in the world. It is the leading cost of bankruptcy in the US. Everyone agrees that the health care system has to be addressed or it will bankrupt the government. Nothing gratuitous there.
"The act was an attempt to limit what were seen as dangers in the modern American life, including old age, poverty, unemployment, and the burdens of widows and fatherless children." Nothing gratuitous there.
The purpose of TARP was to prevent a worldwide economic collapse. Nothing gratuitous there.
"The purpose of the NFA[1] was to regulate what were considered "gangster weapons" such as machine guns and hand grenades." Nothing gratuitous there.
Yeah, I get the idea you thought the 50's in America was socialism.
Centinel
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2011
- Messages
- 2,984
- Reaction score
- 1,366
- Location
- Penn's Woods
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Of course you believe that all of the intervention in people's lives and property was and is absolutely necessary. There's always a very important reason to violently intervene in people's lives. The fact that you believe that benefits are worth the cost does not negate the fact that in order to carry out all these laws, people's rights to self-determination and property are taken from them.
My opinion is that it is the duty of government only to protect the lives and property of the citizen, not to take from some citizens in order to benefit others. Probably not much left to argue about. We simply have different fundamental values.
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2009
- Messages
- 27,254
- Reaction score
- 9,350
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Its not that I alone think they benefit the greater good, it is the fact that a majority think they benefit the greater good, and that we live in a Democratic Republic.
Yep, if you wish to continue with our Democratic Republic form of government, you will need to convince a majority of the voters these things do not benefit them. I believe the Libertarian party shares most of your perspectives and they have not been doing very well in elections because a majority of Americans feel their policy platforms are too extreme.
Centinel
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2011
- Messages
- 2,984
- Reaction score
- 1,366
- Location
- Penn's Woods
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Yes, the majority must rule the minority at all costs. That is the way to social harmony.
Actually, I agree with you. The majority does what it wants because, well, it can. We simply disagree as to the morality of such an arrangement.
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2009
- Messages
- 27,254
- Reaction score
- 9,350
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
A Democratic Republic represents the majority. What form of government would you prefer?
Centinel
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2011
- Messages
- 2,984
- Reaction score
- 1,366
- Location
- Penn's Woods
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Exactly what we have now, a constitutional representative republic with limits on the ability of the majority to infringe on the rights of the minority. As I said before, I support our system of government, I simply oppose laws that infringe on life, liberty, and property.
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2009
- Messages
- 27,254
- Reaction score
- 9,350
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Yes, that appears to be your conundrum - you oppose laws approved by the majority that benefit from them in a country run under a system of government that you approve of.
Centinel
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2011
- Messages
- 2,984
- Reaction score
- 1,366
- Location
- Penn's Woods
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Independent
I think that's the conundrum of everyone in a representative republic. There are laws one supports and laws one opposes. You can't always get what you want. One must try to persuade other as best one can.
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2009
- Messages
- 27,254
- Reaction score
- 9,350
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Agreed............!
katsung47
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2011
- Messages
- 879
- Reaction score
- 128
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Yes, they prepare to do so. Here is another step for it. Otherwise how do you explain this new bill?
Quote, "Quote, “Petition to IMPEACH ALL Senators who Voted for "U.S. is a Battlefield" and to detain U.S. Citizens without trial
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/892/...attlefield-and-to-detain-us-citizens-without/
-----------------------
National Defense Authorization Act. (Liberty end)
congress.org ^ | 11/29/11 | Cathedra
Posted on Wednesday, November 30, 2011 5:55:39 AM by Broker
Under the ‘worldwide indefinite detention without charge or trial’ provision of S.1867, the National Defense Authorization Act bill, which is set to be up for a vote on the Senate floor this week, the legislation will “basically say in law for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who supports the bill.
The bill was drafted in SECRET by Senators Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.), before being passed in a closed-door committee meeting without any kind of hearing. The language appears in sections 1031 and 1032 of the NDAA bill.
-----------------
The New National Defense Authorization Act Is Ridiculously Scary
David Seaman, Credit Card Outlaw | Nov. 30, 2011,
Fellow entrepreneurs, Americans, anyone who still cares about this country at all -- this is a must read: By the end of this week, the US government very likely will have the power to lock up US citizens for life at Guantanamo Bay or other military prisons -- without charge and without trial. This means that, in the near future, a controversial Twitter post, attending a peaceful protest, or publishing an anti-Congress critique or anti-TSA rant on Google+ could land you "indefinite detention" for life, in the wording of the bill. No access to a lawyer, no access to trial.
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2011
- Messages
- 31,089
- Reaction score
- 4,384
- Location
- The greatest city on Earth
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
no, they do not prepare to do so. that's just being paranoid & silly.