# Dr. Walter Williams on Climate Change



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/articles/15/GlobalWarming

âBut the debate is settled. Climate change is a fact,â said President Barack Obama in his 2014 State of the Union address. Saying the debate is settled is nonsense, but the president is right about climate change. 

GlobalChange.gov gives the definition of climate change: âChanges in average weather conditions that persist over multiple decades or longer. Climate change encompasses both increases and decreases in temperature, as well as shifts in precipitation, changing risk of certain types of severe weather events, and changes to other features of the climate system.â That definition covers all weather phenomena throughout all 4.54 billion years of Earthâs existence.

You say, âWilliams, thatâs not what the warmers are talking about. Itâs the high CO2 levels caused by mankindâs industrial activities that are causing the climate change!â Thereâs a problem with that reasoning. 

Today CO2 concentrations worldwide average about 380 parts per million. This level of CO2 concentration is trivial compared with the concentrations during earlier geologic periods. For example, 460 million years ago, during the Ordovician Period, CO2 concentrations were 4,400 ppm, and temperatures then were about the same as they are today. 

With such high levels of CO2, at least according to the warmers, the Earth should have been boiling.

Climate change propaganda is simply a ruse for a socialist agenda. 

Consider the statements of some environmentalist leaders. Christiana Figueres, the U.N.âs chief climate change official, said that her unelected bureaucrats are undertaking âprobably the most difficult task" they have ever given themselves, "which is to intentionally transform the (global) economic development model.â 

In 2010, German economist and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change official Ottmar Edenhofer said, âOne must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the worldâs wealth by climate policy." The article in which that interview appeared summarized Edenhofer's views this way: "Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection. ... 

The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the worldâs resources will be negotiated.â


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

I'm a big fan of Williams. An educated man, a conservative voice in the wilderness that is black America. He, Thomas Sowell and Sylvia Thompson write well. 

There are other conservative blacks, but I try to read what these three write.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

http://joemiller.us/2015/03/once-in...il&utm_term=0_065b6c381c-5ec15d5624-230980529

Climate change predictions have been wrong for decades. Let&#8217;s look at some. At the first Earth Day celebration, in 1969, environmentalist Nigel Calder warned, &#8220;The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind.&#8221; C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization said, &#8220;The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed.&#8221; In 1968, Professor Paul Ehrlich predicted that there would be a major food shortage in the U.S. and that &#8220;in the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people (would) starve to death.&#8221; Ehrlich forecasted that 65 million Americans would die of starvation between 1980 and 1989 and that by 1999, the U.S. population would have declined to 22.6 million. Ehrlich&#8217;s predictions about England were gloomier. He said, &#8220;If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.&#8221;


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Something I wonder about.
As I understand it from grade school science class, plants breathe in CO2 and exhale Oxygen.
More CO2, healthier plants, more oxygen for us.
Did they teach me wrong?


----------



## BlackFeather (Jun 17, 2014)

Cornhusker said:


> Something I wonder about.
> As I understand it from grade school science class, plants breathe in CO2 and exhale Oxygen.
> More CO2, healthier plants, more oxygen for us.
> Did they teach me wrong?


No you weren't taught wrong, and if these global warming people had their way all plants would die from lack of CO2.


----------



## 1shotwade (Jul 9, 2013)

Cornhusker said:


> Something I wonder about.
> As I understand it from grade school science class, plants breathe in CO2 and exhale Oxygen.
> More CO2, healthier plants, more oxygen for us.
> Did they teach me wrong?


What they didn't teach is that the Ocean is the largest producer of co2 and that the rain forests are the largest user of co2 and producer of oxygen.Over the last 100 years we have been busy cutting down the rainforest which allows a higher concentration of unused co2 to exist.
They haven't found a way to make money off the ocean or rainforest so the blame has to go to the humans that do have money they can try and find a way to get from them.

Wade


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

Fact is, the plants in the ocean produce oxygen too. Seems to me that I read somewhere that the oceans are one of our largest O2 contributors.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Algae is a big oxygen producer


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

"I sit on a man's back, choking him and making him carry me, and yet assure myself and others that I am very sorry for him and wish to ease his lot by all possible means -- except by getting off his back." -- Leo Tolstoy


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/sc...il_job=1612817_03122015&s=al&dkt_nbr=dmmqfews

The research, published in PNAS, states: "There is a wealth of evidence pointing to dramatic short-term climate change on Earth over the last few million years. Much of this climate change is driven by variations of Earth's orbit around the Sun with characteristic frequencies known as Milankovitch cycles."

Milankovitch cycles are fluctuations which occur in Earth's orbit every 20,000, 40,000 and 100,000 years, which bring about an ice age every 100,000 years or so. Currently, Earth is in the middle of a warming period, and has been for the last 11,000 years, Dr. Donald Canfield, professor at the Nordic Center for Earth Evolution at the university and one of the principle researchers, said, the Daily Caller reported.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

You're betting your grandchildren's future on science being wrong. Is that a smart bet?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> You're betting your grandchildren's future on science being wrong. Is that a smart bet?


Yup, cause science is wrong....a lot!! So are engineers! Ever see engineering disasters on "modern marvels"? Over 20 episodes of catastrophic engineering failures.

We always adapt. Always!


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Nevada said:


> You're betting your grandchildren's future on science being wrong. Is that a smart bet?


I dunno, maybe at least even money?
http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-most-famous-scientific-theories-that-turned-out-to-be-wrong.php
I could add to that list, the belief that the earth is flat, the sun revolves around the earth, nothing smaller than an atom, and the many ongoing retractions in medical science.

What is a good bet, is the man who thinks he's got it all figured out is probably wrong........


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Comparing the climate 450million years ago to todays situation isn't a very apt comparison, the earth was quite a bit different then as compared to now. Volcanism was far more rampant then, which , in addition to increasing CO2, also increases sulfurous particulates which has a net cooling effect on temperature. Also the continents were, based on all available geologic and paleomagnetic data, joined together and far closer to the south pole. There are also indications the suns irradiance was lower then. I know how the anti-warming zealots like to focus on the suns role in climate while ignoring mankinds role... 
I find it amusing that those out to discredit global warming will seize upon such a small slice of time,a very distant time at that, trying to prove their theories, while ignoring the much vaster stretches of time where temp and CO2 moved in tandem.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

JeffreyD said:


> Yup, cause science is wrong....a lot!! So are engineers! Ever see engineering disasters on "modern marvels"? Over 20 episodes of catastrophic engineering failures.
> 
> We always adapt. Always!



Fortunately, the engineers and scientists get it right more often than not. And I do agree, we will adapt.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Tricky Grama said:


> http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/sc...il_job=1612817_03122015&s=al&dkt_nbr=dmmqfews
> 
> The research, published in PNAS, states: "There is a wealth of evidence pointing to dramatic short-term climate change on Earth over the last few million years. Much of this climate change is driven by variations of Earth's orbit around the Sun with characteristic frequencies known as Milankovitch cycles."
> 
> Milankovitch cycles are fluctuations which occur in Earth's orbit every 20,000, 40,000 and 100,000 years, which bring about an ice age every 100,000 years or so. Currently, Earth is in the middle of a warming period, and has been for the last 11,000 years, Dr. Donald Canfield, professor at the Nordic Center for Earth Evolution at the university and one of the principle researchers, said, the Daily Caller reported.


 Solar irradiance and the earths orbital eccentricities are very important as far as climate is concerned, as is the concentration of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

1shotwade said:


> What they didn't teach is that the Ocean is the largest producer of co2 and that the rain forests are the largest user of co2 and producer of oxygen.Over the last 100 years we have been busy cutting down the rainforest which allows a higher concentration of unused co2 to exist.
> Wade



Deforestation is one factor, but do you know what else produces a lot of CO2? Digging up and burning 60+million years worth of fossil fuels in a few generations time. I don't see why some folks want to gloss over that very obvious and HUGE contribution to overall greenhouse gas concentrations. But yeah, blame 'the ocean' while ignoring mankinds obvious role. lol. The oceans aren't so much 'producing' CO2,as they are storing and releasing it.


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

I wonder how California plans to adapt to the loss of water...? Reading they have one year of water left, they should get started on "adapting." Maybe starvation would be part of their plan. maybe conservation... save that water for fricken fracking! If displaced,where would the citizens of California go? And where would we get the abundance of food that California has thus far produced?and I mean domestically grown?


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Nevada said:


> You're betting your grandchildren's future on science being wrong. Is that a smart bet?


I'm not betting against science, I'm betting against politics designed to produce papers that look like science.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

SRSLADE said:


> I wonder how California plans to adapt to the loss of water...? Reading they have one year of water left, they should get started on "adapting." Maybe starvation would be part of their plan. maybe conservation... save that water for fricken fracking! If displaced,where would the citizens of California go? And where would we get the abundance of food that California has thus far produced?and I mean domestically grown?


Delta water was mostly cut off from the Farmers years ago because of a little fish that is more important than food for humans. Not much is produced in the central valley anymore. We import food from Mexico instead. We have years and years of water available. If it came to the point where our taps are dry, we will go re - open the gates ourselves. Maybe make the politicians who made this happen pay dearly. It's happened before.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Yuppers yet another volcano has just erupted and has not been this big for 20 years. Ya just more and more stuff being thrown up in the air how about that NEW island that just formed? Now that was a LOT of heat for the ocean to absorb but not one thing is mentioned about how this earth is creating mew land all the time. And in the middle of the ocean that is a whole lot of heat to form yet another island. But nope just dismiss it, and grab onto all the wrong ideas brought to you by people that just got to keep that free government grant money coming in.
All the Wildfires going on all over this earth also put stuff in the air, but dismiss that also cause it doesn't suit the agenda of those of the liberal persuasion.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> Yup, cause science is wrong....a lot!! So are engineers! Ever see engineering disasters on "modern marvels"? Over 20 episodes of catastrophic engineering failures.


Well, they aren't going to do a show about a bridge that didn't fall down.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Well, they aren't going to do a show about a bridge that didn't fall down.


Exactly! Each episode has multiple catastrophic failures. Engineering at its finest. The point being, sometimes their wrong! Like on climate change. Too many have been caught in lies and deception. If it were true, why would they lie and fudge numbers?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> Exactly! Each episode has multiple catastrophic failures. Engineering at its finest. The point being, sometimes their wrong! Like on climate change. Too many have been caught in lies and deception. If it were true, why would they lie and fudge numbers?


So who do you suggest we hire to design bridges and tall buildings? Maybe Fox News hosts or evangelical ministers?


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Nevada said:


> You're betting your grandchildren's future on science being wrong. Is that a smart bet?


Having parts of North America, New Your City maybe, covered by a mile deep ice cap is worse.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> So who do you suggest we hire to design bridges and tall buildings? Maybe Fox News hosts or evangelical ministers?


 That was the best an engineer could come up with? Pathetic!


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> What a stupid comment. That was the best an engineer could come up with? Pathetic!


That's because the question was absurd to the point of being rhetorical. Obviously we would want engineers (scientists) to design projects like that, and apply their scientific knowledge as best they can.

So you wouldn't trust the design of a bridge to anyone but a scientist, but you would trust the future of the world to a Fox News host or republican politician. You HAVE TO see the absurdity in that.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Nevada said:


> That's because the question was absurd to the point of being rhetorical. Obviously we would want engineers (scientists) to design projects like that, and apply their scientific knowledge as best they can.
> 
> So you wouldn't trust the design of a bridge to anyone but a scientist, but you would trust the future of the world to a Fox News host or republican politician. You HAVE TO see the absurdity in that.


another false binary choice. 

What about trusting the many scientist who oppose the whole AGW theory and dispute the warming data? Or what about the many scientists who haven't taken a position because they don't believe we understand the climate model sufficiently to make intelligent policy?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> That's because the question was absurd to the point of being rhetorical. Obviously we would want engineers (scientists) to design projects like that, and apply their scientific knowledge as best they can.
> 
> So you wouldn't trust the design of a bridge to anyone but a scientist, but you would trust the future of the world to a Fox News host or republican politician. You HAVE TO see the absurdity in that.


I never said that now did i? I would trust conservatives over socialist liberals any day. Look what you've done to our country already! Racial strife is at an all time high thanks to Obama and his goons. The economy sucks, schools, infrastructure, military doesn't trust them, scandal after scandal, lives lost due to foreign policy incompetence.

Yeah, much rather see some real Americans in the White House for a change. You know, the ones who love our country! Liberals certainly don't. Why not?

It's sad that your opinions seems to come from msnbc or cnn. You need to get out more and see the real world for once.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

DEKE01 said:


> I'm not betting against science, I'm betting against *politics designed* *to* produce papers that *look like science.*


And that, my friends, is the crux of the debate.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Nevada said:


> You're betting your grandchildren's future on science being wrong. Is that a smart bet?


Which science are you to believe? 
One of these days things will 'tip'. There are not nearly as many AGW believers as in the past, due to things we have all posted. Like the links I just posted. Too many 'scandals' revealing the left's agenda. Too many revealing science. Too many REAL 'Climate Change' scientific reports, yup, climate's been changing for millions of yrs.
When y'all doomsdayers finally get it, what then? Y'all will be the 'flatliners' of the decade.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

DEKE01 said:


> I'm not betting against science, I'm betting against politics designed to produce papers that look like science.


Post of the century award.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Oxankle said:


> I'm a big fan of Williams. An educated man, a conservative voice in the wilderness that is black America. He, Thomas Sowell and Sylvia Thompson write well.
> 
> There are other conservative blacks, but I try to read what these three write.


 He may be an 'educated man', but that doesn't make him an expert on climatology. Hes an economist. He is no more an authority on the subject than the huckster AlGore.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

JeffreyD said:


> I never said that now did i? I would trust conservatives over socialist liberals any day. Look what you've done to our country already! Racial strife is at an all time high thanks to Obama and his goons. The economy sucks, schools, infrastructure, military doesn't trust them, scandal after scandal, lives lost due to foreign policy incompetence.
> 
> Yeah, much rather see some real Americans in the White House for a change. You know, the ones who love our country! Liberals certainly don't. Why not?
> 
> It's sad that your opinions seems to come from msnbc or cnn. You need to get out more and see the real world for once.


Post of the decade award.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Tricky Grama said:


> yup, climate's been changing for millions of yrs.


 No one ever denied that. Which of course has ZERO to do with the current situation.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> One of these days things will 'tip'. There are not nearly as many AGW believers as in the past, due to things we have all posted. Like the links I just posted. Too many 'scandals' revealing the left's agenda. Too many revealing science. Too many REAL 'Climate Change' scientific reports, yup, climate's been changing for millions of yrs.
> When y'all doomsdayers finally get it, what then? Y'all will be the 'flatliners' of the decade.


It's not just climate change, is an entire mindset of the right. Our generation enjoyed prosperity during our lifetime through consumption, with little regard to conservation or replacement. The fundamental assets were new infrastructore, fossil fuels, and a complete disregard for the environment. Huge and prosperous corporations were built on the backs of cheap fuel, cheap disposal, and free infrastructure paid for by the previous generation.

The prevailing republican mindset is that the earth can accept plenty more waste, there's more than enough fossil fuel to last forever, and since infrastructure is in place it's free. All we have to do is use those things (unregulated, of course) and the prosperity we enjoyed will return.

The republican/conservative attitude is that those things can be relied upon for the foreseeable future, so there's no reason to worry about them now. Alternative energy solutions aren't a big deal to them and they're convinced that the oceans & atmosphere are large enough to accept whatever we discharge. Bridges, ports, and the electrical grid still operate just fine, so they don't need to be replaced. We'll get by.

I think the right's plan is to continue consuming and using old infrastructure until a crisis presents itself. I'm suggesting that the crisis is already here. We've gotten by on those things just about as long as we can. If we don't make changes then we'll reach a point where prosperity won't be possible.

Maybe the right will fail to see it until a crisis, then say that nobody could possibly have seen it coming. If you don't care what kind of environment or climate you're leaving behind for the next generation then I probably can't change your mind, but you might consider the level of economic prosperity you're leaving behind for them.

The buzz word of the day is "unsustainable", because we're on an unsustainable economical path.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Nevada said:


> It's not just climate change, is an entire mindset of the right. Our generation enjoyed prosperity during our entire lifetime through consumption, with little regard to conservation or replacement. The fundamental assets were new infrastructore, fossil fuels, and a disregard for the environment. Huge and prosperous corporations were built on the backs of cheap fuel, cheap disposal, and free infrastructure paid for by the previous generation.
> 
> The prevailing republican mindset is that the earth can accept plenty more waste, there's more than enough fossil fuel, and since infrastructure is in place it's free. All we have to do is use those things unregulated again and the prosperity we enjoyed will return.
> 
> ...


And yet you just keep taking..


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

HDRider said:


> And yet you just keep taking..


That's your answer to a bleak economic future? That's sure to instill a lot of confidence.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Nevada said:


> The buzz word of the day is "unsustainable", because we're on an unsustainable economical path.


Exactly. That is what the TEA Party is all about. Yet you take SS, subsidized health care, and are counting the days till you get Medicare when you admit you can do productive work, but have chosen not to. 

That's what liberals and RINOs (same thing) are all about.


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

Yep, Nevada; eventually the liberals are going to run out of other people's money.

Climate change will happen even if the liberals shut down our economy and give all the green credits to China. The earth's climate is in constant change; look up the history of climate cycles as they relate to activity on the sun. In the days of the Anasazi Arizona was wet; earlier it was a rain forest. Mastodons roamed what is now tundra.

Mankind will survive. We are perhaps the most adaptable creatures on earth.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

greg273 said:


> He may be an 'educated man', but that doesn't make him an expert on climatology. Hes an economist. He is no more an authority on the subject than the huckster AlGore.



I am not an "authority" on anything, but I AM self educated on many subjects and highly skilled at some things, for instance making jet turbine arts out of exotic metals.
I can't tell you how many times my colleagues and I have had to pull some educated, expert, authority on (fill in the blank) butt out of the jam he put us in.
Tooting that horn around me will only get you some sharply worded retorts.
I don't have any need to listen to any expert on what the climate is doing. I have all 5 of my senses intact.
This house, which has been in my family 30 years, has only had A/C in it for 10 and only needed to be used in the last 3 years. The reason those 2 window units are there is because of people with COPD. Myself, I would just sweat rather than use it. But the last 3 years have been the hottest I've ever seen in 30 years on this mountain.
Ain't no airhead from FOX News gonna convince me otherwise. I know what I know.
I also ain't gonna listen to some overeducated PhD in climatology tell me anything. When they can get the local weather forecast right 3 days in a row, maybe I'll listen then.
All through jr. high and high school in the late 70's and early 80's I was taught we are in between ice ages and the next ice age was right around the corner. I probably can show you some old text books with all their "expert" opinions.
And before you tell me about the Hubble telescope, the space shuttle and great satellite technology (which BTW probably have parts on it that I made) let me tell you what the wisest man on earth once said.
"There is nothing new under the sun."

In answer to Nevada's ridiculous question, "Who should we have design bridges", if not engineers...........
I have a sensible answer to that.
An old ironworker, if you can still find one.
I did that job when I was a young man and just like in my profession, those guys in the field had to fix and re-engineer what some idiot wrote down on the blueprints in order to get the job done and do it safely.
Those guys know as much or more about bridges than the architect who designs them.

My point is, intelligent observation by a skilled journeyman is worth just as much as a PhD who has never gotten out of his office on the 25th floor.
If you are willing to give them more weight than that, so be it. But don't ever make a bet that *I* will, because life experience has taught me better than that.

There IS something going on, and I can see it. And I am not one of those who thinks man has never made some awful mistakes on this planet that the rest of us have to pay for.
Not far from me I've got two different coal ash spills in TN and NC that some greedy so-and-so power company decided it would be a good idea to ignore so the people downstream get to drink poison.
I've stayed right down the street from the Love canal, drove right over it, near Buffalo.

There's no doubt that something is going on and that man is the only species with the brain capacity who has a chance of correcting it. But I'm not for one minute going to put all my faith in one "expert" over another without consulting my own very capable intellect first.
In the meantime, I'll do my part to conserve my resources, including those in my wallet, and fight tooth and nail against some "expert" who wants to reach his hands in my pocket while claiming he has all the right answers. 






greg273 said:


> No one ever denied that. Which of course has ZERO to do with the current situation.


It has everything to do with it, read the above post again.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

farmrbrown said:


> I also ain't gonna listen to some overeducated PhD in climatology tell me anything. When they can get the local weather forecast right 3 days in a row, maybe I'll listen then.


And I'm not going to listen to some rightwing economist tell me nothing is going on and CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas. I've learned enough about chemistry, physics and meteorology to know thats not true. 
And by the way, the TV weatherpeople aren't generally climatologists, many of them are barely meteorologists.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

greg273 said:


> And I'm not going to listen to some rightwing economist tell me nothing is going on and CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas. I've learned enough about chemistry, physics and meteorology to know thats not true.
> And by the way, the TV weatherpeople aren't generally climatologists, many of them are barely meteorologists.




Uh huh.
And I can take one look at a national satellite picture and tell if it's gonna rain tomorrow and how much. I just wish THEY could.
You think there's a bigger difference between a meteorologist and a climatologist or a machinist?:bored:

I also know a great deal about the great sciences so I know that CO2 is a key factor. Reread my post about how hot it's been.
My point is, idiots come in all flavors, same as wise men.


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

When the CO2 levels were at 4400PPM do you think the earth was boiling? On the contary, I seem to recall hearing that the earth was a green jungle in that period. 

Regardless of the CO2 level, if the sun goes into a decline we get an ice age. The science says that the sun appears to be entering one of its quiet phases, a decline in energy output. If that holds true, we may need a little extra CO2 to keep from freezing. One does not have to hold a PHD in climatology to understand that. 

By the way; the men who are bona-fide climatologists don't all agree that CO2 levels are endangering us. Gore is making money off his CO2 credits, and the developing nations want us to pay them damages for our use of coal and oil. 

Not hard to understand why they are pushing the line the sell.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Oxankle said:


> When the CO2 levels were at 4400PPM do you think the earth was boiling? On the contary, I seem to recall hearing that the earth was a green jungle in that period.


 Earth 400 million years ago with a CO2 level of 4400ppm (which, by the way, is an inference, with a wide margin of error) was far far different than Earth of today. And yes, according to science, the sun was even QUIETER then... if you believe that kind of stuff. To hold that one period up as any kind of model for todays world... well, sorry that just dont work. The continents aren't even remotely close to where they were then, nor is the sun the same brightness. 
In more recent times, say the last 40 million years, with the continents roughly where they are now, and with generally similar ocean currents, 700ppm of CO2 seems to be the trigger for a world without polar ice caps. We're halfway there. The notion that CO2 and climate are unrelated has absolutely NO basis in reality. The ones trying to sell you that idea are the ones whose pocketbooks will be directly impacted by a reduction in fossil fuel use. In motivation, they are not that different than AlGore, who is also trying to make a buck by fearmongering. I put all those scammers in the same category, one side trying to make a buck by pretending nothing is happening, and the other side trying to make a buck by saying its doomsday. 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/CO2-levels-during-the-late-Ordovician.html


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

farmrbrown said:


> Uh huh.
> And I can take one look at a national satellite picture and tell if it's gonna rain tomorrow and how much. I just wish THEY could.
> You think there's a bigger difference between a meteorologist and a climatologist or a machinist?:bored:
> 
> ...


I bet those folks in Boston wished there REALLY WAS global warming after getting over 108 inches of snow which is a record. and winter is not over yet. LOL


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

arabian knight said:


> I bet those folks in Boston wished there REALLY WAS global warming after getting over 108 inches of snow which is a record. and winter is not over yet. LOL


 You do realize, even if the average temp goes up 5degrees, theres still gonna be a winter, and snow, right?


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Yep, but them I was laughing when the experts on global warming said snow should be something we would have to describe to children in ten years.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

kasilofhome said:


> Yep, but them I was laughing when the experts on global warming said snow should be something we would have to describe to children in ten years.


 What so-called 'expert' said that?? 




> A study of 20th century snowstorms published in the August 2006 issue of the Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology_,_ before the big storms of recent years, found that most major snowstorms in the United States occurred during _warmer_-than-normal years.





> The basic science behind snow and its relationship to climate change is fairly straightforward. Warmer temperatures cause more water to evaporate into the atmosphere, and warmer air holds more water than cooler air. The air's water-holding capacity, in fact, rises about 7 percent with each 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) of warming.


 
http://www.livescience.com/48874-warming-climate-produces-more-snow-storms.html


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

greg273 said:


> You do realize, even if the average temp goes up 5degrees, theres still gonna be a winter, and snow, right?


Low snowfall in the French Alps? Global warming caused by man.

High Snowfall in Boston? Global warming caused by man.

Heavy great lakes ice cover? Global warming caused by man.

A warm Alaska winter? Global warming caused by man.

Record cold month of February? Global warming caused by man.

A few warm days in Australia? Global warming caused by man.

No wonder y'all call it "climate change" nowadays...


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

farmerDale said:


> Low snowfall in the French Alps? Global warming caused by man.
> 
> High Snowfall in Boston? Global warming caused by man.
> 
> ...


 I know its tough to fathom, but digging up 40+million years worth of fossil fuels and burning them in a few short generations time is going to cause a few changes.


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

greg273 said:


> I know its tough to fathom, but digging up 40+million years worth of fossil fuels and burning them in a few short generations time is going to cause a few changes.


Well we all have different perspectives with the same evidence, don't we? I wish the vikings would not have used those gas guzzling ships to go farming in greenland in 1000 AD. Farming in Greenland has been tough ever since. According to you though, that is looking like it will change? 

I know I could sure use a longer growing season and warmer summers instead of colder up here. Still waiting though.


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

greg273 said:


> I know its tough to fathom, but digging up 40+million years worth of fossil fuels and burning them in a few short generations time is going to cause a few changes.


And nothing ever changed before. We all know that climate is a sure fire constant. It has never changed before. It is only changing because of mankind.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

greg273 said:


> What so-called 'expert'
> 
> 
> 
> Memory loss seems to be a major health issue with global warming/ global cooling.....too much water....life threatening droughts..supporters.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

So mother nature is changing CA back into what it once was before MAN decided hmmmm good place to put millions of people. It sure isn't man that is changing CA BACK into a desert. Earth is changing it back to what most of that state was before the hand of man changed CA into something it was never meant to be.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Maybe, just maybe something else is happening and NASA and governments around the world do NOT want to tell us. Hmmm


*"Their Sky Has Changed!" Inuit elders sharing information with NASA regarding Earth's "WOBBLE"*


> The elders maintain the Sun doesn't rise were it used too, they have longer day light to hunt and the Sun is higher than it used to be and warms up quicker than before.
> The elders who were interviewed across the north all said the same thing, their sky has changed.
> The stars the Sun and the Moon have all changed affecting the temperature, even affecting the way the wind blows, it is becoming increasingly hard to predict the weather, something that is a must on the Arctic.
> 
> The elders all agree, they believe the Earth has shifted, wobbled or tilted to the North.


http://www.thebigwobble.org/2014/12/their-sky-has-changed-inuit-elders.html


[YOUTUBE] ?v=AtG1paGpfv0&spfreload=10[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

farmerDale said:


> Low snowfall in the French Alps? Global warming caused by man.
> 
> High Snowfall in Boston? Global warming caused by man.
> 
> ...


Post of the day award.

You forgot increased ice...increased population of polar bears...


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

farmerDale said:


> And nothing ever changed before. We all know that climate is a sure fire constant. It has never changed before. It is only changing because of mankind.


Yup. 
D'ya 'spose the 'climate changers' believe in man causing the dino's deaths?


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

It is hard for me to fathom the conceit of those who believe that man controls the climate here on earth. 

We have all read that the earth's pole shifts from time to time, sometimes rather quickly. We all have read that the sun has quiescent periods and other times when it is especially active. What some seem to think is that they know exactly what is going to happen next. 

I suspect that we know hardly more than did our ancestors, but that in the next two or three centuries man will have learned much more.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

greg273 said:


> You do realize, even if the average temp goes up 5degrees, theres still gonna be a winter, and snow, right?


That's not what Al Gore told me.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Oxankle said:


> It is hard for me to fathom the conceit of those who believe that man controls the climate here on earth.


 No one said mankind is 'controlling the climate'. But we are affecting it...conducting a science experiment on a grand scale by altering the composition of the atmosphere. We're far from controlling anything, we're just along for the ride at this point.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

farmerDale said:


> And nothing ever changed before. We all know that climate is a sure fire constant. It has never changed before. It is only changing because of mankind.





Tricky Grama said:


> Yup.
> D'ya 'spose the 'climate changers' believe in man causing the dino's deaths?


 More ridiculous strawman arguments, about par for the course here.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Oxankle said:


> We have all read that the earth's pole shifts from time to time, sometimes rather quickly.


 When you read that, what do you picture occurring?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

And speaking of the Bigfatliarhuckster, He thinks we all should pay, if we don't believe.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/go...il_job=1613282_03172015&s=al&dkt_nbr=l42uukn1

He's too much like the Socialist Party & the Communist Party. If he's behind something. or funding something, I will have NO part of it. Don't care if they're saving puppies, cannot get behind anything they support.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

greg273 said:


> No one said mankind is 'controlling the climate'. But we are affecting it...conducting a science experiment on a grand scale by altering the composition of the atmosphere. We're far from controlling anything, we're just along for the ride at this point.


We aren't affecting the climate any more than any other natural organism. If you remove our total impact on the climate, it would make no difference. The earth is a giant ecosystem and all ecosystems constantly change. One thing in the system changes, the system reacts by changing something else to compensate. When the CO2 levels were hundreds to times higher in the distant past, why did they not continue to rise and kill all life on earth? Nature has a remarkable ability to heal its wounds. Things like massive volcanic eruptions can certain;y overwhelm the system, at least temporarily, but mankind living makes no difference.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

poppy said:


> We aren't affecting the climate any more than any other natural organism..


 
sure poppy

:hysterical:


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

The only way man kind is affecting is the Local Climate.
Building so much they are Heat Islands.
I have seen first hand how storms moving up form the south of the Phoenix metro, and SPOLIT in half just as they approach the Phoenix area and Go Around it~! That is not CO2 related in the grand scale of things, only locally.
Phoenix is a desert, California WAS mostly a desert before man stepped in. That again is not C)2 related at all. But man has changed HIS OWN Local Climate by building so much concrete and asphalt. But not the Global climate as some seem to make it out to be. Period.
And if California would have started building desalination plants many years ago they would NOT be in such trouble as they are in now. Quit building some stupid 80 BILLION dollar high sped rail system and BUILD something that matters to ALL concerned.~!
That 80 BILLION would build a bunch of desalination plants, I bet CA would have lots of water to drink to crow crops and quit trying to steal water form others.
This is not CO2 related what is going on in CA.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

poppy said:


> When the CO2 levels were hundreds to times higher in the distant past, why did they not continue to rise and kill all life on earth?


 When was that poppy?


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

Here you go, Greg.
Ox


"Carbon dioxide concentrations had dropped from 7,000 parts per million during the Cambrian period about 500 million years ago to as low as 180 parts per million during the Quaternary glaciation of the last two million years."


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Oxankle said:


> Here you go, Greg.
> Ox
> 
> 
> "Carbon dioxide concentrations had dropped from 7,000 parts per million during the Cambrian period about 500 million years ago to as low as 180 parts per million during the Quaternary glaciation of the last two million years."


You wouldn't have liked living back then. The earth was a very different place.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Yeah, no internet to argue with strangers...who would want to live that way?


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

jtbrandt said:


> Yeah, no internet to argue with strangers...who would want to live that way?


I have it on good authority there were no liberals to be found.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Oxankle said:


> Here you go, Greg.
> Ox
> 
> 
> "Carbon dioxide concentrations had dropped from 7,000 parts per million during the Cambrian period about 500 million years ago to as low as 180 parts per million during the Quaternary glaciation of the last two million years."


 Thanks, but poppy said 'hundreds of times higher'. Just wondering when that was. Or rather when he THINKS that was.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

greg273 said:


> Thanks, but poppy said 'hundreds of times higher'. Just wondering when that was. Or rather when he THINKS that was.


The Cambrian Period was on the order of 500 million years ago. But you could be arguing with young earth advocate who believes that the earth is only 6,000 years old.


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

LOL; no, Nevada; I think the earth is older in man years than 6,000. I have no idea how the Creator counts His days, nor do I know how He experimented before he was satisfied with the present arrangement------or IF He is satisfied with the present arrangement.

I would suspect that He is not quite satisfied and may junk the whole project and start over.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

The *reason* why you don't focus on a specific area like Boston is because it doesn't matter in the larger scheme of things.
The other thing that doesn't matter is whether someone's politics agrees with yours or not.
What matters is factual information. Start there, and THEN proceed to make a conclusion.
At THAT time, you can take into consideration all of the lessor factors, such as political motivations. But letting less important matters determine your facts is a fatal mistake.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/this-winter-was-warmest-on-record/ar-BBirI0n



This winter may have brought a deep freeze to much of the northeastern United States &#8212; including record-breaking snowfall in Boston &#8212; but it was the planet's warmest winter on record, climate scientists announced yesterday (March 18).

The average global temperature from December to February was 1.42 degrees Fahrenheit (0.79 degrees Celsius) higher than the 20th-century average of 53.8 degrees F (12.1 degrees C), according to a newly released report from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Climatic Data Center.

These stats make December 2014 to February 2015 the warmest winter since record keeping began in 1880, surpassing the previous record set in 2007 by 0.05 degrees F (0.03 degrees C). [The 8 Hottest Places on Earth]


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

"These stats make December 2014 to February 2015 the warmest winter since record keeping began in 1880,"

By Jove!!!! I think you are on to something!!!! Surely the hottest year in 134 years trumps the geologic record!!!!! Not.

Gads, how these hot-earth people stretch to make a point.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

*



Earth has been getting hotter for the past 10,000 YEARS, contradicting studies that humans started global warming

Click to expand...

*


> The study argues previous research used contradictory ice core data
> Scientists ran different computer simulations of climate influences
> Each showed a notable global warming trend over last 10,000 years
> And no physical forces, scientists say, could have been strong enough to overwhelm the warming trend



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...began-global-warming-trend.html#ixzz3V2VrlMXw


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

arabian knight said:


> And no physical forces, scientists say, could have been strong enough to overwhelm the warming trend
> 
> Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...began-global-warming-trend.html#ixzz3V2VrlMXw


Not even Al Gore flying around the world at supersonic speeds preaching to nimrods far and wide?


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Tricky Grama said:


> Post of the decade award.


Boy I finally get a 'Post of the year' and then get topped by this.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

greg273 said:


> And by the way, the TV weatherpeople aren't generally climatologists, many of them are barely meteorologists.


Some of them here are former models.
Have 1 or 2 actually meteorologists at the station and let talking heads (and bodies) do the rest. Whats it really take to say "30% chance of rain with a high of 68 today" I can look at the weather forecast on my phone and say that convincingly.


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

Weather forecast here had changed rapidly over the last three days, sometimes by the hour. What the H?


----------



## unregistered41671 (Dec 29, 2009)

Oxankle said:


> Weather forecast here had changed rapidly over the last three days, sometimes by the hour. What the H?


Maybe Al Gore is passing through your area. Lots of hot air.


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

Nevada said:


> You're betting your grandchildren's future on science being wrong. Is that a smart bet?


Yes. Science: Stuff other people you've never met told you is absolutely the truth. Until it isn't.


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

Anyone here remember "Cimategate", by chance?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Woolieface said:


> Anyone here remember "Cimategate", by chance?


Yup! Doesn't matter to some though!


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

JeffreyD said:


> Yup! Doesn't matter to some though!


 You're right, it 'doesn't matter', because there wasn't much there to begin with. The few emails taken out of context don't do anything to bolster the 'deniers' case. 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Woolieface said:


> Yes. Science: Stuff other people you've never met told you is absolutely the truth. Until it isn't.


Sure, either side can get some scientists to endorse a lousy idea, depending on how it's worded and how well you take care of them. But not a scientific consensus.

I remember the day when doctors used to endorse unfiltered cigarettes, but that didn't make them healthy. Was it even possible that 20,678 physicians could be wrong?


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

Nevada has it right; They are going to keep on telling us that mankind is bringing on another heat wave, or was it a cold wave? What was it Shakespeare said about the gods laughing at man? 

Hang on; in a few years the gulf stream will sink and the E. coast will freeze--no, the CO2 blanket will warm the arctic and we'll have the NW passage and Greenland will grow grapes again. Oops, Saudi Arabia is flooding; way too much rain. Europe is frozen, Arizona becomes the bread-basket of the world. 

Sheesh; mankind will adapt no matter what comes, but in the meantime the witch doctors and medicine men will keep on trying to fleece us.


----------



## manfred (Dec 21, 2005)

If the average climate gets warmer, there are going to be some winners too.


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

Manfred? Do you think the folks up in Minnesota and the Dakotas will gripe about mild winters and tropical fruit in their gardens?


----------



## barelahh (Apr 13, 2007)

Cornhusker said:


> Something I wonder about.
> As I understand it from grade school science class, plants breathe in CO2 and exhale Oxygen.
> More CO2, healthier plants, more oxygen for us.
> Did they teach me wrong?


Yep you got it right! Thats the case of it. Plants feed well on co2, and i think if i remember right produce a 1:1 cf of co2/o2. 
Interestingly enough, folks wig out over co2 from fuels but the truth is that its self regulating. Oceans absorb it, plants die and take alot of it with them into the soil, plants quit growing if co2 gets too high, which is not anywhere near the case these days. it takes 2,000ppm to stop plants from growing. AND its lethal to humans at 4,000ppm. Your average co2 in the air we breathe is 300 ppm Not going to even get close enough to hurt anything.

I use it in my greenhouse. Plants quit growing if the threshold isn't between 300ppm and 2000 ppm.


----------



## barelahh (Apr 13, 2007)

1shotwade said:


> What they didn't teach is that the Ocean is the largest producer of co2 and that the rain forests are the largest user of co2 and producer of oxygen.Over the last 100 years we have been busy cutting down the rainforest which allows a higher concentration of unused co2 to exist.
> They haven't found a way to make money off the ocean or rainforest so the blame has to go to the humans that do have money they can try and find a way to get from them.
> 
> Wade


Uhmm the ocean is a carbon sink. It absorbs co2. I don't know where they came up with the information that it is the largest producer. That would not make sense. IF you didn't have co2 in the ocean trapped, then plants in the ocean would die.


----------



## barelahh (Apr 13, 2007)

1shotwade said:


> What they didn't teach is that the Ocean is the largest producer of co2 and that the rain forests are the largest user of co2 and producer of oxygen.Over the last 100 years we have been busy cutting down the rainforest which allows a higher concentration of unused co2 to exist.
> They haven't found a way to make money off the ocean or rainforest so the blame has to go to the humans that do have money they can try and find a way to get from them.
> 
> Wade





Nevada said:


> You're betting your grandchildren's future on science being wrong. Is that a smart bet?


why should i worry about my grandchildrens future? They are after all the ones who will be handling things long after i am dead and gone. From what i see, their future is more at risk by what this bozo in the white house is doing than from some mythical global warming.


----------



## barelahh (Apr 13, 2007)

farmrbrown said:


> I dunno, maybe at least even money?
> http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-most-famous-scientific-theories-that-turned-out-to-be-wrong.php
> I could add to that list, the belief that the earth is flat, the sun revolves around the earth, nothing smaller than an atom, and the many ongoing retractions in medical science.
> 
> What is a good bet, is the man who thinks he's got it all figured out is probably wrong........


Uhmm why would the folks in global warming give a rats fanny about my or their granchildrens future. They most certainly don't care at this point in the game letting their messiah run our national debt up more than every president in history combigned has done.
That is more of a threat to them than mythical warming trends


----------



## barelahh (Apr 13, 2007)

JeffreyD said:


> Delta water was mostly cut off from the Farmers years ago because of a little fish that is more important than food for humans. Not much is produced in the central valley anymore. We import food from Mexico instead. We have years and years of water available. If it came to the point where our taps are dry, we will go re - open the gates ourselves. Maybe make the politicians who made this happen pay dearly. It's happened before.


What are the good folks of cali waiting for. Now is the time to be opening the gates and maybe just maybe let the politicians sleep with their favorite fishes


----------



## barelahh (Apr 13, 2007)

arabian knight said:


> Yuppers yet another volcano has just erupted and has not been this big for 20 years. Ya just more and more stuff being thrown up in the air how about that NEW island that just formed? Now that was a LOT of heat for the ocean to absorb but not one thing is mentioned about how this earth is creating mew land all the time. And in the middle of the ocean that is a whole lot of heat to form yet another island. But nope just dismiss it, and grab onto all the wrong ideas brought to you by people that just got to keep that free government grant money coming in.
> All the Wildfires going on all over this earth also put stuff in the air, but dismiss that also cause it doesn't suit the agenda of those of the liberal persuasion.


SHhhhhh you'll confuse them with facts


----------



## barelahh (Apr 13, 2007)

JeffreyD said:


> I never said that now did i? I would trust conservatives over socialist liberals any day. Look what you've done to our country already! Racial strife is at an all time high thanks to Obama and his goons. The economy sucks, schools, infrastructure, military doesn't trust them, scandal after scandal, lives lost due to foreign policy incompetence.
> 
> Yeah, much rather see some real Americans in the White House for a change. You know, the ones who love our country! Liberals certainly don't. Why not?
> 
> It's sad that your opinions seems to come from msnbc or cnn. You need to get out more and see the real world for once.


I don't see him entrusting it to chris matthews, brooke anderson, wyatt andres. Fox at least REPORTS ON IT and gets it right more times than those bozos, most of the other media won't even report it unless Fox does.


----------



## barelahh (Apr 13, 2007)

Tricky Grama said:


> Which science are you to believe?
> One of these days things will 'tip'. There are not nearly as many AGW believers as in the past, due to things we have all posted. Like the links I just posted. Too many 'scandals' revealing the left's agenda. Too many revealing science. Too many REAL 'Climate Change' scientific reports, yup, climate's been changing for millions of yrs.
> When y'all doomsdayers finally get it, what then? Y'all will be the 'flatliners' of the decade.


Little bit of info here that puts it all into perspective. NO ONE gets off this planet alive.


----------



## beegrowing (Apr 1, 2014)

barelahh said:


> Uhmm the ocean is a carbon sink. It absorbs co2. I don't know where they came up with the information that it is the largest producer. That would not make sense. IF you didn't have co2 in the ocean trapped, then plants in the ocean would die.


I was taught way-back-when....60s or 70s the tiny ALGAE plants covering the ocean's surface create Most of our oxygen and the rainforest was the next biggest supply.... that's where the info is from(plants)
http://earthsky.org/earth/how-much-do-oceans-add-to-worlds-oxygen


----------



## barelahh (Apr 13, 2007)

Nevada said:


> It's not just climate change, is an entire mindset of the right. Our generation enjoyed prosperity during our lifetime through consumption, with little regard to conservation or replacement. The fundamental assets were new infrastructore, fossil fuels, and a complete disregard for the environment. Huge and prosperous corporations were built on the backs of cheap fuel, cheap disposal, and free infrastructure paid for by the previous generation.
> 
> The prevailing republican mindset is that the earth can accept plenty more waste, there's more than enough fossil fuel to last forever, and since infrastructure is in place it's free. All we have to do is use those things (unregulated, of course) and the prosperity we enjoyed will return.


Really now! Lets see which liberal was it that had to take a second airliner to go to the same city as her husband because she couldn't wait a couple hours while he handled business? Which liberal was it that flew to work on a constant basis from california to dc in a gas guzzling airliner because she was too good to get herself a apartment in DC, 
Oh and what bout the limo's that the liberals love to make prodicious use of in all things liberal. 




> The republican/conservative attitude is that those things can be relied upon for the foreseeable future, so there's no reason to worry about them now. Alternative energy solutions aren't a big deal to them and they're convinced that the oceans & atmosphere are large enough to accept whatever we discharge. Bridges, ports, and the electrical grid still operate just fine, so they don't need to be replaced. We'll get by.


Alt energy are boondoggles and making their liberal supporters very rich. Thank God we have common sense leaders like brownback that cut all funding of those stinking windtowers. Waste of money, on top of it none of the power goes to the area its generated in but we d*** sure get to pay for it. 




> I think the right's plan is to continue consuming and using old infrastructure until a crisis presents itself. I'm suggesting that the crisis is already here. We've gotten by on those things just about as long as we can. If we don't make changes then we'll reach a point where prosperity won't be possible.


Crisis? REALLY? With the messiah in office? I seem to remember you saying the same thing about 10 years ago, so far we haven't seen the crisis. 



> Maybe the right will fail to see it until a crisis, then say that nobody could possibly have seen it coming. If you don't care what kind of environment or climate you're leaving behind for the next generation then I probably can't change your mind, but you might consider the level of economic prosperity you're leaving behind for them.
> 
> The buzz word of the day is "unsustainable", because we're on an unsustainable economical path.


A broken clock is right 2x a day, eventually you might be right, just give it another 10, 20, 30, 100, 1000 years


----------



## barelahh (Apr 13, 2007)

HDRider said:


> And yet you just keep taking..


I noticed he keeps taking, for the last 10 years he has been doing the same thing everyone else does. Consume. If i remember right he makes good use of dvd,cd's producing disks to sell which are made up of that evil wicked petroleum


----------



## barelahh (Apr 13, 2007)

Nevada said:


> That's your answer to a bleak economic future? That's sure to instill a lot of confidence.


You might advise the great one in the white house that its bleak, he says it's great


----------



## barelahh (Apr 13, 2007)

Oxankle said:


> When the CO2 levels were at 4400PPM do you think the earth was boiling? On the contary, I seem to recall hearing that the earth was a green jungle in that period.
> 
> Regardless of the CO2 level, if the sun goes into a decline we get an ice age. The science says that the sun appears to be entering one of its quiet phases, a decline in energy output. If that holds true, we may need a little extra CO2 to keep from freezing. One does not have to hold a PHD in climatology to understand that.
> 
> ...


That would be a absolute lie then they told you, because plants die when co2 levels reach 4000ppm along with humans. Someones feeding some male bovine excrement to someone.


----------



## barelahh (Apr 13, 2007)

greg273 said:


> No one said mankind is 'controlling the climate'. But we are affecting it...conducting a science experiment on a grand scale by altering the composition of the atmosphere. We're far from controlling anything, we're just along for the ride at this point.


I would say the extent to which mankinds actions affect the earth is tatamount to a man pissing into the ocean.


----------



## barelahh (Apr 13, 2007)

Oxankle said:


> Here you go, Greg.
> Ox
> 
> 
> "Carbon dioxide concentrations had dropped from 7,000 parts per million during the Cambrian period about 500 million years ago to as low as 180 parts per million during the Quaternary glaciation of the last two million years."




soooooo. explain this. IF the co2 levels were 7000ppm 500 million years ago, when life supposedly according to the evos occured and was well under way 700million years ago, how does this work when plants die bugs die, lizards die, humans die, all forms of life die at 4000 ppm


----------



## barelahh (Apr 13, 2007)

beegrowing said:


> I was taught way-back-when....60s or 70s the tiny ALGAE plants covering the ocean's surface create Most of our oxygen and the rainforest was the next biggest supply.... that's where the info is from(plants)
> http://earthsky.org/earth/how-much-do-oceans-add-to-worlds-oxygen


yeah thats what i was taught as well and it still is the case, I didn't say O2 producer i said co2. the ocean does releaase a little as it is technically a breathing environment, but it traps more than it releases as the earth needs. Its saturation levels in the atmosphere that draw out the co2.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

barelahh said:


> I would say the extent to which mankinds actions affect the earth is tatamount to a man pissing into the ocean.


 Well we all have our opinions.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

barelahh said:


> That would be a absolute lie then they told you, because plants die when co2 levels reach 4000ppm along with humans. Someones feeding some male bovine excrement to someone.


 Well that myth didn't take long to bust. 



> At 1% concentration of carbon dioxide CO2 (10,000 parts per million or ppm) and under continuous exposure at that level, such as in an auditorium filled with occupants and poor fresh air ventilation, some occupants are likely to feel drowsy.


 If someone 'feels drowsy' at 10,000PPM, i kind of doubt death occurs at the lower level of 4000PPM. 
http://www.inspectapedia.com/hazmat/CO2gashaz.htm


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

barelahh said:


> That would be a absolute lie then they told you, because plants die when co2 levels reach 4000ppm along with humans. Someones feeding some male bovine excrement to someone.


And after that the planet turns into a huge Snowball.










Which BTW it has done several times in the past. Lucky there was still volcanos active to Melt the ice so the earth could Warm back up.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Climate change is getting harder it deny. California believes it.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/01/us/california-water-restrictions-drought/index.html


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Climate change is getting harder it deny. California believes it.
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/01/us/california-water-restrictions-drought/index.html


Their lying! Only the unbalanced environmentalists and the politicians say they believe it for power gains. Why hasn't there been a moratorium on new construction? 
They want to build a new football stadium, huge condo complexes, thousands of new homes. Our dwp looses more water on a daily basis than the San Fernando Valley use's daily. Hundreds of billions of potable water are used by criminal illegal aliens who shouldn't be here to use it in the first place. 80% is used by agriculture, yet the people are the ones getting the shaft. Enviros sued to have dams removed because of critters being more important than humans. The delta water was cut off because of this very reason.

No, California does not believe it. But that is cnn reporting on gov. moonbeam anyway. :shrug:


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> Their lying!


Good grief!

And conservatives want to be in charge...


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

Come off it, libs. The earth goes thru cycles of wet and dry, hot and cold. Always has, always will. California in the 1800's saw floods that permitted steamboats to cruise the prairies, drowned cattle and people. A drought is simply the opposite extreme. 

Has everyone forgotten the drought of the 1930's that baked the Southwest? 
Alll the Chicken Little's in the world will not cause the earth to either heat or cool appreciably. Nature will do what she will in her own time.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Good grief!
> 
> And conservatives want to be in charge...


Do you live here to see everything first hand? No, you don't, so you rely on cnn to tell you the truth? Hysterical!! :hysterical:

Why hasn't the sea level risen? Why did my rain gauges register more than what was being reported? Why did others have that same result?

This exactly what happens when liberals ARE in charge, kind of like Detroit.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Oxankle said:


> Come off it, libs. The earth goes thru cycles of wet and dry, hot and cold. Always has, always will. California in the 1800's saw floods that permitted steamboats to cruise the prairies, drowned cattle and people. A drought is simply the opposite extreme.
> 
> Has everyone forgotten the drought of the 1930's that baked the Southwest?
> Alll the Chicken Little's in the world will not cause the earth to either heat or cool appreciably. Nature will do what she will in her own time.


 Yep, things change all the time. Even more so when you add millions of years worth of buried carbon to the atmosphere in a few generations time. End of the world? Nope, just another change,this time helped along by billions of people doing what they do best, burning stuff.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Oxankle said:


> Come off it, libs. The earth goes thru cycles of wet and dry, hot and cold. Always has, always will. California in the 1800's saw floods that permitted steamboats to cruise the prairies, drowned cattle and people. A drought is simply the opposite extreme.
> 
> Has everyone forgotten the drought of the 1930's that baked the Southwest?
> Alll the Chicken Little's in the world will not cause the earth to either heat or cool appreciably. Nature will do what she will in her own time.


 I sure does and CA believes it Give Me A Break.
They don;t call CA The Granola state for nothing. Filled with Nuts and Fruits, and those that are not that, are Flakes


----------

