# Signs of Climate Change



## HDRider




----------



## arabian knight

Ya it just happened to be a fluke of nature. One person on the weather channel said they had seen this many years ago, but not Three at the same time from the same Super Cell. It gave me a schance to go see the movie Godzilla, tonight if the storms get heavy again I will go see How To Train Your Dragon 2. LOL


----------



## Jim-mi

That driver in the car up ahead doesn't know 'weather' too poop or go blind . . . . .lol

That pix is such an excellent example of "climate change".......
Ma Nature will have her way . .regardless . . .


Just shows ya that folks in that area are way behind in paying Algorp for his carbon taxes . . . . . . . .


----------



## unregistered358967

P'shaw. That ain't climate change. I've seen this before..in my previously cleaned living room when my kids were toddlers.


----------



## crazyfarm

I'd pee my pants.


----------



## Shine

LOL... nuttin... I've see a single multi-cell Mesoscale Convective Complex with 5 twisters on the ground at the same time and all inside a 2 mile radius... This was YEARS ago, I guess the climate change was just practicing then...


----------



## Paumon

I think multiple twisters is probably going to become the new normal.


----------



## arabian knight

Its just a freak of nature, and nothing more then that. Weather records date back a little over 100 years. but the earth is 4.5 billion nears old who is to know what is normal, or extreme?


----------



## Paumon

Well then by the same token who is to know what is a freak of nature? :huh:

I think multiple twisters will cease to be an infrequent "freak of nature" and will become the new normal that people can expect to be happening on a regular basis every year.


----------



## HDRider

Paumon said:


> Well then by the same token who is to know what is a freak of nature? :huh:
> 
> I think multiple twisters will cease to be an infrequent "freak of nature" and will become the new normal that people can expect to be happening on a regular basis every year.


Said the fly to the spider.


----------



## where I want to

Paumon said:


> Well then by the same token who is to know what is a freak of nature? :huh:
> 
> I think multiple twisters will cease to be an infrequent "freak of nature" and will become the new normal that people can expect to be happening on a regular basis every year.


Such predictions are a safe bet. If there are more, then you get to gloat. If not, no one will remember or care you got it wrong.

Of course the best option is that, like all natural occurrences that take a long time recurring, you can do both- take credit during periods when it happens to fall with the vague prediction and keep silent when it doesn't.


----------



## MO_cows

Paumon said:


> Well then by the same token who is to know what is a freak of nature? :huh:
> 
> I think multiple twisters will cease to be an infrequent "freak of nature" and will become the new normal that people can expect to be happening on a regular basis every year.


Seeing as how much of tornado alley is sparsely populated, and until very recently, people didn't have a handy dandy device in their pocket to record images, multi funnels could simply be more common than we previously thought. I'm sure the experts are scrutinizing the radar images as we speak to see if the multiple funnels left a signature, then they will look for that signature in other radar captures. 

Can you imagine being caught in between them??? I wouldn't be thinking climate change, more like underwear change!


----------



## Patchouli

I saw the video of that and the car drivers are crazy. I would be driving across the median to go the other direction!


----------



## Paumon

where I want to said:


> Such predictions are a safe bet. If there are more, then you get to gloat. If not, no one will remember or care you got it wrong.
> 
> Of course the best option is that, like all natural occurrences that take a long time recurring, you can do both- take credit during periods when it happens to fall with the vague prediction and keep silent when it doesn't.


:stars:

Gloat? Take credit? When you say foolish things like that it makes me wonder where your head is at and where your common sense went. 

Every bad storm that sweeps through the states goes north straight up into Canada where there are millions of people and millions of acres of crops in their paths. Just like that storm system that caused those dual twisters is right now at this very moment causing devastating floods in Alberta and multiple thousands of non-stop lightning strikes in Ontario in the most highly populated areas and where agriculture is most vital to the economy. 

I don't expect you to be concerned about that but I am. And maybe you should be concerned because USA and many other countries get the bulk of their grains imported from Canada. So if you can't get the bulk of your grains from Canada any longer that means the price of the grains that your own country is able to produce will go up to the point of being practically unaffordable. 

So tell me, why would I gloat or want to take credit for predicting an increase in something extreme that will cause just as much grief and devastation in my own country as it will in yours or any other country?


----------



## Ozarks Tom

Sorry to burst anyone's bubble, but so far this year the US has has less tornadoes than any year since 1952. I guess "climate change" is good!


----------



## arabian knight

Ozarks Tom said:


> Sorry to burst anyone's bubble, but so far this year the US has has less tornadoes than any year since 1952. I guess "climate change" is good!


Ya really not only that but WI had it first tornado yesterday. That was the Latest Ever. On Record at least. LOL So another hats off for what some believe there is a climate change. happening. LOL


----------



## arabian knight

And ow how many YEARS has its been that they say More and more Hurricanes and it has been some of the lowest numbers hitting land for many years. That makes me smile a lot at those GW gurus.


----------



## HDRider




----------



## HDRider




----------



## HDRider




----------



## HDRider




----------



## HDRider




----------



## arabian knight

HDRider said:


>


 And so much for Photoshopping. LOL
Polar Bear âGlobal Warmingâ Photos Revealed to be FAKE!
By John C Dvorak has prove those photos are not true.
In fact many bears made in through this last winter with Less To Eat and are skinny because of TOO thick ICE. ya so much or the GW hype.


----------



## HDRider

arabian knight said:


> And so much for Photoshopping. LOL
> Polar Bear âGlobal Warmingâ Photos Revealed to be FAKE!
> By John C Dvorak has prove those photos are not true.
> In fact many bears made in through this last winter with Less To Eat and are skinny because of TOO thick ICE. ya so much or the GW hype.


Do you think that penguin was Photo Shopped too?


----------



## JJ Grandits

In some areas there are so many polar bears people are afraid to go out at night.


----------



## HDRider

JJ Grandits said:


> In some areas there are so many polar bears people are afraid to go out at night.


But you could see those fire breathing penguins at night very easy.


----------



## mmoetc

arabian knight said:


> Ya really not only that but WI had it first tornado yesterday. That was the Latest Ever. On Record at least. LOL So another hats off for what some believe there is a climate change. happening. LOL


To be accurate, in 1995 the first tornado in Wisconsin didn't occur until June 28. There were three years in the 1950's with later starts than this year. But don't let facts or science get in the way of your conclusions.


----------



## Tricky Grama

HDRider said:


> Do you think that penguin was Photo Shopped too?


Nah. 
Wait-can we revive the platypus forum???


----------



## DEKE01

HDRider said:


>


my farm, which will be my full time home starting in Sept, is in Marion Cty, FL. Marion is in the center north of the peninsula and on your map has a blue lake on the east side and a white blotch in the center. I figure the shrinking land mass is going to be great for my property values. I could get rich off of all the people having to flee Miami. Yee-haa. I think I'm going to go burn some coal now. 

BTW - fire breathing penguin - ROFL :goodjob:


----------



## Cornhusker

Shine said:


> LOL... nuttin... I've see a single multi-cell Mesoscale Convective Complex with 5 twisters on the ground at the same time and all inside a 2 mile radius... This was YEARS ago, I guess the climate change was just practicing then...


I've seen 4 on the ground
If you want to know if climate change is a real thing or a scam, just look to see who is promoting it


----------



## Cornhusker

HDRider said:


>


Looks like a normal glacier giving birth to a normal iceberg, just like normal.


----------



## Cornhusker




----------



## unregistered358967

Cornhusker said:


> I've seen 4 on the ground
> If you want to know if climate change is a real thing or a scam, just look to see who is promoting it


Yep - a simple google image search shows this happening many times before. It's always been and always will be, just like double rainbows.


----------



## Patchouli

arabian knight said:


> Ya really not only that but WI had it first tornado yesterday. That was the Latest Ever. On Record at least. LOL So another hats off for what some believe there is a climate change. happening. LOL


You are aware that this year has been unusual in other ways correct? And that climate change can't be pegged to just one event or one season? One reason tornado season is late is because everything is late and off this year. Spring came late and so did Summer. We may be thankfully low on tornadoes but hurricane season is already off to a record start this year.

http://www.weather.com/news/weather...-season-record-start-eastern-pacific-20140614


----------



## Patchouli

arabian knight said:


> And so much for Photoshopping. LOL
> Polar Bear âGlobal Warmingâ Photos Revealed to be FAKE!
> By John C Dvorak has prove those photos are not true.
> In fact many bears made in through this last winter with Less To Eat and are skinny because of TOO thick ICE. ya so much or the GW hype.


Too thick ice really? Got any actual proof for that?


----------



## unregistered358967

Patchouli said:


> Too thick ice really? Got any actual proof for that?


Yes.


https://www.google.com/webhp?source...pv=2&es_th=1&ie=UTF-8#q=thick+ice+polar+bears

Kind of interesting- it makes sense and I never really thought why this would be...*"Five meters of ice&#8211; about 16 feet thick - is threatening the survival of polar bears in the Southern Beaufort Sea region along Alaska&#8217;s Arctic coast, according to Dr. Susan J. Crockford, an evolutionary biologist in British Columbia who has studied polar bears for most of her 35-year career. That&#8217;s because the thick ice ridges could prevent ringed seals, the bears&#8217; major prey, from creating breathing holes they need to survive in the frigid waters, Crockford told CNSNews.com."*


----------



## DEKE01

Patchouli said:


> You are aware that this year has been unusual in other ways correct? And that climate change can't be pegged to just one event or one season? One reason tornado season is late is because everything is late and off this year. Spring came late and so did Summer. We may be thankfully low on tornadoes but hurricane season is already off to a record start this year.
> 
> http://www.weather.com/news/weather...-season-record-start-eastern-pacific-20140614


Tornado season is late because winter lasted longer? Is that what you are saying? Global warming caused winter to be colder longer? Oh I know, one winter is not enough data to say much of anything about AGW, that is cherry picking a small data point. 

But then you tell us hurricanes are setting records this year. Did you read your link? Less activity in the Atlantic than normal, record setting activity in the eastern Pacific, but eastPac records only go back to 1971, so setting a new record isn't necessarily saying much. And aren't you cherry picking data just as much as an anti-AGW person is when he says last winter was colder longer than normal? 

My DD swam competitively for years. At one point, she held every team record in every stroke at every distance for girls in her age group. Was she a phenomenally great swimmer? As her Dad, I like to think so, but the fact that it was a team only a few years old and she was the only 12 yr old girl who had ever tried the 1000 yd and 1 mile distances probably made it just a wee bit easier to be the record holder. I know analogies trip you up sometimes, but do you get the point...I mean other than me figgering out a way to brag about DD in a global warming thread?


----------



## Patchouli

Jax-mom said:


> https://www.google.com/webhp?source...pv=2&es_th=1&ie=UTF-8#q=thick+ice+polar+bears
> 
> Kind of interesting- it makes sense and I never really thought why this would be...*"Five meters of iceâ about 16 feet thick - is threatening the survival of polar bears in the Southern Beaufort Sea region along Alaskaâs Arctic coast, according to Dr. Susan J. Crockford, an evolutionary biologist in British Columbia who has studied polar bears for most of her 35-year career. Thatâs because the thick ice ridges could prevent ringed seals, the bearsâ major prey, from creating breathing holes they need to survive in the frigid waters, Crockford told CNSNews.com."*


A couple of points. Polar Bear Science is anything but. It is a rightwing, anticlimate change spin blog. Even she admits she doesn't have any facts she is just extrapolating: âSea ice charts arenât a guarantee that this heavy spring ice phenomenon is developing in the Beaufort, but they could be a warning,â she wrote, noting that they "don't bode well" for the Beaufort bears.

So she totally pulled that from her nether regions. 

Second the increased ice in those areas are because of climate change, maybe you heard of something called a Polar Vortex this past winter?


----------



## Patchouli

DEKE01 said:


> Tornado season is late because winter lasted longer? Is that what you are saying? Global warming caused winter to be colder longer? Oh I know, one winter is not enough data to say much of anything about AGW, that is cherry picking a small data point.
> 
> But then you tell us hurricanes are setting records this year. Did you read your link? Less activity in the Atlantic than normal, record setting activity in the eastern Pacific, but eastPac records only go back to 1971, so setting a new record isn't necessarily saying much. And aren't you cherry picking data just as much as an anti-AGW person is when he says last winter was colder longer than normal?
> 
> My DD swam competitively for years. At one point, she held every team record in every stroke at every distance for girls in her age group. Was she a phenomenally great swimmer? As her Dad, I like to think so, but the fact that it was a team only a few years old and she was the only 12 yr old girl who had ever tried the 1000 yd and 1 mile distances probably made it just a wee bit easier to be the record holder. I know analogies trip you up sometimes, but do you get the point...I mean other than me figgering out a way to brag about DD in a global warming thread?


Yes global warming actually did cause Winter to be colder here and to last longer. This is complex science. It's not simple addition it is trigonometry level. You can't just see it from a superficial 1+1=2 level.


----------



## DEKE01

Patchouli said:


> Yes global warming actually did cause Winter to be colder here and to last longer. This is complex science. It's not simple addition it is trigonometry level. You can't just see it from a superficial 1+1=2 level.


uh-huh. yes, as I've heard, GW causes it to be colder, warmer, milder, drier, wetter, snowier (is that a word?), and everything else under the sun, except for of course, the sun itself.

what about your dire warning of more and stronger hurricanes?


----------



## Patchouli

DEKE01 said:


> uh-huh. yes, as I've heard, GW causes it to be colder, warmer, milder, drier, wetter, snowier (is that a word?), and everything else under the sun, except for of course, the sun itself.
> 
> what about your dire warning of more and stronger hurricanes?


My dire warning? All I said was we set new hurricane records so far this year and posted a link to back it up. You are welcome to argue with weather.com if you like.


----------



## kasilofhome

I now believe that there is a change in the climate.....last night ...large public meeting those wanting to raise the tax cap and push for more control


Lost support. The people stood firm.. New election I. Oct. New folks have stepped up to run. 
The tide turned. Thank God for climate change. Bye bye Mark baggage.


----------



## arabian knight

Patchouli said:


> maybe you heard of something called a Polar Vortex this past winter?


AH yes the NEWEST Buzz word of the day, or in this case this winter.
It USED to be called "The Siberian Clipper".

Ever Hear of it? LOL

That is because it comes right from the Coldest part in the North, Siberia~!

Polar Vortex my Aunt Fanny.


----------



## arabian knight

DEKE01 said:


> uh-huh. yes, as I've heard, GW causes it to be colder, warmer, milder, drier, wetter, snowier (is that a word?), and everything else under the sun, except for of course, the sun itself.
> 
> what about your dire warning of more and stronger hurricanes?


More hurricanes, Stronger ones, and THEY have been so FAR off it isn't even funny. In fact it is now Getting so OLD, that the weather Channel has a hard time even Guessing what THIS years will be. LOL
And THAT is all it is a GUESS and nothing more. And wrong they have been now for the last now many years since Katrina LOL


----------



## HDRider

We aren't even sure the sun will come up tomorrow.


----------



## DEKE01

HDRider said:


> We aren't even sure the sun will come up tomorrow.


Little Orphan Annie disagrees with you.


----------



## DEKE01

Patchouli said:


> Yes global warming actually did cause Winter to be colder here and to last longer. This is complex science. It's not simple addition it is trigonometry level. You can't just see it from a superficial 1+1=2 level.


So weather on any given day or any given season, like a colder than usual summer day or hurricane free storm season, is not indicative of there not being global warming...

...but...

if you are a believer, then EVERY weather data point, no matter what it is, hot, cold, wet, dry, calm, or stormy is proof of AGW. 

I see.  

And that is science. 

:walk:


----------



## DEKE01

Patchouli said:


> My dire warning? All I said was we set new hurricane records so far this year and posted a link to back it up. You are welcome to argue with weather.com if you like.


what you posted is a true lie. You say we are off to a record hurricane season, which is true in a very narrow way, in the east Pac, but a lie in the Atlantic. In fact, official forecasts are that because of LOWER THAN NORMAL OCEAN TEMPS in the Atlantic, that hurricanes will be fewer and less powerful.


----------



## Paumon

Just out of curiosity, if this is lower than normal (in the 80's - 90's F.) then what is normal? The map shows today's current temperatures of the oceans and the link gives more detail about temperatures.

http://www.weather.com/maps/activit...collection=localwxforecast&presname=undefined


----------



## HDRider

Pretty picture.


----------



## Cornhusker

Patchouli said:


> A couple of points. Polar Bear Science is anything but. It is a rightwing, anticlimate change spin blog. Even she admits she doesn't have any facts she is just extrapolating: âSea ice charts arenât a guarantee that this heavy spring ice phenomenon is developing in the Beaufort, but they could be a warning,â she wrote, noting that they "don't bode well" for the Beaufort bears.
> 
> So she totally pulled that from her nether regions.
> 
> Second the increased ice in those areas are because of climate change, maybe you heard of something called a Polar Vortex this past winter?


Then why does the left always throw pictures of polar bears standing on tiny pieces of ice out as "proof" the ice caps are melting?
Look who pushes climate change..professional scammers who have lied to us at every opportunity.
Don't be gullible, the sky ain't falling, and killing the coal industry isn't going to save the world, it just makes more money to the politicians on the take and those who buy the elections for them.


----------



## Cornhusker

HDRider said:


> We aren't even sure the sun will come up tomorrow.


I'll bet you a million dollars it will come up
If it does, you owe me a million, if not, I owe you.
Deal?


----------



## unregistered358967

And then there was this: http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/saund...ming-researcher-gets-stuck-in-ice-5102720.php

FWIW, I do believe in climate change, but cyclical patterns, not man made. *YET* I do my part to not contribute to pollution by conserving and using less to help what we do have go further. I'm talking choosing to walk and bike when possible, conserving water, energy. I've always done this, and so have my parents long before there were any warnings about 'global warming'. It just made good sense to them, ecologically and financially.


----------



## DEKE01

Since Paumon likes weather.com and their pretty pictures, how about this link: http://www.weather.com/news/weather-hurricanes/hurricane-season-outlook-atlantic-2014-el-nino-20140324

Here's the relevant tidbit

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Q: Are there any other factors in play?

"We've found that the best pre-season predictor is sea-surface temperature anomalies in the tropical North Atlantic region," Crawford said. "So far, SSTs in this area are rather cool relative to the recent very active seasons."

Looking at the Atlantic Basin as a whole, shown in the graphic at right, note the rather warm SSTs in the western Atlantic Ocean and Caribbean Sea, but generally cooler-than-average temperatures in the strip of the central and eastern Atlantic Ocean east of the Windward Islands to the western African coast.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


----------



## Patchouli

DEKE01 said:


> So weather on any given day or any given season, like a colder than usual summer day or hurricane free storm season, is not indicative of there not being global warming...
> 
> ...but...
> 
> if you are a believer, then EVERY weather data point, no matter what it is, hot, cold, wet, dry, calm, or stormy is proof of AGW.
> 
> I see.
> 
> And that is science.
> 
> :walk:


You are confusing symptoms and the cause. Global warming is a fact because the earth overall has warmed. That is measured by the temperature of the entire globe over decades. None of us prove global warming with symptoms or effects nor can it be disproved by a few days weather patterns. 

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/


> *How do we know the Earth's climate is warming?*
> 
> Thousands of land and ocean temperature measurements are recorded each day around the globe. This includes measurements from climate reference stations, weather stations, ships, buoys and autonomous gliders in the oceans. These surface measurements are also supplemented with satellite measurements. These measurements are processed, examined for random and systematic errors, and then finally combined to produce a time series of global average temperature change. A number of agencies around the world have produced datasets of global-scale changes in surface temperature using different techniques to process the data and remove measurement errors that could lead to false interpretations of temperature trends. The warming trend that is apparent in all of the independent methods of calculating global temperature change is also confirmed by other independent observations, such as the melting of mountain glaciers on every continent, reductions in the extent of snow cover, earlier blooming of plants in spring, a shorter ice season on lakes and rivers, ocean heat content, reduced arctic sea ice, and rising sea levels.
> *The Global Surface Temperature is Rising*
> 
> 
> Global annual average temperature measured over land and oceans. Red bars indicate temperatures above and blue bars indicate temperatures below the 1901-2000 average temperature. The black line shows atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration in parts per million.
> Global average temperature is one of the most-cited indicators of global climate change, and shows an increase of approximately 1.4Â°F since the early 20th Century. The global surface temperature is based on air temperature data over land and sea-surface temperatures observed from ships, buoys and satellites. There is a clear long-term global warming trend, while each individual year does not always show a temperature increase relative to the previous year, and some years show greater changes than others. These year-to-year fluctuations in temperature are due to natural processes, such as the effects of El Ninos, La Ninas, and the eruption of large volcanoes. Notably, the 20 warmest years have all occurred since 1981, and the 10 warmest have all occurred in the past 12 years.


----------



## Patchouli

DEKE01 said:


> what you posted is a true lie. You say we are off to a record hurricane season, which is true in a very narrow way, in the east Pac, but a lie in the Atlantic. In fact, official forecasts are that because of LOWER THAN NORMAL OCEAN TEMPS in the Atlantic, that hurricanes will be fewer and less powerful.


You have serious grammar issues my friend. I said we set new records and we did as both my link and your statement proves. I did not say we were off to a record setting hurricane season. Those are 2 vastly different statements.


----------



## arabian knight

A person can post as many graphs and such to prove the GW side, but those graphs were entered into a Computer by the liberal side of this and the old saying is still as good today as it was when computers were first used.

* Garbage In Garbage Out.*

And They Only make those grass look bad to make their agenda look good.
But even Al Bore finally admitted he FAKED that now infamous hockey stick looking graph.


----------



## Paumon

DEKE01 said:


> Since Paumon likes weather.com and their pretty pictures, how about this link: http://www.weather.com/news/weather...season-outlook-atlantic-2014-el-nino-20140324
> 
> Here's the relevant tidbit.......


Thanks. Now believe it or not, last night before I posted the above map I had already been reading that page that you just now posted, plus a whole schwack of other weather and climate websites. Pages and pages about sea surface temps and how they cause hurricanes in the Atlantic, typhoons in the Pacific (which is what we get here on the west coast), and cyclones in other parts of the globe and monsoons that can happen everywhere. About El Nino, La Nina and La Nada (which is what we've had going right now and for the past year and La Nada is responsible for the polar vortex we all experienced this past winter) and the global sea oscillations and conveyor belts and polar vortexes and all that neat stuff and more.

I've read it all before and it's always interesting but the one thing that is always consistent about all of those sites is that they do a lot of hedging between the lines that shows what they're really saying is _"We don't know, we can't really predict when and if the next _____ will happen or how many there will be but the models say blah blah blah...."_. 

Honestly - you go back and look at the quote you just posted and it really says _"We don't know."_

Which is fine - but all I asked and all I really wanted to know is what is normal sea surface temperature at this time of year? I still don't know because I didn't find the answer. 

What is normal? Do YOU know?


----------



## JeffreyD

Paumon said:


> Thanks. Now believe it or not, last night before I posted the above map I had already been reading that page that you just now posted, plus a whole schwack of other weather and climate websites. Pages and pages about sea surface temps and how they cause hurricanes in the Atlantic, typhoons in the Pacific (which is what we get here on the west coast), and cyclones in other parts of the globe and monsoons that can happen everywhere. About El Nino, La Nina and La Nada (which is what we've had going right now and for the past year and La Nada is responsible for the polar vortex we all experienced this past winter) and the global sea oscillations and conveyor belts and polar vortexes and all that neat stuff and more.
> 
> I've read it all before and it's always interesting but the one thing that is always consistent about all of those sites is that they do a lot of hedging between the lines that shows what they're really saying is _"We don't know, we can't really predict when and if the next _____ will happen or how many there will be but the models say blah blah blah...."_.
> 
> Honestly - you go back and look at the quote you just posted and it really says _"We don't know."_
> 
> Which is fine - but all I asked and all I really wanted to know is what is normal sea surface temperature at this time of year? I still don't know because I didn't find the answer.
> 
> What is normal? Do YOU know?


That's the question we've been asking for years, but liberals never answer! Now your asking the same question. :facepalm:

If we don't know what normal is, how can anything really be changing? If you get some time, you may want to look up and see where exactly noaa temperature sensors are and their proximity to heat soaks. It's very.....Interesting, and says a lot about their "science".


----------



## arabian knight

JeffreyD said:


> If you get some time, you may want to look up and see where exactly noaa temperature sensors are and their proximity to heat soaks. It's very.....Interesting, and says a lot about their "science".


 Boy isn't that the truth.
Back in the 90's when the temp reached to 122 in Phoenix, AZ. 
They said it would never reach that high a temp again.
The Reason they said that is they MOVED the temperature station`!!!!!!!
Which BTW I NEVER will understand WHY these so called Weather Stations are set up at a Airport~!
* Heat Island * seems to come to mind. LOL


----------



## Mrs_Lewis

Can't claim to know what's normal or not in the long history of our planet, but I do know that for the past 10 years summer temperatures in northern Scandinavia has risen to reach 40 degrees Celsius.

Since our native plants are unable to cope with this I'd wager to suggest it has not been normally occurring for a very long time.

As for drowning polar bears being photo shopped, must be a large, long running conspiracy that has news outlets, scientists, and anyone on a ship in Bering's sund (myself included) all in cahoots.


----------



## Paumon

JeffreyD said:


> That's the question we've been asking for years, but *liberals* never answer! Now your asking the same question. :facepalm:
> 
> If we don't know what normal is, how can anything really be changing? If you get some time, you may want to look up and see where exactly noaa temperature sensors are and their proximity to heat soaks. It's very.....Interesting, and says a lot about their "science".


I know you like to believe that the debate about climate change is all about American politics and liberals vs. conservatives and maybe that really is the case in America where so many people seem to be stuck in that dualistic political repetative mode like a needle with hiccups being stuck in a phonograph record.

But guess what - climate change is not all about politics and it's not all about America's hiccuping liberals and conservatives. It's about the world and the rest of the world doesn't give two figs about America's political debates. I really get sick of hearing about this liberals vs. conservatives crap because all that tells me about the people spouting it is that they are stuck inside a bubble and obsessively ignorant of anything else happening in the world.

The real answer to my question about temperatures is "There is no such thing as normal, there is only change." There is change for the worse and change for the better, there is no happy medium.


----------



## DEKE01

Patchouli said:


> You are confusing symptoms and the cause. Global warming is a fact because the earth overall has warmed. That is measured by the temperature of the entire globe over decades. None of us prove global warming with symptoms or effects nor can it be disproved by a few days weather patterns.


Nope, I am not confusing symptoms and cause because I do not attribute cause to any symptoms. You are confusing my point. Believer / Alarmist, say like Al Roker, blame Hurricanes Sandy and Katrina on AGW and say things along the lines of, How can you see how powerful and destructive they were and not believe in AGW? The believer / alarmist use every hot summer day, twin tornadoes, and every other weather extreme, like east Pac Hurricane data that only goes back 40+ years, as proof of AGW. Even you have said the longer colder winter was due to AGW. 

One thing you said that I totally agree with is that climate is a complex science. So how are you so sure the longer colder winter was AGW related and not some other natural phenomenon? Even if AGW is 100% true, there are millions of not fully understood inputs to effect short term and local / regional weather. 

I understand a cool summer day is not proof of no AGW, it is just amusing that the believer / alarmists don't understand the opposite.


----------



## DEKE01

Patchouli said:


> You have serious grammar issues my friend. I said we set new records and we did as both my link and your statement proves. I did not say we were off to a record setting hurricane season. Those are 2 vastly different statements.


:umno: grammatically and logically, if we are setting new records at the beginning of the season, we are off to a record setting season. 

However, absent any other words, we can't know if that means more or fewer storms, stronger or weaker storms, or much of anything else. Since the believer / alarmists have been beating us over the heads for the past decade or so about more and stronger hurricanes and tornadoes, I assumed that was the direction you were going.


----------



## Paumon

Mrs_Lewis said:


> As for drowning polar bears being photo shopped, must be a large, long running conspiracy that has news outlets, scientists, and anyone on a ship in Bering's sund (myself included) all in cahoots.


Most of those pictures of polar bears have not all been photo-shopped. They're just ordinary pictures of polar bears doing what they naturally do every summer when the ice pack is broken, swimming from one small ice floe to another small ice floe. It's what polar bears do. 

Now I'll let you in on who it really is that posts those pictures under the captions of "drowning polar bears". It's the climate change denialists who post those pictures. Yup. They do it facetiously in their anti-climate change blogs and websites where they're ragging on about how climate change is not really happening and everyone who thinks it is is nuts and then they lie about the pictures and claim it was climate change proponents that are spreading them around on internet.

Think about it and think back on how many times you've seen pictures like that and where you've seen them. It's always on websites where people are making fun of climate change and treating it like it's some kind of stupid political game. It wasn't a climate change proponent that posted those pictures here in this thread. It was a climate change denialist making fun of climate change proponents. You'll never see a climate change proponent posting garbage like that.


----------



## DEKE01

Paumon said:


> I know you like to believe that the debate about climate change is all about American politics and liberals vs. conservatives and maybe that really is the case in America where so many people seem to be stuck in that dualistic political repetative mode like a needle with hiccups being stuck in a phonograph record.
> 
> But guess what - climate change is not all about politics and it's not all about America's hiccuping liberals and conservatives. It's about the world and the rest of the world doesn't give two figs about America's political debates. I really get sick of hearing about this liberals vs. conservatives crap because all that tells me about the people spouting it is that they are stuck inside a bubble and obsessively ignorant of anything else happening in the world.
> 
> The real answer to my question about temperatures is "There is no such thing as normal, there is only change." There is change for the worse and change for the better, there is no happy medium.


Now you are arguing the skeptic side. We've long said that climate change is constant, like ice ages and warming periods that happened long before man existed. Many of us have asked why are believer / alarmists so afraid of change, that they believe that today or today 200 years ago was the perfection man should strive to lock in place.


----------



## DEKE01

Paumon said:


> Most of those pictures of polar bears have not all been photo-shopped. They're just ordinary pictures of polar bears doing what they naturally do every summer when the ice pack is broken, swimming from one small ice floe to another small ice floe. It's what polar bears do.
> 
> Now I'll let you in on who it really is that posts those pictures under the captions of "drowning polar bears". It's the climate change denialists who post those pictures. Yup. They do it facetiously in their anti-climate change blogs and websites where they're ragging on about how climate change is not really happening and everyone who thinks it is is nuts and then they lie about the pictures and claim it was climate change proponents that are spreading them around on internet.
> 
> Think about it and think back on how many times you've seen pictures like that and where you've seen them. It's always on websites where people are making fun of climate change and treating it like it's some kind of stupid political game. It wasn't a climate change proponent that posted those pictures here in this thread. It was a climate change denialist making fun of climate change proponents. You'll never see a climate change proponent posting garbage like that.


I clipped this from pdf about errors in "_An Inconvenient Truth_". I tried to post it here but the formatting made it unreadable.

Al Gore, a climate change proponent said in his fraud movie that... 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
a scientific study shows that polar bears are being killed swimming long distances to find ice that has melted away because of âglobal warming.â

A study, by Monnett & Gleason (2005), mentioned just four dead bears. They had died in an exceptional storm, with high winds and waves in the Beaufort Sea. The amount of sea ice in the Beaufort Sea has grown over the past 30 years. A report for the World Wide Fund for Nature shows that polar bears, which are warm blooded, have grown in numbers where temperature has increased, and have become fewer where temperature has fallen. Polar bears evolved from brown bears 200,000 years ago, and survived the last interglacial period, when global temperature was 5 degrees Celsius warmer than the present and there was probably no Arctic ice-cap at all. 

The real threat to polar bears is not âglobal warmingâ but hunting. In 1940, there were just 5,000 polar bears worldwide. Now that hunting is controlled, there are 25,000. Ms. Kreider says sea-ice âwas the lowest ever measured for minimum extent in 2007.â She does not say that the measurements, which are done by satellite, go back only 29 years. She does not say that the North West Passage, a good proxy for Arctic sea-ice extent, was open to shipping in 1945, or that Amundsen passed through in a sailing vessel in 1903.


----------



## Paumon

> *Al Gore*, a climate change proponent said in his fraud movie that...


Who? Isn't he the one and only guy that denialists can think of to use as their scapegoat?

I'm not interested in what Al Gore has to say. I never heard of the guy before 6 years ago. He's a nobody. Climate change was already being observed and talked about when Al Gore was still crawling around in diapers.


----------



## Paumon

DEKE01 said:


> Now you are arguing the skeptic side. We've long said that climate change is constant, like ice ages and warming periods that happened long before man existed. Many of us have asked why are believer / alarmists so afraid of change, that they believe that today or today 200 years ago was the perfection man should strive to lock in place.


The only thing I'm skeptical about is denialists who continue repeating the same rhetoric that you just posted above.

It doesn't matter what happened 200 years ago. 200 years ago there wasn't 7 billion people on the planet contributing to the rapid increase in climate change that is happening today.


----------



## Mrs_Lewis

Paumon said:


> Most of those pictures of polar bears have not all been photo-shopped. They're just ordinary pictures of polar bears doing what they naturally do every summer when the ice pack is broken, swimming from one small ice floe to another small ice floe. It's what polar bears do.
> 
> Now I'll let you in on who it really is that posts those pictures under the captions of "drowning polar bears". It's the climate change denialists who post those pictures. Yup. They do it facetiously in their anti-climate change blogs and websites where they're ragging on about how climate change is not really happening and everyone who thinks it is is nuts and then they lie about the pictures and claim it was climate change proponents that are spreading them around on internet.
> 
> Think about it and think back on how many times you've seen pictures like that and where you've seen them. It's always on websites where people are making fun of climate change and treating it like it's some kind of stupid political game. It wasn't a climate change proponent that posted those pictures here in this thread. It was a climate change denialist making fun of climate change proponents. You'll never see a climate change proponent posting garbage like that.



I personally don't click on things advertising drowning polar bears, because such makes me sad.
I should have clarified that those that frequent waters with and without polar bears have seen them swimming where they've not been before and where they won't reach ice or land within the reach they can swim, thus drowning.

I did not intend to steer the discussion towards the polar bear drowning or not, but rather to the fact that plants native to the northern areas are not coping in the heat.

That is a measurable truth that shows there's a change drastic enough to cause alarm.

As for the left vs right debate, Al Gore was late on the train by comparison to Europe so I don't quite understand what that is about.


----------



## DEKE01

Paumon said:


> Who? Isn't he the one and only guy that denialists can think of to use as their scapegoat?
> 
> I'm not interested in what Al Gore has to say. I never heard of the guy before 6 years ago. He's a nobody. Climate change was already being observed and talked about when Al Gore was still crawling around in diapers.


I wish I had never heard of Al Gore also, but hold on just a sec...

You make a claim that "You'll never see a climate change proponent posting garbage like that." Yet the whole reason polar bears are part of the AGW discussion is because of Al Gore, a climate change proponent. When it is pointed out that your claim is obviously and famously wrong, you tell us to pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.


----------



## DEKE01

Paumon said:


> The only thing I'm skeptical about is denialists who continue repeating the same rhetoric that you just posted above.
> 
> It doesn't matter what happened 200 years ago. 200 years ago there wasn't 7 billion people on the planet contributing to the rapid increase in climate change that is happening today.


well to be fair, you were also skeptical about climate change proponents talking about polar bears. 

Let's see, I agree with you that climate change is a constant but I'm still wrong. Is that your position? :hammer:


----------



## Paumon

Mrs_Lewis said:


> I personally don't click on things advertising drowning polar bears, because such makes me sad.
> I should have clarified that those that frequent waters with and without polar bears have seen them swimming where they've not been before and where they won't reach ice or land within the reach they can swim, thus drowning.


I understand the ice pack is somewhat thinner and disintegrating faster in the warmer waters of the Baltic regions, the Barents Sea and Greenland Sea, by comparison with the Arctic Ocean and Baffin Bay and the Beaufort, Chukchi and Bering Seas where the ice pack breaks up but never completely thaws. So there in the eastern hemisphere in the north it's highly conceivable that some polar bears will be seen too far out of reach of land and ice floes while here in the western hemisphere in the north it's just not possible (yet) for that to happen. What is happening in the western hemisphere though is that the permafrost in the Arctic Circle is thawing into mud and running into the seas and that is effecting both land and marine animals hunting and feeding cycles there. Polar bears here are not all starving yet (or drowning) but they are adapting to doing more hunting on land and around human habitations and have also started integrating and cross-breeding with grizzlies to produce a hybrid offspring that is a truly formidable predator.



Mrs_Lewis said:


> I did not intend to steer the discussion towards the polar bear drowning or not, but rather to the fact that plants native to the northern areas are not coping in the heat.
> 
> That is a measurable truth that shows there's a change drastic enough to cause alarm.


Yes, there is certainly cause for alarm. Similarly, indigenous plants in the north in the western hemisphere are not adapting well to changing temperatures and increasing spread of muskeg, but there are other plants from the south that are starting to spread northwards. Likewise with destructive insects that are spreading further north and south.



Mrs_Lewis said:


> As for the left vs right debate, Al Gore was late on the train by comparison to Europe so I don't quite understand what that is about.


That whole obsessive left vs. right / liberal vs. conservative thing is part of the extreme polar opposite duality idiosyncrasy that is unique to the American mind-set. Try to do what the rest of the world does and don't pay much attention to that if possible. Don't let yourself get sucked into it because it is extreme and it's not normal nor healthy. 

Al Gore was nobody important to anyone except Americans because at one time in the past he used to be a vice president to one of the two political parties (I don't know which party and I don't care). He had some good ideas and some bad ideas but he was very, very late to the game by comparison with Europe, U.K., Australia and Canada in recognizing the effects of climate change. And when he did jump onto the band wagon he was more into promoting it from a political and capitalistic perspective of what's good for only America more than what is good for the whole world. So I don't really think he cares much about climate change so much as he cares more about another political and money-making scheme. Like I said, nobody else cares about Al Gore these days except American climate change denialists who use him as their scapegoat for why they are denialists :hysterical: ........ and to the rest of the world he is nobody.

By the way Mrs. Lewis - welcome to North America. It isn't all the same everywhere in North America. :thumb:


----------



## kasilofhome

Some places in north America are sane and allow everyone to evaluate facts and deal with the issues with forcing an opinion or a way of life on you.


----------



## Ozarks Tom

A very coincidental finding recently announced the largest ice shelf in Antarctica is indeed melting, and might well fall off into the ocean, causing an increase in sea levels worldwide. One problem, it's melting from underneath due to volcanic action._Researchers find major West Antarctic glacier melting from geothermal sources _Jun 09, 2014 
http://phys.org/news/2014-06-major-west-antarctic-glacier-geothermal.html


----------



## Ozarks Tom

I find it completely consistent with leftist's way of thinking that they'd say they don't know what's normal, but we've got to stop changing.

Aside from the effects they've forecast, and grossly missed, they're still bleating the same mantra - "it's mankind's fault", and swear we can change the climate. The arrogance of those proclamations is breath taking. When you look into the real numbers and percentages of human contribution towards gas mixtures in our atmosphere we're not a pimple on the earths behind.

By the way, if someone is going to put up a graph of recorded world temperatures, at least make it a recent one. You know, showing the last 17 years of unchanged and slightly lower?


----------



## Paumon

Ozarks Tom said:


> A very coincidental finding recently announced the largest ice shelf in Antarctica is indeed melting, and might well fall off into the ocean, causing an increase in sea levels worldwide. One problem, it's melting from underneath due to volcanic action._Researchers find major West Antarctic glacier melting from geothermal sources _Jun 09, 2014
> http://phys.org/news/2014-06-major-west-antarctic-glacier-geothermal.html


 
Thanks for posting that, that's interesting.

That's not all. Latest reports this year are that Greenland's largest glacier, the Jakobshavn Glacier, is now thawing faster than any other glacier in the world.

http://www.washington.edu/news/2014/02/03/greenlands-fastest-glacier-sets-new-speed-record/ 



> February 3, 2014
> 
> The latest observations of Jakobshavn Glacier show that Greenland&#8217;s largest glacier is moving ice from land into the ocean at a speed that appears to be the fastest ever recorded. Researchers from the University of Washington and the German Space Agency measured the speed of the glacier in 2012 and 2013. The results were published Feb. 3 in The Cryosphere, an open-access journal of the European Geosciences Union.
> 
> &#8220;We are now seeing summer speeds more than four times what they were in the 1990s, on a glacier which at that time was believed to be one of the fastest, if not the fastest, glacier in Greenland,&#8221; said lead author Ian Joughin, a glaciologist at the UW&#8217;s Polar Science Center.
> 
> The new observations show that in summer of 2012 the glacier reached a record speed of more than 10.5 miles (17 kilometers) per year, or more than 150 feet (46 meters) per day. These appear to be the fastest flow rates recorded for any glacier or ice stream in Greenland or Antarctica, researchers said.
> 
> The scientists note that the summer speeds are temporary, with the glacier flowing more slowly over the winter months. But they point out that even the glacier&#8217;s average annual speed over the past couple of years is nearly three times its average annual speed in the 1990s.
> 
> This speedup of Jakobshavn means that the glacier is adding more and more ice to the ocean, contributing to sea-level rise.
> 
> .... continued .....


----------



## greg273

Ozarks Tom said:


> When you look into the real numbers and percentages of human contribution towards gas mixtures in our atmosphere we're not a pimple on the earths behind.


 Got any links to those 'real numbers'?


----------



## HuskyBoris

and here I thought the earth has been warming up since the last ice age,you know,, when 3/4 of North America was under ice.there sure wasn't much man made influence to make all that ice melt.


----------



## Paumon

Ozarks Tom said:


> By the way, if someone is going to put up a graph of recorded world temperatures, at least make it a recent one. You know, showing the last 17 years of unchanged and slightly lower?


 
As far as I can see there's only one such graph been posted here and it goes from 1880 up to 2010. 

You're going to quibble over the most recent three and a half years out of the past 17 years just because the graph doesn't go up to 2014? :hrm: Get a grip.


----------



## Greenhouse

Here is the +9 c and its midsummer ..... So something is not right ... its warmer in Alaska then here.. And i live in northern Scandinavia....:runforhills:


----------



## Paumon

Greenhouse said:


> Here is the +9 c and its midsummer ..... So something is not right ... its warmer in Alaska then here.. And i live in northern Scandinavia....:runforhills:


I think it's probably always warmer in Alaska than it is in northern Scandinavia because Alaska is on the west coast of North America. Alaska and all other west coast regions get their warmth from the Pacific Ocean which is warmer than the seas around Scandinavia.


----------



## Greenhouse

We usually dont have this cold nere ..... it was snowing in some part of Finland on friday and the last 45 years midsummers have been between +15 to +25 c ....so something is really of bit hey what do know im just a finn ..


----------



## mountainlaurel

I have a book The Mighty Whirlwind by David Wagler. It is about the 1965 Palm Sunday tornadoes that rampage across Lagrange and Elkhart Indiana. It was a huge out burst of tornadoes. There is a great pic of twin tornadoes in it. But no one mentioned global warming back then.


----------



## Paumon

Greenhouse said:


> We usually dont have this cold nere ..... it was snowing in some part of Finland on friday and the last 45 years midsummers have been between +15 to +25 c ....so something is really of bit hey what do know im just a finn ..


I hope the rest of the summer months warm up for you then.

Welcome to Homesteading Today forums. It's nice to see more newcomers here who are from other parts of the world. :thumb:


----------



## kasilofhome

Paumon said:


> I think it's probably always warmer in Alaska than it is in northern Scandinavia because Alaska is on the west coast of North America. Alaska and all other west coast regions get their warmth from the Pacific Ocean which is warmer than the seas around Scandinavia.


The size of Alaska allows for many different temps at the same time so where a person takes the reading should be qualified. Barrow and Fairbanks homer and anchorage or kasilof and soldonta can vary a great deal. Coastal vs inland high mt. Vs valley's,
Island vs mainland all impact temps and weather. 

A lot of hype and skewed facts to promote control.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Jax-mom said:


> And then there was this: http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/saund...ming-researcher-gets-stuck-in-ice-5102720.php
> 
> FWIW, I do believe in climate change, but cyclical patterns, not man made. *YET* I do my part to not contribute to pollution by conserving and using less to help what we do have go further. I'm talking choosing to walk and bike when possible, conserving water, energy. I've always done this, and so have my parents long before there were any warnings about 'global warming'. It just made good sense to them, ecologically and financially.


----------



## Paumon

Today is the first day of summer in the northern hemisphere. Happy Solstice.

http://www.findlocalweather.com/


Europe today:










Alaska today​ 






 
North America today​


----------



## kasilofhome

That graph does dose not clearly define but is really a generalization and does not show micro climates more likely due to the format. Had a map denoting specific temps thru out the locations been provided a clearer understanding would be allowed.


----------



## Paumon

It would be very helpful if you will post the links to some then if you know where they are. That would be great and I'd thank you right kindly. I'd love to be able to refer to maps that show the microclimates, I'm sure other folks would appreciate that too.


----------



## kasilofhome

Kindle does not cater to linking but think of the equality of state or providence weather maps. There are different types of graphs and that is because certain graphs do a better job in relay knowledge in comparison of information.


----------



## Paumon

kasilofhome said:


> Kindle does not cater to linking .....


I don't have kindle so don't know how it works, but you say kindle doesn't cater to linking. So when you're reading this forum on your kindle and if somebody posts the links to other websites does that mean you cannot click on those links to go to those websites to read them?


----------



## Ozarks Tom

greg273 said:


> Got any links to those 'real numbers'?


My pleasure:
_Letâs generously assume that all of the CO2 increase since colonial times was caused by manâs activity, and that 80 percent of it occurred after 1900. That would mean that manâs activity since 1900 increased atmospheric CO2 by 96 ppm; (120 ppm x 0.8). This represents 0.0096 percent of all atmospheric gasses. Letâs further assume the 1Â°C temperature increase was also solely caused by CO2, and that 80 percent (0.8Â°C) of that 1-degree change occurred in the 20th Century. (The actual temperature increase since 1900 is estimated to have been between 0.6 and 0.8Â°C.)_
_We will also generously assume that all along the U.S. has been responsible for 20 percent of these global emissions. This is somewhat more than our current contribution (16 percent in 2010, according to the Energy Departmentâs Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center.) If the 20 percent figure were accurate, however, it would mean that over the past 114 years, America has been responsible for an increase in atmospheric CO2 of 19.2 ppm (96 ppm x 0.2). Thatâs 0.00192 percent of all atmospheric gasses. If the relationship between CO2 and temperature holds, we would therefore be responsible for 20% of the 0.8Â°C increase in global temperature since 1900, which equates to 0.16Â°C (0.29Â°F)._
_So if we buy the Leftâs argument entirely, the big, bad US of A, the imperialist destroyer of the global environment, promiscuously burning excessive carbon fuels to satisfy its gluttonous, ravenous, insatiable appetite for warmth, air conditioning and automatic dishwashers, has raised global temperatures over the last 100 years a whopping one third of one degree Fahrenheit. _ http://www.aim.org/aim-column/greenhouse-gas-lunacy/


Also from the article:

_So if we buy the Leftâs argument entirely, the big, bad US of A, the imperialist destroyer of the global environment, promiscuously burning excessive carbon fuels to satisfy its gluttonous, ravenous, insatiable appetite for warmth, air conditioning and automatic dishwashers, has raised global temperatures over the last 100 years a whopping one third of one degree Fahrenheit._
_But here is where it gets truly insane. The Obama administration and its allies are telling us that reducing CO2 emissions from U.S. power plants by 30 percent will bring a cornucopia of benefits, and they are willing to destroy the entire coal industry and force other conventional energy sources onto life support to accomplish this. However, power plants targeted by this rule produce only 38 percent of total U.S. manmade CO2, and half this target has already been met._


----------



## Ozarks Tom

Paumon said:


> As far as I can see there's only one such graph been posted here and it goes from 1880 up to 2010.
> 
> You're going to quibble over the most recent three and a half years out of the past 17 years just because the graph doesn't go up to 2014? :hrm: Get a grip.


Mea culpa. I misread the chart, thinking it just went to 2000. It does indeed show global temperatures declining over the last 13 years it covers.


----------



## Paumon

Ozarks Tom said:


> Mea culpa. I misread the chart, thinking it just went to 2000. It does indeed show global temperatures declining over the last 13 years it covers.


You're still misreading it. Look at it again - the red bars. It shows the very highest increase of all in 2005 then it declines from 2006 to 2009 then rises again in 2010 to the 2006 level.


----------



## Patchouli

Ozarks Tom said:


> Mea culpa. I misread the chart, thinking it just went to 2000. It does indeed show global temperatures declining over the last 13 years it covers.


Generally a line going up means temperatures going up....


----------



## arabian knight

Now couple that with the SUNBS activity and Overlay it. I bet you never will find a chart that does that. I wonder why. LOL


----------



## greg273

Ozarks Tom said:


> My pleasure:
> _Letâs generously assume that all of the CO2 increase since colonial times was caused by manâs activity, and that 80 percent of it occurred after 1900. That would mean that manâs activity since 1900 increased atmospheric CO2 by 96 ppm; (120 ppm x 0.8). This represents 0.0096 percent of all atmospheric gasses._


 Politics aside, comparing CO2 to total atmospheric gasses is irrelevant as far as global warming goes. You have to look at the total contribution of CO2 to the greenhouse effect. Water vapor is the main greenhouse gas, without it,Earth would be a frozen rock. And CO2, even at such a small percentage of atmospheric gasses, is responsible from anywhere from 9 to 26% of the total 'greenhouse effect'. Fossil fuel burning has raised global CO2 40% over pre-industrial levels. Temperature and CO2 levels are directly correlated,and whether the temp rise has lagged or led the CO2 increase historically is also irrelevant, because CO2 levels ARE rising now.


----------



## arabian knight

Gee And THIS one goes into 2014~! How funny is that?


----------



## kasilofhome

Paumon said:


> I don't have kindle so don't know how it works, but you say kindle doesn't cater to linking. So when you're reading this forum on your kindle and if somebody posts the links to other websites does that mean you cannot click on those links to go to those websites to read them?


I can open links but I can not link sites to my posts


----------



## Ozarks Tom

greg273 said:


> Politics aside, comparing CO2 to total atmospheric gasses is irrelevant as far as global warming goes. You have to look at the total contribution of CO2 to the greenhouse effect. Water vapor is the main greenhouse gas, without it,Earth would be a frozen rock. And CO2, even at such a small percentage of atmospheric gasses, is responsible from anywhere from 9 to 26% of the total 'greenhouse effect'. Fossil fuel burning has raised global CO2 40% over pre-industrial levels. Temperature and CO2 levels are directly correlated,and whether the temp rise has lagged or led the CO2 increase historically is also irrelevant, because CO2 levels ARE rising now.


You asked for the numbers, I gave you the numbers. Now you say the numbers are irrelevant, all that matters is the CO2 is rising. Geez, you can do better than that, can't you?


----------



## Ozarks Tom

Paumon said:


> You're still misreading it. Look at it again - the red bars. It shows the very highest increase of all in 2005 then it declines from 2006 to 2009 then rises again in 2010 to the 2006 level.


Your turn to read the chart. 1998 was the highest, and every year thereafter has been cooler. One year varying from the previous is inconsequential, since none reached 1998 levels.

Please see AK's chart for further enlightenment.


----------



## greg273

Ozarks Tom said:


> You asked for the numbers, I gave you the numbers. Now you say the numbers are irrelevant, all that matters is the CO2 is rising. Geez, you can do better than that, can't you?


 The error your article made, (on purpose, of course to fool the casual reader into thinking it was saying something of consequence) is to give the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere which is small, and somehow try and equate that with the relative greenhouse effect of CO2, which is large. The rest was just politically slanted anti-environmentalist rhetoric.


----------



## Paumon

Ozarks Tom said:


> Your turn to read the chart. 1998 was the highest, ......


Nope. That's 2005 you're seeing there. Put your glasses on and put a straight edge over it to measure. 2005 is higher than 1998.


----------



## kasilofhome

Biology doesnot seem to be a mandated study. Sorry but the carbon dioxide stored in plant life goes may be released during composition,digestion (think of the cow gas tax),burning. The release may be quick or slow. Plant materials can under go changes such as the environment may trap the carbon dioxide and fossil fuels would be the result. Yes all that carbon dioxide released from coal,oil,and cow toots and composting is simply nature keeping the cycle going. Logically the carbon dioxide in order for the plants to have stored the plants thru reperation took it from the air. Ergo the person lack of understanding nature cycles of life is easily swayed by alarmist with graphs (selected for such a reason) it is about control. As in the time when it was so decreed that the sun circled the earth, this period of history where man once again becomes so vain as to credit himself with the ability to change the climate.


----------



## greg273

kasilofhome said:


> Biology doesnot seem to be a mandated study. Sorry but the carbon dioxide stored in plant life goes may be released during composition,digestion (think of the cow gas tax),burning. The release may be quick or slow. Plant materials can under go changes such as the environment may trap the carbon dioxide and fossil fuels would be the result. Yes all that carbon dioxide released from coal,oil,and cow toots and composting is simply nature keeping the cycle going. Logically the carbon dioxide in order for the plants to have stored the plants thru reperation took it from the air. Ergo the person lack of understanding nature cycles of life is easily swayed by alarmist with graphs (selected for such a reason) it is about control. As in the time when it was so decreed that the sun circled the earth, this period of history where man once again becomes so vain as to credit himself with the ability to change the climate.



CO2 stored in plants is released back into the atmosphere when they die, or are burned. That in itself does not change the net amount of CO2 in the air. What does increase the amount of CO2 in the air is burning 200+million years worth of buried plants in a few generations time. 
It is not vanity thinking we can alter the chemistry of the atmosphere, we do it every day. What is arrogant is thinking we can't. No matter, its already happening.


----------



## kasilofhome

Duh.....so the carbon dioxide being released via fossil fuel you agree was originally in the atmosphere for the plant life to acquire ...you just agreed with me. The life cycle of carbon is a clear. Thank you


----------



## kasilofhome

Ice ages reduce the plants in the world. We are not in an ice age but we are simply continuing the order of nature. Remember volcanos and giant forest and grassland fires recovered in nature reveled thru geological studies having happened long before man well man an the activities of man are as natural as a species that naturally interfaced and impacted its environment. Hares,rabbits and lynx are boom and bust balance. Ice ages are always followed by warming era's. Nothing new but the ego of man.


----------



## greg273

kasilofhome said:


> Duh.....so the carbon dioxide being released via fossil fuel you agree was originally in the atmosphere for the plant life to acquire


 Yes, about 290 million years ago, when the planet was warmer.


----------



## kasilofhome

greg273 said:


> Yes, about 290 million years ago, when the planet was warmer.


Did man cause the planet to cool using your 290 million years ago? To your knowledge was the cooling period that followed the warm period you note the ONLY TIME that the plant went thru a cooling period or is there firm evidence that this a natural cycling in nature.


----------



## greg273

So we both realize the earth goes through cycles, yet you seem unwilling to admit that releasing 200+million years worth of buried CO2 in a few generations time could have an effect on climate. I am not sure I believe that.
And to answer your question, no mankind didn't cause the cooling, the fact that the plant life during the Carboniferous absorbed the massive amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, probably had a lot to do with it.


----------



## kasilofhome

Prey tell me where the carbon dioxide came from originally. To my understanding this planet and mother nature did not acquire any more elements but what little extra came from meteor etc. Thus the earth has what I visually picture as a pantry of elements and over time nature cycles thru them. Carbon dioxide might be "canned" in a tree or in oil till there is a need or use for it. It seems like we may not know what nature has in store but nature has never been stable.


----------



## kasilofhome

greg273 said:


> So we both realize the earth goes through cycles, yet you seem unwilling to admit that releasing 200+million years worth of buried CO2 in a few generations time could have an effect on climate. I am not sure I believe that.
> And to answer your question, no mankind didn't cause the cooling, the fact that the plant life during the Carboniferous absorbed the massive amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, probably had a lot to do with it.


I find it odd that you seem to express that nature has never dealt with mega higher concentrations oh carbon dioxide with out man actions.


----------



## HDRider




----------



## arabian knight

The world's oceans soak up about 11bn tonnes of human carbon dioxide ... warming boosts atmospheric CO2 levels&#8211;&#8221;will promote warming by an extra 15 ... *More melting arctic ice means more open water to absorb co2.*
Ah yes another fact the GW gurus hate when the truth comes out for them to see. LOL


----------



## Paumon

kasilofhome said:


> Prey tell me where the carbon dioxide came from originally. To my understanding this planet and mother nature did not acquire any more elements but what little extra came from meteor etc. Thus the earth has what I visually picture as a pantry of elements and over time nature cycles thru them. *Carbon dioxide might be "canned" in a tree or in oil till there is a need or use for it*. It seems like we may not know what nature has in store but nature has never been stable.


I get the feeling you've been missing a step in the process and don't understand what sequestration is? While plants do store a very small portion of compound carbon dioxide they do not only store carbon dioxide, they store much more carbon (minus the dioxide) and they convert (synthesize) the carbon through photosynthesis. 

Carbon dioxide is a compound, it's not a single "element". Simply speaking it is 1 part carbon and 2 parts oxygen (dioxide). 

Plants separate the carbon out of the CO2, they keep the carbon and they release the oxygen back into the atmosphere as a waste by-product. They keep very little of the compound carbon dioxide. Plants keep the carbon to convert it into sugars and into organic plant material such as wood, bark, leaves, flowers, seeds etc. - that is called carbon sequestration and it is how plants grow. Speaking simplistically again, plants are the carbon they took out of the carbon dioxide.

Maybe this will help you to understand the carbon and the oxygen and the carbon dioxide cycles better. http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/47481.html


----------



## Paumon

arabian knight said:


> The world's oceans soak up about 11bn tonnes of human carbon dioxide ... warming boosts atmospheric CO2 levelsââwill promote warming by an extra 15 ... *More melting arctic ice means more open water to absorb co2.*
> Ah yes another fact the GW gurus hate when the truth comes out for them to see. LOL


What makes you think the ice doesn't already have tons of CO2 in it before it melts?


----------



## arabian knight

Real science doesn't ask for believers, it asks for the scientific method. The small population of global warming believers around are extremely anti-science and are pushing for us to 'believe' their religion.


----------



## MJsLady

I saw a show last night that suggest the government is behind the extreme weather.


----------



## arabian knight

Well they "The Government" is supposedly shutting down HARRP.


----------



## kasilofhome

I understand it very well, that is why I preferred to the pantry ,and the reason why carbon dating works is because it is stored.The oxygen molecules separated from the carbon dioxide for the most part. And in the dark the plants expel carbon dioxide. It is and has been a cycle. 

Nature stores elements in the pantry store called earth. The are reused ,store,recombine,altered,but temps and pressure. 

Nature is not constant. Man wish to control and rule over nature. Not allow earth to live it's natural life. Like a parent trying to not. Allow a child to grow up for the parents selfish reasons. No man is not more powerfully. The full complexity of elements in the hands of nature,time and the unknown .....it might not support life as we know it but remember man was not always here. Perhaps man on earth will go the way of the dodo.


----------



## Paumon

arabian knight said:


> Real science doesn't ask for believers, it asks for the scientific method. *The small population of global warming believers* around are extremely anti-science and are pushing for us to 'believe' their religion.


That's just your opinion, it's what you want to believe because of your political ideology. Polls have shown that the majority of people in America who deny that climate change is happening are hard right conservative believers and _they_ are in the minority by comparison with the total national population.

73% of America's total population recognize that global warming is happening. I don't call 73% a small population.

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/june/climate-change-opinions-061914.html



> The latest polling shows that 73 percent of Americans believe global warming is real and 79 percent favor some sort of government intervention on the issue. But, only 49 percent favor mandates to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by power plants.........


Here's the statistics for what other countries in the rest of the world think about it. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_opinion_by_country


As I mentioned earlier on, the denialists are in the very small minority and it doesn't really matter what the minority believes because majority always rules.


----------



## arabian knight

And who cares what those stats say in how many BELIEVE is happening. Their Believe is wrong. Just because a so called majority believe something does not make it that TRUTH or Right.

*The scandal of fiddled global warming data
The US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record*


> When future generations try to understand how the world got carried away around the end of the 20th century by the panic over global warming, few things will amaze them more than the part played in stoking up the scare by the fiddling of official temperature data. There was already much evidence of this seven years ago, when I was writing my history of the scare, The Real Global Warming Disaster. But now another damning example has been uncovered by Steven Goddard&#8217;s US blog Real Science, showing how shamelessly manipulated has been one of the world&#8217;s most influential climate records, the graph of US surface temperature records published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).





> Any theory needing to rely so consistently on fudging the evidence, I concluded, must be looked on not as science at all, but as simply a rather alarming case study in the aberrations of group psychology.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/10916086/The-scandal-of-fiddled-global-warming-data.html


----------



## unregistered358967

We could go round and round with this topic for days...oh wait.  Charts and graphs can be modified to fit an agenda...believe me, I went to college and wrote a thesis :gaptooth:

So those of you who believe climate change is caused by humans...what are you doing to help? OR Those of you who believe climate change is cyclical and not caused by humans..do you try to make a difference or does it not matter? 

Where on the **I don't give a darn we're all going to die a fiery death and I will burn fossil fuel because I can-------------------to------------------------I'm a moonchild on spaceship earth..prius, hippie recycle, 0 waste, rah, rah, rah!**  scale do you fall?

Just curious.  Carry on.


----------



## arabian knight

Jax-mom said:


> We could go round and round with this topic for days...oh wait.  Charts and graphs can be modified to fit an agenda...believe me, I went to college and wrote a thesis :gaptooth:
> .


And so can polls as far as that goes, as how they are worded etc. etc. etc.. LOL


----------



## Paumon

Jax-mom said:


> Charts and graphs can be modified to fit an agenda....


So are you saying that you believe there is a global agenda ..... some kind of global conspiracy?


----------



## JeffreyD

Paumon said:


> So are you saying that you believe there is a global agenda ..... some kind of global conspiracy?


Agenda 21! But it's not a conspiracy, it's a fact!


----------



## Paumon

JeffreyD said:


> Agenda 21! But it's not a conspiracy, it's a fact!


 
I think the Agenda 21 conspiracy is a conspiracy that's been made up by the tinfoil conspiracy crowd. :teehee::hysterical:


----------



## kasilofhome

Sorry but agend 21 is real. It is not hidden but out in the open. This government is pushin all the infrastructure to promote the future success of the U.N. plan for the limited success for some, The demise of others and the freedom for those in seats of power. Control of the people is the goal. 

To succeed people have to need the government so that compliance results. Falsely increasing the cost of energy,regulation all facets of human behaviors, reducing self reliance via law from food production,gun control and land use.

Knowing that Alaska had large areas in the arctic that were tropical and that New York was once covered in glaciers creates a total acceptance of the changes that is nature. 

I am not out pouring oil an my land ..... even though Nature seepes oil out of the ground were I grew up. Springtime floods in our front yard simmered as a rainbow with the film of an oily substance that purculaed up as the soil on top of clay on top of a coal bed dealt with the melting tons of snow.

My car burn gas and oil to the tune of 45 gallons a week during the school year. I save where I can to burn that gas. I have no need to use chemicals on my land. I opt to pay taxes to allow 60 acres of land to be under total control of nature.

Nature may wipe us humans out or man might naturally find a way just as every life form here today survived hardships and change. I believe in the hand of God, and he is above nature power. I will not live in fear or ignorance of men who try to play God and to seek control.


----------



## JeffreyD

Paumon said:


> I think the Agenda 21 conspiracy is a conspiracy that's been made up by the tinfoil conspiracy crowd. :teehee::hysterical:


Since you've gone to the un website and read the whole agenda, what is it you like about it and why do you consider it a "conspiracy"?


----------



## DEKE01

Paumon said:


> So are you saying that you believe there is a global agenda ..... some kind of global conspiracy?


It is your side that believes there is a global conspiracy. How many times have we heard that any science that comes out against AGW is a big oil plot?


----------



## Paumon

JeffreyD said:


> Since you've gone to the un website and read the whole agenda, what is it you like about it and why do you consider it a "conspiracy"?


Nope. I've no desire in derailing or drifting off *this topic* so I'll take a pass on Agenda 21. I just wanted to know if Jax-mom believes there's some kind of world wide *global warming* conspiracy but she doesn't have to answer if she doesn't want to. No pressure. 

I guess you all could start a separate topic about Agenda 21 if you want but I'm not interested in discussing that. It's just more unrelated and unrealistic extreme RWNJ political agenda crackpot tinfoil conspiracy stuff. :hand:


----------



## JeffreyD

Paumon said:


> Nope. I've no desire in derailing or drifting off *this topic* so I'll take a pass on Agenda 21. I just wanted to know if Jax-mom believes there's some kind of world wide *global warming* conspiracy but she doesn't have to answer if she doesn't want to. No pressure.
> 
> I guess you all could start a separate topic about Agenda 21 if you want but I'm not interested in discussing that. It's just more unrelated and unrealistic extreme RWNJ political agenda crackpot tinfoil conspiracy stuff. :hand:


Shows us how enlightened you wish to be! It is after all, a directive from the United Nations. No conspiracy here, just facts, straight from the un it's self. Seems like some don't care to find the truth. 

If you could point out just how the un is an extreme right wing organization, I'd love to see it! 

Otherwise your post is just an insult to those who wish to become more Informed about world politics, and the plans to change our lives.


----------



## Paumon

DEKE01 said:


> It is your side that believes there is a global conspiracy. How many times have we heard that any science that comes out against AGW is a big oil plot?


I don't know about "sides" and I don't believe there's a big oil conspiracy but I'll concede that there are some people who are proponents of climate change that do believe there's some kind of big oil plot going on. I think they are wrong and are too tinfoilish for my liking. I certainly don't believe that all climate change denialists in the scientific field are part of some big oil plot but I do think they haven't done enough research and cross checking.


----------



## Paumon

Jax-mom said:


> So those of you who believe climate change is caused by humans...what are you doing to help? OR Those of you who believe climate change is cyclical and not caused by humans..do you try to make a difference or does it not matter?


You left out the people who believe that climate change is cyclical but being speeded up dramatically by human contribution and interference. That's the category that I fall into.

I'll get back to you about what I do to help out. That'll be later though, I'm off and away now to go work in one of the community gardens now that it's cooling down and more comfortable outside. Here are some pictures of the project I'm working on this afternoon. :happy2: Ta ta.


----------



## kasilofhome

Very pretty


----------



## unregistered358967

Cool. I'll have to look tomorrow on my computer. But to answer your question, I don't think it's a conspiracy. Not sure how you inferred that from my post? Please go back and re-read it as nowhere do I talk about a conspiracy. Charts and graphs can be modified to try to prove EITHER SIDE of this issue. 

I love those community gardens though - your pictures look nice. Our plan is to turn much of our backyard in a garden..next year. In the meantime I have to be satisfied with the little bit of veggies we planted here and there.  I always enjoy seeing inter-generational projects as well..I think old and young people have a lot in common.


----------



## HDRider

That should make all right with the world..


----------



## greg273

HDRider said:


> That should make all right with the world..


 Probably better for the world than driving around on a vastly overpriced $50,000 motorcycle. :grin:


----------



## kasilofhome

Green eyes


----------



## greg273

Paumon said:


> You left out the people who believe that climate change is cyclical but being speeded up dramatically by human contribution and interference. That's the category that I fall into.


 That is pretty much how I see it... sure, change is constant, but we are doing some changing of our own... those long-buried fossil fuels aren't exactly burning themselves. 
Now, what to do about it? Conservation is good, but really we're not going to do much...our way of life at the present time depends heavily on burning those long dead plants. I don't see that changing any time soon. 
I also don't want to see our economy crippled by further oppressive EPA standards.


----------



## HDRider

greg273 said:


> Probably better for the world than driving around on a vastly overpriced $50,000 motorcycle. :grin:


I'd say fairly valued motorcycle. Don't forget my $50 thousand dollar new truck.

BTW - What do you drive?


----------



## kasilofhome

Hd great for you, seeing others succeed in ares I want is encouraging to me. I want a truck without duck tape. Thanks for displaying that even now people making good choices can make ie.


----------



## Paumon

greg273 said:


> That is pretty much how I see it... sure, change is constant, but we are doing some changing of our own... those long-buried fossil fuels aren't exactly burning themselves.
> *Now, what to do about it?* Conservation is good, but really we're not going to do much...our way of life at the present time depends heavily on burning those long dead plants. I don't see that changing any time soon.
> I also don't want to see our economy crippled by further oppressive EPA standards.


I think each person can do something proactive that will make a small difference. They only need to want to. When a lot of people are all doing small things to make a personal difference, put them all together and all those small personal efforts add up to something bigger.

Educating youngsters about conservation and environmentalism is one of the things that I do about it. Today's children are the ones that are really going to make the most positive difference as adults in this world's future. 

Now that I'm retired from working full time I do regular volunteer work with kids and with seniors. That's part of what the importance of the InterGenerational Community gardens is all about for me. In my community there are 10 of those IGC gardens, each one is across the street from a school or else right on school property. Three of them are within short walking distance from where I live so I'm involved with those three. Also there are two other community garden centers in my neighbourhood that are not connected with schools or the IGC gardens and have a different kind of environmental/conservational agenda re: endangered plant and animal species, that includes field trips for adults and their families. So those 5 community efforts are what I focus my volunteer services towards with regard to educating people about the environment and how it's being effected by climate change. The kids are fantastic, they're really eager to learn about nature and the natural environment and to be doing something beneficial. 

Plus there's a couple of seniors residence complexes where I do grounds gardening and have been helping my sister with setting up community rooftop gardens for the handicapped seniors on top of their high rise buildings. Several of the seniors that have gotten involved with those projects have already been noticing improvements to their health and sense of well being and more of the seniors who were previously not involved have now started taking an interest as a result.


----------



## HDRider

Paumon said:


> I think each person can do something proactive that *will make a small difference*. They only need to want to. When a lot of people are all doing small things to make a personal difference, put them all together and all those small personal efforts add up to something bigger.
> 
> Educating youngsters about conservation and environmentalism is one of the things that I do about it. Today's children are the ones that are really going to make the most positive difference as adults in this world's future.
> 
> Now that I'm retired from working full time I do regular volunteer work with kids and with seniors. That's part of what the importance of the InterGenerational Community gardens is all about for me. In my community there are 10 of those IGC gardens, each one is across the street from a school or else right on school property. Three of them are within short walking distance from where I live so I'm involved with those three. Also there are two other community garden centers in my neighbourhood that are not connected with schools or the IGC gardens and have a different kind of environmental/conservational agenda re: endangered plant and animal species, that includes field trips for adults and their families. So those 5 community efforts are what I focus my volunteer services towards with regard to educating people about the environment and how it's being effected by climate change. The kids are fantastic, they're really eager to learn about nature and the natural environment and to be doing something beneficial.
> 
> Plus there's a couple of seniors residence complexes where I do grounds gardening and have been helping my sister with setting up community rooftop gardens for the handicapped seniors on top of their high rise buildings. Several of the seniors that have gotten involved with those projects have already been noticing improvements to their health and sense of well being and more of the seniors who were previously not involved have now started taking an interest as a result.


Climate change proposals are suggesting we cut fossil fuels use by 90%. Tell me how an economy survives. Plus every country, especially countries like China, India, Vietnam and many, many others would have to stop their growth in its tracks to meet that requirement. Well they? Heck no.

Small things?


----------



## Paumon

HDRider said:


> Climate change proposals are suggesting we cut fossil fuels use by 90%. Tell me how an economy survives. Plus every country, especially countries like China, India, Vietnam and many, many others would have to stop their growth in its tracks to meet that requirement. Well they? Heck no.
> 
> Small things?


90% ??? That's utter nonsense. Get real. Honest to God now, you don't _really_ believe that tripe do you? If you believe that then you're a fool but who else do you think you're fooling?

You'd have to show me evidence of such proposals from official channels to make me stop laughing at the very idea of it. :hysterical:


----------



## kasilofhome

Warning about green roofs. Make sure to check the structural integrity of the buildings. Someone locally won national honors over the theory of green roofs for our schools. Last month at the assembly meeting ...practically it would be dangerous .. even just doing it on the schools in our school district that need new roofs the build would need to be redesigned.


----------



## HDRider

Paumon said:


> 90% ??? That's utter nonsense. Get real. Honest to God now, you don't _really_ believe that tripe do you? If you believe that then you're a fool but who else do you think you're fooling?
> 
> You'd have to show me evidence of such proposals from official channels to make me stop laughing at the very idea of it. :hysterical:


 Here you go Sugar.

The EPAâs own model MAGICC, tells us that dropping the carbon dioxide emissions from all sources of electrical generation to _zero_ would reduce warming by a grand total of 0.04ÂºC by 2100.

So it wasn't 90%, but rather 100%, and it still doesn't matter.


----------



## Paumon

kasilofhome said:


> Warning about green roofs. *Make sure to check the structural integrity of the buildings.* Someone locally won national honors over the theory of green roofs for our schools. Last month at the assembly meeting ...practically it would be dangerous .. even just doing it on the schools in our school district that need new roofs the build would need to be redesigned.


Yes, that's really good advice and I agree with that. Many people when they're contemplating roof top gardens on pre-existing buildings don't realize how heavy all that extra soil and water is nor how much damage extra water can do if it is spilled. It's especially important in locations where buildings don't get a lot of snowload in winters and aren't built for the buildings and roofs to hold up to tremendous weight strain. So it's a vital thing to take into consideration.

The 2 seniors complexes here where the rooftop gardens are, they both are new buildings and were built with roof top gardens and recreation in mind for the future. They were also built to meet west coast earthquake standards, that's the law with all buildings here. They are concrete buildings with appropriate drainage and the roof areas are all properly plumbed in with several faucets and washing stations for the gardening areas, as well as a small kitchen, gas BBQ and toilet facilities on the roof and secure places to install glass greenhouses.

Also, the resident quarters all have fenced and covered decks outside each apartment that have been built to accomodate and support the additional weight of container plants, benches, patio tables and chairs, small potting table and shelves, etc. They are both nice buildings that have been designed for comfort and living enjoyment of the residents and to encourage the residents to take advantage of the outdoors areas.


----------



## Paumon

HDRider said:


> Here you go Sugar.
> 
> The EPAâs own model MAGICC, tells us that dropping the carbon dioxide emissions from all sources of electrical generation to _zero_ would reduce warming by a grand total of 0.04ÂºC by 2100.
> 
> So it wasn't 90%, but rather 100%, and it still doesn't matter.


Aren't you missing something? I only have your word for that and I'm sorry to say this but I don't trust your word. Give me some official websites to go to for confirmation of your claims.


----------



## HDRider

Paumon said:


> Aren't you missing something? I only have your word for that and I'm sorry to say this but I don't trust your word. Give me some official websites to go to for confirmation of your claims.


Sorry honey. Is your Google broke?


----------



## arabian knight




----------



## Tricky Grama

More signs of 'climate change'...

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/an...mail_job=1575318_06302014&promo_code=eexbjxdw

While early models predicted the sea ice would decrease because of global warming, other models are showing that the opposite is happening around Antarctica, where sea ice growth is increasing.

Meanwhile, Ambler said that the growth of the Antarctic sea ice is providing "a public relations problem, at a minimum, for those warning of global warming&#8217;s menace."


----------



## Tricky Grama

Climate alarmism-biggest fraud:

http://joemiller.us/2014/07/apollo-...il&utm_term=0_065b6c381c-5304552d79-230980529


----------



## MJsLady

Interesting read TG. Good find.


----------



## Tricky Grama

NOAA quietly reinstates 1936 as hottest year on record.

http://joemiller.us/2014/07/noaa-qu...il&utm_term=0_065b6c381c-31ee4880cb-230980529


----------



## HDRider

11,000 years ago, the snakes were separated from the mainland and evolved separately from their continental cousins.

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/07/01/worlds-deadliest-island-is-seriously-snake-infested/


----------



## arabian knight

Ya yes, the oldie but a goodie, the ocean is rising. There are cities that have built such high and heavy skyscrapers that they LAND IS SINKING at the rate of one inch a YEAR.
Rising oceans or is that land the picture is take is that FALLING~! Thailandâs capital is sinking -- and sinking fast. Among others around the world.
The water is Not rising, the Land is sinking the cities are built on.
Which is blamed on these factors: *Vertical movement of the earth's surface, which is usually related to the pressure placed on the surface by the ice; and the local cause - vertical tectonic activity*.
Course THOSE TRUE and Scientific FACTS do not compute with the GW alarmists. 

Read more at: http://phys.org/news183723896.html#jCp


----------



## MJsLady

I have an odd question.
I know folks claim animals evolve. Well don't planets? 
I mean we know that planets can change. 
The long range gizmos show it. 
So who is to say that this planet is not going through it's life, changing not BECAUSE of humanity but IN SPITE of humanity?
It seems to me that the supposedly historical scientific data supports that hypothesis just as easily as the one where mankind is killing the earth.


----------



## kasilofhome

MJsLady said:


> I have an odd question.
> I know folks claim animals evolve. Well don't planets?
> I mean we know that planets can change.
> The long range gizmos show it.
> So who is to say that this planet is not going through it's life, changing not BECAUSE of humanity but IN SPITE of humanity?
> It seems to me that the supposedly historical scientific data supports that hypothesis just as easily as the one where mankind is killing the earth.


Bingo and we have a winner.


----------



## Paumon

MJsLady said:


> I have an odd question.
> I know folks claim animals evolve. Well don't planets?
> I mean we know that planets can change.
> The long range gizmos show it.
> So who is to say that this planet is not going through it's life, changing not BECAUSE of humanity but IN SPITE of humanity?
> It seems to me that the supposedly historical scientific data supports that hypothesis just as easily as the one where mankind is killing the earth.


It's not an odd question. And planetary evolution is not a hypothesis, it's a scientific fact that's been taught in schools for decades. All the planets in our solar system are evolving, as is the sun and the solar system itself, and all other celestial bodies and galaxies in the universe.

Do a google search about _'planetary evolution'_ and _'solar system evolution'_ and about _'galaxies and universe expansion and evolution'_ and you'll get more scientific details about it than you can shake a stick at. There is more and more new information about planetary evolution being added to our present body of scientific knowledge every day.

Our planet isn't a dead or inanimate thing, it's definately animate. It's a living, breathing thing that is evolving. We know that the planet breathes in and out once a year. We know that the interior of the earth is moving inside under the surface. We know that Earth is attached to the sun in two ways, through electromagnetism and through plasma that flows back and forth from Earth to Sun (kind of like nutrients and waste matter in an umbilical cord) and we know that the planet is slowly growing and that it takes life energy from the sun. We know that the earth stores carbon inside the earth.

We also know that humans are the only living entities on earth that extract billions of tons of carbon out of the earth (where it belongs) and convert it into pollution that gets dumped onto the surface, into the atmosphere and into the waters (all places where it doesn't belong). And we know that the pollution is making all living things sick and that it is contributing to greenhouse gases.

Those are all known facts, there's nothing hypothetical about any of them.

Certainly the planet will continue to change and evolve with or without us - most likely without us much sooner than later considering the way we've all been fouling our own nest and poisoning ourselves. I think maybe at the rate we've being going, the sooner we're all gone the better it will be for the earth and all other living things remaining on it.


----------



## DEKE01

Paumon said:


> We also know that humans are the only living entities on earth that extract billions of tons of carbon out of the earth (where it belongs) and convert it into pollution that gets dumped onto the surface, into the atmosphere and into the waters (all places where it doesn't belong). And we know that the pollution is making all living things sick and that it is contributing to greenhouse gases.
> 
> Those are all known facts, there's nothing hypothetical about any of them.


You did fine with all the living planet stuff right up until then. You've fallen victim to the AGW propaganda machine. You demonstrate that you don't really believe in an evolving planet but rather one that should be stuck right where it is now. You think it is a fact that the carbon doesn't belong in the atmosphere and oceans?!? Carbon has been cycled back and forth thru the land, sea, and air since Earth as we know it began. It is a known fact that earth has had far higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere than what is current. 

And how do we know that pollution is making all living things sick?


----------



## MushCreek

Say what you want about climate change, but I have personally witnessed the effects man has on the environment. We started scuba diving in 1980, and at that time, the Florida Keys were like a tropical aquarium- clear water, thousands of fish, beautiful corals. When we went back around 2000, only 20 years later, the reefs were virtually dead. There were a few fish poking around in the murky water. Staghorn corals, which grow at a very slow rate, had crumbled to the sea floor. In 20 years, man undid thousands of years of beauty. The culprit is fertilizer run-off, and it will be many, many lifetimes before the reef can restore itself. I have seen it, but I have read that coral reefs around the world are dying off. Sad.


----------



## DEKE01

MushCreek said:


> Say what you want about climate change, but I have personally witnessed the effects man has on the environment. We started scuba diving in 1980, and at that time, the Florida Keys were like a tropical aquarium- clear water, thousands of fish, beautiful corals. When we went back around 2000, only 20 years later, the reefs were virtually dead. There were a few fish poking around in the murky water. Staghorn corals, which grow at a very slow rate, had crumbled to the sea floor. In 20 years, man undid thousands of years of beauty. The culprit is fertilizer run-off, and it will be many, many lifetimes before the reef can restore itself. I have seen it, but I have read that coral reefs around the world are dying off. Sad.


I've seen the same thing and my snorkeling experience is in the same areas and over the same time period. I'm all for trying to combat pollution in its many forms, I'm just not interested in labeling carbon, a natural and necessary to life compound, as a pollutant.


----------



## HDRider

MushCreek said:


> Say what you want about climate change, but I have personally witnessed the effects man has on the environment. We started scuba diving in 1980, and at that time, the Florida Keys were like a tropical aquarium- clear water, thousands of fish, beautiful corals. When we went back around 2000, only 20 years later, the reefs were virtually dead. There were a few fish poking around in the murky water. Staghorn corals, which grow at a very slow rate, had crumbled to the sea floor. In 20 years, man undid thousands of years of beauty. The culprit is fertilizer run-off, and it will be many, many lifetimes before the reef can restore itself. I have seen it, but I have read that coral reefs around the world are dying off. Sad.


I have no doubt about what you saw, but would you call that climate change or a more localized result of pollution and runoff?

I expect that ecosystem would recover if the pollution stopped or was managed better. Not sure how long it would take, but given the right conditions which most would called manageable, they should or could recover. 

Don't you think?


----------



## kasilofhome

Hey folks anyone remember hyperventilating.... you know having to breath in a paper bag? 
How about what happens to humans who breath in too much oxygen?

Here is a fact of life for humans carbon dioxide is a catalyst for us to breath. If we put all the carbons in the ground we die. 
Who are hyperventilating need a source of higher carbon dioxide to get oxygen into their blood stream. Carbon is organic ....organic ......has to do with living..... 
People


----------



## Paumon

DEKE01 said:


> You did fine with all the living planet stuff right up until then. You've fallen victim to the AGW propaganda machine. You demonstrate that you don't really believe in an evolving planet but rather one that should be stuck right where it is now. You think it is a fact that the carbon doesn't belong in the atmosphere and oceans?!? Carbon has been cycled back and forth thru the land, sea, and air since Earth as we know it began. It is a known fact that earth has had far higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere than what is current.
> 
> And how do we know that pollution is making all living things sick?


Thanks for your response to my reply to MJ'sLady. I'm sure you'll understand if I refrain from responding to your above quoted condescending and confrontational comments. I think some of you are looking for any old excuses and arguements you can come up with to justify continued pollution and abuse of the environment and don't want a real discussion, you just want to argue and be antagonistic. I think that's boring and a waste of time. 

Carry on. :hand:


----------



## DEKE01

Paumon said:


> I think some of you are looking for any old excuses and arguements you can come up with to justify continued pollution and abuse of the environment and don't want a real discussion,


quite the contrary, I'm a tree hugging, bunny loving, environmental whacko. I want a clean environment and I want polluters to get slammed in the marketplace and courts. I just don't choose to pretend that CO2 is pollution. 

See, rather than dealing with real arguments, you prefer to deal with a straw man caricature. You imply that everyone who doesn't believe in AGW wants to destroy the environment. There is a middle ground and some people such as myself stand there. 

BTW - you are losing the battle. I saw a poll today that says a majority of Americans do not believe the AGW hype.


----------



## Paumon

> BTW - you are losing the battle. I saw a poll today that says a majority of Americans do not believe the AGW hype.


I don't know what poll you saw but I think the Gallup polls are some of the most reliable and unbiased polls. If the poll you saw covers more areas and is more informative than Gallup's it would be good if you would produce it here for comparison. 

Here is the most recent Gallup poll for American people's opinions on the matter for 2014. http://www.gallup.com/poll/167972/steady-blame-humans-global-warming.aspx

Frankly I don't believe there is a battle. Also, I believe it's important to be aware of what global opinions and actions are and not be limiting yourself to just the opinions and actions of people in your own home country. It is after all only 1 country out of 196 countries, and it's also one of the most advantaged countries in the world and advantaged people don't like to acknowledge or think about what kind of harm they are doing to the less advantaged. 

I think people who believe there is some kind of battle going on are people who want there to be a battle because they are normally of a contentious and battlesome nature anyway, so they will see a battle in any event even if it's only in their own minds. Also, they are contentious because they believe they will be asked to relinquish personal rights and possessions and luxuries. Sacrifices for the greater good, things they don't want to give up so they will battle for them. 

It's not important what people like that are imagining though because humans can't battle against mother nature and it's mother nature that is governing and calling all the shots now with whatever extremes will be happening next with climate change. People can't make it better than it already is, they can only make it worse by contributing to it. Mother nature will take away rights and luxuries from people without discrimination as to who they are, what they believe in or what country they live in. Nobody is exempt.


----------



## DEKE01

Paumon said:


> *It's not important what people like that are imagining though because humans can't battle against mother nature and it's mother nature that is governing and calling all the shots now* with whatever extremes will be happening next with climate change. People can't make it better than it already is, they can only make it worse by contributing to it. Mother nature will take away rights and luxuries from people without discrimination as to who they are, what they believe in or what country they live in. Nobody is exempt.


Sorry I can't find that poll. Google wasn't my friend this time. 

As to the bolded portion, AGREED. That's what we've been saying all along, it's Mother Nature in control. We are glad you have finally seen the light...which is the sun of course.

As to your contention that man can not make it better but only worse, that is an assumption without any facts in evidence. If we can change the planet's climate, what makes you think we can't change it in a direction of our choosing? You contend we are making it warmer, if the climate suddenly goes cold, then we could make it better. I don't really want to go off on that tangent, but I hate to leave groundless assertions hanging in the breeze.


----------



## Paumon

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on that matter.


----------



## kasilofhome

Let Canadian wishes rule in CANADA and Americans rule America.


----------



## Paumon

kasilofhome said:


> Let Canadian wishes rule in CANADA and Americans rule America.


If wishes were horses beggers would ride. 

Climate change is a global affair, it doesn't make any petty nationalistic distinctions between one country or another or what their people wish for, it treats all the same. Canada and America share the same continent so whatever happens with the climate in one has a direct effect also on the other whether you like it or wish for it or not.

I see there's 130 wildfires burning out of control in the Northwest Territories right now because of the ongoing drought conditions up there. 
http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/canada/archives/2014/07/20140704-070817.html

A week ago they had not yet reached the Arctic Ocean but according to today's newscasts there are now tundra wildfires all the way up to the shores of the Arctic Ocean. My goodness. However did the Arctic tundra get so dry? Will the fires spread to Alaska?

And now amongst smaller fires there's a huge wildfire raging out of control in northern BC right beside oil and gas pipelines. That should be interesting when it gets to the pipelines. And wildfires galore in northern Aberta, the place where America gets most of its oil from. 

The smoke from over 500 total wildfires in far northern Canada's drought regions is reaching Alaska and states like Colorado and Wyoming. 

How is Alaska fairing right now? Presently 312 fires covering over 227,000 acres (not much yet - that's a drop in the bucket - wait til the end of July and all through August and September) and to date most of those Alaska fires are attributed to human causes, not lightning strikes. Who says careless humans don't have an effect? And you don't even have many humans in Alaska, yet the few that are there still managed to spark off most of the 312 fires you have there now. Should be more interesting once the state dries out a bit more over the next couple of months and lightning starts doing a number on Alaska.

See the map: http://afsmaps.blm.gov/imf_firelight/imf.jsp?site=firelight


----------



## Paumon

Now here's something interesting to speculate about.

What will happen to the whole world if Canada's oil fields all catch on fire?


----------



## kasilofhome

Hey americans per your words have no business in Canadian issues so Canada would have to deal with it's fires. I respect borders.


----------



## HDRider

Paumon said:


> Now here's something interesting to speculate about.
> 
> What will happen to the whole world if Canada's oil fields all catch on fire?


The sun would rise in the East, and I think it would set in the West, and I guess it would be light 24 hours straight in Canada for a while. 

Is this a trick question?


----------



## Paumon

HDRider said:


> The sun would rise in the East, and I think it would set in the West, and I guess it would be light 24 hours straight in Canada for a while.
> 
> Is this a trick question?


Not a trick question.

The Canada oil fields is a massively huge surface area. Huge. HUGE. There's so much oil it seeps up to the surface and in some places when you walk on the ground it's squishy and your footprints depressions will fill in with oil. The wildfires in the north got me to thinking ..... what would happen if all the oil fields caught fire because of the wild fires? There'd be no way to put it out and God knows how long such a vast and deep area of oil and solid bitumen would burn. The black smoke from such a vast area would easily be as bad or maybe even worse than a super-volcano like Yellowstone going off. There may not be as much ash falling as there would be from a super-volcano but the black smoke and toxic chemicals being spewed into the atmosphere would block out the sun and poison the atmosphere around the entire northern hemisphere of the world within 48 hours and then the rest of the world within a week. It would be catastrophic for all living things.

Maybe it doesn't even bear thinking about. Nothing could be done about it if it happens.


----------



## JeffreyD

Paumon said:


> Not a trick question.
> 
> The Canada oil fields is a massively huge surface area. Huge. HUGE. There's so much oil it seeps up to the surface and in some places when you walk on the ground it's squishy and your footprints depressions will fill in with oil. The wildfires in the north got me to thinking ..... what would happen if all the oil fields caught fire because of the wild fires? There'd be no way to put it out and God knows how long such a vast and deep area of oil and solid bitumen would burn. The black smoke from such a vast area would easily be as bad or maybe even worse than a super-volcano like Yellowstone going off. There may not be as much ash falling as there would be from a super-volcano but the black smoke and toxic chemicals being spewed into the atmosphere would block out the sun and poison the atmosphere around the entire northern hemisphere of the world within 48 hours and then the rest of the world within a week. It would be catastrophic for all living things.
> 
> Maybe it doesn't even bear thinking about. Nothing could be done about it if it happens.


What about all the oil wells and fields that have been set on fire for decades over in the ME? They can be put out! Oil that is below a seep won't burn unless it gets oxygen. Forest fires for the most part are due to poor management practices by the land managers.....to much underbrush due to the lack of fires. Fire is nature's cleanser!

Eta: if you want to worry .......think asteroid or comet! I know you don't think much of the idea, but we've had some pass between us and the moon very recently. I've been to Crater Lake!!


----------



## greg273

Paumon said:


> Now here's something interesting to speculate about.
> 
> What will happen to the whole world if Canada's oil fields all catch on fire?


 They will, eventually, one tankful at a time.


----------



## Paumon

JeffreyD said:


> What about all the oil wells and fields that have been set on fire for decades over in the ME? They can be put out! Oil that is below a seep won't burn unless it gets oxygen.


They aren't tar sands in the ME, they're wells that draw up liquid oil from oil reservoirs deep beneath the surface. Tar sands are different, they would burn the way a peat bog burns and peat bogs will burn beneath the surface. For months and months or even years as all on the surface burns off what is beneath it is exposed to oxygen and that too burns. We have a peat bog right here in the Fraser Valley called Burns Bog, it's the largest domed peat bog on the west coast of North America, and it has been slowly smouldering beneath the surface for something like 10 years or more now. It can't be put out. Fortunately it is small, it's only 15 square miles.

See, the tar sands aren't wells, they are more like a gigantic peat bog sponge full of thick sticky crude oil and solid bitumen that has the consistency of thick, course, chilled, hardened peanut butter. As the oil and bitumen at the surface burns off then the heat of the flames will heat up, melt and wicks up what's beneath it to the surface where the oxygen is and that wicked up material continues to burn. As that burns off it continues to heat, melt and wick up the oil and bitumen that was beneath that, and that too burns. Repeat, repeat, repeat. An area that covers *54,132 square miles*. Enough oil to power the world for 200 years wicking up and burning, wicking up and burning like an endless candle. It would burn for decades, maybe more likely for centuries.


----------



## JeffreyD

Paumon said:


> They aren't tar sands in the ME, they're wells that draw up liquid oil from oil reservoirs deep beneath the surface. Tar sands are different, they would burn the way a peat bog burns and peat bogs will burn beneath the surface. For months and months or even years as all on the surface burns off what is beneath it is exposed to oxygen and that too burns. We have a peat bog right here in the Fraser Valley called Burns Bog, it's the largest domed peat bog on the west coast of North America, and it has been slowly smouldering beneath the surface for something like 10 years or more now. It can't be put out. Fortunately it is small, it's only 15 square miles.
> 
> See, the tar sands aren't wells, they are more like a gigantic peat bog sponge full of thick sticky crude oil and solid bitumen that has the consistency of thick, course, chilled, hardened peanut butter. As the oil and bitumen at the surface burns off then the heat of the flames will heat up, melt and wicks up what's beneath it to the surface where the oxygen is and that wicked up material continues to burn. As that burns off it continues to heat, melt and wick up the oil and bitumen that was beneath that, and that too burns. Repeat, repeat, repeat. An area that covers *54,132 square miles*. Enough oil to power the world for 200 years wicking up and burning, wicking up and burning like an endless candle. It would burn for decades, maybe more likely for centuries.


We could put it out! I wouldn't worry about it, it won't happen! We have coal seams that have been smoldering for decades, just not cost effective enough to worry about. If your tar sands are valuable enough, nothing is going to happen to them. Your country will see to that.


----------



## HDRider

Paumon said:


> They aren't tar sands in the ME, they're wells that draw up liquid oil from oil reservoirs deep beneath the surface. Tar sands are different, they would burn the way a peat bog burns and peat bogs will burn beneath the surface. For months and months or even years as all on the surface burns off what is beneath it is exposed to oxygen and that too burns. We have a peat bog right here in the Fraser Valley called Burns Bog, it's the largest domed peat bog on the west coast of North America, and it has been slowly smouldering beneath the surface for something like 10 years or more now. It can't be put out. Fortunately it is small, it's only 15 square miles.
> 
> See, the tar sands aren't wells, they are more like a gigantic peat bog sponge full of thick sticky crude oil and solid bitumen that has the consistency of thick, course, chilled, hardened peanut butter. As the oil and bitumen at the surface burns off then the heat of the flames will heat up, melt and wicks up what's beneath it to the surface where the oxygen is and that wicked up material continues to burn. As that burns off it continues to heat, melt and wick up the oil and bitumen that was beneath that, and that too burns. Repeat, repeat, repeat. An area that covers *54,132 square miles*. Enough oil to power the world for 200 years wicking up and burning, wicking up and burning like an endless candle. It would burn for decades, maybe more likely for centuries.


I am sure there have many fires in that locale over the millennium.


----------



## HDRider

Hook up your Chrome Cast, grab a Coke and some popcorn, sit back for an hour or so and watch

[YOUTUBE]52Mx0_8YEtg[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## greg273

Whether CO2 lagged or led temp increases in the past is irrelevant to the current situation. HDRider, do you know what the term 'positive correlation' means?

And I see your movie trots out the old strawman of 'global cooling'... because, if the scientists were wrong about that, how can they ever be trusted again, right?? Not quite. In the 70's, particulate matter was indeed leading to global cooling. Then things changed... Particulate matter and SO2 were cleaned up, mileage went up on cars, stricter pollution controls were enacted around the industrial world. The atmosphere cleared dramatically, which has allowed temps to resume their slow climb in concert with increasing greenhouse gasses. 
Also its humorous that your movie claims that 'global warming is big business', as if the fossil fuel industry is not. ROTFL!!


----------



## JeffreyD

greg273 said:


> Whether CO2 lagged or led temp increases in the past is irrelevant to the current situation. HDRider, do you know what the term 'positive correlation' means?
> 
> And I see your movie trots out the old strawman of 'global cooling'... because, if the scientists were wrong about that, how can they ever be trusted again, right?? Not quite. In the 70's, particulate matter was indeed leading to global cooling. Then things changed... Particulate matter and SO2 were cleaned up, mileage went up on cars, stricter pollution controls were enacted around the industrial world. The atmosphere cleared dramatically, which has allowed temps to resume their slow climb in concert with increasing greenhouse gasses.
> Also its humorous that your movie claims that 'global warming is big business', as if the fossil fuel industry is not. ROTFL!!


So? Scientists have always been wrong about global warming! As a matter of fact, it appears that they have never even been remotely close to the truth......ever! Only lies!


----------



## arabian knight

Most of what these so called scientists do is Their Best Guess and that is all. And then they Feed Their best guesses into a computer program, and MAKE that program to LOOK like they want it to. Faking computer input data is all they are doing. And it is making the Majority of Americans now Leave them in their own little make-believe world of GW is man caused and their is no way to make them look into any other cause IF indeed there is some changes going on as the Earth has always had changes over its 4.5 billion history.


----------



## greg273

JeffreyD said:


> So? Scientists have always been wrong about global warming! As a matter of fact, it appears that they have never even been remotely close to the truth......ever! Only lies!


 How is that? CO2s function as a greenhouse gas has been well known for a long long time, and the cooling effects of particulate matter have been well known for a long time as well. Sounds like the scientists are pretty right on. 
You can go on about the 'anglia emails' and 'hockey stick graphs', but that is the hype, not the science. I have no use for carbon credit scammers, nor doomsayers, but the science is sound. Raising CO2 will raise temps, that is what the evidence has shown time and again. And whether it leads or lags is irrelevant in this case, because this time, CO2 is leading. That is just the facts sir. No hype, no profit motive, thats just what happens when atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations increase.


----------



## kasilofhome

My question. 

Logically does the information spouted by these quote ....brilliant Gw, cc,gc,what ever name they are using today does it make sense to you or are you not stopping to think for yourself and joining up to group thought mentality.

There is a large group of posters who preached gobel cooling ...the next ice age is coming. To jumping to the new mantra of gw and now it is just change.

I have stayed since the 70s with the earth is an ever changing planet, and I logically can fully back up my belief with historical facts to support my belief. 

Does anyone eles see how crazy labeling carbon dioxide and carbon as man made pollution.

There are facts that the percentages of what gas have made up the earth atmosphere. During different era's there were different levels per studies the are similar to carbon dating. Carbon dating works because carbon has been constantly changing due both consitration and known factors


----------



## arabian knight

Ya CO2 will Rauise the temps?????

Well guess what Next eek we are gong to have RECORD LOW High Temps for the date in July.
RECORD low High temps. 65Âº is what we are looking at breaking the All Time Record Low High Temp and this could be for 2 Days in a row.

Give me some of that CO2 NOW to keep temps form going that low~1


----------



## HDRider

[YOUTUBE]NXMarwAusY4&list=PL1A6E2D304D264F58[/YOUTUBE]

From the man that:
Uses 20 times the amount of electricity as the average house. 221,000 kWh.
Owns another home in Montecito Villa at $8.75 Million with 6,500 sq ft where Oprah and Kirk Douglas live-ocean front property.
States that the cars he rides in are left running through his entire speech so they will be nice and cool. 
Owns a 100 ft yacht, with 500 gallon capacity for fuel.
Is flown in someone else's privately owned plane every where he goes. 
Has made a lot of money on scaring the weak minded.


----------



## Paumon

arabian knight said:


> Ya CO2 will Rauise the temps?????
> 
> Well guess what Next eek we are gong to have RECORD LOW High Temps for the date in July.
> RECORD low High temps. 65Âº is what we are looking at breaking the All Time Record Low High Temp and this could be for 2 Days in a row.
> 
> Give me some of that CO2 NOW to keep temps form going that low~1


That's easy. Do what greenhouse operators do. Put up a little green house if you don't already have one. Or a plastic tent that's fully enclosed. Get a CO2 generator for it - they're very small and inexpensive, you can hold it in one hand to hang it up from the ceiling. Plug it in and turn it on. Go inside the greenhouse while the CO2 generator is on and you'll get heated up all lovely nice and toasty warm. 

Just be sure when you're in there to wear protective clothing and an oxygen mask and eye goggles so you don't burn out your lungs and go blind. 



By the way, it's only on your side of the continent that it's forecast to get cooler for a few days because the polar vortex is returning to you again for 2 or 3 days. But the rest of the western half of the continent is already getting temperatures in the 90's and 100's farenheit and it's going to get hotter here while you're going to be freezing your buns off. :grin: 

Right now at 5:30 pm at my place on the west coast of Canada the temperature is 92F and in a couple of towns a 100 miles further north from me the temps are in the 104 F range. 

*The forecast for all of the week to 10 days ahead is for it to get hotter all over the west with record high temps for July.*

:hysterical:

.


----------



## greg273

HDRider said:


> [YOUTUBE]NXMarwAusY4&list=PL1A6E2D304D264F58[/YOUTUBE]
> 
> From the man that:
> Uses 20 times the amount of electricity as the average house. 221,000 kWh.
> Owns another home in Montecito Villa at $8.75 Million with 6,500 sq ft where Oprah and Kirk Douglas live-ocean front property.
> States that the cars he rides in are left running through his entire speech so they will be nice and cool.
> Owns a 100 ft yacht, with 500 gallon capacity for fuel.
> Is flown in someone else's privately owned plane every where he goes.
> Has made a lot of money on scaring the weak minded.


 Al Gore is a huckster,a doomsayer, and a snake-oil salesman, and that has nothing to do with global warming. It would be nice to get through at least one discussion about this without 'ALGORE' being a default rebuttal among the climate change deniers. Get over 'ALGORE', he is not the issue.


----------



## greg273

kasilofhome said:


> My question.
> 
> Logically does the information spouted by these quote ....brilliant Gw, cc,gc,what ever name they are using today does it make sense to you or are you not stopping to think for yourself and joining up to group thought mentality.


:huh:??


----------



## Paumon

greg273 said:


> :huh:??


Ditto. I second that. 

Sometimes it's really hard to understand what Kasi is trying to say and to make sense of it.


----------



## Paumon

greg273 said:


> Al Gore is a huckster,a doomsayer, and a snake-oil salesman, and that has nothing to do with global warming. *It would be nice to get through at least one discussion about this without 'ALGORE' being a default rebuttal among the climate change deniers. Get over 'ALGORE', he is not the issue*.


Agreed. Al Gore was already discussed and blown out of the water in a few posts on page 3 of this topic. But denialists keep on falling back on Gore and bringing him up in conversations when they can't think of anything else worthwhile to say but just have to be saying something. They don't seem to understand that nobody cares about Al Gore anymore and are certainly not going to read articles or watch any youtubes posted about him.

This was my response to Mrs. Lewis when she asked what was the deal with the denialists' obsessive fixation on Gore. 




Paumon said:


> Al Gore was nobody important to anyone except Americans because at one time in the past he used to be a vice president to one of the two political parties (I don't know which party and I don't care). He had some good ideas and some bad ideas but he was very, very late to the game by comparison with Europe, U.K., Australia and Canada in recognizing the effects of climate change. And when he did jump onto the band wagon he was more into promoting it from a political and capitalistic perspective of what's good for only America more than what is good for the whole world. So I don't really think he cares much about climate change so much as he cares more about another political and money-making scheme. Like I said, nobody else cares about Al Gore these days except American climate change denialists who use him as their scapegoat for why they are denialists :hysterical: ........ and to the rest of the world he is nobody.


----------



## Ziptie

As was stated above we are supposed to get lows of 51 next week. 

My tomato's will never get ripe this kinda weather....Sure wish global warming would get here soon or were going to have glaciers forming here in Iowa again.:grin::lookout:


----------



## Evons hubby

Paumon said:


> :stars:
> 
> Gloat? Take credit? When you say foolish things like that it makes me wonder where your head is at and where your common sense went.
> 
> Every bad storm that sweeps through the states goes north straight up into Canada where there are millions of people and millions of acres of crops in their paths. Just like that storm system that caused those dual twisters is right now at this very moment causing devastating floods in Alberta and multiple thousands of non-stop lightning strikes in Ontario in the most highly populated areas and where agriculture is most vital to the economy.
> 
> I don't expect you to be concerned about that but I am. And maybe you should be concerned because USA and many other countries get the bulk of their grains imported from Canada. So if you can't get the bulk of your grains from Canada any longer that means the price of the grains that your own country is able to produce will go up to the point of being practically unaffordable.
> 
> So tell me, why would I gloat or want to take credit for predicting an increase in something extreme that will cause just as much grief and devastation in my own country as it will in yours or any other country?


I think your question would be better posed to Al Gore and company.... its his ilk that seems to like to make these "predictions", and take credit for them even when they fail to pan out. Another point to be made here is that its "global climate change" which if real is most likely being caused by other countries than the US or Canada either one. One of the largest contributors at this point would be China.... followed by a host of other third world nations eager to emerge into the modern world.


----------



## Evons hubby

Paumon said:


> Right now at 5:30 pm at my place on the west coast of Canada the temperature is 92F and in a couple of towns a 100 miles further north from me the temps are in the 104 F range.
> 
> *The forecast for all of the week to 10 days ahead is for it to get hotter all over the west with record high temps for July.*
> 
> :hysterical:
> 
> .


Yeppers.... its sounds like summertime to me! Every summer new high records are set,,,, along with new cold records every winter. theres nothing new about this phenomenon.


----------



## Paumon

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I think your question would be better posed to Al Gore and company.... its his ilk that seems to like to make these "predictions", and take credit for them even when they fail to pan out. Another point to be made here is that its "global climate change" which if real is most likely being caused by other countries than the US or Canada either one. One of the largest contributors at this point would be China.... followed by a host of other third world nations eager to emerge into the modern world.


I think all of that has already been discussed in a few earlier posts here.



Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yeppers.... its sounds like summertime to me! Every summer new high records are set,,,, along with new cold records every winter. theres nothing new about this phenomenon.


Heh, go tell that to Arabian Knight. I was responding to his complaining about forecasted record LOW temperatures in the 60'sF. in July at his location because another polar vortex is moving south that way. Polar vortexes aren't new but they're not common either, usually decades between occurences and usually happening in winter (like the one last winter) not in the summer too. Actually, the cold temperatures he's complaining about would be ideal temps for me.


----------



## kasilofhome

As a child I remember snow in New York that fell in May. It didn't happen often and it was light and so much fun for the few hours it stayed around. Now that was the 70s 80s when that was ........we're heading to another ice age. Bull carp then bull carp now. It is simple nature nothing to be so darn scared. Nature has it own rhythm and man wants to think that he can command nature. It will not happen.


----------



## Ozarks Tom

Since China is the major polluter by far, it would seem obvious the leftists should be boycotting Chinese goods, calling for all commercial ties to be cut, and demonstrating outside the UN.

Anybody want to guess why they're not?

My guess, they can't control the Chinese.


----------



## Ozarks Tom

We're not going to convince the leftists climate change is outside our control, any more than you're going to convince a Christian that Jesus is a myth. They've taken it as a religious devotion, which happily coincides with their belief in their own superiority of moral and social agenda.

As a friend in prone to say "it's to laugh".


----------



## greg273

Ozarks Tom said:


> We're not going to convince the leftists climate change is outside our control, any more than you're going to convince a Christian that Jesus is a myth. They've taken it as a religious devotion, which happily coincides with their belief in their own superiority of moral and social agenda.
> 
> As a friend in prone to say "it's to laugh".


 Ones political viewpoint makes no difference as to whether increasing greenhouse gasses increases temperature, as all the available science and evidence shows it will. 
Although you may be right, it may all be just a hoax to raise your electric rates.... Yeah, thats why the power companies are dead set against any new CO2 regulations. You really need to think through these conspiracy theories a little better.


----------



## JeffreyD

greg273 said:


> Ones political viewpoint makes no difference as to whether increasing greenhouse gasses increases temperature, as all the available science and evidence shows it will.
> Although you may be right, it may all be just a hoax to raise your electric rates.... Yeah, thats why the power companies are dead set against any new CO2 regulations. You really need to think through these conspiracy theories a little better.


Obama said our rates would go up, he didn't lie this time. Personally, I like Co2, it's a life giving gas!!! We were told that when Co2 levels reached 350 ppm, all life as we know it would cease to exist. Yawn!!!!!


----------



## Ozarks Tom

greg273 said:


> Ones political viewpoint makes no difference as to whether increasing greenhouse gasses increases temperature, as all the available science and evidence shows it will.
> Although you may be right, it may all be just a hoax to raise your electric rates.... Yeah, thats why the power companies are dead set against any new CO2 regulations. You really need to think through these conspiracy theories a little better.


Would you at least read the posts before responding to them? Did I mention electric rates? Did I mention conspiracies? Geez.

Post 200 ridiculed the tone deaf hypocrisy of leftists, and highlights their often exposed wish to control others.

Post 201 pointed out the religious fervor leftists feel towards their ever changing goal - global cooling, global warming, climate change, who knows what next.

Try to keep up.


----------



## arabian knight

*Coldest Antarctic June Ever Recorded*


> Antarctica continues to defy the global warming script, with a report from Meteo France, that June this year was the coldest Antarctic June ever recorded, at the French Antarctic Dumont d&#8217;Urville Station.
> 
> According to the press release, during June this year, the average temperature was -22.4c (-8.3F), 6.6c (11.9F) lower than normal. This is the coldest June ever recorded at the station, and almost the coldest monthly average ever &#8211; only September 1953 was colder, with a recorded average temperature of -23.5c (-10.3F).


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/12/coldest-antarctic-june-ever-recorded/

*Brisbane hits coldest temperature in 103 years*


> If you are lucky enough to be reading this from the comfort of your blankets, it might be best to stay there, as Brisbane has hit its coldest temperatures in 103 years.
> 
> Not since July 28 1911 has Brisbane felt this cold, getting down to a brisk 2.6C at 6.41am.
> 
> At 7am, it inched up to 3.3C.
> 
> Matt Bass, meteorologist from BOM, said the region was well below our average temperatures.
> 
> &#8220;If it felt cold, that&#8217;s because it was, breaking that record is pretty phenomenal for Brisbane,&#8221; Bass said.


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/brisbane-hits-coldest-temperature-in-103-years/story-e6frg6n6-1226986116278?nk=9fe3cbf4f5bf37a6dc3f771dfd4654b8

Go ahead and tell these folks that the earth is getting warmer and there is GW happening. They NEED some GW to be comfortable again.


----------



## Paumon

AK, it's winter there in the southern hemisphere right now and they're getting the same thing happening there in winter as what happened to all of us here in North America last winter. Record breaking low temperatures. But they aren't getting freezing temperatures. Remember they measure in celcius in Australia, not farenheit and those temps are above 0 (freezing). So 3.3 C is 38 F, and that's T-shirt weather that's like a balmy autumn here on the west coast. They just aren't used to getting winters below 40 F, but it's not freezing and it's not going to kill them. 

In summers Australia has been getting record breaking heat waves for several years, each year getting successively hotter - exactly the same thing as summers in the northern hemisphere. Record breaking heat waves every year.

The only thing that is different for BOTH hemispheres for BOTH summer and winter is that the temperatures have been going from one extreme to another without much seasonal moderation during springs and autumns.

Right now there is a heat wave happening in the Arctic - they're getting temperatures up there that are in the 70's F and that's 20 degrees and more above normal for summers in the Arctic. At 2 a.m. Pacific time, I checked and the temperatures up there were around 75 F. at night. The tundra permafrost is melting. Greenland has been getting inland temps in the mid-60's, the glaciers are melting.

What is your explanation for the Arctic getting such extreme high temperatures in the 70's right now while you're going to be getting a polar vortex bringing your temperatures down at your location into the low 60's or less within the next few days?


----------



## Evons hubby

Paumon said:


> What is your explanation for the Arctic getting such extreme high temperatures in the 70's right now while you're going to be getting a polar vortex bringing your temperatures down at your location into the low 60's or less within the next few days?


I cant speak for AK but my best guess is that the weather is to blame. 

Lemme ask you something.... do you suppose it was man made weather patterns that froze out the arctic and killed all the tropical vegetation and animal life that existed there at one time?

It has been said (and I believe this) that the only true constant is that everything changes.... get used to it.


----------



## unregistered358967

Here in Minnesota we had snow until may. It's been cooler than normal and much rainier. Next few weeks are slated to be well below normal. The past few winters have been long and cold-just like when I was a kid.


----------



## HDRider

One time at band camp this girl she and so on and so on....


----------



## DEKE01

Jax-mom said:


> Here in Minnesota we had snow until may. It's been cooler than normal and much rainier. Next few weeks are slated to be well below normal. The past few winters have been long and cold-just like when I was a kid.


Clearly you don't understand AGW. It was a cooler winter because of global warming. 

You should also realize it is getting darker because it is lighter, it is drier because it is wetter, there are more storms because there are fewer storms, and instead of leaving gifts under the tree, Santa is going to start taking gifts. 

Now that I've explained AGW, I'm sure it makes much more sense to you now. But if you need further explanation, tomorrow's AGW lesson will be why up is down. 

This message has been brought to you by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Claptrap.


----------



## Tricky Grama

DEKE01 said:


> Clearly you don't understand AGW. It was a cooler winter because of global warming.
> 
> You should also realize it is getting darker because it is lighter, it is drier because it is wetter, there are more storms because there are fewer storms, and instead of leaving gifts under the tree, Santa is going to start taking gifts.
> 
> Now that I've explained AGW, I'm sure it makes much more sense to you now. But if you need further explanation, tomorrow's AGW lesson will be why up is down.
> 
> This message has been brought to you by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Claptrap.


----------



## Tricky Grama

greg273 said:


> Al Gore is a huckster,a doomsayer, and a snake-oil salesman, and that has nothing to do with global warming. It would be nice to get through at least one discussion about this without 'ALGORE' being a default rebuttal among the climate change deniers. Get over 'ALGORE', he is not the issue.


And also one of the chief formers of clap & tax...er cop & steal, I mean cap & trade.
So along w/spewing lies all over the world on CC, how can you possibly leave him out?


----------



## Tricky Grama

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I think your question would be better posed to Al Gore and company.... its his ilk that seems to like to make these "predictions", and take credit for them even when they fail to pan out. Another point to be made here is that its "global climate change" which if real is most likely being caused by other countries than the US or Canada either one. One of the largest contributors at this point would be China.... followed by a host of other third world nations eager to emerge into the modern world.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yeppers.... its sounds like summertime to me! Every summer new high records are set,,,, along with new cold records every winter. theres nothing new about this phenomenon.


Actually, not always. summer of '36 was the highest on record. More proof we're not getting warmer.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Jax-mom said:


> Here in Minnesota we had snow until may. It's been cooler than normal and much rainier. Next few weeks are slated to be well below normal. The past few winters have been long and cold-just like when I was a kid.


We took a trip to MN one July...prolly it was '08? Had to stay in our cabin most of the time, too cold to get in the lake. At that time they said it was the coldest July on record. Betcha these last few wks broke that record...


----------



## greg273

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I cant speak for AK but my best guess is that the weather is to blame.
> 
> Lemme ask you something.... do you suppose it was man made weather patterns that froze out the arctic and killed all the tropical vegetation and animal life that existed there at one time?
> 
> It has been said (and I believe this) that the only true constant is that everything changes.... get used to it.


 There has been found, in the Canadian arctic, a fossil of a tropical turtle that dates from 90 million years ago. Care to guess what the CO2 levels were 90million years ago? They were about 8 times higher than now. Is that the model you want to emulate? Of course, keep in mind due to continental drift the Canadian arctic was more of a mid-latitude location, but still, unless you have gills, you probably don't want to live in a world with no ice caps and 105degree F year-round average temps at the tropics. 
Yep, things change. Especially when one species on earth digs up 250+million years worth of buried sunlight and carbon and pumps it into the atmosphere in a few generations time. Yep, things sure do change. 
Now, if you realize things change, why is it so hard to understand that humans can influence things? I truly do not get the animosity towards the idea... I guess its more about political leaning than anything else, 'ALGORE' hatred and whatnot.
The natural changes of the earth have ZERO to do with human induced changes.


----------



## greg273

Tricky Grama said:


> Actually, not always. summer of '36 was the highest on record. More proof we're not getting warmer.


 You think ONE year being .1 degree warmer means anything as far as long term trends go? Do you have any idea what the greenhouse effect is, really? Do you understand it at all? Or is this more a political viewpoint you are expressing?


----------



## greg273

Tricky Grama said:


> And also one of the chief formers of clap & tax...er cop & steal, I mean cap & trade.
> So along w/spewing lies all over the world on CC, how can you possibly leave him out?


 Because he is irrelevant to the science. He makes a good rightwing punching bag though, and a convenient fall-guy when rightwingers want to pretend like they have a clue about climate science.


----------



## kasilofhome

greg273 said:


> There has been found, in the Canadian arctic, a fossil of a tropical turtle that dates from 90 million years ago. Care to guess what the CO2 levels were 90million years ago? They were about 8 times higher than now. Is that the model you want to emulate? Of course, keep in mind due to continental drift the Canadian arctic was more of a mid-latitude location, but still, unless you have gills, you probably don't want to live in a world with no ice caps and 105degree F year-round average temps at the tropics.
> Yep, things change. Especially when one species on earth digs up 250+million years worth of buried sunlight and carbon and pumps it into the atmosphere in a few generations time. Yep, things sure do change.
> Now, if you realize things change, why is it so hard to understand that humans can influence things? I truly do not get the animosity towards the idea... I guess its more about political leaning than anything else, 'ALGORE' hatred and whatnot.
> The natural changes of the earth have ZERO to do with human induced changes.



Fine the man 90 million years ago fleet of cars did they. And what role did man have. Or was man not there and the live cycle of nature simply happen and the earth life's changed or adapted.


----------



## greg273

kasilofhome said:


> Fine the man 90 million years ago fleet of cars did they. And what role did man have. Or was man not there and the live cycle of nature simply happen and the earth life's changed or adapted.


 Right over your head, eh?


----------



## arabian knight

kasilofhome said:


> Fine the man 90 million years ago fleet of cars did they. And what role did man have. Or was man not there and the live cycle of nature simply happen and the earth life's changed or adapted.


Ah yes, and now man is here putting such a MINUTE amount compared to what happened 90 Million Years ago man could not even Come Close to be putting that much in the air even if he TRIED to do so. Ah yes a NATURAL cause and yet some want to still blame man for doing such things. Puppy Feathers.


----------



## greg273

arabian knight said:


> Ah yes, and now man is here putting such a MINUTE amount compared to what happened 90 Million Years ago man could not even Come Close to be putting that much in the air even if he TRIED to do so. Ah yes a NATURAL cause and yet some want to still blame man for doing such things. Puppy Feathers.


 You'll ignore this, just as you've done every time in the past... but I recall a few years ago when this subject came up you claimed volcanoes release more CO2 than mankind does in a given year... And you were proven wrong, by a factor of 100. But ignoring facts and rightwing belief seems to go hand-in-hand.


----------



## DEKE01

greg273 said:


> T Yep, things sure do change.
> Now, if you realize things change, why is it so hard to understand that humans can influence things?


What is the logical connection between just because we accept things change, that humans can influence the change. By your logic, we know the output of the sun fluctuates, therefore man can change the output of the sun. Some things are just to big for us to change.


----------



## greg273

DEKE01 said:


> By your logic, we know the output of the sun fluctuates, therefore man can change the output of the sun.


 That is not what was said, nor meant,nor implied, but you probably knew that. I hope.


----------



## DEKE01

greg273 said:


> That is not what was said, nor meant,nor implied, but you probably knew that. I hope.


I was not saying you think man can change the sun, I was merely demonstrating that your logic did not work when you said, "Now, if you realize things change, why is it so hard to understand that humans can influence things?"


----------



## JeffreyD

Letting the Co2 thing fester is about all ones got left, since so much "science" has been debunked by these so called climate scientists themselves. ....you know....their lies! You can ignore them all you want, the truth is there for those that seek it, and it's not the un! 

Co2 is a life giving gas, to call it a pollutant is pure unadulterated BS!


----------



## Ozarks Tom

greg273 said:


> The natural changes of the earth have ZERO to do with human induced changes.


That's rich. And you can tell the difference between natural and human induced how? Which source can you blame for the past 17 years global temperature not in increasing?

Would you like to present some predictions from 15 years ago that have come to pass? You know, like a computer generated IPCC forecast, polar ice caps melting, polar bears going extinct, sea levels rising by feet, and the other drama meant to scare people into obeying their betters.

Nobody challenges the idea of climate change, the argument is whether mankind's activities influence it in any measurable way. You have to admit, these past years make it difficult for any but the most devout (or devious) to justify disrupting the world's economies on the say so of the "consensus" that is currently being proven wrong.


----------



## kasilofhome

You blame man yet give a pre man example of it happening before and yet you can't grasps that it is natural.
You explain how man knowing the a factor in why things change and think man can and should change it.


----------



## DryHeat

The *logical connection* is that in the case of CO2 levels and overall planetary temperatures, it was *predicted* that human activities involving measured increases of atmospheric CO2 would *correlate* with temperature increases. That's how science works. Make advance predictions of things correlating with a 95% confidence level, IF those predictions are part of an explanatory theory of why it should be happening, and you can feel pretty good about something that could be termed "causation" being involved. Then you go on to tweak your understanding (which should now include ability to present better and better predictive models, like those used to predict cyclone paths) when various more localized anomalies conflict with a more simplistic earlier understanding of what is likely to happen going into the future. 

Some examples of problematic "flies in the ointment" that I'd think would be worth serious attention imo might be:

1) One that I definitely confess to have personally had a simplistic and wrong-headed view of in the past, that of any clear effects on at least Atlantic Basin hurricane formations and strengths during any process of 1-3C global temperature increases. It now seems rather possible to me that rather than a clear equation of (higher temps = more and stronger cyclones), there's a factor of (higher temps = higher windshear) making tropical cyclones in *some* formation pattern areas less likely to get going at all, or keep going and intensifying. Is there some point at which increased water temperatures will just override windshear inhibition, or intensify storms more quickly than we've seen before, start more of them later in the season or in areas that in the past simply haven't had cyclones? I don't know, and I suspect we simply have to wait for the data and build the correlations anew as temperatures rise.

2) The effects of increasing extent and frequency of Arctic ocean ice melting. Is what's been seen recently more/mostly due to coal burning in China (primarily) producing dark ash which landing over the otherwise reflective white snow has caused accelerated melting? That technically would be an effect independent of CO2 gas greenhouse atmospheric effects, but a dangerous synergy in the warming direction. How much of that effect might be extending to Greenland, where *glacial* ice pack warming, should massive chunks slide to the Atlantic, would noticeably impact ocean water levels as well as salinity in that area? And here's another factor that's just basic physical science to keep in mind when thinking about where we are regarding those recent Arctic ocean ice melts: (I think these are about the right unit measurements)... take a gram of water (a gram of ice, a milliliter of liquid water if melted) and start heating it. It *stays* ice right up to the phase shift point where you've applied about 80 calories of heat to that particular chunk, at which time it immediately and quickly turns into water. Apply more heat from *that* point and the ml of H2O becomes warmer (where the ice phase really didn't) right up to where it vaporizes and/or boils. This known process means that for whatever time extent that formerly-ice covered Arctic Ocean area is newly opened and exposed to sunlight, *that* heating effect is immediately and constantly warming the water with efficient heat absorption since the seawater is dark and not very reflective. Warmer water will now be circulating past Greenland into the Atlantic, out the Bering Strait into the Pacific, and washing up over permafrost areas in Siberia, Canada, and such. That direct water warming will be something *new* to the regions and may well even now be accelerating methane releases, both from the ocean floor and permafrost. While methane degrades out of the atmosphere in a few decades as opposed to CO2's span of centuries, it has maybe a 30X multiplier effect on greenhouse effects more than does CO2, per molecule into the air. More methane warms faster, induces yet more methane release, positive feedback snowballing, and we just might then have climate effects piling on much faster than any of the rather mild-mannered present models are predicting. 

3) Accelerating present effects on the oceans. Are rather small upper layer temperature increases the direct cause of extensive coral bleaching and dieoffs, leaching CO2 out of corals' carbonate skeletons? Are basic phytoplankton carbonate cycles being damaged? Ocean circulations and general capacity to absorb atmospheric heat and sequester slightly heated, but massive, bodies of water into deep circulation... plus difficult to measure amounts of ongoing absorption of CO2 from the air into plankton exoskeletons then dropped to the ocean floors as essentially future limestone... have likely been a major buffer stabilizing air CO2 concentrations in spite of decades of insults from human fuel burning. Is there yet more capacity for CO2 and heat in the oceans or are we reaching the limits of these helpful effects?


----------



## Tricky Grama

greg273 said:


> Because he is irrelevant to the science. He makes a good rightwing punching bag though, and a convenient fall-guy when rightwingers want to pretend like they have a clue about climate science.


We all know he's 'irrelevant' but he still is the main driver in all this, for a lot of folks. He's their hero. 

So, tell me more about that fossil w/hi CO2 levels...caused by man, I'm guessing, like now?


----------



## Tricky Grama

arabian knight said:


> Ah yes, and now man is here putting such a MINUTE amount compared to what happened 90 Million Years ago man could not even Come Close to be putting that much in the air even if he TRIED to do so. Ah yes a NATURAL cause and yet some want to still blame man for doing such things. Puppy Feathers.


I'd go google if it mattered to me, but I DID read not too long ago about the volcano in Iceland, ya'll know the one, caused airports to close, stranded folks, etc, & facts are volcanoes cause more greenhouse gases than 'bout anything.

Maybe we could plug 'em w/lefties.

Uh-oh. You're saying that's not the case? So which scientists are right? Are they all supposing?
See, we have a tendency to be skeptical since the '70s yelling was wrong.
Yeah, we cleaned up a bit but the way it was posed, no matter what we did it was still gonna be catastrophic.


----------



## Ozarks Tom

DryHeat said:


> The *logical connection* is that in the case of CO2 levels and overall planetary temperatures, it was *predicted* that human activities involving measured increases of atmospheric CO2 would *correlate* with temperature increases. That's how science works. Make advance predictions of things correlating with a 95% confidence level, IF those predictions are part of an explanatory theory of why it should be happening, and you can feel pretty good about something that could be termed "causation" being involved. Then you go on to tweak your understanding (which should now include ability to present better and better predictive models, like those used to predict cyclone paths) when various more localized anomalies conflict with a more simplistic earlier understanding of what is likely to happen going into the future.
> 
> Some examples of problematic "flies in the ointment" that I'd think would be worth serious attention imo might be:
> 
> 1) One that I definitely confess to have personally had a simplistic and wrong-headed view of in the past, that of any clear effects on at least Atlantic Basin hurricane formations and strengths during any process of 1-3C global temperature increases. It now seems rather possible to me that rather than a clear equation of (higher temps = more and stronger cyclones), there's a factor of (higher temps = higher windshear) making tropical cyclones in *some* formation pattern areas less likely to get going at all, or keep going and intensifying. Is there some point at which increased water temperatures will just override windshear inhibition, or intensify storms more quickly than we've seen before, start more of them later in the season or in areas that in the past simply haven't had cyclones? I don't know, and I suspect we simply have to wait for the data and build the correlations anew as temperatures rise.
> 
> 2) The effects of increasing extent and frequency of Arctic ocean ice melting. Is what's been seen recently more/mostly due to coal burning in China (primarily) producing dark ash which landing over the otherwise reflective white snow has caused accelerated melting? That technically would be an effect independent of CO2 gas greenhouse atmospheric effects, but a dangerous synergy in the warming direction. How much of that effect might be extending to Greenland, where *glacial* ice pack warming, should massive chunks slide to the Atlantic, would noticeably impact ocean water levels as well as salinity in that area? And here's another factor that's just basic physical science to keep in mind when thinking about where we are regarding those recent Arctic ocean ice melts: (I think these are about the right unit measurements)... take a gram of water (a gram of ice, a milliliter of liquid water if melted) and start heating it. It *stays* ice right up to the phase shift point where you've applied about 80 calories of heat to that particular chunk, at which time it immediately and quickly turns into water. Apply more heat from *that* point and the ml of H2O becomes warmer (where the ice phase really didn't) right up to where it vaporizes and/or boils. This known process means that for whatever time extent that formerly-ice covered Arctic Ocean area is newly opened and exposed to sunlight, *that* heating effect is immediately and constantly warming the water with efficient heat absorption since the seawater is dark and not very reflective. Warmer water will now be circulating past Greenland into the Atlantic, out the Bering Strait into the Pacific, and washing up over permafrost areas in Siberia, Canada, and such. That direct water warming will be something *new* to the regions and may well even now be accelerating methane releases, both from the ocean floor and permafrost. While methane degrades out of the atmosphere in a few decades as opposed to CO2's span of centuries, it has maybe a 30X multiplier effect on greenhouse effects more than does CO2, per molecule into the air. More methane warms faster, induces yet more methane release, positive feedback snowballing, and we just might then have climate effects piling on much faster than any of the rather mild-mannered present models are predicting.
> 
> 3) Accelerating present effects on the oceans. Are rather small upper layer temperature increases the direct cause of extensive coral bleaching and dieoffs, leaching CO2 out of corals' carbonate skeletons? Are basic phytoplankton carbonate cycles being damaged? Ocean circulations and general capacity to absorb atmospheric heat and sequester slightly heated, but massive, bodies of water into deep circulation... plus difficult to measure amounts of ongoing absorption of CO2 from the air into plankton exoskeletons then dropped to the ocean floors as essentially future limestone... have likely been a major buffer stabilizing air CO2 concentrations in spite of decades of insults from human fuel burning. Is there yet more capacity for CO2 and heat in the oceans or are we reaching the limits of these helpful effects?


So in a nutshell, nobody knows?


----------



## arabian knight

Tricky Grama said:


> I'd go google if it mattered to me, but I DID read not too long ago about the volcano in Iceland, ya'll know the one, caused airports to close, stranded folks, etc, & facts are volcanoes cause more greenhouse gases than 'bout anything.
> 
> Maybe we could plug 'em w/lefties.
> 
> Uh-oh. You're saying that's not the case? So which scientists are right? Are they all supposing?
> See, we have a tendency to be skeptical since the '70s yelling was wrong.
> Yeah, we cleaned up a bit but the way it was posed, no matter what we did it was still gonna be catastrophic.


Not only that but the activity under the ocean has picked up. Where does that heat go? You guessed it it warms up the water. LOL


----------



## HDRider

greg273 said:


> Because he is irrelevant to the science. He makes a good rightwing punching bag though, and a convenient fall-guy when *right wingers want to pretend like they have a clue* about climate science.


It finally occured to me how much better off the whole world would be if conservative "right wingers" realized how much smarter leftist socilaist are. We can all just sit down, keep quite and let you folks lead the way to the Utopian Nirvanna that we all dream about.

Sorry it took me so long.


----------



## DEKE01

HDRider said:


> It finally occured to me how much better off the whole world would be if conservative "right wingers" realized how much smarter leftist socilaist are. We can all just sit down, keep quite and let you folks lead the way to the Utopian Nirvanna that we all dream about.
> 
> Sorry it took me so long.


HDR, now that you put it that way, I too see the light. It's is going to be a perfect world when the libs finally make sure that from each according to his ability and to each according to his need.


----------



## greg273

HDRider said:


> It finally occured to me how much better off the whole world would be if conservative "right wingers" realized how much smarter leftist socilaist are. We can all just sit down, keep quite and let you folks lead the way to the Utopian Nirvanna that we all dream about.


 It doesn't matter what your politics are,the fact remains CO2 is a greenhouse gas and functions as such in the atmosphere. All the talk of 'its the sun' and other stuff may be partially true, but it does not change the fact that higher levels of greenhouse gasses are most likely going to raise the temperature on the planet. Sorry HD, thats just basic physics and chemistry.


----------



## greg273

Tricky Grama said:


> I'd go google if it mattered to me, but I DID read not too long ago about the volcano in Iceland, ya'll know the one, caused airports to close, stranded folks, etc, & *facts are volcanoes cause more greenhouse gases than 'bout anything.*
> .


 Thats some real scientific figurin' ya done there tricky. Although its not even close to being true.



> Gas studies at volcanoes worldwide have helped volcanologists tally up a global volcanic CO2 budget in the same way that nations around the globe have cooperated to determine how much CO2 is released by human activity through the burning of fossil fuels. Our studies show that globally, volcanoes on land and under the sea release a total of about 200 million tonnes of CO2 annually.
> This seems like a huge amount of CO2, but a visit to the U.S. Department of Energy's Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) website (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/) helps anyone armed with a handheld calculator and a high school chemistry text put the volcanic CO2 tally into perspective. *Because while 200 million tonnes of CO2 is large, the global fossil fuel CO2 emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes. Thus, not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value. *


 http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/archive/2007/07_02_15.html


----------



## arabian knight

Ah yes, a Liberal GOVERNMENT REPORT *usgs.gov/volcanowatch/archive * From what 7 Years ago. Wow how cool is that.

LOL


----------



## Ozarks Tom

greg273 said:


> It doesn't matter what your politics are,the fact remains CO2 is a greenhouse gas and functions as such in the atmosphere. All the talk of 'its the sun' and other stuff *may* *be* partially true, but it does not change the fact that higher levels of greenhouse gasses are *most likely* going to raise the temperature on the planet. Sorry HD, thats just basic physics and chemistry.


Hey, I've got an idea! Lets put the coal mines/coal powered plants, oil companies, and heavy manufacturing out of business because of the "may be" and "most likely" possibility the AGW people aren't really pulling their "facts" out of dark and smelly places.

Parroting theories that haven't proven accurate, then throwing in enough weasel words to deny them later isn't really very convincing.


----------



## DEKE01

greg273 said:


> It doesn't matter what your politics are,the fact remains CO2 is a greenhouse gas and functions as such in the atmosphere. All the talk of 'its the sun' and other stuff may be partially true, but it does not change the fact that higher levels of greenhouse gasses are most likely going to raise the temperature on the planet. Sorry HD, thats just basic physics and chemistry.


so why, when the world had much higher CO2 levels, did the world not continue to heat up? Because there is some natural mechanism(s) that corrects climate to the human-centric "correct" temps when ice ages and whatever you call an opposite ice age. Do you know what those mechanisms are? I honestly don't. 

There are climate scientists today who say that the world can only heat by fractions of a C degree from man made CO2 before the correcting influences come into play. But it's been too long since I read about that to remember the why.


----------



## greg273

arabian knight said:


> Ah yes, a Liberal GOVERNMENT REPORT *usgs.gov/volcanowatch/archive * From what 7 Years ago. Wow how cool is that.
> 
> LOL


 Yeah, put out under the 'liberal' Bush administration. Besides, the numbers haven't changed to any large degree. Human activity still releases about a hundred times more CO2 into the air than all the worlds above ground and undersea volcanoes do on a yearly basis.


----------



## arabian knight

greg273 said:


> Yeah, put out under the 'liberal' Bush administration. Besides, the numbers haven't changed to any large degree. Human activity still releases about a hundred times more CO2 into the air than all the worlds above ground and undersea volcanoes do on a yearly basis.


Does not matter WHO the president is the Government At Large, IS and has been for years, a liberal group of controlling policies! THIS so called GW is just one of them that is so Out Of This World in hyped up fanatics that just want to keep their Government GRANTS coming in~!


----------



## HDRider

greg273 said:


> It doesn't matter what your politics are,the fact remains CO2 is a greenhouse gas and functions as such in the atmosphere. All the talk of 'its the sun' and other stuff may be partially true, but it does not change the fact that higher levels of greenhouse gasses are most likely going to raise the temperature on the planet. Sorry HD, thats just basic physics and chemistry.


Believe me, my politics have no influence over what I believe related to CG. Oh, shoot, sorry,, I'll sit back down. Sorry.


----------



## Paumon

Wheeee!


----------



## kasilofhome

Paumon said:


> Wheeee!


Pretty. Each and every time you put the daily color graph up. It changes all the seasons ...It changes daily it changes want it will never stay the same. It did not remain stable before man and it will not be suddenly stable with man. Temps were much higher and much lower be for man. Maybe just like lots of lifeforms prior to man humans might be predestined to be just a phase in nature.


----------



## Ozarks Tom

Paumon said:


> Wheeee!


Um, has anyone explained the difference between climate and weather to you?


----------



## greg273

Ozarks Tom said:


> Um, has anyone explained the difference between climate and weather to you?


 Why didn't you bust out that comment on the numerous posters complaining about the recent cold snap being 'proof' that global warming is fake?


----------



## kasilofhome

Greg

I 've tried others have tried to explain that the constancy is change.....that is the real pattern of nature. We EVEN TRy to use your own faulted logic to show you that it is a scam the man is at fault.

It the ice ages that never happened followed by warming that never melted to the point screamed that the earth would flood to climate change. Duh weather. 

The scammers got you to buy into cc cause weather happens and too many who bought into the scam were waking up. Remember what a wise saint all Gore was. Now even you guy laugh at him.

Climate change label means no more back peddling for the scammers and any weather event is proof.


----------



## greg273

Yep, change is constant. And we are CHANGING the composition of the atmosphere. Now is it doomsday? I'd say not, we will adapt. Just don't try and tell me that humans are too small to have any effect on the environment. That in itself is nonsense, and it truly arrogant to believe.


----------



## kasilofhome

And changing the composition has happened be for .... even be for man and it will consistently change as earth changes.


----------



## kasilofhome

Man is but a drop in the bucket. As power as the dodo bird. Prove to me that man is need by earth to survive.


----------



## DEKE01

greg273 said:


> Yep, change is constant. And we are CHANGING the composition of the atmosphere. Now is it doomsday? I'd say not, we will adapt. Just don't try and tell me that humans are too small to have any effect on the environment. That in itself is nonsense, and it truly arrogant to believe.


humans are too small to have any effect on the environment.


----------



## Paumon

I found this website last night, it's called the Skeptics Dictionary. It's quite interesting. Here's something from the Science and Technology section of it, about climate change deniers. It's absolutely spot on especially in its description of who cc deniers are and why they are deniers and what their agenda is_._ http://www.skepdic.com/climatedeniers.html


For anyone who's interested, those 500 forest fires that I mentioned 4 days ago burning in the drought stricken north and Arctic have now multiplied. They've gone since Friday from 500 into 2500 wildfires raging out of control. And yes, some of them are now moving swiftly towards the oil fields in Alberta causing additional concern in that regard. It should prove even more interesting if those fires also spark off the methane fields in the Arctic. 

Of course cc deniers will say it's just seasonal weather and these abnormally high temperatures and drought conditions in the Arctic couldn't possibly have anything to do with climate change. But I'm sure that will be small comfort to the fire fighters, rangers, residents and wild life who will have to be dealing with summer fires for the next 3 months or more.


----------



## Twobottom

Yes global warming is REAL. We used to call it summer. According to the climatologists and other experts around the world, we may see climate change rear it's ugly head again in another 4-6 months.


----------



## Twobottom

Paumon said:


> I found this website last night, it's called the Skeptics Dictionary. It's quite interesting. Here's something from the Science and Technology section of it, about climate change deniers. It's absolutely spot on especially in its description of who cc deniers are and why they are deniers and what their agenda is_._ http://www.skepdic.com/climatedeniers.html
> 
> 
> For anyone who's interested, those 500 forest fires that I mentioned 4 days ago burning in the drought stricken north and Arctic have now multiplied. They've gone since Friday from 500 into 2500 wildfires raging out of control. And yes, some of them are now moving swiftly towards the oil fields in Alberta causing additional concern in that regard. It should prove even more interesting if those fires also spark off the methane fields in the Arctic.
> 
> Of course cc deniers will say it's just seasonal weather and these abnormally high temperatures and drought conditions in the Arctic couldn't possibly have anything to do with climate change. But I'm sure that will be small comfort to the fire fighters, rangers, residents and wild life who will have to be dealing with summer fires for the next 3 months or more.


Translation; I scoured the internet to find some random website that agrees with me, and I'm now using that to validate my position as though it were an actual credible and factual piece of data.

There are also some forest fires and other things happening on planet earth which I will also use to back my assertions, regardless of the reality that forest fires, and droughts are neither new nor uncommon on planet earth at any moment in time.


----------



## JeffreyD

Paumon said:


> I found this website last night, it's called the Skeptics Dictionary. It's quite interesting. Here's something from the Science and Technology section of it, about climate change deniers. It's absolutely spot on especially in its description of who cc deniers are and why they are deniers and what their agenda is_._ http://www.skepdic.com/climatedeniers.html
> 
> 
> For anyone who's interested, those 500 forest fires that I mentioned 4 days ago burning in the drought stricken north and Arctic have now multiplied. They've gone since Friday from 500 into 2500 wildfires raging out of control. And yes, some of them are now moving swiftly towards the oil fields in Alberta causing additional concern in that regard. It should prove even more interesting if those fires also spark off the methane fields in the Arctic.
> 
> Of course cc deniers will say it's just seasonal weather and these abnormally high temperatures and drought conditions in the Arctic couldn't possibly have anything to do with climate change. But I'm sure that will be small comfort to the fire fighters, rangers, residents and wild life who will have to be dealing with summer fires for the next 3 months or more.


Robert Carroll.........ound: Of course you find his rants "quite interesting", because it fits your agenda! Remember, he's not even close to being a scientist, he just regurgitated what was spoon fed to him by his idols! Nothing new. And yes I did read his nonsensical rebuttals about "climate change skeptics". He even included quotes from Paul Krugman, the insane economist. Isn't Krugman leaving Princeton in disgrace?


----------



## kasilofhome

Twobottom said:


> Translation; I scoured the internet to find some random website that agrees with me, and I'm now using that to validate my position as though it were an actual credible and factual piece of data.
> 
> There are also some forest fires and other things happening on planet earth which I will also use to back my assertions, regardless of the reality that forest fires, and droughts are neither new nor uncommon on planet earth at any moment in time.


Love that they created a separate dictionary guess the standard one is off base to them. Control the language and you control the masses.


----------



## Paumon

Twobottom said:


> Translation; I scoured the internet to find some random website that agrees with me, and I'm now using that to validate my position as though it were an actual credible and factual piece of data.


Actually I wasn't scouring internet looking for anything that agrees with me since I don't need to do that. I already know all I need to know about climate change to recognize that it's happening and don't have to look for other websites to confirm what I already know. I was reading information on several sites about John of God and happened to stumble across the Skeptics Dictionary which also has information about John of God. And thus I found the articles about cc deniers through happenstance.

Climate change deniers and their agenda have always been an enigma to me but I think what is posted in the Skeptics Dictionary about deniers is spot on in its description of them. If I was a religious person with a religious agenda (which I'm not) I might interpret that as being an indication that deniers are willful sinners and polluters under the thrall of the Evil One, who are also religious in their own denial of climate change and their nefarious agenda to see the world fouled and burning in hell. Just as the deniers are claiming that advocates of global warming have made climate change a religion with a nefarious agenda to deprive the deniers of their guilty pleasures, extravagances and sins.


----------



## kasilofhome

What is it today Gw or cc.


----------



## Paumon

Oh, and just so none of the deniers should flatter themselves, I didn't post that link http://www.skepdic.com/climatedeniers.html for the benefit of the deniers, since the deniers don't need any confirmation of what they are, they already know what they are. I posted it for the benefit of people who recognize that climate change is happening and why it's happening, for those who might also find the deniers to be an enigma as it may give them a slightly better understanding of the denialist psyche and the denialists' agenda of destruction.


----------



## kasilofhome

Or the massive ego of those who want to believe that man is empowered to be greater than nature and the cycle of evolving environment that has been going on since beginning of time. Ice ages are know prior to man and atmosphere gas levels have changed prior to man heat levels have been higher prior to man species have died off prior to man fires happened prior to man. Seems like nature is on scheduled for events as usual......Change but we humans are not on the for nature to give us heads up.


----------



## Paumon

That sounds like a broken record stuck in a rut repeating the same old, same old out dated and pointless rhetoric over and over again. :bored: I'd like to see some original thought if that's possible.


----------



## Evons hubby

Paumon said:


> That sounds like a broken record stuck in a rut repeating the same old, same old out dated and pointless rhetoric over and over again. :bored: I'd like to see some original thought if that's possible.


I agree with you on this completely.... the global warming crowd really needs to come up with something new... since all of their old "science" has been blown out of the water when most of their data was proven to be falsified a long time ago.


----------



## arabian knight

Paumon said:


> That sounds like a broken record stuck in a rut repeating the same old, same old out dated and pointless rhetoric over and over again. :bored: I'd like to see some original thought if that's possible.


 Records show that there are less triple digits today, then in decades past.
Lets get these daily weather maps a erase, because day to day weather maps do not tell what is happening, is going to happen or has been happening. But a Study that says there is LESS Triple temps now then in years past IS a true test that GW is a cooked up hyped up case of nothing there but empty promises, and empty truths that never have come true over the years. Like More Hurricanes more powerful hurricanes and such things as that. It is not happening.
Just like several years ago oh my ice age a coming. Phooey stats that have not materialized in fact just the Opposite is happening.
But Wait. That is because of GW is happening. makes me want to laugh a lot. LOL


----------



## Paumon

Why do deniers need to fall back on old records and graphs and scientific data about the past when the evidence of climate change happening now is already jumping up and slapping people silly in the face? Do deniers not trust their own senses? Do they prefer to be stuck in the past rather than face up to the present and the future? Is it easier for them to live with heads stuck in the sand so that their senses and their common sense are dulled and they won't have to look at the truth of what's happening all around them? Is willful ignorance bliss? Contrarians indeed, simply for the sake of being contrary and not wanting to own up and accept responsibility for man's own guilty excesses and mistakes.


----------



## kasilofhome

Cause logic is best when historical facts are used to for decisions.


----------



## JeffreyD

Paumon said:


> Why do deniers need to fall back on old records and graphs and scientific data about the past when the evidence of climate change happening now is already jumping up and slapping people silly in the face? Do deniers not trust their own senses? Do they prefer to be stuck in the past rather than face up to the present and the future? Is it easier for them to live with heads stuck in the sand so that their senses and their common sense are dulled and they won't have to look at the truth of what's happening all around them? Is willful ignorance bliss? Contrarians indeed, simply for the sake of being contrary and not wanting to own up and accept responsibility for man's own guilty excesses and mistakes.


I just don't see anything happening around me or my properties. California has always had droughts, the government is making it worse by allowing thousands of new homes and millions of illegal aliens to have access to our water supplies! Nothing new! Property in Tehachapi. ...same. Property in Idaho. ....same. Beach house in Oxnard.......same. Manufacturing facility in AZ. ......same! Average temps here in Valley Village. ...lower than normal!

If global warming is such a problem, why do those that worship it, have to lie about their "scientific research"? And why are there so many "climate scientists" that refute the IPCC statistics? Many of those so called "scientists"...like James Hansen are paid to find "certain" facts and ignore others....why?

With that in mind....what exactly do you want me to do about it that won't cost me a single penny! I already pay more than half of what I make in taxes or fees of one sort or another, also, I'm not willing to reduce my standard of living because some pseudo scientists say so! Must suck to be them and be so unhappy that they can't have their elitist ways and put people into poverty so they can be the overlords!

so, let's use the fantastic resources that the earth has to offer before it's destroyed by an asteroid or comet! Live life and be happy!!!!!! 

In the meantime, I'm a happy camper! Remember. .....asteroid! !!!!


----------



## kasilofhome

Now, why do those who believe that _______(what ever is the name today) fail to look back to history but have the sheer gall to change their results but not the reason......Control.

Ice age ....bad man
Hell on earth....bad man
Anything goes.....bad man

But our graph prove our point.... Yep simply turn the graph upside down then back up.

Going on fifty years of its all due to man and forget all of the era's and periods the earth went thru before man. Even when man arrived yet prior to gas combustion engine and much lower population.....climate went thru changes.

The sun not shining where some heads end up.


----------



## arabian knight

*Melted road at Yellowstone fuels more fears supervolcano growing restless*










> July 2014 â YELLOWSTONE â A road has been seriously damaged from extreme heat in the Yellowstone National Park, forcing park officials to shut off access. Firehole Lake Driveâs surface looks like itâs melting from the heat. Park officials said in a press release that extreme heat from surrounding thermal areas has caused thick oil to bubble to the surface, damaging the blacktop and creating unsafe driving conditions on the popular and scenic road off the Grand Loop Road halfway between Old Faithful and Madison Junction in the parkâs Lower Geyser Basin.


 And if Yellowstone does blow we sure won't have to worry about GW for years and years and years to come.

But i am sure there are SOME GW folks that WILL blame this on GW and MAN has been the cause of Yellowstone getting HOTTER~! LOL


http://theextinctionprotocol.wordpress.com/2014/07/11/melted-road-at-yellowstone-fuels-more-concerns-supervolcano-growing-restless/


----------



## Twobottom

Paumon said:


> That sounds like a broken record stuck in a rut repeating the same old, same old out dated and pointless rhetoric over and over again. :bored: I'd like to see some original thought if that's possible.


So jumping on the bandwagon of global warming is original thought? Posting some website's definitions and terms for people who don't think like you do is original thought?

Can you name one issue where you are not in lock step with the talking points of the left? I haven't seen it. Every post and reply reads like a script straight from "think progress" or msnbc...guns bad, capitalism bad, global warming, more taxes, more government, etc

Where's your original thought?? I don't see it. I see someone who has chosen a team ( out of a choice of two ) and regurgitates all of their talking points. Show me some original thought and I'll respond, tired of these hackneyed, scripted, partisan arguments.


----------



## Tricky Grama

JeffreyD said:


> Robert Carroll.........ound: Of course you find his rants "quite interesting", because it fits your agenda! Remember, he's not even close to being a scientist, he just regurgitated what was spoon fed to him by his idols! Nothing new. And yes I did read his nonsensical rebuttals about "climate change skeptics". He even included quotes from Paul Krugman, the insane economist. Isn't Krugman leaving Princeton in disgrace?


BWHahaha! Paul Krugman!?!?!?
Wow, desperate times call for desperate means...that idiot!? So far left I'd thought he'd fallen off the earth. 
(Whoops  )


----------



## Twobottom

Yes global warming is a threat but what are we going to do about the possibility that the apes are evolving and challenging our authority? I think we need to put together an ape task force and charge ape tax credits to banana companies to stop this threat. Let's issue millions in grants to scientists with the promise of more grants for further study if they find any evidence that this threat is legitimate.

Now there may be some ape deniers out there, rouge scientists who aren't on the payroll and ignorant people who will cling to facts and point out that apes haven't changed in their own life time. These people are ignorant, clinging to history and the past. Apes are changing NOW. According to the scientists who are being paid to find evidence about the ape threat, ape intelligence is accelerating. Ape deniers are merely under the thrall of big zoo interests who are making billions.


----------



## greg273

Twobottom said:


> Yes global warming is a threat but what are we going to do about the possibility that the apes are evolving and challenging our authority? I think we need to put together an ape task force and charge ape tax credits to banana companies to stop this threat. Let's issue millions in grants to scientists with the promise of more grants for further study if they find any evidence that this threat is legitimate.
> 
> Now there may be some ape deniers out there, rouge scientists who aren't on the payroll and ignorant people who will cling to facts and point out that apes haven't changed in their own life time. These people are ignorant, clinging to history and the past. Apes are changing NOW. According to the scientists who are being paid to find evidence about the ape threat, ape intelligence is accelerating. Ape deniers are merely under the thrall of big zoo interests who are making billions.


 Aw, did somebody stay up late watching the new Planet of the Apes movie?


----------



## Twobottom

greg273 said:


> Aw, did somebody stay up late watching the new Planet of the Apes movie?


Actually yeah... and it was awesome:gaptooth:

I was actually rooting for the apes, not sure if thats wrong but probably best not to over analyze it:banana:


----------



## Paumon

Twobottom said:


> So jumping on the bandwagon of global warming is original thought? Posting some website's definitions and terms for people who don't think like you do is original thought?


I agree with what that person wrote about climate change deniers. It seems like a very accurate summation of the denier mentality from what I've seen evidenced online, and obviously it has hit a few nerves here judging by the reaction to it. If it has hit raw nerves so sharply and stings so much then I think there can only be truth to it and the deniers are feeling guilty and defensive about it. It certainly was enlightening for me about where American deniers stand.



Twobottom said:


> Can you name one issue where you are not in lock step with the talking points of the* left*? I haven't seen it. Every post and reply reads like *a script straight from "think progress" or msnbc...guns bad, capitalism bad, global warming, more taxes, more government,* etc
> 
> Where's your original thought?? I don't see it. I see someone who has chosen a *team* ( *out of a choice of two* ) and regurgitates all of their talking points. Show me some original thought and I'll respond, tired of these hackneyed, scripted, *partisan* arguments.


I'm going to say something here that is not intended as an insult but as an honest statement of fact that needs to be said, because I think there's something important that you don't understand about non-Americans. 

You've directed your comments to a non-American who lives in a different country where the American concept of duality and polar opposites in all things is a foreign concept and a mystery to all non-Americans. To us the American people's extremely dichotomous lack of unity (left vs. right, liberal vs. conservative, good vs. bad, polar opposite bi-partisanship, us vs. them, etc.) is viewed by us and most people in other foreign countries as an incomprehensible and unhealthy national schism and mental aberration. Most of us believe that your lack of unity will bring about your self-destruction.

As somebody who can't relate to such a disturbing schism in so many aspects of the society I can't really respond to all of your charges except to say if your charges are how you perceive me to be then in your mind you are correct about me because that's the only way you know how to think. But your national schism and your perception of me as something opposite from you is irrelevant to me, it's only important to you because that's how you live and think, and I don't live and think the same way. 

As to choosing a team, all I can say is that for me there can be only one team, and that is team earth. There are no other teams. You're either for earth or against earth and if you're against it you don't belong nor deserve to be living on it and should become extinct on earth.


----------



## Twobottom

Paumon said:


> .....
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to say something here that is not intended as an insult but as an honest statement of fact that needs to be said, because I think there's something important that you don't understand about non-Americans.
> 
> You've directed your comments to a non-American who lives in a different country where the American concept of duality and polar opposites in all things is a foreign concept and a mystery to all non-Americans. To us the American people's extremely dichotomous lack of unity (left vs. right, liberal vs. conservative, good vs. bad, polar opposite bi-partisanship, us vs. them, etc.) is viewed by us and most people in other foreign countries as an incomprehensible and unhealthy national schism and mental aberration. Most of us believe that your lack of unity will bring about your destruction.
> 
> As somebody who can't relate to such a disturbing schism in so many aspects of the society I can't really respond to all of your charges except to say if your charges are how you perceive me to be then in your mind you are correct about me because that's the only way you know how to think. But your national schism and your perception of me as something opposite from you is irrelevant to me, it's only important to you because that's how you live and think, and I don't live and think the same way.
> 
> .....


Thats odd, because here in America we would view an entire nation that thinks in lock step as being a very unhealthy nation. Disagreement and understanding that not everybody thinks, acts and wants the same things as us is the reason why we believe that freedom is so important.

I think the Nazis tried ( and were very successful ) at producing a nationalistic society where everybody conformed to the same standard. I don't think that can be considered a healthy society. Furthermore, I think your description of "duality" in America is off base. Duality implies "two", but in fact here in America we have great diversity of thought, culture, and lifestyle. We are not all the same, we are urbanites, rural folk, libertarians, liberals, conservatives, anarchists, socialists, religious people of all types, atheists, and etc, etc, etc Too many to list here. In America we believe that the individual has the right to his own opinions about what is right and what is wrong.

I'm sorry your country has pushed nationalism and conformity of thought on your people, I am very concerned with this. No matter what you are being told by your government, there are many, many philosophies of politics and life and nobody as of yet has been able to prove one as being absolutely correct. If you are being told what think, and that other people who disagree are "wrong" and "bad" then you live in a very oppressive, tyrannical environment and I'm sorry for you. Tell me, if it won't get you into too much trouble...what country are you from?


----------



## DEKE01

Paumon said:


> obviously it has hit a few nerves here judging by the reaction to it. If it has hit raw nerves so sharply and stings so much then I think there can only be truth to it and the deniers are feeling guilty and defensive about it.


You logic continues to be self serving and wrong. If I started a thread that says Paumon is a child mo****er* would you allow it to stand or would you strongly react and reject it? Remember, "If it has hit raw nerves so sharply and stings so much then I think there can only be truth to it and the deniers are feeling guilty and defensive about it."

This is a forum where we discuss things. I could just as easily say that your reaction to my opinion that AGW is a religion is proof that there is truth to it. 




*note: I did not want in any way to leave a trace that accuses Paumon of a vile crime so I masked the spelling and in now way am I implying that there is any truth to it.


----------



## Paumon

Twobottom said:


> ...... Tell me, if it won't get you into too much trouble...what country are you from?


If you really have to ask that question then it means you haven't read through this topic in its entirety, and that means you've missed out on a lot that has been discussed. It also means that you don't know the meaning of the word "location" which is clearly stated in the upper right corner on the posts of each person who fills in their location in their profile. Which you have not done yourself, so maybe you have something guilty to hide? In any case if you can't be bothered to read and comprehend the entire thread before throwing in your two bits then what's the point of anyone having a conversation with you when you're going off half cocked?



DEKE01 said:


> ...... If I started a thread that says Paumon is a child mo****er* would you allow it to stand or would you strongly react and reject it?
> 
> *note: I did not want in any way to leave a trace that accuses Paumon of a vile crime so I masked the spelling and in now way am I implying that there is any truth to it.


In truth I'd get a laugh out of that and then ignore it as most other readers here would also ignore it. I have more than enough opinionated posts on HT that would indicate without a doubt that I'm anything but a child molester. If somebody else objected to your posted allegations they could report it to the moderator. Maybe you should try it and see whether or not it gets you banned from the forum.


----------



## Twobottom

> If you really have to ask that question then it means you haven't read through this topic in its entirety, and that means you've missed out on a lot that has been discussed. It also means that you don't know the meaning of the word "location" which is clearly stated in the upper right corner on the posts of each person who fills in their location in their profile. Which you have not done yourself, so maybe you have something guilty to hide? In any case if you can't be bothered to read and comprehend the entire thread before throwing in your two bits then what's the point of anyone having a conversation with you when you're going off half cocked?



Oh I see. Well I saw the B.C location up there but it sounded more like North Korea the way you described it. I would never have thought that all Canadians were marching in lock step as a collective.

Wasn't the whole point about individual thought? How can you claim that everybody thinks the same way where you are from but then criticize Americans for lack of independent thought? Wouldn't diversity of opinion be evidence of a greater variety of ideas?


----------



## Twobottom

> *I'd like to see some original thought if that's possible*





> You've directed your comments to a non-American who lives in a different country where the American concept of duality and polar opposites in all things is a foreign concept and a mystery to all non-Americans. *To us the American people's extremely dichotomous lack of unity (left vs. right, liberal vs. conservative, good vs. bad, polar opposite bi-partisanship, us vs. them, etc.) is viewed by us and most people in other foreign countries as an incomprehensible*



Seem to be saying that you want original, independent, individual thought...yet at the same time criticizing Americans for not all believing the same thing. Not trying to beat up on you, I know you're out numbered and taking a stand for something you truly do believe in. But as an American, and as someone who isn't completely sold on global warming...this type of logic kind of puts us in an impossible situation doesn't it?

Sounds like you want original, independent thought that completely mirrors your own or it's no good.


----------



## Paumon

I think you've just proven to me than you don't know what's really happening outside of your own bubble.

_An-nyeong-hi gye-se-yo_, I have to depart to the community gardens to teach the neighbourhood children about climate change now. :cowboy:


----------



## arabian knight

I just hope that those that listen especially young ones, can and do know the difference between hyped of nonsense and the scientific truth done by true scientists not just those that want to get free government grant monies.


----------



## JeffreyD

arabian knight said:


> I just hope that those that listen especially young ones, can and do know the difference between hyped of nonsense and the scientific truth done by true scientists not just those that want to get free government grant monies.


Come on AK, we all know that socialists like to indoctrinate young children because of their fresh, open minds. The stronger minds will see the charade and seek the truth, the gullible will fall for the religion! The truth means nothing to these pseudo intellectuals because their religious fervor prevents them from acknowledging anything but their own greed!


----------



## DEKE01

Paumon said:


> In truth I'd get a laugh out of that and then ignore it as most other readers here would also ignore it. I have more than enough opinionated posts on HT that would indicate without a doubt that I'm anything but a child molester. If somebody else objected to your posted allegations they could report it to the moderator. Maybe you should try it and see whether or not it gets you banned from the forum.


In truth? You need to be more honest with yourself. why did you make a point to deny it a simply what if? Why did you feel a need to make a veiled threat? See, your logic is flawed.


----------



## Twobottom

DEKE01 said:


> See, your logic is flawed.


Therein lies the root of it all doesn't it? Repeated attempts at using logic are clearly futile. She does not want to engage in a rational debate or follow a line of logic. She will disengage when a logical process leads to a conclusion that she doesn't want to believe. Like a kid that covers his ears when he doesn't want to hear what you are telling him. Waste of time. She's deeply emotionally attached to her ideas and no amount of facts, logic, or rational thinking will change it. That level of indoctrination can be very difficult to undo.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Well, all I can say is, if AlGoreW and Paul Krugman were MY guys to follow, right there I'd quit.


----------



## JeffreyD

Tricky Grama said:


> Well, all I can say is, if AlGoreW and Paul Krugman were MY guys to follow, right there I'd quit.


:goodjob:ound:

That....was funny!


----------



## unregistered358967

Twobottom said:


> . She does not want to engage in a rational debate or follow a line of logic. She will disengage when a logical process leads to a conclusion that she doesn't want to believe. ....



I'm impressed-I never can figure out genders on this forum. For all you know , I'm a dude. 

Carry on.


----------



## kasilofhome

Jax-mom said:


> I'm impressed-I never can figure out genders on this forum. For all you know , I'm a dude.
> 
> Carry on.


These days with these laws ones gender is as flexible as the climate issue...one day its "ice age returning". Next it is gobel warming. Now it just going to change.


----------



## Twobottom

Jax-mom said:


> I'm impressed-I never can figure out genders on this forum. For all you know , I'm a dude.
> 
> Carry on.


LOL well "formerly less is more" you might have been a dude,,,but I'll leave that one to the imagination.


----------



## unregistered358967

Deleted. Off topic even more.


----------



## HDRider

Jax-mom said:


> I'm impressed-I never can figure out genders on this forum. For all you know , I'm a dude.
> 
> Carry on.


You lost me. They were talking about Paumon, a she.


----------



## JeffreyD

Jax-mom said:


> I'm impressed-I never can figure out genders on this forum. For all you know , I'm a dude.
> 
> Carry on.


Except. ....Jax MOM kinda gives it away!  It is hard to tell sometimes! For all we know, your Jax..DAD and posting under mom's account!


----------



## Paumon

I have a question for you folks - what's you opinion about coal rolling? Do you or would you do it if you have the means? This is not about whether or not you have the right to do it (it's not illegal), it's more about whether or not you would do it because you approve of it as a worthwhile thing to do as a way of sticking it to your president, the liberals and the clean environment movement? 

I understand from several news broadcasts and articles that coal rolling on city streets and highways across the country has become very popular lately with conservative anti-environmentalist activists. They trick out their trucks to blow thick black soot to make their statement against environmentalism.


----------



## HDRider

How about










or










or


----------



## DEKE01

coal rolling? never heard of it. 

I doubt there is enough of it to get too worked up about. I also doubt it has much to do with conservative anti-enviros, that's probably just your bias showing again, radical libs do that sort of thing a lot. :happy:

Kinda stupid, but probably not the worst thing a lot of young men will do before they grow up. Over the decades there have been all sorts of nonsense things young men, mostly, have done to trick out cars and trucks. This is probably just another one of those fads and will soon pass.


----------



## Twobottom

http://www.vice.com/read/nothing-wrong-with-rolling-coal-711



> Rolling coal is not a new phenomenon. The trend stems from truck-pull competitions popular at county fairs and rural speedways, in which two diesel trucks face off to see which one can carry a weighted sled the farthest. To increase power and speed, truck-pull drivers modify their vehicles to dump excess fuel into the motor, which has the added effect of making the trucks emit clouds of soot. It&#8217;s an impressive effect&#8212;a sort of visible manifestation of the vehicle&#8217;s power and speed. Unsurprisingly, other pickup enthusiasts (mostly teenage boys) have tried to recreate the show, coughing up anywhere between $500 and $5,000 to make their car smoke. The motivations aren&#8217;t complicated: It looks cool, and it&#8217;s funny to roll coal on babes.





> It&#8217;s that last one that has really lathered up progressive hysteria. With the help of this post from Slate&#8217;s David Weigel, coal rolling has morphed from gearhead gimmick and occasional road-rage weapon into some kind of far-right political protest, akin to bringing an assault weapon to Chipotle or camping out at Bundy Ranch. &#8220;The motivation,&#8221; Weigel wrote, &#8220;is roughly the same one that gets people buying guns and ammo after mass shootings.&#8221; Talking Points Memo editor Josh Marshall chimed in: &#8220;Not sure I've seen much that better captures the cultural moment than this,&#8221; he wrote in a blog post. The liberal blogosphere uniformly agreed, albeit more shrilly: Coal rolling, their argument goes, is just another right-wing *insult* to Barack Obama, environmentalists, and the actual environment.


----------



## Twobottom

I wonder if Paumon's location has alot to do with her beliefs? How many of you reading this are aware that one of Canada's largest media outlets is actually openly owned and run by their government?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Broadcasting_Corporation

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is openly owned by the government and is notoriously slanted deeply left. So here you have millions of people sitting down every night to have their information spoon fed to them by their government. This is really frightening. You would have alot of people simply believing that their government's slant on reality is simply 'the news', and when they hear information from other sources that runs so contrary to what they are hearing at home, what must they think? They have to make a choice to believe that either they are being manipulated ( a very uncomfortable thing to consider ) or they can choose to believe that you are being manipulated ( a much more comfortable solution for most people ).

Many would not want to acknowledge the conflict of interests that exists in a government owned news source. Common sense and historical precedent should tell us that this is blatantly unethical and conflicts with the concept of free and independent press. The existence of a government run media even compromises the freedom of those outlets that are not run by CBC.

I have become less interested in global warming as an issue, and more and more interested in the mental process that drives people to accept extreme partisan ideals without question and with deep emotional loyalty. These are people that build a foundation of beliefs upon which their entire view of reality rests. When someone or something threatens that foundation they will react either by blocking out the offending idea completely from their conscious, or by lashing out emotionally. When their emotional attacks are met and dissolved by cool logic or indisputable facts, they will often jump to new topics without ever acknowledging the previous ones or admitting their logical errors. Eventually, when all else fails, it usually ends in personal attacks and insults.


----------



## unregistered358967

Maybe..the only Canadian I know works for the CBC and is a flaming liberal...but it's far reaching to apply this to everyone.

However, I lived in the other C-land, California and adopted some new ideas much to the chagrin of my far-right father. He thinks I ate too many fruits and nuts. :smack There's a lot of things we agree to disagree on, both socially and environmentally.

But yes, I agree we are very often a product of what we're spoon fed, so to speak.


----------



## kasilofhome

I sure wish Canada got up to spread on recycling. I saw in the wiki that Canada is really failing the antipollution movement big time in this area. Maybe more of them who care should focus their time and energy dealing with their problems. 

Google problems in Canada. Seem it not heaven on earth.


----------



## greg273

Twobottom said:


> I wonder if Paumon's location has alot to do with her beliefs? How many of you reading this are aware that one of Canada's largest media outlets is actually openly owned and run by their government?
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Broadcasting_Corporation
> 
> The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is openly owned by the government and is notoriously slanted deeply left. So here you have millions of people sitting down every night to have their information spoon fed to them by their government. This is really frightening. You would have alot of people simply believing that their government's slant on reality is simply 'the news', and when they hear information from other sources that runs so contrary to what they are hearing at home, what must they think? They have to make a choice to believe that either they are being manipulated ( a very uncomfortable thing to consider ) or they can choose to believe that you are being manipulated ( a much more comfortable solution for most people ).
> 
> Many would not want to acknowledge the conflict of interests that exists in a government owned news source. Common sense and historical precedent should tell us that this is blatantly unethical and conflicts with the concept of free and independent press. The existence of a government run media even compromises the freedom of those outlets that are not run by CBC.
> 
> I have become less interested in global warming as an issue, and more and more interested in the mental process that drives people to accept extreme partisan ideals without question and with deep emotional loyalty. These are people that build a foundation of beliefs upon which their entire view of reality rests. When someone or something threatens that foundation they will react either by blocking out the offending idea completely from their conscious, or by lashing out emotionally. When their emotional attacks are met and dissolved by cool logic or indisputable facts, they will often jump to new topics without ever acknowledging the previous ones or admitting their logical errors. Eventually, when all else fails, it usually ends in personal attacks and insults.


 Interesting post... now maybe you can tell me why CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. 
Nice ending to your post... You basically called Paumon and liberal government-controlled robot, then claim others are resorting to personal attacks. Fascinating.


----------



## kasilofhome

And it is also the label Mr. Maguire gave it a foundation gas of live.

The labels the green is use (greenie is a label....so is environmentalist ) like to use labels they create that are to scares people to conform.


----------



## Paumon

greg273 said:


> Interesting post... now maybe you can tell me why CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.
> Nice ending to your post... You basically called Paumon a liberal government-controlled robot, then claim others are resorting to personal attacks. Fascinating.


I thought it was a good effort at propagandizing.... but not quite good enough. He didn't do his homework about Canadian media and he apparently believes that CBC is the only media corporation operating in Canada and that ALL citizens are tuned in to only CBC. I thought that was funny. On the other hand ..... maybe he actually knows the facts of the matter and in his effort to propagandize and be misleading of others who are ignorant, he deliberately didn't mention the whole of it. 

He was correct about one thing though. CBC is the one and only government owned media corporation in Canada. All the others are not government owned (I think there's something like around 100 of them operating in Canada at this time but there might be more). And not all of them are Canadian corporations, several are internationally owned corporations from several other countries, including 5 or 6 American owned media corporations operating in Canada. 

So Canada gets it's media services and news from all over the world to cater to everyone, including service to the diverse non-English speaking immigrants who get news from their old mother countries in their own mother country languages from North and South Asia, all the European countries, United Kingdom, the Middle East, South America, etc. etc.

Not to mention the world wide web.... :happy2: ....... but that's a whole 'nother kettle of media fish altogether because it's not governed by the same kind of regulations that govern all other recognized forms of international media.


----------



## Paumon

Twobottom said:


> I have become less interested in global warming as an issue, and more and more interested in the mental process that drives people to accept extreme partisan ideals without question and with deep emotional loyalty. These are people that build a foundation of beliefs upon which their entire view of reality rests. When someone or something threatens that foundation they will react either by blocking out the offending idea completely from their conscious, or by lashing out emotionally. When their emotional attacks are met and dissolved by cool logic or indisputable facts, they will often jump to new topics without ever acknowledging the previous ones or admitting their logical errors. Eventually, when all else fails, it usually ends in personal attacks and insults.


You said that very well. I'm glad you posted that because I think every word of that is the truth and that it can apply to everybody who has strong beliefs about anything. That includes the people who are so dead set against letting themselves recognize the extreme climate changes that are happening already.


----------



## Paumon

Jax-mom said:


> ......the only Canadian I know works for the CBC and is a flaming liberal...but it's far reaching to apply this to everyone.


I'm glad you mentioned this too. It's not far reaching because by American standards ALL Canadians really are liberal, so yes, it can be applied to everyone in Canada. From flaming liberal to conservatively liberal, all Canadians and all of the many Canadian political parties are liberal to various degrees. Liberal isn't a dirty word or an insult in Canada the way American conservatives have made it into a dirty, insulting word, and liberal and conservative both have meanings to Canadians that are very different from the meanings they have for Americans. Canada is a liberal country, it's reknowned around the world for its liberalness and progressiveness and is very, very proud of its reputation for it too. :happy:


----------



## JeffreyD

greg273 said:


> Interesting post... now maybe you can tell me why CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.
> Nice ending to your post... You basically called Paumon and liberal government-controlled robot, then claim others are resorting to personal attacks. Fascinating.


Co2 is necessary to life on earth, it may be a greenhouse gas, but it's no where near a pollutant, and there for no regulation is needed!


----------



## MO_cows

Let's come back from over the rainbow. Canadians aren't the Borg, they are human beings. There is wide variation in thoughts, opinions and attitudes. That's why there are multiple political parties, that's why Quebec clings to its "French-ness" and threatens to secede, that's why there are so many media outlets like you were bragging about earlier. One person can't possibly speak for a whole country, unless it's a dictatorship and you are the dictator. 

I have worked with a few Canadian ranchers, and trust me, they tend to run just as conservative as the American ones!

Even though it can get messy and downright ugly, having the extreme left and right is what brings about balance and truth, ultimately. Even though I lean more to the right/libertarian viewpoint personally, I don't want to left to disappear from the face of the earth. I just don't want them to run amuck and take us as far over to "their" side as they have. It's time for the pendulum to swing the other way in this country.

I am a global warming skeptic. We just don't have enough information to be making such extreme predictions and turning people's lives upside down that "the sky is falling". Too much speculation and extrapolation. And, the fact that so much money and control is attached to believing in global warming makes me all the more skeptical. Seems like everyone who is shrieking about it, has something to gain from it. Big red flag.

I am not a "denier", that is a derogatory term. I won't call you a greenie weenie, you won't call me denier, deal?


----------



## Paumon

MO_cows said:


> .... I am not a "denier", that is a derogatory term. I won't call you a greenie weenie, you won't call me denier, deal?


Respect to you, but with all due respect I can't agree to a deal like that. Maybe it's due to a cultural difference or something but to me the word denier is not a derogatory term and there's nothing politically incorrect about it, no more so than unbeliever would be considered a derogatory term to Christians. Or so they _say_ it's not intended to be derogatory ..... but who knows with them? I've had my doubts about that and maybe it can go both ways the way "bless your heart" can go both ways as either an insult or a real blessing in the south. 

To me denier is just a word that accurately and appropriately describes a person who is in denial about something and therefore I will continue to use denier correctly to describe people who are in denial about climate change.

You can call me a greenie if you want and I'm okay with that because it's the truth ..... I am a proud environmental greenie.... and politically I've even voted for the Green party on occassion (although I most often vote for our Conservative party). :grin: But maybe greenie means something different to Americans? If so maybe someone can enlighten me about what greenie means in America. 

You can also call me a weenie if you want to but it would be meaningless to me because I'm a woman. I don't have a weenie by that name nor any other derogatory name that people can think of for it. But maybe weenie also means something different in America?


----------



## Evons hubby

Paumon said:


> the word denier is not a derogatory term and there's nothing politically incorrect about it,
> 
> To me denier is just a word that accurately and appropriately describes a person who is in denial about something
> 
> maybe weenie also means something different in America?


Ok, this seems fair enough.... so you wont mind being called a denier.... since you seem to be in denial about the global warming scam having been proven false several years back. 

Weenie has several meanings down here in the USA... its a breed of dog, its also a nickname for a snack food at backyard social gatherings as well as being a term used to describe someone of a rather gutless nature. (see also woosie, wimp, or coward) I havent heard anyone above about age eight use the term weenie to describe any part of anyones anatomy other than a few mothers while talking to small children.


----------



## Paumon

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ok, this seems fair enough.... so you wont mind being called a denier.... since you seem to be in denial about the global warming scam having been proven false several years back.
> 
> Weenie has several meanings down here in the USA... its *a breed of dog*, its also a nickname for *a snack food* at backyard social gatherings as well as being a term used to describe someone of a rather *gutless* nature. (see also woosie, wimp, or coward) I havent heard anyone above about age eight use the term weenie to describe any part of anyones anatomy other than a few mothers while talking to small children.


Fire away then. I vehemently deny that climate change and greenhouse warming is not happening so feel free to call me a denier. 

A breed of dog, eh? I've been called a gutless ***** before but never a snack food. If it pleases some here to call me a child molester or a gutless ***** or a snack food I think that says more about the immaturity and poor character of the name callers than it says about my environmental beliefs, but whatever turns their cranks .... :hohum: ..... It's more harmful to the name callers than it is to me as it only shows up the name callers as small and ignorant. GC is no longer a closed forum now, "Signs of Climate Change" is a popular topic and this thread now shows up on google searches and has a lot of views and the world is watching to see what comes next and who can make the worst fool of themself, so y'all can fill your boots.


----------



## Evons hubby

Paumon said:


> Fire away then. I vehemently deny that climate change and greenhouse warming is not happening so feel free to call me a denier.
> 
> A breed of dog, eh? I've been called a gutless ***** before but never a snack food. If it pleases some here to call me a child molester or a gutless ***** or a snack food I think that says more about the immaturity and poor character of the name callers than it says about my environmental beliefs, but whatever turns their cranks .... :hohum: ..... It's more harmful to the name callers than it is to me as it only shows up the name callers as small and ignorant. GC is no longer a closed forum now, "Signs of Climate Change" is a popular topic and this thread now shows up on google searches and has a lot of views and the world is watching to see what comes next and who can make the worst fool of themself, so y'all can fill your boots.


Here now.... I wasnt calling anyone names... I was simply putting the terms and definitions in order for you. Heck, I even understand that our climate is changing, and it has been for a very long time... we are just coming out of another ice age.... the earth has be going thru these cycles for eons. A few thousand years of ice buildup then a long gradual thaw. The thing I dont buy into is that man and his doings have much to do with it. I also dont see much sense in attempting to stop it.... this old world was here a long long time before we got here, and it will be right here doing its thing long after we are gone. In the meantime.... I plan to keep right on flippin my light switches, warming my toes in front of my fireplace (fueled with natural gas) driving my automobiles, and living a decent lifestyle. I figure I have done my part in the world conservation effort.... I opted out of reproducing more consumers of resources.


----------



## Paumon

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Here now.... I wasnt calling anyone names... I was simply putting the terms and definitions in order for you.


I know you weren't YH. You've always been a perfect gentleman who doesn't stoop to petty name-calling. I appreciate you putting the terms and definitions in order for me. :kiss:


----------



## Tricky Grama

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ok, this seems fair enough.... so you wont mind being called a denier.... since you seem to be in denial about the global warming scam having been proven false several years back.
> 
> Weenie has several meanings down here in the USA... its a breed of dog, its also a nickname for a snack food at backyard social gatherings as well as being a term used to describe someone of a rather gutless nature. (see also woosie, wimp, or coward) I havent heard anyone above about age eight use the term weenie to describe any part of anyones anatomy other than a few mothers while talking to small children.


Yeah, I think that last definition went to Weiner, b/c of that beloved NY congressman.


----------



## unregistered358967

Paumon said:


> this thread now shows up on google searches and has a lot of views and the world is watching to see what comes next and who can make the worst fool of themself, so y'all can fill your boots.


Really? Chat topics show up in a google search? I never knew that.


----------



## DEKE01

US Ambassador says hotel falls into the ocean because of climate change...

or is this just another fire breathing penguin? 

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/patrick-goodenough/us-amb-blames-climate-change-hotel-collapsed-12-yrs-ago-african

_ U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Samantha Power posted photos on Twitter Wednesday to illustrate the purported effects of climate change on a West African nation&#8217;s coastline, but the pictures show a hotel that collapsed into the sea 12 years ago, the victim of erosion blamed largely on years of illegal mining of coastal sand._

And those of the AGW Church wonder why "deniers" have such a difficult time accepting their faith.


----------



## Paumon

Jax-mom said:


> Really? Chat topics show up in a google search? I never knew that.


I don't think closed chat sites and closed forums where you have to be logged in will show up on google and other internet search engines - at least I've never seen anything like that. But closed chat sites aren't the same thing as forums and don't function the same way. GC isn't a closed chat site, it's one of several open forums on the HT website. All of the open forums of HT show up on search engines. The HT politics forum is the only one that doesn't show up and that's because it's a closed forum.


----------



## kasilofhome

So, thel message that climate change is a fraud. Has another platform. The silliness of the ever changing title change. The fallacy co2 being pollution. The lunacy of the short sited charts. The neglect of historical facts that the earth has always been in fluxs, from cold ice cold warm hot...... be for man ever walked the planet. The ego of some to conclude man, an advanced mammal living at this time is controlling earth oblivious of the fact that historically the planet is behaving as it always has. It changes 
..sort a as if earth it's self has seasonal patterns that last eras.


----------



## Tricky Grama

kasilofhome said:


> So, thel message that climate change is a fraud. Has another platform. The silliness of the ever changing title change. The fallacy co2 being pollution. The lunacy of the short sited charts. The neglect of historical facts that the earth has always been in fluxs, from cold ice cold warm hot...... be for man ever walked the planet. The ego of some to conclude man, an advanced mammal living at this time is controlling earth oblivious of the fact that historically the planet is behaving as it always has. It changes
> ..sort a as if earth it's self has seasonal patterns that last eras.


Hit the nail on the head.
When libs lie...ahem...exaggerate to the point of non-truths...they get caught.
Remember all those telling emails? From those who are putting out carp-revealed how they 'fool' so many. Therefore, to entrap as many as possible they need to keep changing the labels.

Its similar to abortion: 1st it was "...its nothing but a blob of cells...". Then science proved that wrong so it was "...right to do anything w/own body...". That's obviously wrong so now it's "...reproductive rights...". That label is laughable so they've mostly turned to "...women's health..." however, its now been shown over & over that abortion clinics care NOTHING about "Women's health" and do not have regulations to protect women.

Its amazing how the left follows all this-BLINDLY.


----------



## HDRider

Last week the governors of the six New England states met in an emergency session at Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, to discuss what to do about the pending crisis of where the region is going to get electricity.

In a hell-bent campaign to rid itself of any form of dirty, messy ânon-renewableâ energy, New England has been closing down coal and oil plants for the last decade. In 2000, 18 percent of New Englandâs electricity came from coal and 22 percent from oil. Today itâs 3 percent coal and 1 percent oil. Meanwhile, natural gas â the fuel that everybody loves until you have to drill for it â has risen from 15 percent to a starkly vulnerable 52 percent, just behind California.

http://spectator.org/articles/60007/get-ready-new-england-power-shortage


----------



## kasilofhome

Australia is not duped when it comes to this con job.


----------



## badlander

DH and I were watching a National Geographic program the other day on Youtube about what would happen to the earth if mankind didn't exist any longer on the planet. It was interesting because eventually they started talking about the damage to the ozone and blah blah blah. When all was said and done, in time, the earth repaired itself and in the end, wound up plunging into an ice age that pretty well wiped out much of the life on the planet.

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot!

We looked at one another and shrugged. You mean when all is said and done, another ice age is going to happen naturally (if a giant asteroid doesn't wipe us out in the meantime or somebody doesn't initiate a huge nuke fest that does the same thing plus plunge us into a nuclear ice age)

Something to think about anyway when everyone is arguing about climate change. The earth will take care of itself when all is said and done. It has for millions of years and will go on doing so with or without mankind's presence or interference. Until either the sun dies or the earth is plunged into another catastrophic ice age. Now there is a heartwarming thought....not.

Here's a link to the program: http://http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/aftermath/videos/world-without-humans/

Just in case anyone would like to watch it. Don't get me wrong, abusing the earth is like abusing a good work horse or shooting yourself in the foot but....you cannot make nations do and see the way that you perceive things to be right in your own mind. I am of the firm belief that a good portion of what ever you want to call it is the direct affect of earth's natural ebbs and flows. That and the sun spot activity that happens without any influence from man. I believe that we have a government that is yelling the sky is falling just to rile people up and as said, get folks to agree to their own self serving agendas. 

I also believe that nations like China are doing their darnedest to really mess up the air without any thought to what it is doing to their population. 

No body can force anybody to see the way they see or do the way they do. All you can do is do the best you can with what you've got and hope for the best.


----------



## kasilofhome

That has been my point all along earth has its own life cycles and life on it changes due to earth. Man is simple here for the ride.


----------



## Tricky Grama

I'd like to say-AGAIN-b/c libs/left seems to forget, virtually all the conservatives here as well as ALL that I know personally & casually, recycle, reuse, save, do not pollute, etc.
I cannot say the same for the many libs I know, except for 1 neighbor who I hate to admit, is greener than I am.

I'll make the exception to roundup-I've been ragging about that for decades & I know some here use it.


----------



## HDRider

http://cowspiracy.com/

The trailer points to a dark âsustainability secretâ which is the âone single industry destroying the planet more than any other.â According to the trailer, this industry is responsible for global warming, water shortages, methane emissions, species extinction, and the ocean dead zones. 

âCowspiracyâ places the blame on livestock production.


----------



## MO_cows

HDRider said:


> http://cowspiracy.com/
> 
> The trailer points to a dark âsustainability secretâ which is the âone single industry destroying the planet more than any other.â According to the trailer, this industry is responsible for global warming, water shortages, methane emissions, species extinction, and the ocean dead zones.
> 
> âCowspiracyâ places the blame on livestock production.


That is total hooey. There used to be billions of bison, plus herds of elk across much more of the lower 48 than there are now. They are ruminants and they released just as much gas as today's cattle.


----------



## Paumon

badlander said:


> I also believe that nations like China are doing their darnedest to really mess up the air without any thought to what it is doing to their population.


This I agree with. China and several developing countries are knocking themselves out to provide western consumers with luxuries that westerners demand on the cheap. The consequence is that they are causing so much pollution and they are using up vital resources. One example - fresh glacial melt water shipped in bulk to China from Alaska because Chinese computer manufacturers need pure clean water to make computer chips - which I find ironic since America is now running out of fresh, clean water in the lower 48. Couldn't those Alaskan entrepreneurs make more money by selling clean Alaskan water to their fellow Americans that need it?

I think that China and other developing countries that are knocking themselves out to produce luxuries for western consumers should focus more on their own needs and scale down on production, and stop selling themselves so cheaply to western societies. Western consumers should stop relying on them for cheap luxuries and do without or start manufacturing their own luxuries. It will cost westerners more to do so but it would be worth the additional expense in the long run and westerners will have a much greater appreciation for their luxuries if they have to pay more for them.




badlander said:


> I believe that we have a government that is yelling the sky is falling just to rile people up and as said, get folks to agree to their own self serving agendas.





Tricky Grama said:


> I'd like to say-AGAIN-b/c libs/left seems to forget, virtually all the conservatives here as well as ALL that I know personally & casually, recycle, reuse, save, do not pollute, etc.
> I cannot say the same for the many libs I know, except for 1 neighbor who I hate to admit, is greener than I am.


You are both talking about what's going on in the United States of America. 

What about the governments and societies in all the other countries around the globe where the American governmental agenda and the American left vs. right schism does not exist? Do you think all those other countries' governments and societies have the same agenda that you believe Americans do?


----------



## DEKE01

MO_cows said:


> That is total hooey. There used to be billions of bison, plus herds of elk across much more of the lower 48 than there are now. They are ruminants and they released just as much gas as today's cattle.


while I agree with that, there MIGHT be a little truth to cow farts = greenhouse gases. Ruminants on pasture or prairie actually store carbon as they build up the soil with their manure. But the oil intensive, corn/soy to CAFO paradigm on the net, releases carbon to the atmosphere. 

But of course, all that assumes CO2 is actually a greenhouse gas, and I remain unconvinced.


----------



## Paumon

MO_cows said:


> That is total hooey. There used to be *billions of bison*, plus herds of elk across much more of the lower 48 than there are now. They are ruminants and they released just as much gas as today's cattle.


There were 60 million bison. Not billions. Not even close to 100 million. There also wasn't 7 billion humans producing methane then either.

How many cattle are there on the earth now? 2 billion.


----------



## kasilofhome

At any one time the number of bison may have reached a high population of 60 million but in the span of time ...thru the generation of the species ....billions breathed and passed gas.


----------



## Paumon

kasilofhome said:


> At any one time the number of bison may have reached a high population of 60 million but in the span of time ...thru the generation of the species ....billions breathed and passed gas.


That doesn't matter. What matters is how much methane is being released at one particular given time, not what has been released and recycled in the past over many spans of time. Right now, at this time, there are more numbers of living animals producing and releasing methane than there has been in the past.


----------



## Paumon

Don't forget, there are more living animals right now that are also releasing CO2 than there has been in the past.


----------



## HDRider

Paumon said:


> This I agree with. China and several developing countries are knocking themselves out to provide western consumers with luxuries that westerners demand on the cheap. The consequence is that they are causing so much pollution and they are using up vital resources. One example - fresh glacial melt water shipped in bulk to China from Alaska because Chinese computer manufacturers need pure clean water to make computer chips - which I find ironic since America is now running out of fresh, clean water in the lower 48. Couldn't those Alaskan entrepreneurs make more money by selling clean Alaskan water to their fellow Americans that need it?
> 
> I think that *China and other developing countries that are knocking themselves out to produce luxuries for western consumers* should focus more on their own needs and scale down on production, and stop selling themselves so cheaply to western societies. Western consumers should stop relying on them for cheap luxuries and do without or start manufacturing their own luxuries. It will cost westerners more to do so but it would be worth the additional expense in the long run and westerners will have a much greater appreciation for their luxuries if they have to pay more for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are both talking about what's going on in the United States of America.
> 
> What about the governments and societies in all the other countries around the globe where the American governmental agenda and the American left vs. right schism does not exist? Do you think all those other countries' governments and societies have the same agenda that you believe Americans do?


As of a year ago, China consumed almost 50% of its production. That number is growing as China develops more internal consumption.

The US internally consumes about 70% of what it produces. Japan 60% & Germany 57%. India 62%


----------



## kasilofhome

And more algae, trees, etc. Earth is living it life cycle and really it is just our time now. One day it maybe just heaven or hell for humans. Man is not the creator.


----------



## Paumon

HDRider said:


> As of a year ago, China consumed almost 50% of its production. That number is growing as China develops more internal consumption.
> 
> The US internally consumes about 70% of what it produces. Japan 60% & Germany 57%. India 62%


Yes, that's my point. China has been consuming only half of it's production - the other half is going to western countries. It should cut back on its production and exports to other countries and increase its domestic consumption of its own productions. Other countries don't really need all the exports that China has been producing - they want it because it's cheap. There's a big difference between _want_ and _need_. The result is though, that other countries have allowed themselves to become addicted to so many cheap luxury products from China and China is happy to whore itself out to accomodate their demands for a fix because even if it's cheap to western countries, it's not cheap to China. China is capitalizing and profiting hugely on western demands at the expense of China's own and the global environment. But China is only doing what the other countries _want_ it to do for them.

So who is most to blame?


----------



## Paumon

kasilofhome said:


> And more algae,* trees*, etc. Earth is living it life cycle and really it is just our time now. One day it maybe just heaven or hell for humans. Man is not the creator.


No. Just because you have a lot of trees where you are doesn't mean it's like that everywhere. The earth has nowhere near as many trees now as it did before the industrial revolution started. Humans have deforested and then grown back entire countries of trees, most though have not replaced what they cut down. Look at Ireland or Greece for example. There are many countries have pretty much deforested all the trees they had and haven't grown them back.


----------



## kasilofhome

Why do you a.Canadian focus on America when really Canada desperately needs so much help in its recycling problems. 

People deal with what you can start local..... Or at least in your own country.


----------



## HDRider

Paumon said:


> Yes, that's my point. China has been consuming only half of it's production - the other half is going to western countries. It should cut back on its production and exports to other countries and increase its domestic consumption of its own productions. Other countries don't really need all the exports that China has been producing - they want it because it's cheap. There's a big difference between _want_ and _need_. The result is though, that other countries have allowed themselves to become addicted to so many cheap luxury products from China and China is happy to whore itself out to accomodate their demands for a fix because even if it's cheap to western countries, it's not cheap to China. China is capitalizing and profiting hugely on western demands at the expense of China's own and the global environment. But China is only doing what the other countries _want_ it to do for them.
> 
> So who is most to blame?


I guess Canada is..
Who Consumes Canada's GDP?

Canada's 2013 GDP was consumed in the following fashion:

Personal Consumption 56%
Government expenditure 22%
Business Investment (buildings and equipment) 20%
Government Investment 4%
Net Exports -2% 
Total 100%

http://www.investorsfriend.com/Canadian GDP Canadian imports and exports.htm

Service exports are about 5% of GDP. Together goods exports plus services exports amount to 35% of GDP. This indicates that 65% of what is produced in Canada is consumed in Canada. Almost the same as China.


----------



## Paumon

kasilofhome said:


> Why do you a.Canadian focus on America when really Canada desperately needs so much help in its recycling problems.
> 
> People deal with what you can start local..... Or at least in your own country.


The fact is I'm focusing on all westernized and industrialized countries. Canada and America are included with all other wealthier industrialized, westernized countries. 

You only think I'm focusing on America alone because you don't know much about other countries and America is your universe. You've demonstrated through your nationalist harrassment that you are prejudiced against other countries (Canada in particular) and you don't want some outsider from another country talking about something that you think is only your right to talk about. I recognize and accept that you are centric and in your narrow world view America is the centre of the universe and that you think nobody else has a right to discuss it except you. 

But just because that's what you think for yourself does not make it true for me. I recognize your objections but I have the right and I will talk about whatever I want to in spite of your objections because I don't agree with your objections and I have no sympathy for your centrism and territorialism. Nobody controls me or what I take an interest in or what I choose to talk about. You should have figured that out by now.

If you want to discuss and criticize Canada and/or other countries I won't try to censor or control what you discuss. Otherwise, I'll just try to ignore your harrassment and not make waves about what you talk about.


----------



## kasilofhome

Bless your heart.


----------



## Paumon

HDRider said:


> I guess Canada is..
> Who Consumes Canada's GDP?
> 
> Canada's 2013 GDP was consumed in the following fashion:
> 
> Personal Consumption 56%
> Government expenditure 22%
> Business Investment (buildings and equipment) 20%
> Government Investment 4%
> Net Exports -2%
> Total 100%
> 
> http://www.investorsfriend.com/Canadian GDP Canadian imports and exports.htm
> 
> Service exports are about 5% of GDP. Together goods exports plus services exports amount to 35% of GDP.* This indicates that 65% of what is produced in Canada is consumed in Canada. Almost the same as China.*


That's 15% more than China. In your other post you said China consumes almost 50% of its production. 


HDRider said:


> As of a year ago, *China consumed almost 50% of its production*. That number is growing as China develops more internal consumption. The US internally consumes about 70% of what it produces. Japan 60% & Germany 57%. India 62%


China should be consuming closer to 70% or more of it's production if it wants to make less impact on the environment.

I'd like to see Canada producing and consuming much more than 65% for itself rather than relying so much on trade with other countries. While I understand that world trade is a necessity and good for diplomatic relations and always has been throughout mankind's history I think it's a mistake to not strive to be 100% self-sufficient.

It's a real bone of contention with me that Canada produces and exports so much oil for example. I'd far rather see Canada cutting back on its oil exports so that it's mainly producing and consuming only the oil that it needs for itself and conserves the rest of it untouched for safekeeping for the long distant future needs. I'm hoping that eventually Canada will establish a Canadian Oil Charter the same way it established the 2010 Canada Water Charter that prevents bulk water exports. That would put protective restrictions on the amount of oil that can be exported and would mean that none of it could be exported in bulk to any country.


----------



## kasilofhome

Would you be in favor of Canada breaching on long term contracts entered in for profitable gain on those oil shipping contracts. Or would you offer to payoff those that are a party to such contracts.


----------



## HDRider

Paumon said:


> That's 15% more than China. In your other post you said China consumes almost 50% of its production.
> 
> 
> *China should be consuming closer to 70% or more *of it's production if it wants to make less impact on the environment.
> 
> I'd like to see Canada producing and consuming much more than 65% for itself rather than relying so much on trade with other countries. While I understand that world trade is a necessity and good for diplomatic relations and always has been throughout mankind's history I think it's a mistake to not strive to be 100% self-sufficient.
> 
> It's a real bone of contention with me that Canada produces and exports so much oil for example. I'd far rather see Canada cutting back on its oil exports so that it's mainly producing and consuming only the oil that it needs for itself and conserves the rest of it untouched for safekeeping for the long distant future needs. I'm hoping that eventually Canada will establish a Canadian Oil Charter the same way it established the 2010 Canada Water Charter that prevents bulk water exports. That would put protective restrictions on the amount of oil that can be exported and would mean that none of it could be exported in bulk to any country.


I'd like to know who made you queen of the world?


----------



## Paumon

kasilofhome said:


> Would you be in favor of Canada breaching on long term contracts entered in for profitable gain on those oil shipping contracts. Or would you offer to payoff those that are a party to such contracts.


I think that's a good question.

Yes, I'd be very much in favour of breach of contracts. As it stands now Canadians don't profit from Canada's oil exports anyway, it's costing us more than we gain. Canadians already pay far more than they should for their own oil and gas products (almost double what Americans pay, for example) and through our taxes Canadians are subsidizing other countries that Canada has oil contracts with. 

Then there's the pollution. Canada's oil industry not only pollutes and messes up our own environment, it enables other countries to be bigger and worse consumers of fossil fuels, thereby causing worse pollution, waste and emissions of greenhouse gases from those other countries. And I know that you think I'm picking on America and in this case I am because Canada is America's biggest oil supplier in addition to the oil that America gets from other countries and America is also the WORLD'S biggest and most wasteful consumer of fossil fuels. America has no self-control the way some other countries do have self-control in their fuel consumption. And Canada is paying for it. 

I'd rather see Canada breach contracts and limit oil exports rather than to see Canada continue to be an enabler to countries who can't exercise self-control and good sense. As an enabler that makes Canada just as much at fault for contributing to waste and pollution, maybe even more at fault than all the others for not exercising better common sense than them and turning a blind eye and allowing it to happen in the first place.

:grumble: 




HDRider said:


> I'd like to know *who* made you queen of the world?


Gaia.


----------



## kasilofhome

So, Canada entered in to contracts that are not profitable for the nation. Due you few that the proliferation o corruption via bribery in Canadian government would be the root reason for being on the short end on oil contracts. Or are Canadian not up to par in business skills?

Which is it.


----------



## HDRider

Paumon said:


> I think that's a good question.
> 
> Yes, I'd be very much in favour of breach of contracts. As it stands now Canadians don't profit from Canada's oil exports anyway, it's costing us more than we gain. Canadians already pay far more than they should for their own oil and gas products (almost double what Americans pay, for example) and through our taxes Canadians are subsidizing other countries that Canada has oil contracts with.
> 
> Then there's the pollution. Canada's oil industry not only pollutes and messes up our own environment, it enables other countries to be bigger and worse consumers of fossil fuels, thereby causing worse pollution, waste and emissions of greenhouse gases from those other countries. And I know that you think I'm picking on America and in this case I am because Canada is America's biggest oil supplier in addition to the oil that America gets from other countries and America is also the WORLD'S biggest and most wasteful consumer of fossil fuels. America has no self-control the way some other countries do have self-control in their fuel consumption. And Canada is paying for it.
> 
> I'd rather see Canada breach contracts and limit oil exports rather than to see Canada continue to be an enabler to countries who can't exercise self-control and good sense. As an enabler that makes Canada just as much at fault for contributing to waste and pollution, maybe even more at fault than all the others for not exercising better common sense than them and turning a blind eye and allowing it to happen in the first place.
> 
> :grumble:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gaia.


She might find you capricious and somewhat arbitrary, possibly even fascist. :grumble: :grumble:


----------



## Paumon

kasilofhome said:


> So, Canada entered in to contracts that are not profitable for the nation. Due you few that the proliferation o corruption via bribery in Canadian government would be the root reason for being on the short end on oil contracts. Or are Canadian not up to par in business skills?
> 
> Which is it.


Honestly, I don't know. 

I do know that I resent it and that there are millions of other Canadians who also are feeling increasingly more resentful about it and think that Canada is being royally screwed, blued and tattooed. So I figure if so many Canadians are becoming more resentful about bending over and being taken advantage of while enabling others then it won't be much longer before Canada stops being the nice guy on the block and establishes an oil charter. I hope to see that happen within my lifetime.

And that's why I won't shut up about it. I can't turn the blind eye and not speak up against what people in some other countries want to pretend isn't happening and expect me to ignore it and also pretend it isn't happening.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

I look at it like it like this. The same science that says there is human caused climate change says that the earth as been much hotter than it is now several times in our past. Before mans industrial revolution or cars or anything other than sticks and rocks. Second earth has been on a decline in temps over the last 10 years no matter how much the sciencetist who profit from hype say otherwise. We experienced one of the coldest winters in history last winter and now the other side of the world is experiencing the same thing. Ski resorts being closed due to too much snow. There is climate change happening. But its earths natural cycle. Remember what Gore and his sheep said? By 2010 much of new yorks streets would be under water and the oceans would rise about 10 feet. Didnt work out so well. The polar ice caps grew so big last year that the yuppies who went there to prove climate change got stuck in the ice 16 miles out to see. lol So you can keep lining Gores pockets with his crappy lightbulbs and green this and that. But you arent helping anything. And if you drive a car, use the internet with all its plastic computers and modems ect.. your a hypocrit. So unless you bike to work naked and sleep under a log then according to science, your part of the problem.


----------



## unregistered358967

Vahomesteaders said:


> So unless you bike to work naked and sleep under a log your part of the problem.


One of the many reasons I'm glad I work from home. :spinsmiley: But I sleep under sustainably harvested bamboo picked by fairly paid workers and turned into sheets. Hope that counts for something.


----------



## Paumon

> I sleep under sustainably harvested *bamboo .... sheets*.


:thumb:

I've become a big fan of bamboo fabrics. I never would have thought bamboo fibers could be made so soft and comfortable while being so durable. Then I found some PJ's and undergarments made from bamboo and they are by far superior to cotton for comfort, washability and breathability.


----------



## unregistered358967

Yep - the stuff that used to grow like weeds at one of our houses that we wished death on. Who knew??


----------



## Evons hubby

Paumon said:


> :thumb:
> 
> I've become a big fan of bamboo fabrics. I never would have thought bamboo fibers could be made so soft and comfortable while being so durable. Then I found some PJ's and *undergarments made from bamboo* and they are by far superior to cotton for comfort, washability and breathability.


Ahhhh, this explains some things.


----------



## Evons hubby

Jax-mom said:


> One of the many reasons I'm glad I work from home. :spinsmiley: But I sleep under sustainably harvested bamboo picked by fairly paid workers and turned into sheets. Hope that counts for something.


Interesting.... but makes me curious about a couple things. I have no idea if the hunters who harvest all those little denims to make my jeans out of are fairly paid or not.... so am curious about how one determines what is "fair wages" for bamboo pickers? I am also curious what makes bamboo more sustainable than cotton?


----------



## DEKE01

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Interesting.... but makes me curious about a couple things. I have no idea if the hunters who harvest all those little denims to make my jeans out of are fairly paid or not.... so am curious about how one determines what is "fair wages" for bamboo pickers? I am also curious what makes bamboo more sustainable than cotton?


You disgust me. Do you have an idea how many of these peaceful creatures have to die just so you can wear pants?


----------



## unregistered358967

Bamboo is harvested by the little people in the jungles. The "oompalagus Loompuga" (more commonly known as the oompa-loompa), is a rare tribe untouched by modern civilization. They are paid in candy as that's their currency. Research has found that candy is their money, as they need the extra calories and sugar to give them more energy to harvest the bamboo. Chocolate coins are especially valuable as they tend to melt in the heat and therefore more rare. 

And-bamboo is awesome because in a nutshell it grows amazingly fast. But don't just take my word for it, here's a good link: http://www.bamboogrove.com/why-bamboo-save-planet.html


----------



## DEKE01

Jax-mom said:


> Bamboo is harvested by the little people in the jungles. The "oompalagus Loompuga" (more commonly known as the oompa-loompa), is a rare tribe untouched by modern civilization. They are paid in candy as that's their currency. Research has found that candy is their money, as they need the extra calories and sugar to give them more energy to harvest the bamboo. Chocolate coins are especially valuable as they tend to melt in the heat and therefore more rare.
> 
> And-bamboo is awesome because in a nutshell it grows amazingly fast. But don't just take my word for it, here's a good link: http://www.bamboogrove.com/why-bamboo-save-planet.html


Do you grow bamboo? I'm trying to find a good bamboo nursery in central or north FL.


----------



## unregistered358967

I don't...it grew in our backyard when we lived in Virginia as the former homeowner planted some. I live in MN now and it's probably too cold.


----------



## DEKE01

Jax-mom said:


> I don't...it grew in our backyard when we lived in Virginia as the former homeowner planted some. I live in MN now and it's probably too cold.


My mistake, I thought you lived in Jacksonville, FL. Lots of stuff called Jax-this or Jax-that in the area.


----------



## unregistered358967

That makes sense! But no...cold, snowy MN.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

Our old homeplace in Virginia was covered in bamaboo. I would make fishing poles and tabacco pipes out of it. Im gonna plant some here as soon as our place gets logged and I get a decent clearing for it.


----------



## arabian knight

Jax-mom said:


> I don't...it grew in our backyard when we lived in Virginia as the former homeowner planted some. I live in MN now and it's probably too cold.


You still can grow a special type of Bamboo.
There is a place in Eau Claire WI I have stopped by and that guy had Bamboo growing in his back yard. And like this last winter of having such a COLD one that bamboo Yes even here in WI you can grow it, so I am sure that you can in MN as well.


----------



## Fennick

Jax-mom said:


> I don't...it grew in our backyard when we lived in Virginia as the former homeowner planted some. I live in MN now and it's probably too cold.


I won't be too cold for your location. Bamboos are available and grow wild in much further northern latitudes than your location.


----------



## Fennick

Paumon said:


> I think that's a good question.
> 
> Yes, I'd be very much in favour of breach of contracts. As it stands now Canadians don't profit from Canada's oil exports anyway, it's costing us more than we gain. Canadians already pay far more than they should for their own oil and gas products (almost double what Americans pay, for example) and through our taxes Canadians are subsidizing other countries that Canada has oil contracts with.
> 
> Then there's the pollution. Canada's oil industry not only pollutes and messes up our own environment, it enables other countries to be bigger and worse consumers of fossil fuels, thereby causing worse pollution, waste and emissions of greenhouse gases from those other countries. And I know that you think I'm picking on America and in this case I am because Canada is America's biggest oil supplier in addition to the oil that America gets from other countries and America is also the WORLD'S biggest and most wasteful consumer of fossil fuels. America has no self-control the way some other countries do have self-control in their fuel consumption. And Canada is paying for it.
> 
> I'd rather see Canada breach contracts and limit oil exports rather than to see Canada continue to be an enabler to countries who can't exercise self-control and good sense. As an enabler that makes Canada just as much at fault for contributing to waste and pollution, maybe even more at fault than all the others for not exercising better common sense than them and turning a blind eye and allowing it to happen in the first place.


Do you not think if Canada established an oil charter that limits bulk exports that such action is a risky action and may cause oil greedy countries to consider wars and attempted takeovers? There are very few people know that Canada has already established its water charter but I think if more people knew about that it would have some of them up in arms and considering future attempts at takeover just for the water. Eventually everyone is going to know about it, it's inevitable once water-poor countries start looking to Canada for its water and then they discover they can't have any of it. Then what are they going to do? I imagine some people would go right crazy if they also became deprived of the oil in addition to the water.


----------



## Paumon

Fennick said:


> Do you not think if Canada established an oil charter that limits bulk exports that such action is a risky action and may cause oil greedy countries to consider wars and attempted takeovers? There are very few people know that Canada has already established its water charter but I think if more people knew about that it would have some of them up in arms and considering future attempts at takeover just for the water. Eventually everyone is going to know about it, it's inevitable once water-poor countries start looking to Canada for its water and then they discover they can't have any of it. Then what are they going to do? I imagine some people would go right crazy if they also became deprived of the oil in addition to the water.


No, that would never happen. Nobody would attempt a takeover if the Canadian oil tap got turned off. It wouldn't be worth it and it wouldn't be practical. Logistically, it wouldn't be possible. Oil greedy countries would resort to other alternatives.

As far as water for desperate water-poor countries is concerned Canada already has a water management contingency plan in place to help those countries to produce, conserve and manage their own water from their own local resources.


----------



## Evons hubby

Paumon said:


> Canada already has a water management contingency plan in place to help those countries to produce, conserve and manage their own water from their own local resources.


Ok, ya got my attention..... how does a water poor country "produce" more water? Conserving I get, managing I get, but how does one make it rain? :shrug:


----------



## Paumon

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ok, ya got my attention..... how does a water poor country "produce" more water? Conserving I get, managing I get, but how does one make it rain? :shrug:


Ask China's scientists how to make it rain. :grin: They have the basics of it down but they haven't quite worked out all the kinks yet as to how to not create more rain than what is desired. So the last few times they made it rain during the past decade they ended up with localized hail and floods that lasted for 3 or 4 days and they're still working on smoothing out the rough edges of rain making. But I have confidence they'll perfect the art and then pass the knowledge on to everyone else, just like they have always passed on their knowledge of all the other superior technologies they've perfected.

But Canada's water management plan doesn't only include making rain. It's an established and still growing water management program that's been going on for a few years already. Teams of Canadian water managers as well as scientists and engineers from other water-rich UN countries who excell at water management. The teams go by request to locations where there are chronic droughts or deserts or where there is too much spoiled water. They teach a variety of water management and irrigation and technology methods to the local governments and whoever passes as local engineers, scientists, educators etc. Things like how to locate or attract and manage water and how to build and manage water desalination and purification plants and how to distribute it and much more.

Nobody needs to go without good water. They only need to be sincere about conserving and managing it properly. All the fresh, clean water that everyone needs is there for the asking if it's properly managed and respected.


----------



## Paumon

There was a topic here on GC not too long ago about desert places where the people are being taught how to attract water out of the air to make oases. That's a part of the water management program too.


----------



## Tricky Grama

The founder of the weather channel, a meteorologist, has a take on climate change...

http://americanprosperity.com/weather-channel-founder-debunks-global-warming-hoax/


----------



## JeffreyD

Tricky Grama said:


> The founder of the weather channel, a meteorologist, has a take on climate change...
> 
> http://americanprosperity.com/weather-channel-founder-debunks-global-warming-hoax/


Very interesting Tricky! Good find!:goodjob:


----------



## HDRider

Tricky Grama said:


> The founder of the weather channel, a meteorologist, has a take on climate change...
> 
> http://americanprosperity.com/weather-channel-founder-debunks-global-warming-hoax/


From the link...
An award-winning meteorologist with 60 years of experience and founder of the Weather Channel has produced a video explaining the history of the man-made global warming hoax.

John Coleman was also a former broadcast meteorologist of the year of the American Meteorological Society (AMS). However, after being a member for several years, he quit the AMS after it became very clear to him that âthe politics had gotten in the way of the science.â Coleman explains in the video that there is no man-made global warming, and why heâs sure about this.

Coleman says in the video there are 9,000 PhDs and 31,000 scientists who have signed a petition saying that the CO2 global warming theory is a hoax. These climate change ânon-believersâ arenât heard by most Americans because they donât receive government funding. And they arenât covered by the mainstream media because it almost always promotes the climate change theory.


----------



## HDRider

And just a little more from the link...

_The well-respected weatherman says that if there were evidence of man-made global warming, he would have dedicated his life to stopping it. &#8220;I love our wonderful planet Earth. If I thought it was threatened by global warming, I would devote my life to stopping the warming!&#8221;_


----------



## Tricky Grama

HDRider said:


> From the link...
> An award-winning meteorologist with 60 years of experience and founder of the Weather Channel has produced a video explaining the history of the man-made global warming hoax.
> 
> John Coleman was also a former broadcast meteorologist of the year of the American Meteorological Society (AMS). However, after being a member for several years, he quit the AMS after it became very clear to him that âthe politics had gotten in the way of the science.â Coleman explains in the video that there is no man-made global warming, and why heâs sure about this.
> 
> Coleman says in the video there are 9,000 PhDs and 31,000 scientists who have signed a petition saying that the CO2 global warming theory is a hoax. These climate change ânon-believersâ arenât heard by most Americans because they donât receive government funding. And they arenât covered by the mainstream media because it almost always promotes the climate change theory.


Well, I'm sure this is a hoax. 
AlGW or SOMEONE will be along any minute to say those 40,000 folks don't know what they are talking about b/c EVERYONE believes in climate change! We see it 4 Xs a year! What's NOT to believe! And the "Ds" have told us so. 

The Idiotiincharge & his ilk would never lie to us.


----------



## mmoetc

HDRider said:


> And just a little more from the link...
> 
> _The well-respected weatherman says that if there were evidence of man-made global warming, he would have dedicated his life to stopping it. âI love our wonderful planet Earth. If I thought it was threatened by global warming, I would devote my life to stopping the warming!â_


A "well respected weatherman"? Who knew such a creature existed. Mr Coleman was a good broadcaster, entertainer and businessman. His degree was in journalism. As far as I can tell he has no background in the science of meteorology or climate science other than having the ability to tell people with some degree of accuracy whether to take their umbrella to work in an entertaining way. Yeah, I'm guilty of attacking the messenger but when the messenger is assumed to have some specialized knowledge to add validity to his message that they may not really possess a small counter attack may be appropriate.


----------



## HDRider

mmoetc said:


> A "well respected weatherman"? Who knew such a creature existed. Mr Coleman was a good broadcaster, entertainer and businessman. His degree was in journalism. As far as I can tell he has no background in the science of meteorology or climate science other than having the ability to tell people with some degree of accuracy whether to take their umbrella to work in an entertaining way. Yeah, I'm guilty of attacking the messenger but when the messenger is assumed to have some specialized knowledge to add validity to his message that they may not really possess a small counter attack may be appropriate.


Unlike yourself. You degree is in what? And you have studied the subject for how long, and, and what?

You picked your side. I picked mine. Let's wait ten thousand years and see who is right.

I guess you missed the 9,000 PhDs and 31,000 scientists part. Or, it did not fit your narrative.


----------



## Tricky Grama

See, I told ya.


----------



## unregistered358967

I thought the general public comments that came after that article were interesting as well.


----------



## greg273

HDRider said:


> And just a little more from the link...
> 
> _The well-respected weatherman says that if there were evidence of man-made global warming, he would have dedicated his life to stopping it. âI love our wonderful planet Earth. If I thought it was threatened by global warming, I would devote my life to stopping the warming!â_


 Why would the earth care what the temperature was? Whatever the climate is, we will adapt, just as we have always done.


----------



## HDRider

greg273 said:


> Why would the earth care what the temperature was? Whatever the climate is, we will adapt, just as we have always done.


Were you converted? You wised up? Or do I have you confused with someone else?


----------



## mmoetc

HDRider said:


> Unlike yourself. You degree is in what? And you have studied the subject for how long, and, and what?
> 
> You picked your side. I picked mine. Let's wait ten thousand years and see who is right.
> 
> I guess you missed the 9,000 PhDs and 31,000 scientists part. Or, it did not fit your narrative.


I have degrees in two life science fields, his is in journalism. Yours? I long ago gave up being impresessed by the initials behind someone's name. 9,000 Pile it higher and deeper's doesn't impress me as I have no clue what those degrees reference either. It also seems a fairly small number when 45,000 such credentials are awarded each year in the US http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf10308/.


----------



## greg273

HDRider said:


> Were you converted? You wised up? Or do I have you confused with someone else?


 Converted to what? A 'climate change denier'?? Hardly, I just know most of the claims of the doomsayers are overrated. Doesn't mean its NOT happening. And it doesn't change the FACT that we are increasing the greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere.


----------



## greg273

mmoetc said:


> I have degrees in two life science fields, his is in journalism. Yours? I long ago gave up being impresessed by the initials behind someone's name. 9,000 Pile it higher and deeper's doesn't impress me as I have no clue what those degrees reference either. It also seems a fairly small number when 45,000 such credentials are awarded each year in the US http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf10308/.


 Its funny how many on here won't trust legitimate climate scientists, but one TV weatherman shows up and he's suddenly a trusted expert. If the climate change side showed up with a TV weatherman as a spokesperson, they'd be roundly ridiculed. I guess it helps when he says what they want to hear.


----------



## Paumon

greg273 said:


> Why would the earth care what the temperature was? Whatever the climate is, *we will adapt, just as we have always done*.


Uummm .... actually, no. Humans have never had to adapt to climate change in the past because there were no humans existing when the earth's climate has changed before. Humans won't be able to adapt physiologically to chaotic or dramatic climate change such as what it appears is starting to happen now. Humans will go extinct as will the majority of other living things.

When climate and temperature changes happen very slowly over the course of many, many thousands of years the way it has usually happened many times in the past then living things can slowly change physiologically and evolve into other life forms, but they can't adapt. 

If climate and temperatures change quickly and chaotically over the course of only a few hundred years (such as is happening now) then most types of existing life forms don't have enough time to change physiologically and so they will go extinct. Warm bloods cannot adapt and don't stand a chance.

So technically, what we're doing now is committing mass suicide.


----------



## DEKE01

Paumon said:


> Uummm .... actually, no. Humans have never had to adapt to climate change in the past because there were no humans existing when the earth's climate has changed before. Humans won't be able to adapt physiologically to chaotic or dramatic climate change such as what it appears is starting to happen now. Humans will go extinct as will the majority of other living things.
> 
> When climate and temperature changes happen very slowly over the course of many, many thousands of years the way it has usually happened many times in the past then living things can slowly change physiologically and evolve into other life forms, but they can't adapt.
> 
> If climate and temperatures change quickly and chaotically over the course of only a few hundred years (such as is happening now) then most types of existing life forms don't have enough time to change physiologically and so they will go extinct. Warm bloods cannot adapt and don't stand a chance.
> 
> So technically, what we're doing now is committing mass suicide.



:spinsmiley::rotfl:

Too funny and hysterical. Pure hyperbole. This is not what even the vast majority of pro-AGW scientists claim.


----------



## Paumon

DEKE01 said:


> :spinsmiley::rotfl:
> 
> Too funny and hysterical. Pure hyperbole. This is not what even the vast majority of pro-AGW scientists claim.


Yes it's funny. And you probably think cold-blooded dinosaurs and warm-blooded mammals co-existed at the same time too, right? Too funny. :hysterical:


----------



## unregistered353870

Paumon said:


> Uummm .... actually, no. Humans have never had to adapt to climate change in the past because there were no humans existing when the earth's climate has changed before. Humans won't be able to adapt physiologically to chaotic or dramatic climate change such as what it appears is starting to happen now. Humans will go extinct as will the majority of other living things.
> 
> When climate and temperature changes happen very slowly over the course of many, many thousands of years the way it has usually happened many times in the past then living things can slowly change physiologically and evolve into other life forms, but they can't adapt.
> 
> If climate and temperatures change quickly and chaotically over the course of only a few hundred years (such as is happening now) then most types of existing life forms don't have enough time to change physiologically and so they will go extinct. Warm bloods cannot adapt and don't stand a chance.
> 
> So technically, what we're doing now is committing mass suicide.


Extinction is a form of adaptation....


----------



## HDRider

mmoetc said:


> I have degrees in two life science fields, his is in journalism. Yours? I long ago gave up being impresessed by the initials behind someone's name. 9,000 Pile it higher and deeper's doesn't impress me as I have no clue what those degrees reference either. It also seems a fairly small number when 45,000 such credentials are awarded each year in the US http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf10308/.


Of course. I knew you were smart. You do have the right to get it wrong.


----------



## DEKE01

Paumon said:


> Yes it's funny. And you probably think cold-blooded dinosaurs and warm-blooded mammals co-existed at the same time too, right? Too funny. :hysterical:


And on that point as well you are wrong, but I guess you are getting used to that feeling.


----------



## HDRider

greg273 said:


> Its funny how many on here won't trust legitimate climate scientists, but one TV weatherman shows up and he's suddenly a trusted expert. If the climate change side showed up with a TV weatherman as a spokesperson, they'd be roundly ridiculed. I guess it helps when he says what they want to hear.


You are not getting it. Two sides, most likely equally informed, intelligent, whatever, disagree as to whether man can reverse climate change. Simple as that.

Two sides. They, we, do not agree. No one here has changed their minds. No model, or fact that exists right now will change things.


----------



## HDRider

Paumon said:


> Uummm .... actually, no. Humans have never had to adapt to climate change in the past because there were no humans existing when the earth's climate has changed before. Humans won't be able to adapt physiologically to chaotic or dramatic climate change such as what it appears is starting to happen now. *Humans will go extinct* as will the majority of other living things.
> 
> When climate and temperature changes happen very slowly over the course of many, many thousands of years the way it has usually happened many times in the past then living things can slowly change physiologically and evolve into other life forms, but they can't adapt.
> 
> If climate and temperatures change quickly and chaotically over the course of only a few hundred years (such as is happening now) then most types of existing life forms don't have enough time to change physiologically and so they will go extinct. Warm bloods cannot adapt and don't stand a chance.
> 
> So technically, what we're doing now is committing mass suicide.


There will be some I will not miss so much.


----------



## Paumon

HDRider said:


> You are not getting it. Two sides, most likely equally informed, intelligent, whatever, disagree as to whether man can reverse climate change. Simple as that.
> 
> Two sides. They, we, do not agree. No one here has changed their minds. *No model, or fact that exists right now will change things*.


The changing climate will change things.


----------



## Paumon

HDRider said:


> There will be some I will not miss so much.


That's okay. You won't be here to miss them either.


----------



## HDRider

Paumon said:


> The changing climate will change things.


That is what makes the name work; Climate Change.


----------



## Paumon

jtbrandt said:


> Extinction is a form of adaptation....


Well yes, there is that. :heh:


----------



## JeffreyD

greg273 said:


> Its funny how many on here won't trust legitimate climate scientists, but one TV weatherman shows up and he's suddenly a trusted expert. If the climate change side showed up with a TV weatherman as a spokesperson, they'd be roundly ridiculed. I guess it helps when he says what they want to hear.


He owns the weather channel! It appears he knows quite a bit more than the average weatherman does.


----------



## Paumon

JeffreyD said:


> He owns the weather channel! It appears he knows quite a bit more than the average weatherman does.


How does ownership of anything qualify a person as an expert on what he owns?


----------



## JeffreyD

Paumon said:


> Uummm .... actually, no. Humans have never had to adapt to climate change in the past because there were no humans existing when the earth's climate has changed before. Humans won't be able to adapt physiologically to chaotic or dramatic climate change such as what it appears is starting to happen now. Humans will go extinct as will the majority of other living things.
> 
> When climate and temperature changes happen very slowly over the course of many, many thousands of years the way it has usually happened many times in the past then living things can slowly change physiologically and evolve into other life forms, but they can't adapt.
> 
> If climate and temperatures change quickly and chaotically over the course of only a few hundred years (such as is happening now) then most types of existing life forms don't have enough time to change physiologically and so they will go extinct. Warm bloods cannot adapt and don't stand a chance.
> 
> So technically, what we're doing now is committing mass suicide.


I'm good with that! Won't happen that way though. CME(one missed us by 9 days that would have wiped out most electrical systems on earth....9 days!!) comet, or asteroid, maybe a virus. Nothing we have control over....so enjoy life and let's use what the earth has to offer us to make our lives better and more comfortable!


----------



## JeffreyD

Paumon said:


> How does ownership of anything qualify a person as an expert on what he owns?


Usually folks that own a business have a clue what it's about! Or they wouldn't be interested!

I own a business that manufacturers parts for aircraft. I am an expert in the field of the parts I manufacture!


----------



## Paumon

JeffreyD said:


> I'm good with that! Won't happen that way though. CME(one missed us by 9 days that would have wiped out most electrical systems on earth....9 days!!) comet, or asteroid, maybe a virus. Nothing we have control over....*so enjoy life and let's use what the earth has to offer us to make our lives better and more comfortable*!


Yeah. Live only for today like a junkie living for his next daily fix. To hell with future generations. Rah rah! :clap:


----------



## Paumon

JeffreyD said:


> Usually folks that own a business have a clue what it's about! Or they wouldn't be interested!
> 
> I own a business that manufacturers parts for aircraft. I am an expert in the field of the parts I manufacture!


But you aren't an expert on aircraft as a whole.

The guy might own a weather channel but that doesn't make him an expert on the climate. It only makes him good in how he invests his money in American media and hires other people to do the work for him. He isn't the only person in the world that owns a TV channel.


----------



## JeffreyD

Paumon said:


> Yeah. Live only for today like a junkie living for his next daily fix. To hell with future generations. Rah rah! :clap:


Yup!!!!!!


----------



## Evons hubby

Paumon said:


> Yeah. Live only for today like a junkie living for his next daily fix. *To hell with future generations.* Rah rah!


Now this makes perfect sense to me.... stop with the future generations already! That really is the only way to preserve and protect the planet, no little kids, no consuming, saves everything for the seals and spotted owls.


----------



## JeffreyD

Paumon said:


> But you aren't an expert on aircraft as a whole.
> 
> The guy might own a weather channel but that doesn't make him an expert on the climate. It only makes him good in how he invests his money in American media and hires other people to do the work for him. He isn't the only person in the world that owns a TV channel.


He has been a climatologist for decades! And no I'm not an expert at aircraft in general, just in my specific field of manufacturing. He is probably not an expert at televisions! But,when that many climatologists refute the IPCC, there is good reason to question the ippc, and the answer to those questions have been embarrassing to the ippc!


----------



## mmoetc

JeffreyD said:


> He has been a climatologist for decades! And no I'm not an expert at aircraft in general, just in my specific field of manufacturing. He is probably not an expert at televisions! But,when that many climatologists refute the IPCC, there is good reason to question the ippc, and the answer to those questions have been embarrassing to the ippc!


He's not a climatologist. He has no degree or background in climatology. He received a degree in journalism in the 1950's and went on to a career as an entertaining weatherman. If a Hollywood star speaks out on a subject you'll likely ridicule them. He is not much more credible.


----------



## JeffreyD

mmoetc said:


> He's not a climatologist. He has no degree or background in climatology. He received a degree in journalism in the 1950's and went on to a career as an entertaining weatherman. If a Hollywood star speaks out on a subject you'll likely ridicule them. He is not much more credible.


Mmmm...ok! I really don't care one way or another. The other tens of thousands who agree with him and Dr. Singer are frauds too! Only the scientist's that agree with global warming are reputable. ...even with all their lies and misrepresentation! Got it! I'm going to enjoy life and use what the earth has to offer to make my life more enjoyable and comfortable! Think......CME!!!!

Going to run my diesel generator a while. ..just to test it......again, maybe do some coal rolling too!


----------



## HDRider

Paumon said:


> Yeah. Live only for today like a junkie living for his next daily fix. *To hell with future generations*. Rah rah! :clap:


OK. OK. Since you put it that way. Your're right. That proves it.


----------



## arabian knight

JeffreyD said:


> Yup!!!!!!


 You dern tooten. 
Man can not stop any change that maybe happening, can not even slow it up, IF, there is indeed some change going on, ONLY Mother Earth can and KNOWS for SURE what is going on. Period.
Earth has been changing from a snowball planet, to a fiery molten lakes of hot lava, to back to being frozen once again. And so on. Even the polls have switched many times in history of the earth and may already be in the process of switching again, and man can not stop it can not slow can not do a thing in the progress of earth caging things up from what SOME THINK is normal. There is NO normal when we are talking about the earth.
And Earth Will continues to change whether man is here or not and could care LESS if man is here at ALL.
Man will just have to adapt like the rest of the critters on earth have for billions of years or go bye bye like 90% off ALL ANIMALS already have. MAN is no exception, man has only been on this planet in a small tick tock of time.


----------



## mmoetc

JeffreyD said:


> Mmmm...ok! I really don't care one way or another. The other tens of thousands who agree with him and Dr. Singer are frauds too! Only the scientist's that agree with global warming are reputable. ...even with all their lies and misrepresentation! Got it! I'm going to enjoy life and use what the earth has to offer to make my life more enjoyable and comfortable! Think......CME!!!!
> 
> Going to run my diesel generator a while. ..just to test it......again, maybe do some coal rolling too!


I never said he was a fraud. He is what he is, a former tv weatherman and good businessman with an opinion. It is those like you who wish to make him into some sort of expert with credentials and knowledge he doesn't seem to possess I have issue with. There are good and bad, reputable and disreputable scientists and experts on both sides. There's plenty of hyperbole to go around. How much effect we have on climate is debatable. That we have no effect is not.


----------



## HDRider

mmoetc said:


> I never said he was a fraud. He is what he is, a former tv weatherman and good businessman with an opinion. It is those like you who wish to make him into some sort of expert with credentials and knowledge he doesn't seem to possess I have issue with. There are good and bad, reputable and disreputable scientists and experts on both sides. There's plenty of hyperbole to go around. How much *effect we have on climate [change] * is debatable. That we have no effect is not.


That is not even the debate. The debate is whether we can reverse CC.


----------



## HDRider

Here is something else for you Earth-worshiping, man killed us all types to worry about, and you can't effect except by howling at the moon.


From:
http://news.yahoo.com/earth-survived-near-miss-2012-solar-storm-nasa-222404357.html

Washington (AFP) - Back in 2012, the Sun erupted with a powerful solar storm that just missed the Earth but was big enough to "knock modern civilization back to the 18th century," NASA said.

The extreme space weather that tore through Earth's orbit on July 23, 2012, was the most powerful in 150 years, according to a statement posted on the US space agency website Wednesday.











I think I would like living in the 1700s.


----------



## HDRider

These are beautiful.


----------



## mmoetc

HDRider said:


> That is not even the debate. The debate is whether we can reverse CC.


The debate for many is whether man has any effect on climate. Until that is even agreed upon whether we can reverse that effect or what steps might be appropriate can't even be rationally discussed.


----------



## kasilofhome

Man is natural
Man is a part of nature

Nature should be allowed and not interfered with.

Man's time on earth is not revealed.


----------



## Evons hubby

mmoetc said:


> It is those like you who wish to make him into some sort of expert with credentials and knowledge he doesn't seem to possess I have issue with.


As I recall JD Rockefeller had no credentials either.... not a single degree to the mans name.... but I wouldnt have been one to argue with him when it comes to how to make money in the oil buisiness.


----------



## mmoetc

Yvonne's hubby said:


> As I recall JD Rockefeller had no credentials either.... not a single degree to the mans name.... but I wouldnt have been one to argue with him when it comes to how to make money in the oil buisiness.


And I likely wouldn't argue with this gentleman about how to make money in broadcasting. I don't know John D's stance on climate change.


----------



## kasilofhome

Paumon said:


> Yeah. Live only for today like a junkie living for his next daily fix. To hell with future generations. Rah rah! :clap:


Hey sometimes I just have to agree with you. Knowing that ....as you stated ...earth has changed befor man (so man is falsely accused now for changing it as changing is the norm) and I agree that humans may not always be on earth.

This is our time our moment in life party on.


----------



## Evons hubby

mmoetc said:


> And I likely wouldn't argue with this gentleman about how to make money in broadcasting. I don't know John D's stance on climate change.


I dont recall either.... but the climate wasnt really changing much during his time.... it wasnt really until the greenies came along that our climate began going through all these serious catastrophes. There does seem to be some good money to be made by promoting one catastrophic event after another.


----------



## JeffreyD

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I dont recall either.... but the climate wasnt really changing much during his time.... it wasnt really until the greenies came along that our climate began going through all these serious catastrophes. There does seem to be some good money to be made by promoting one catastrophic event after another.


"Never let a good crisis go to waste"


----------



## greg273

mmoetc said:


> There's plenty of hyperbole to go around. How much effect we have on climate is debatable. That we have no effect is not.


 Exactly!!


----------



## Tricky Grama

JeffreyD said:


> He has been a climatologist for decades! And no I'm not an expert at aircraft in general, just in my specific field of manufacturing. He is probably not an expert at televisions! But,when that many climatologists refute the IPCC, there is good reason to question the ippc, and the answer to those questions have been embarrassing to the ippc!


I think the left loves to follow ANY scientist! Well, except the ones who are skeptical...and many are. Belonging to a political segment that lies like rugs helps too.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Global Warming? 2014 Coolest Since 1993
The average temperature for the 48 contiguous U.S. states in the first half of 2014 was 47.6 degrees F. &#8212; just one-tenth of a degree above the 20th century average. 
A new report from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) also disclosed that the six-month period marked the coldest first half of any year since 1993. 
The average maximum daytime temperature for the first six months of 2014 was slightly higher than the 20th century average, but the average minimum nighttime temperature was three-tenths of a degree below the century average. 
Below-average temperatures were widespread east of the Rocky Mountains, and "two regions, the western Great Lakes and the southern Mississippi River Valley, had much-below-average temperatures during the six-month period," NOAA reported. 
Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, and Wisconsin each had a six-month period that ranked in the state's top 10 for cold temperatures. 
The report also noted that the national precipitation total for the six-month period was a miniscule 0.02 inches below average, while above-average precipitation was recorded across the Northern tier and parts of the Southeast. 
And drought conditions improved in the Midwest and Central and Southern plains. 
The NOAA report is not likely to deter global warming alarmists, however. As the Insider Report disclosed in June, a prominent climate science professor was removed from his post as an Associate Fellow at the progressive Institute for Policy Studies days after a newspaper published his op-ed piece calling manmade global warming an "unproved science." 
Dr. Caleb Rossiter of American University was told that his views on climate science made his relationship with the institute "untenable."


----------



## DEKE01

Tricky Grama said:


> a prominent climate science professor was removed from his post as an Associate Fellow at the progressive Institute for Policy Studies days after a newspaper published his op-ed piece calling manmade global warming an "unproved science."
> Dr. Caleb Rossiter of American University was told that his views on climate science made his relationship with the institute "untenable."


That can't possibly be true, because if it were true, that would mean there is some sort of political agenda at play that is more important than an unbiased exploration and reporting of the science. People who believe your so called news are just a bunch of conspiracy nuts. 

There IS man-made global warming :hair. A vice president said it is so, so it must be true. :hair And besides...the science is settled. 

>>>>>>>>>>>

Please note, for anyone using a Bravo Sierra filter, the above message will appear as a blank page. :happy2:


----------



## DEKE01

Uh oh...here's another one. Sure he claims to be a climatologist but apparently he's just another denier whacko. 

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/05/14/Climate-Science-Defector-Forced-to-Resign-by-Alarmist-Fatwa

_Professor Lennart Bengtsson's recruitment by the GWPF (the London-based think tank set up by former Chancellor Lord Lawson) represented a huge coup for the climate realist cause. The Swedish climatologist, meteorologist, former director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg and winner, in 2006, of the 51st IMO Prize of the World Meteorological Organization for his pioneering work in numerical weather prediction - was by some margin the most distinguished scientist to change sides...

...I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety._


----------



## DEKE01

More words from AGW skeptic, Professor Bengtsson in this article:

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/05/14/Climate-Science-Defector-Forced-to-Resign-by-Alarmist-Fatwa

The models are not accurate: "...I am a friend of climate forecasts. But the review of model results is important in order to ensure their credibility. It is frustrating that climate science is not able to validate their simulations correctly. The warming of the Earth has been much weaker since the end of the 20th century compared to what climate models show."


----------



## arabian knight

And now we have this.
The coolest summer on record for the USA.
And I sure can testify to that.
Here it is coming up to the end of July and in my area of WI. we have had ONLY one 90Âº day~! Thats it, just one day so far this summer to reach 90Âº, and now another cold front is happening with highs BARELY getting into the 70's ~! And Aug. starts on Friday.. Wow this has been the best year yet for keeping electric bills in tow. The AC only has been on a few days so far all summer.
Lets keep this up it is good~!


----------



## unregistered358967

Yep. Here too in mn it's been cold. I pointed that out somewhere earlier though and it was shot down.


----------



## MJsLady

Here we are just now getting 3 digit temps. The last few years they have hit in June. 
Then again this is summer in the desert. 3 digits are a norm here not an exception. 
Last winter was the coldest in the 20 years I have lived here. We got actual snow not just flurries and it was great!


----------



## arabian knight

Jax-mom said:


> Yep. Here too in mn it's been cold. I pointed that out somewhere earlier though and it was shot down.


 Some need a 'visual' to get a point across. LOL
Sure there are peaks and valleys as well, but the OVER ALL chart says the GW folks are all full of hot air. LOL

Gee look how the temp has been going DOWN not up. Hmmmmm


> The frequency of 90 degree days in the US has been plummeting for 80 years, and 2014 has had the lowest frequency of 90 degree days through July 23 on record. The only other year which came close was 1992, and that was due to dust in the atmosphere from Mt Pinatubo.












http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/07/26/coolest-summer-on-record-in-the-us/


----------



## Tyler520

oh noes


----------



## DEKE01

Tyler520 said:


> oh noes


Let's see. We have been told repeatedly that never before have temps risen so far, so fast, so it must be man caused. But that graph shows pre-industrial steeper (faster) temp increases and to much higher than current temps. If the current climate is the "correct" climate, earth must have some self correcting mechanism we do not fully understand. And the Minoans and Romans seemed to survive temps that some in this thread have said are going to cause the extinction of the human race. 

I'm more worried about one of those dramatic temp declines. That could result in all sorts of disruptions in food production. Probably in another 30 - 50 years, we'll be hearing about another round of catastrophic climate cooling as the chicken littles scurry about.


----------



## Tyler520

...and as you can see from this ice core sample, the cycle repeats itself over the course of approximately 100,000 years.










"Warmists," as a like to refer to them as, are obsessed with the last 150 years. AS one can see, the last 150 years isn't even perceivable on this chart it is so miniscule. In the grand scheme of things, everything is quite normal


----------



## Tyler520

...and then of course when you plot data across mya, the plausibility of AGW goes entirely out the window:


----------



## JeffreyD

It appears that America is carbon neutral! :happy:

Now something must be wrong with my calculations for this to be true. Not only are we carbon neutral, but also a carbon sink for other countries to boot!!

According to the epa, Americans produce 5 billion metric tonnes of Co2. That equals just over 11 trillion pounds! 

According to the American Forests website an average tree can use 48 pounds of Co2 per year..sounds high...they got their info from the North Carolina university forestry department. 

1 pound of Co2 is 8.74 cubic feet. 8.74 cubic feet per week average doesn't sound so bad considering trees don't breath regular "air" only Co2.

Now, according the the 2004 Forestry Census, the USA has about 247 billion trees!

So:

11,023,000,000,000 lbs of output.
Divided by 247,000,000,000 trees.
Equals.....approximately 44 pounds per tree of Co2! 

This doesn't take into consideration all the other plants that use Co2!

Where am I going wrong here? This can't be true!


----------



## Paumon

Tyler520 said:


> oh noes


 


DEKE01 said:


> Let's see. We have been told repeatedly that never before have temps risen so far, so fast, so it must be man caused. But that graph shows pre-industrial steeper (faster) temp increases and to much higher than current temps. If the current climate is the "correct" climate, earth must have some self correcting mechanism we do not fully understand.* And the Minoans and Romans seemed to survive temps that some in this thread have said are going to cause the extinction of the human race.*
> 
> I'm more worried about one of those dramatic temp declines. That could result in all sorts of disruptions in food production. Probably in another 30 - 50 years, we'll be hearing about another round of catastrophic climate cooling as the chicken littles scurry about.


Those readings are from Greenland's glacial ice core and they are all in minus centigrade (minus means below freezing point in case you've forgotten that minor detail). The Minoans and Romans weren't living on or in the Greenland glaciers during the Minoan and Roman warming periods and neither was anyone else. No living things have ever inhabited the Greenland glaciers. It might be advisable for you to research what the temperatures were in the places that were actually inhabited by humans during those times rather than make a judgement based on the temperatures at Greenland's ice core at any given time.


----------



## DEKE01

Paumon said:


> Those readings are from Greenland's glacial ice core and they are all in minus centigrade (minus means below freezing point in case you've forgotten that minor detail). The Minoans and Romans weren't living on or in the Greenland glaciers during the Minoan and Roman warming periods and neither was anyone else. No living things have ever inhabited the Greenland glaciers. It might be advisable for you to research what the temperatures were in the places that were actually inhabited by humans during those times rather than make a judgement based on the temperatures at Greenland's ice core at any given time.


Hold on just a sec...you bashed us for not respecting science but now you are rejecting it when the results don't suit you. 

>>>>>>>>>>>
_*Paleoclimatology* (in British spelling, palaeoclimatology) is the study of changes in climate taken on the scale of the entire history of Earth. It *uses a variety of proxy methods from the Earth and life sciences to obtain data previously preserved within (e.g.) rocks, sediments, ice sheets*, tree rings, corals, shells and microfossils; it then uses these records to determine the past states of the Earth's various climate regions and its atmospheric system...

...*Mountain glaciers* and the polar ice caps/ice sheets provide much data in paleoclimatology. *Ice-coring projects in the ice caps of Greenland and Antarctica have yielded data going back several hundred thousand years*_

more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology


----------



## Paumon

Yes dear, I know all about that stuff. I accept that. I'm not rejecting it or disrespecting it.

It's this following statement of yours that you made based on the ice core chart that I'm objecting to because your statement makes no sense and has no bearing on the chart. It indicates that you don't know what the chart means:

_"And the Minoans and Romans seemed to survive temps that some in this thread have said are going to cause the extinction of the human race."_

How can you say that without understanding what the chart really means and without knowing what the temperatures were where the Minoan and Roman people lived? The Minoans and Romans weren't there on Greenland's glaciers, they were living in the Mediterranean regions. The Minoans and Romans weren't living at those glacier temperatures that are shown on the Greenland chart, they were living in temperatures that were consistent with the Mediterranean geography at those times, not the Arctic geography. 

The Minoan and Roman Warming periods are just the names for 2 eras of time, it's not about the the Minoan and Roman people. It's only about the temperatures of the Greenland ice and has no relevance to land temperatures in other parts of the world.

I don't believe Tyler 520 has a clue what that chart means either. If Tyler thinks it means something else other than strictly what is indicated on the chart (which is the temperatures of the ice) then I'd like to see what his interpretation of it is because he hasn't said anything about it.

For that matter, I'd like to know where Tyler got all of his charts from because he hasn't named his sources or posted any links to his sources. For all I know Tyler might have created those charts himself on his own computer then posted them here knowing that you guys wouldn't question their sources and would blindly accept them because it fits in with his and your own agendas, and hoping that other people wouldn't notice or question it. So I'd like some demonstration of where Tyler gets his information from so it can be verified. I don't think that's an unreasonable expectation.

Same thing goes for Jeffrey's claims. Back it up with some links so those claims can be verified.

Come on guys, get with the program.


----------



## Paumon

arabian knight said:


> And now we have this.
> The coolest summer on record for the USA.
> And I sure can testify to that.
> Here it is coming up to the end of July and in my area of WI. we have had ONLY one 90Âº day~! Thats it, just one day so far this summer to reach 90Âº, and now another cold front is happening with highs BARELY getting into the 70's ~! And Aug. starts on Friday.. Wow this has been the best year yet for keeping electric bills in tow. The AC only has been on a few days so far all summer.
> Lets keep this up it is good~!





Jax-mom said:


> Yep. Here too in mn it's been cold. I pointed that out somewhere earlier though and it was shot down.





MJsLady said:


> Here we are just now getting 3 digit temps. The last few years they have hit in June.
> Then again this is summer in the desert. 3 digits are a norm here not an exception.
> Last winter was the coldest in the 20 years I have lived here. We got actual snow not just flurries and it was great!


Right. And in the Arctic the temperatures are 20 to 30 degrees higher than usual for this time of the year (it's like a sauna up there) and the west coast (commonly called the wet coast) is on fire from California to the Arctic. And central Canada is getting 2 - 3 tornadoes on a weekly basis now, when usually it only gets 3 or 4 in a whole year if any at all.

It's called climate chaos. It's the new topsy turvy trend and y'all ain't seen nothing yet, it's only just started giving us a mild taste of the extremes that are yet to come as it picks up speed. Expect the unexpected everywhere and prepare accordingly.


----------



## unregistered358967

This is a short link that I find interesting. It's based in the UK and outlines how scientists should try to get the general public to believe climate change is man-made including framing sentences and using 'buzz words': 

http://www.slideshare.net/bis_foresight/walker-institute-5-jun14 Presentation by Sir Mark Walport on climate change communication at the Walker Institute Annual Lecture on 5 June 2014. Watch the video of the lecture: [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1hwzO_HmcA[/ame] (I had to get to work and didn't watch this yet).


----------



## supernovae

DEKE01 said:


> There IS man-made global warming :hair. A vice president said it is so, so it must be true. :hair And besides...the science is settled.


The science is settled. There is man made global warming. Has nothing to do with a vice president saying so, it has everything to do with evidence that CO2 emissions are growing and reaching levels never before seen in recorded history.

Levels that we can measure, validate and test against. Levels that we can forecast against based upon carbon emissions that we estimate from emissions and energy production. We know how many tons of CO2 are emitted each day, we have satellites tracking the levels across the globe and tracking temperature variations. We have climate models that show the long term environmental impacts of higher CO2 levels and the temperature variations therein.

The disbelief in "climate change" will be the demise of our species.


----------



## DEKE01

supernovae said:


> The science is settled. ...
> The disbelief in "climate change" will be the demise of our species.


See messages 420, 422, and 423. I admit they are a minority, but those msgs reference people on the payroll of pro-AGW, prior to coming out of the closet as "deniers" they were respected climatologists. They are skeptics of the supposed 97% consensus, and are skeptics of the doom and gloom silliness of AGW--->human extinction. 

I'm growing bored with this topic so I'm not going to spend the time finding it, but somewhere I read something like of the supposed 97% AGW consensus, only about a third of those believe there will be serious human disruption, a third believe AGW is will create big problems but nothing we can't deal with, and about a third believed AGW not be a net negative. None of the climatologists I have read believe in the human extinction clap trap, but I'm sure you'll be able to dig up somebody because drama is what sells and gets presidents to shut down the coal industry without a real plan to deal with the very real human suffering it will cause.


----------



## DEKE01

Paumon said:


> How can you say that without understanding what the chart really means and without knowing what the temperatures were where the Minoan and Roman people lived?


Perhaps you missed my bolded text about ice core temps being a proxy. Please pay closer attention and get with the program. :icecream:


----------



## arabian knight

Yes and some just don't like to look at the entire trend over many years not just a few past ones that had the highs and miss the valleys of lows and take then out of the equation. That is not science, that is a believe in Al Gore and all those others that have their own agenda and it is not good for mankind. It is not good for America as a whole and it is not good for the rest of the world either.
And just to post and read about the peaks as if That were the norm is not good science or a good way to get to the bottom of things. Just to Say look see its hotter and forget about the valleys where the entire global temps goes down and diss them away, and not look at the over all trend which IS down, and no one can dismiss that. you have to look over the entire temperature graphs and see the trend as going down not up. Don't just use the highs and make a final decision that the earth is warming up.


----------



## JeffreyD

Paumon said:


> Yes dear, I know all about that stuff. I accept that. I'm not rejecting it or disrespecting it.
> 
> It's this following statement of yours that you made based on the ice core chart that I'm objecting to because your statement makes no sense and has no bearing on the chart. It indicates that you don't know what the chart means:
> 
> _"And the Minoans and Romans seemed to survive temps that some in this thread have said are going to cause the extinction of the human race."_
> 
> How can you say that without understanding what the chart really means and without knowing what the temperatures were where the Minoan and Roman people lived? The Minoans and Romans weren't there on Greenland's glaciers, they were living in the Mediterranean regions. The Minoans and Romans weren't living at those glacier temperatures that are shown on the Greenland chart, they were living in temperatures that were consistent with the Mediterranean geography at those times, not the Arctic geography.
> 
> The Minoan and Roman Warming periods are just the names for 2 eras of time, it's not about the the Minoan and Roman people. It's only about the temperatures of the Greenland ice and has no relevance to land temperatures in other parts of the world.
> 
> I don't believe Tyler 520 has a clue what that chart means either. If Tyler thinks it means something else other than strictly what is indicated on the chart (which is the temperatures of the ice) then I'd like to see what his interpretation of it is because he hasn't said anything about it.
> 
> For that matter, I'd like to know where Tyler got all of his charts from because he hasn't named his sources or posted any links to his sources. For all I know Tyler might have created those charts himself on his own computer then posted them here knowing that you guys wouldn't question their sources and would blindly accept them because it fits in with his and your own agendas, and hoping that other people wouldn't notice or question it. So I'd like some demonstration of where Tyler gets his information from so it can be verified. I don't think that's an unreasonable expectation.
> 
> Same thing goes for Jeffrey's claims. Back it up with some links so those claims can be verified.
> 
> Come on guys, get with the program.


I can't post links from my smart phone..go figure! So here's some things to ponder:

"In the United States, since 1990, the management of forests and non-agricultural land has acted as a net sink of CO2, which means that more CO2 is removed from the atmosphere, and stored in plants and trees, than is emitted."

I got my 5 billion tonne figure from here and other sources.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/co2.html


I got my tree Co2 use from :

http://www.americanforests.org/discover-forests/tree-facts/

Tree Facts

"Carbon sequestration, air quality, and climate change
A tree can absorb as much as 48 pounds of carbon dioxide per year, and can sequester one ton of carbon dioxide by the time it reaches 40 years old. [1]
One large tree can provide a supply of oxygen for two people. [2]"

http://www.ncsu.edu/project/treesofstrength/treefact.htm

"A tree can absorb as much as 48 pounds of carbon dioxide per year and can sequester 1 ton of carbon dioxide by the time it reaches 40 years old."

None of this takes into consideration all the other vegetation.

I cant locate the number of trees link....ill have to get it later!


----------



## JeffreyD

http://fia.fs.fed.us/slides/major-trends.ppt

http://www.fia.fs.fed.us/slides/Trend-data/Web Historic Spreadsheets/1977_2002_Live_trees_dbh.xls


----------



## Paumon

DEKE01 said:


> Perhaps you missed my bolded text about ice core temps being a proxy. Please pay closer attention and get with the program. :icecream:


No you didn't. Below is what you said in response to the chart, no mention on your part of core temps being a proxy, and your response was the exact opposite of what the chart was actually indicating. You weren't paying attention to what the chart was indicating and to top it off your response was blindly "liked" by Kasi, AK, MJ's Lady and Tricky which just goes to show that THEY were following along reacting like blinkered sheeple who weren't paying any attention to what the chart was saying either. You all and Tyler who posted it saw what you WANTED to see - that the chart was showing high temperatures - when in reality it was showing ice temperatures that were well below sub-zero centigrade temps in the minus 20's and 30's. 

None of you were paying attention, you all had knee-jerk reactions in response to what you wanted to see, not to what was actually being presented. 

So if you all are going to have blinkers on over something like that then I question what kind of major details are you deliberately overlooking because of what you want to see instead of seeing the reality? And what makes you qualified to discuss the subject if you aren't really looking at the facts?

There was nothing unique or noteworthy about any those temps by the way and nothing has changed about Greenland's ice core temperatures.

Pay attention! 



DEKE01 said:


> Let's see. We have been told repeatedly that never before have temps risen so far, so fast, so it must be man caused. *But that graph shows pre-industrial steeper (faster) temp increases and to much higher than current temps.* If the current climate is the "correct" climate, earth must have some self correcting mechanism we do not fully understand. *And the Minoans and Romans seemed to survive temps that some in this thread have said are going to cause the extinction of the human race. *
> 
> I'm more worried about one of those dramatic temp declines. That could result in all sorts of disruptions in food production. Probably in another 30 - 50 years, we'll be hearing about another round of catastrophic climate cooling as the chicken littles scurry about.


----------



## Paumon

Jeffrey, thank you for the links.


----------



## Paumon

Jax-mom said:


> This is a short link that I find interesting. It's based in the UK and outlines how scientists should try to get the general public to believe climate change is man-made including framing sentences and using 'buzz words':
> 
> http://www.slideshare.net/bis_foresight/walker-institute-5-jun14 Presentation by Sir Mark Walport on climate change communication at the Walker Institute Annual Lecture on 5 June 2014. Watch the video of the lecture: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1hwzO_HmcA (I had to get to work and didn't watch this yet).


Thanks for posting the slideshare presentation. I didn't look at the youtube video yet as it's an hour long so it will have to wait til later. I didn't see where you were getting the impression that the slideshare outlines how scientists should try to get the general public to believe climate change is man-made including framing sentences and using 'buzz words'. I looked for that but didn't see it. 

But I found the slideshare thing interesting because it shows the perspectives of people in the UK in general, plus the perspectives of people according to their personal climate experiences in different locations within the UK. I would like to see polls done to get the perspectives of people in specific locations all over the world. 

Also it shows how the general public have such different and incorrect meanings for words that are used and understood by the scientific community but are not understood by the general public who interpret those words to mean something else. So I agree with the summary on that one that there is confusion in communication and the scientific community probably needs to dumb down the words they use and the way they express situations when they are addressing the general public. More to the point about that - the people in UK are generally well educated with a high command of the English vocabulary so if the public there get confused about science vocabulary then what does that say about the understanding of people who live in some other countries where the education and comprehension levels are lower?


----------



## DEKE01

Paumon said:


> No you didn't. Below is what you said in response to the chart, no mention on your part of core temps being a proxy, and your response was the exact opposite of what the chart was actually indicating. You weren't paying attention to what the chart was indicating and to top it off your response was blindly "liked" by Kasi, AK, MJ's Lady and Tricky which just goes to show that THEY were following along reacting like blinkered sheeple who weren't paying any attention to what the chart was saying either. You all and Tyler who posted it saw what you WANTED to see - that the chart was showing high temperatures - when in reality it was showing ice temperatures that were well below sub-zero centigrade temps in the minus 20's and 30's.
> 
> None of you were paying attention, you all had knee-jerk reactions in response to what you wanted to see, not to what was actually being presented.
> 
> So if you all are going to have blinkers on over something like that then I question what kind of major details are you deliberately overlooking because of what you want to see instead of seeing the reality? And what makes you qualified to discuss the subject if you aren't really looking at the facts?
> 
> There was nothing unique or noteworthy about any those temps by the way and nothing has changed about Greenland's ice core temperatures.
> 
> Pay attention!


No, I didn't what? 

I'll admit, you made me go back and look at the chart and my comments. I don't get what you're not getting. It appears you made an erroneous assumption, and now you have doubled down on your error. 

I thought everyone here knew enough to understand that* ice core temps* are a proxy for earth temps and not in fact the actual temps of the entire earth. Do you understand what proxy means? Of course the *ice core temps* are sub zero because it's *ice*. Funny how that works, a Swedish scientist hundreds of years ago creates a scale with temps below zero = ice (don't bore us with irrelevant minor exceptions for pressure and purity). Do I have to back up that far to comment on the chart or can we skip some of the steps in between? 

I was in no way saying that Minoans, who lived in modern day Greece, were in sub zero temps or in Greenland. What do you think the highs and lows on that chart indicate? 

You might get me for writing in short cuts and not making the explanation so simple that a 3rd grader would get it. Please forgive me for over estimating some of my audience. I assumed that everyone in this convo would understanding the very basics of that chart and why scientists look at ice core samples. If you prefer, I'll break it down into smaller steps next time. 

Hopefully, Tyler will give us a source for the chart. Because if it is valid, it does indeed show some steeper pre-industrial increases in temp (as a proxy for world temps) than what it shows for the last 100 years. 

Now, you owe Kasi, AK, MJ's Lady and Tricky an apology, but I won't hold my breath waiting for it. I'm guessing you are going to triple down on your error.


----------



## HDRider

Paumon, Do you have a point? Somewhere in your endless parry and thrust, is there a point? What is it?


----------



## supernovae

The earth has heating and cooling cycles but never before in the recorded 400,000 years of data we have on CO2 PPM (Via ice core sampling) has the rate actually gone above 300 parts per million during these cycles where we're now pushing 400ppm.


----------



## JeffreyD

supernovae said:


> The earth has heating and cooling cycles but never before in the recorded 400,000 years of data we have on CO2 PPM (Via ice core sampling) has the rate actually gone above 300 parts per million during these cycles where we're now pushing 400ppm.


So? What are you doing to stop it? What happened before those 400,000 years? Your leaving out billions of years worth of cycles. Where's all that Co2 coming from? Not America....were not only carbon neutral, were a sink for other sources!


----------



## Paumon

In a search for results of global research of various societies' perspectives about climate change (which I did not find yet) I found something else which is interesting. I think it may be of interest to others no matter what your politics are or what you believe about climate change because it appears to be a website focused on unbiased global research without any political agendas so I'm sharing it here. http://www.globalresearch.ca/about It has articles about a lot of topics, you can find the topics by clicking on the blue bars at the side on your left - try the one labeled "Themes" first.

They also had at least one article I found about climate change and climate chaos, this appears to be part of a series, and to some degree it does expose the political and corporate agendas of superpowers who want to ignore climate change because to acknowledge climate change will mean loss of power for them. It's interesting: http://www.globalresearch.ca/climate-changes-washington-freezes/5367880





HDRider said:


> Paumon, Do you have a point? Somewhere in your endless parry and thrust, is there a point? What is it?


No more points. I've made my point and those who are capable of intelligent comprehension will get it and those who are obtuse enough to have to back-peddle, tell lies, ask and debate the facts, dig themselves deeper into the past - they're alll a waste of time now. It's way too hot here and I'm melting and tired, so I'm calling it quits for now. Besides which, supernovae summed up all of my points in a nutshell and says it all:



supernovae said:


> The science is settled. There is man made global warming. Has nothing to do with a vice president saying so, it has everything to do with evidence that CO2 emissions are growing and reaching levels never before seen in recorded history.
> 
> Levels that we can measure, validate and test against. Levels that we can forecast against based upon carbon emissions that we estimate from emissions and energy production. We know how many tons of CO2 are emitted each day, we have satellites tracking the levels across the globe and tracking temperature variations. We have climate models that show the long term environmental impacts of higher CO2 levels and the temperature variations therein.
> 
> The disbelief in "climate change" will be the demise of our species.


----------



## supernovae

JeffreyD said:


> So? What are you doing to stop it? What happened before those 400,000 years? Your leaving out billions of years worth of cycles. Where's all that Co2 coming from? Not America....were not only carbon neutral, were a sink for other sources!


First thing we do is we stop pretending it isn't happening. 

No country is shown to be carbon neutral, looks like some are taking ambitious goals to make it so. The US only sequesters 20% of its own emissions, our land mass is responsible for 1,700 million tons sequestration mostly the forests on the east coast which are surely dwindling faster than they're growing.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/1804/pdf/pp1804.pdf

As for the rest of the time cycles, the entire theory is based upon climate change because of humans.. 400k years of ice samples studied is a fair representation of human presence on the planet which was negligible until the industrial age.

We're not the worst offender.. QATAR for as tiny as it is seems to burn oil for the sake of burning it.

Personally? I got a Volt, its ePM rating is 100mpg using combined fuel / energy. I opted into wind energy plan with utility, so I pay dollars a month extra for "green" energy that texas seems to have a surplus of.

Plus, I ride my bike a lot.. used to commute to work. Last 2 years I rode over 3,000 miles back and forth to work.. I had to eat more, so was I carbon neutral? not sure.. but man, the ******** in trucks sure hassled me by throwing bottles at me, flicking me of, spitting chew at me and driving their "Coal burners" down the road and squealing tires. I'm sure that really proves a lot huh.. We home school, no big buses or commuting.. I telecommute when possible, have efficient appliances, use minimal resources/water.. recycle/upcycle all the time.. fix something when its broken.. We buy from farmers markets using our own re-usable bags, try and avoid packaging when possible since it just needs to be thrown away or recycled.

I also study the sciences, I have a fondness for chemistry, physics and biology.. its fascinating stuff to know. Everyone should know it. It's a darn shame people spend HOURS everyday watching their favorite news channel and surfing their favorite sites yet they can't be convinced to try and understand something beyond talking points - and I point out everyone when I say this - lefties/righties who are ideologically grounded in their biases.. everyone can be guilty of that, it takes a strong person to step away and realize the data speaks for itself.

skepticism is a great thing for people to have.. ignorance is not.

Imagine how much better as society we would be if we worked together to solve problems instead of pointing fingers and lead the world through actions rather than words.

If we didn't have an oil based economy, we wouldn't be having standing forces in the middle east or fracking our farms and we wouldn't be pumping out the very stuff the earth spent EONS sequestering.


----------



## HDRider

Paumon said:


> In a search for results of global research of various societies' perspectives about climate change (which I did not find yet) I found something else which is interesting. I think it may be of interest to others no matter what your politics are or what you believe about climate change because it appears to be a website focused on unbiased global research without any political agendas so I'm sharing it here. http://www.globalresearch.ca/about It has articles about a lot of topics, you can find the topics by clicking on the blue bars at the side on your left - try the one labeled "Themes" first.
> 
> They also had at least one article I found about climate change and climate chaos, this appears to be part of a series, and to some degree it does expose the political and corporate agendas of superpowers who want to ignore climate change because to acknowledge climate change will mean loss of power for them. It's interesting: http://www.globalresearch.ca/climate-changes-washington-freezes/5367880
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No more points. I've made my point and those who are capable of intelligent comprehension will get it and those who are obtuse enough to have to back-peddle, tell lies, ask and debate the facts, dig themselves deeper into the past - they're alll a waste of time now. It's way too hot here and I'm melting and tired, so I'm calling it quits for now. Besides which, supernovae summed up all of my points in a nutshell and says it all:


The secondary debate is whether CC is caused by man, with the primary debate being whether man can reverse CC. Super did not speak to that, and I can't say you did either.


You got lost and appear cornered and tired.

Like Walter said.


----------



## Paumon

supernovae said:


> The disbelief in "climate change" will be the demise of our species.


Supernovae - if you've never heard of Dr. Guy McPherson, he's worth checking out. I've watched some of his presentations during the past couple of years and the evidence and prognostications he presents are chilling.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/guy-mc...llapse-and-near-term-human-extinction/5386102

An excerpt from the above article:



> Dr. Mcpherson is in full agreement with the scientific concensus around anthropogenic (human-generated) climate change. Further, he concludes that global warming has passed a âtipping pointâ and that habitat loss associated with the warming of the planet will condemn the human species to extinction within 20 years.
> 
> Unlike other prominent scientists and activists, Mcpherson concludes that there is really nothing the human species can do to prevent or mitigate this catastrophe.


----------



## Paumon

HDRider said:


> The secondary debate is whether CC is caused by man, with the primary debate being whether man can reverse CC. Super did not speak to that, and I can't say you did either.


Sorry kiddo, those are debates in your own mind, not mine. They are not debatable to me. Our present day climate change is contributed to and being made worse and faster by man. It is not reversible now, we're past the stage where we might have been able to reverse it. Perhaps when 90% of the existing human population is dead and gone it will settle down in a few hundred years.


----------



## JeffreyD

supernovae said:


> First thing we do is we stop pretending it isn't happening.
> 
> No country is shown to be carbon neutral, looks like some are taking ambitious goals to make it so. The US only sequesters 20% of its own emissions, our land mass is responsible for 1,700 million tons sequestration mostly the forests on the east coast which are surely dwindling faster than they're growing.
> 
> http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/1804/pdf/pp1804.pdf
> 
> As for the rest of the time cycles, the entire theory is based upon climate change because of humans.. 400k years of ice samples studied is a fair representation of human presence on the planet which was negligible until the industrial age.
> 
> We're not the worst offender.. QATAR for as tiny as it is seems to burn oil for the sake of burning it.
> 
> Personally? I got a Volt, its ePM rating is 100mpg using combined fuel / energy. I opted into wind energy plan with utility, so I pay dollars a month extra for "green" energy that texas seems to have a surplus of.
> 
> Plus, I ride my bike a lot.. used to commute to work. Last 2 years I rode over 3,000 miles back and forth to work.. I had to eat more, so was I carbon neutral? not sure.. but man, the ******** in trucks sure hassled me by throwing bottles at me, flicking me of, spitting chew at me and driving their "Coal burners" down the road and squealing tires. I'm sure that really proves a lot huh.. We home school, no big buses or commuting.. I telecommute when possible, have efficient appliances, use minimal resources/water.. recycle/upcycle all the time.. fix something when its broken.. We buy from farmers markets using our own re-usable bags, try and avoid packaging when possible since it just needs to be thrown away or recycled.
> 
> I also study the sciences, I have a fondness for chemistry, physics and biology.. its fascinating stuff to know. Everyone should know it. It's a darn shame people spend HOURS everyday watching their favorite news channel and surfing their favorite sites yet they can't be convinced to try and understand something beyond talking points - and I point out everyone when I say this - lefties/righties who are ideologically grounded in their biases.. everyone can be guilty of that, it takes a strong person to step away and realize the data speaks for itself.
> 
> skepticism is a great thing for people to have.. ignorance is not.
> 
> Imagine how much better as society we would be if we worked together to solve problems instead of pointing fingers and lead the world through actions rather than words.
> 
> If we didn't have an oil based economy, we wouldn't be having standing forces in the middle east or fracking our farms and we wouldn't be pumping out the very stuff the earth spent EONS sequestering.


Read my post a couple of pages back. Seems our government statistics show that America is more than carbon neutral! I even provided links for you! We'll I'm glad my tax dollars went to good use helping you subsidize you chosen lifestyle! I'm just not into any of that! And I enjoy my life and the fun we have. The earth is here for us to use and enjoy. ...i do that!

I'm all for working together, but when lies are told and data are falsified. ...Those folks can no longer be trusted with anything! 

As a side....read up on what the Center for Disease Control says about those reusable bags and the deaths and allergic reaction their causing. I bought a few case of the old type plastic bags...enough for years. Their very useful!


----------



## JeffreyD

Paumon said:


> Supernovae - if you've never heard of Dr. Guy McPherson, he's worth checking out. I've watched some of his presentations during the past couple of years and the evidence and prognostications he presents are chilling.
> 
> http://www.globalresearch.ca/guy-mc...llapse-and-near-term-human-extinction/5386102
> 
> An excerpt from the above article:


Perfect, now we can stop throwing trillions out the window and use that cash to help our own folks instead of funding more "research" related to global warming!


----------



## JeffreyD

Paumon said:


> Sorry kiddo, those are debates in your own mind, not mine. They are not debatable to me. Our present day climate change is contributed to and being made worse and faster by man. It is not reversible now, we're past the stage where we might have been able to reverse it. Perhaps when 90% of the existing human population is dead and gone it will settle down in a few hundred years.


Humans have only been a blight on earth for a fraction of time in history. The earth will be here longer after we're gone! No matter what anyone says...we'll still be here an mass hundreds of years from now! We......adapt!!!


----------



## supernovae

JeffreyD said:


> Read my post a couple of pages back. Seems our government statistics show that America is more than carbon neutral! I even provided links for you! We'll I'm glad my tax dollars went to good use helping you subsidize you chosen lifestyle! I'm just not into any of that! And I enjoy my life and the fun we have. The earth is here for us to use and enjoy. ...i do that!


haha, your tax dollars went to Iraq most likely. I bought the car used, I didn't get any tax credits... 



> I'm all for working together, but when lies are told and data are falsified. ...Those folks can no longer be trusted with anything!


So you're saying 99% of the worlds scientists are wrong? And you're saying your tax dollars subsidized me? And you're saying "the earth is here for us to use and enjoy" and you expect me to have any respect for anything you say?

I enjoy lots of things I use in life and of this planet, certainly enough to respect them and my impact thereof.

EVERYTHING I've seen shows that were FAR from carbon neutral.. and were REALLY far from carbon neutral if we count how much we import from the world over and pretend that emission doesn't matter as we can blame them for the stuff they make for us, right?



> As a side....read up on what the Center for Disease Control says about those reusable bags and the deaths and allergic reaction their causing. I bought a few case of the old type plastic bags...enough for years. Their very useful!


Yeah, the CDC.. i'm pretty sure you mock them when its convenient and quote them when its convenient too! Our washing machine does a great job of keeping things clean.

I can't find these links you speak of and the further I go back in this topic the more I cringe in how bad the topics get..


----------



## JeffreyD

supernovae said:


> haha, your tax dollars went to Iraq most likely. I bought the car used, I didn't get any tax credits...
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying 99% of the worlds scientists are wrong? And you're saying your tax dollars subsidized me? And you're saying "the earth is here for us to use and enjoy" and you expect me to have any respect for anything you say?
> 
> I enjoy lots of things I use in life and of this planet, certainly enough to respect them and my impact thereof.
> 
> EVERYTHING I've seen shows that were FAR from carbon neutral.. and were REALLY far from carbon neutral if we count how much we import from the world over and pretend that emission doesn't matter as we can blame them for the stuff they make for us, right?
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, the CDC.. i'm pretty sure you mock them when its convenient and quote them when its convenient too! Our washing machine does a great job of keeping things clean.


Well, you one of the few that wash their bags.....good for you! If you haven't been paying attention, I posted what appear to be reputable sources for our being carbon neutral! Including the federal government and university agricultural program! These folks have no dog in the fight, other than to present data, and they haven't lied to me! The information is available for everyone to see, if you care to look! I've said this before here, in my young and foolish days I was VERY involved in the environmental movement, until I learned more about them.

Haha, your pretty sure about a lot of things that are, in my opinion, incorrect on a grand scale.


----------



## unregistered353870

Paumon said:


> Our present day climate change is contributed to and being made worse and faster by man. It is not reversible now, we're past the stage where we might have been able to reverse it. Perhaps when 90% of the existing human population is dead and gone it will settle down in a few hundred years.


I don't mean this in a jerky way, but if it's too late to fix it, why is it necessary to make such a big deal about mankind being responsible for it? Is the goal just to slow it down so it takes 250 years to kill us (not us, but you know what I mean) instead of 200?


----------



## supernovae

jtbrandt said:


> I don't mean this in a jerky way, but if it's too late to fix it, why is it necessary to make such a big deal about mankind being responsible for it? Is the goal just to slow it down so it takes 250 years to kill us (not us, but you know what I mean) instead of 200?


I think the idea is that we don't know yet, the point at which CO2 becomes run-away, but we know, we don't want to find out. Are we there yet? dunno..

Run-away is when the reflective ice caps melt, the permafrost thaws, the atmosphere becomes a battery of sorts storing the suns energy increasing the heat of the oceans increasing their acidity and reducing their ability to sequester CO2 accelerating their evaporation thus increasing more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and then game over..

Obviously, when our so turns into a red giant in a few billion years, the earth is doomed but if man survives that long, hopefully we have become galactic pioneers and found other planets or have built great ships able to survive off nearby brown dwarfs or the energy of the red giant that we called our sun.


----------



## unregistered353870

supernovae said:


> I think the idea is that we don't know yet, the point at which CO2 becomes run-away, but we know, we don't want to find out. Are we there yet? dunno..


I get that motivation...trying to turn things around before it's too late, if possible. But Paumon seems to think it already is too late and there's nothing we can do to turn things around. She has a very different perspective than yours. It just makes me wonder, what's the point in debating it?


----------



## Paumon

jtbrandt said:


> I don't mean this in a jerky way, but if it's too late to fix it, why is it necessary to make such a big deal about mankind being responsible for it? Is the goal just to slow it down so it takes 250 years to kill us (not us, but you know what I mean) instead of 200?





jtbrandt said:


> I get that motivation...trying to turn things around before it's too late, if possible. But Paumon seems to think it already is too late and there's nothing we can do to turn things around. She has a very different perspective than yours. It just makes me wonder, what's the point in debating it?


I think it's too late to reverse or turn around the climate change that is already underway, that we have been contributing to and causing to accelerate. I do not think it's too late to stop contributing to it - so to speak, to take our foot off the accelerator and stop feeding it the fuel that's been causing the acceleration. There are a number of ways to stop feeding it that fuel.

Will it reverse it? No. Will it stop it? No. 

Will it slow its progress enough for us to make the necessary adjustments that will allow us to cope with continuing climate change? Hopefully.


----------



## supernovae

jtbrandt said:


> I get that motivation...trying to turn things around before it's too late, if possible. But Paumon seems to think it already is too late and there's nothing we can do to turn things around. She has a very different perspective than yours. It just makes me wonder, what's the point in debating it?


I think the more scary thing is that a lot of people don't care to talk about this. As long as they can see the next episode of walking dead and buy their favorite beverage at HEB, they don't care.

out of sight, out of mind.

I'm not quite at the end of days thinking myself, but I do believe unless we do something, the world we love as it is will change and we may not like what it becomes, but I don't necessarily believe it will be the demise of humanity. Just not something we knew and loved.


----------



## arabian knight

JeffreyD said:


> Well, you one of the few that wash their bags.....good for you! If you haven't been paying attention, I posted what appear to be reputable sources for our being carbon neutral! Including the federal government and university agricultural program! These folks have no dog in the fight, other than to present data, and they haven't lied to me! The information is available for everyone to see, if you care to look! I've said this before here, in my young and foolish days I was VERY involved in the environmental movement, until I learned more about them.
> 
> Haha, your pretty sure about a lot of things that are, in my opinion, incorrect on a grand scale.


 Boy I am glad we don;t have emission testing in this part of WI. I took off that dern catalytic convertor Years ago and gained good Horse Power because of it.
Years ago i had a 76 police car. Punched out the gas inlet and that was back WHEN you still could get Leaded gas. Made it larger for the leaded gas pumps.
Pounced out the honeycomb stuff inside the cotton picken convertor after doing all that I GAINED 10% More HP. More HP uses LESS GAS.
Course with that 460 Police Interceptor under the hood I really didn't need 10% More. LOL

And this tinker ropy cars of today it is just ridiculous. 
They scream 30 31 32 MPH from these 50K hunks, and I can get that much out of my '89 Buick~! 30 to 31 Highway.

With ALL this crud added to these engines the mileage Goes DOWN. Take OFF all that crud epa stuff and watch HP go pup and MPH go UP.

In AZ I would stop before going into the emissions testing station Plug the vacuum hose, adjust the carb lean that bugger out and Pass emission. 
Go back around the corner take that plug back out adjust the carb Back To Where it should be and be on my way for another year before all that crud testing would dart again. 

I will keep my '89 GMC Full Size 3/4 ton PU running just as long as I can and Still can Get 24 MPG. No convertor just a nice straight pipe in its place. LOL

My 20 yr old riding lawn mower smokes a little now but what the heck that is good for to keep skeeters at bay some. 
in the winter time I sure keep the propane company in business, I Never let the temp go below 75 in here. And Keep that temp in the summer which the AC on.
Thew worst thing to takes place was cash for clunkers.
Made the used market nearly out of reach for many folks.
And now used cars have 150K-- 200K on them and a High price of 4K 6K and even higher pricing the market completely out of low income or limited income people. 
Bad bad deal Obama you must really hate poor people.
If I had the money I would get a 1,000 HP 2014 Shelby Cobra. All street legal


----------



## kasilofhome

So now a washing machine is a sanitizer...Who knew... I knew it aided in removal of dirt. I know one can add bleach but reusing a bag that may have ecoli and the put food in it not safe enough for me. I use cardboard boxes and burn them daily.

I think if I am educated to sterilize jars prior to canning and then pressure cooking it to make it safe for my family I am not going to refuse a food bag. 

You can do what you want and I am going to think for myself. I believe it is foolish to think man is the cause of climate change. Based in the facts of historic events in cilmate variations.


----------



## DEKE01

Paumon - I decided to hold my breath after all. Still waiting on your apology.


----------



## HDRider

Paumon said:


> Sorry kiddo, those are debates in your own mind, not mine. They are not debatable to me. Our present day climate change is contributed to and being made worse and faster by man. It is not reversible now, we're past the stage where we might have been able to reverse it. Perhaps when *90% of the existing human population is dead* and gone it will settle down in a few hundred years.


So again, I ask what is your point?

You say CC is not reversible. Why all the fuss about it if we cannot reverse it? It appears you simply want to see man gone from the face of the Earth.

Has this been your point all along? Man must go..


----------



## Vahomesteaders

Like I said. Science proves earth has been much hotter in our past than now with higher Co2 levels and guess what? Earth knew what to do with the Co2 and we are all here. And thankfully the hairspray explosion of the 80's made a huge whole in the ozone allowing much of it to escape into space. I recently read where all the earths vulcanos and ports such as yellowstone, release as much as 50 times the amount of Co2 as man. Again, I believe in climate change. I do. I just do not believe man is as much responsible for it as it is earths natural cycle. Not only ours but the suns. Its been in a very active cycle for the last 10 years which makes us hotter. But as I sit here in Virginia and its 40 degrees on this late July morning i must say we are doing something right. I read one post about a chevy volt making you eco friendly? Not true. The amount of resources that goes into those cars and the waste of their batteries in the landfills is beyound that of a even a normal car. Electric and semi electric cars batteries require many more natural resources to make which is why they cost so much more. And most are unable to be truly reycled. So they get burried. Not to mention the Govt Motors bailout that crippled America and that Volt was rated the worst car ever and pulled from assymbly lines.


----------



## HDRider




----------



## supernovae

kasilofhome said:


> So now a washing machine is a sanitizer...Who knew... I knew it aided in removal of dirt. I know one can add bleach but reusing a bag that may have ecoli and the put food in it not safe enough for me. I use cardboard boxes and burn them daily.
> 
> I think if I am educated to sterilize jars prior to canning and then pressure cooking it to make it safe for my family I am not going to refuse a food bag.
> 
> You can do what you want and I am going to think for myself. I believe it is foolish to think man is the cause of climate change. Based in the facts of historic events in cilmate variations.


Ecoli has nothing to do with global warming, neither do plastic bags. One can be sanitary about how they do things differently even if its way above your head to think so. I'm sure many of you chiming in here have sanitary habits that would disgust one another but that's besides the point.


Your beliefs of people and ideas doesn't change the facts that CO2 levels are rising faster since the industrial age and higher than they have ever been in recorded history.

Nothing changes that fact. No matter how nice you are, how mean you are or how you choose to debate people on the internet.


----------



## supernovae

Vahomesteaders said:


> Like I said. Science proves earth has been much hotter in our past than now with higher Co2 levels and guess what? Earth knew what to do with the Co2 and we are all here. And thankfully the hairspray explosion of the 80's made a huge whole in the ozone allowing much of it to escape into space. I recently read where all the earths volcanos and ports such as Yellowstone, release as much as 50 times the amount of Co2 as man. Again, I believe in climate change. I do. I just do not believe man is as much responsible for it as it is earths natural cycle. Not only ours but the suns. Its been in a very active cycle for the last 10 years which makes us hotter. But as I sit here in Virginia and its 40 degrees on this late July morning i must say we are doing something right. I read one post about a chevy volt making you eco friendly? Not true. The amount of resources that goes into those cars and the waste of their batteries in the landfills is beyound that of a even a normal car. Electric and semi electric cars batteries require many more natural resources to make which is why they cost so much more. And most are unable to be truly reycled. So they get burried. Not to mention the Govt Motors bailout that crippled America and that Volt was rated the worst car ever and pulled from assymbly lines.


Lies, lies and more lies. Oh, with a twist of propaganda thrown in as well. This is absurd, its childish and its insulting to those who are educated.

Weather != climate

Climate is long term patterns. Temperature is measured over global temperatures not just virginia.

You know, there is this thing called "convection" - there is this Home builder that people love to hate who builds earth ships - he tries to use "convection" to cool his earth ships but by and large the convection currents just seem to move heat around and there just so happens to be ways to cool some areas when heat is moving because the movement of air causes weather patterns and thus - some areas experience cooling effects, some heating effects, but global climate temperatures are on the rise. Convection is a well understood event that happens because of heat, heat distribution and the energy of the system. The heat currents themselves punish the areas they're over (hey, look at south texas 2011 where we almost burned to a crisps and lots of lakes have yet to recover) and come 2014, austin is rather dandy with barely 1-2 days over 100 but just north west, half the country is burning up and drying out.. but hey, its cool! weather here in austin is fine so the world must be fine!

Beyond the absurdness of focusing on weather, the reality is that CO2 is a "greenhouse gas" - yes, we know how much volcanoes spew into the air, and repeating a known fact as if that changes the entire debate doesn't do ANYTHING, it just proves you're cherry picking. We know this because we have a *superb* understanding of volcanism, plate tectonics and the distribution of these co2 events. Volcanoes are as old as earth - they existed when we had no atmosphere, when the atmosphere was O2 rich and we couldn't survive and the world of plants was exploding then the world of super insects. Yeah, the world lived in these times but not with anything we would recognize today and certainly not with people.

So since the "Dawn of man" with any ability to have any impact, CO2 levels always were cyclic and peaked with natural events - until the industrial age.

We KNOW how much CO2 you and i pump out on average, we know how many people are on this planet, we know how much energy you use, how much CO2 it takes to produce that energy and we know how much CO2 our landmasss/biomass sequesters.

It's all there.

BTW, the Volt is an amazing car. Maybe you should drive one before you hate on it. The government bailed out the Banks, the finance industry, the auto industry and its done so several times through recorded history. It also subsidizes oil to this day, it has to keep a standing army across the world to protect energy interests and we're happily fracking away on our farms ruining a lot of fresh water and no one seems to care.

This isn't an educated debate or discussion. It's a bunch of people running around finding like minded people to join in on their bias against reality.

NOTHING and i mean NOTHING changes the fact that in the recorded history of man the CO2 PPM have never been higher and are still going higher.

The earth will certainly "live on" without us.. BUt is that the point?

I don't care how many of you like this or like opposing views, digging your head in the sand doesn't change facts.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

Instead of listening to the folks profiting of this scam you should use some common sense and look at facts from the few who aren't being paid by the industry.


----------



## supernovae

Vahomesteaders said:


> Instead of listening to the folks profiting of this scam you should use some common sense and look at facts from the few who aren't being paid by the industry.


Or you know, just have a basic understanding of science and leave the politics out of it.

Did you know, that carbon has an isotopic signature? Did you know, when we measure carbon in the atmosphere, we can read the isotopic signature of said carbon to see not only where it came from but what generated it? Carbon emissions from biological events have signatures. Volcanic activity has signatures and guess what, man made CO2 has signatures as well. (by man made, i mean the burning of fossil fuels..)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopic_signature

I got more if people are willing to learn. The "how we know" is fantastic and amazing. Forensic science isn't just for Cop shows!

Don't let people tell you want common sense is.
Don't let people tell you want nonsense is.
Don't let people tell you what to believe.
Don't let people tell you how to vote.

If you question something, research it. Don't assume the answers. If you're going to say volcanoes cause all our CO2 issues, then back that up with evidence. We KNOW the output of volcanoes, we can track the isotopic signature of volcanoes and biological CO2 emissions (animal farts and natural decomposition)

Common sense isn't ignorance. Common sense isn't being a lemming and following what other people do. Common sense is taking the time to learn and understand something and more importantly being able to change when you have evidence to change. It means learning, growing and adapting.

The science is out there. You can read it, you can study it. You can choose to be appaled by it and ignore it or you can choose to be amazed that human beings have the brain capacity to understand this. You can be amazed that we have the technology, know how and the means to understand the world around us. You can be amazed that humans are taking action to be responsible for their well being and the well being of others. You can respect people for making choices, making educated decisions.

Or, you can choose to ignore it all. You can choose to blame everyone else. You can choose to pretend nothing is happening. Some people even choose to make fun of those trying to make a difference because its better to not try than to try and fail. You can pretend because we don't have the answers that seeking out the answer is a waste of time.

Or you know, you could be a respectful human being for a change and actually realize this amazing world we have and the power we have to royally screw it up or at least show we care about it.

The choice is yours.

Just how wrong or right someone is about global warming doesn't matter one bit. What does matter is that we have the technology, the means and the knowledge to know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it is increasing and at rates never before seen ever since the industrial age of man. 

I can't make you believe this if you refuse that. I can't make you understand climate vs weather. I can't make you think in 10 years vs 400k years vs billions of years. I can't teach you chemistry, i can't teach you physics, i can't teach you climatology, i can't teach you planetary physics.

What i can do though is tell you humans are capable of learning this, humans are intuitive and inquisitive and are actively seeking out the answers to the questions we face as a species. This stuff isn't unknowable and it certainly isn't biased in anything but facts. How we solve it as a society, that's politics. How we choose to grow, that's politics. How some choose to ignore this, that's politics too but its worth repeating it, ignoring it doesn't win anyone over and challenging it by attacking the messenger or attacking the methods is weak, especially when its obvious people have little understanding of the methods and breadth of knowledge we do have about the topic.


----------



## HDRider

supernovae said:


> Or you know, just have a basic understanding of science and leave the politics out of it.
> 
> Did you know, that carbon has an isotopic signature? Did you know, when we measure carbon in the atmosphere, we can read the isotopic signature of said carbon to see not only where it came from but what generated it? Carbon emissions from biological events have signatures. Volcanic activity has signatures and guess what, man made CO2 has signatures as well. (by man made, i mean the burning of fossil fuels..)
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopic_signature
> 
> I got more if people are willing to learn. The "how we know" is fantastic and amazing. Forensic science isn't just for Cop shows!


Super,
You appear to have a good command of the subject of CC. Let me ask you a couple of questions. In my mind they are the only questions that really matter. I expect you realize the gravity of these questions. And, take my questions at face value, and not as a trap. 

How much man-made CO2 must be eliminated to slow CC?

Then, how much man-made CO2 must be eliminated to reverse CC?


----------



## supernovae

HDRider said:


> Super,
> You appear to have a good command of the subject of CC. Let me ask you a couple of questions. In my mind they are the only questions that really matter. I expect you realize the gravity of these questions. And, take my questions at face value, and not as a trap.
> 
> How much man-made CO2 must be eliminated to slow CC?
> 
> Then, how much man-made CO2 must be eliminated to reverse CC?


Simple answer.. Fossil fuels are carbons that the earth has spent hundreds of millions of years sequestering. We should stop pulling those out. 


long answer..

What is the framing for the question? The answers are seemingly endless. A good way to reduce CO2 is to allow natural sequestration. Preserve forests, Stop polluting the oceans - the oceans can be a HUGE imbalance if they become chemically unstable in sequestration of CO2.

We can reduce our footprint. We can become carbon neutral. We can reduce waste, reduce reliance on fossil fuels.

In fact, reducing fossil fuel reliance could be the best thing ever. If the east coast alone stopped the Ohio coal power plant belts and had alternative energy sources not only would beautiful skies once again return to the entire east coast but the deciduous forests of the east coast could thrive in more natural conditions and work against our emissions.

I don't have all of the answers.. Some people wanted to create a market of credits to monetize going green. These credits could be purchased or traded to offset emissions.. does that work? i don't think so, because they never became expensive enough to reflect the true burden of the emissions and the true costs of not going "green".

Some people are ideologically opposed to helping others it seems. They happily ignore tax incentives for corporations but flip out when "people" are incentivised to go green when the reality is, whatever we do, HAS to start with the people. Corporations are here for profit. If we want that to change, we - the people - have to stand up against their destruction of the environment just as much as our own personal destruction of the environment and just as much as the governments. We don't do this. We don't talk about this. We ideologically target concepts we agree with or disagree with because 9 times out of 10, *we're* the ones who don't want to change.

We have a footprint just by living, but by allowing the forests to live, that footprint is balances out.

in some cases, it may be the realization that a family of 3-4 is perfectly valid.. it may be the realization that 9 billion people is too many people to take care of.. it may be the realization that we've done everything wrong and the earth could support 100 billion people.. who knows, but at long as we're focusing on pointing holes in the facts and not looking at solutions, we're just wasting time.

i think homesteading is a great thing to. Locally resourced food, water, meats, respect for land, modest living (in many cases.. not all), "back to the earth" mindset.. is the world big enough for people to do this on a large scale? can we face the reality food may cost more if done in a more responsible fashion? can we give up packaging/branding? can we adapt to electric vehicles and "green" energy generation?

I think the bigger question isn't what can we do as we have lots of options. I think the bigger question is what is stopping us from acting? and why?


----------



## DEKE01

supernovae said:


> Your beliefs of people and ideas doesn't change the facts that CO2 levels are rising faster since the industrial age and higher than they have ever been in recorded history.



Uh oh...

http://news.yahoo.com/dinosaur-era-had-5-times-todays-co2-212124284.html;_ylt=A0LEVx.jJ9lT9zcAv9RXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEzOWw1MjlxBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDNARjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkA1ZJUDIyMF8x
_Dinosaurs that roamed the Earth 250 million years ago knew a world with five times more carbon dioxide than is present on Earth today,_


----------



## HDRider

From DEKE01's link -
_Dinosaurs that roamed the Earth 250 million years ago knew a world with five times more carbon dioxide than is present on Earth today, researchers say, and new techniques for estimating the amount of carbon dioxide on prehistoric Earth may help scientists predict how Earth's climate may change in the future.

The findings are detailed in a recent paper published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences._


----------



## HDRider

supernovae said:


> Simple answer.. Fossil fuels are carbons that the earth has spent hundreds of millions of years sequestering. We should stop pulling those out.
> 
> 
> long answer..
> 
> What is the framing for the question? The answers are seemingly endless. A good way to reduce CO2 is to allow natural sequestration. Preserve forests, Stop polluting the oceans - the oceans can be a HUGE imbalance if they become chemically unstable in sequestration of CO2.
> 
> We can reduce our footprint. We can become carbon neutral. We can reduce waste, reduce reliance on fossil fuels.
> 
> In fact, reducing fossil fuel reliance could be the best thing ever. If the east coast alone stopped the Ohio coal power plant belts and had alternative energy sources not only would beautiful skies once again return to the entire east coast but the deciduous forests of the east coast could thrive in more natural conditions and work against our emissions.
> 
> I don't have all of the answers.. Some people wanted to create a market of credits to monetize going green. These credits could be purchased or traded to offset emissions.. does that work? i don't think so, because they never became expensive enough to reflect the true burden of the emissions and the true costs of not going "green".
> 
> Some people are ideologically opposed to helping others it seems. They happily ignore tax incentives for corporations but flip out when "people" are incentivised to go green when the reality is, whatever we do, HAS to start with the people. Corporations are here for profit. If we want that to change, we - the people - have to stand up against their destruction of the environment just as much as our own personal destruction of the environment and just as much as the governments. We don't do this. We don't talk about this. We ideologically target concepts we agree with or disagree with because 9 times out of 10, *we're* the ones who don't want to change.
> 
> We have a footprint just by living, but by allowing the forests to live, that footprint is balances out.
> 
> in some cases, it may be the realization that a family of 3-4 is perfectly valid.. it may be the realization that 9 billion people is too many people to take care of.. it may be the realization that we've done everything wrong and the earth could support 100 billion people.. who knows, but at long as we're focusing on pointing holes in the facts and not looking at solutions, we're just wasting time.
> 
> i think homesteading is a great thing to. Locally resourced food, water, meats, respect for land, modest living (in many cases.. not all), "back to the earth" mindset.. is the world big enough for people to do this on a large scale? can we face the reality food may cost more if done in a more responsible fashion? can we give up packaging/branding? can we adapt to electric vehicles and "green" energy generation?
> 
> *I think the bigger question isn't what can we do as we have lots of options. I think the bigger question is what is stopping us from acting? and why?*


Your last statement is where we part ways. 

Use https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=how+much+do+we+need+to+reduce+carbon+emissions

to see that most are asking way more than the world can give and still progress to first world standards. China, India, Canada and all the other developing countries are not going to surrender their quest for a standard of living like Americans enjoy. Germany France, England and all the developed countries cannot maintain their economies by cutting emissions as called for by these alarms.

From:
http://grist.org/article/how-soon-do-we-need-to-cut-greenhouse-gas-emissions/

For a long time, the climate science consensus suggested that to a*void increased average surface temperatures beyond those to which our civilization could adapt, we need to reduce emissions 80 percent by 2050. *(No one suggested we stop there, but that goal was advocated as a way to avoid tipping points.)

There were voices from the beginning arguing that this was too slow a phase-out. But as Joe Romm has argued, the consensus-seeking nature of the IPCC process tends to downplay and ignore real dangers. It has become obvious that we need to reduce emissions faster than the conventional wisdom of a few years ago suggested.


----------



## DEKE01

supernovae said:


> Lies, lies and more lies. Oh, with a twist of propaganda thrown in as well. This is absurd, its childish and its insulting to those who are educated.
> 
> *On that we agree. But of course it is IPCC lies and AL Gore propaganda, isn't it.*
> 
> This isn't an educated debate or discussion. It's a bunch of people running around finding like minded people to join in on their bias against reality.
> 
> *Yep, that is exactly what the IPCC et. al. is and they fire anyone with an opposing position.*
> 
> NOTHING and i mean NOTHING changes the fact that in the recorded history of man the CO2 PPM have never been higher and are still going higher.
> 
> * You keep repeating this like it is important. Why are you cherry picking data? Science tells us CO2 levels have been much higher in the past, when global temps were hotter and colder and high CO2 levels have been concurrent with the explosion of diversity of plant and animal life. You have to limit (cherry pick) CO2 and temp comparisons to the last 400K years to find correlation.*
> 
> I don't care how many of you like this or like opposing views, digging your head in the sand doesn't change facts.


*Indeed.*


----------



## supernovae

HDRider said:


> Your last statement is where we part ways.
> 
> Use https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=how+much+do+we+need+to+reduce+carbon+emissions
> 
> to see that most are asking way more than the world can give and still progress to first world standards. China, India, Canada and all the other developing countries are not going to surrender their quest for a standard of living like Americans enjoy. Germany France, England and all the developed countries cannot maintain their economies by cutting emissions as called for by these alarms.


Carbon duality.

Define first world standards. Does first world mean consuming at unsustainable levels off the backs of these nations that are exporting all the goods we buy right up? Essentially their carbon footprint is part of our "standard of living" and another one of those imaginary things we refuse to accept/change.

I'd wager that the "standard of living" in a green / carbon neutral economy is something we could export and will improve our quality of life.

china definitely needs to get off their coal standard if they want to survive. It's not only CO2 issues and climate problems they create by physical health and well being issues.

Maybe the US can sell them some new technologies to solve their energy demands 



> From:
> http://grist.org/article/how-soon-do-we-need-to-cut-greenhouse-gas-emissions/
> 
> For a long time, the climate science consensus suggested that to a*void increased average surface temperatures beyond those to which our civilization could adapt, we need to reduce emissions 80 percent by 2050. *(No one suggested we stop there, but that goal was advocated as a way to avoid tipping points.)
> 
> There were voices from the beginning arguing that this was too slow a phase-out. But as Joe Romm has argued, the consensus-seeking nature of the IPCC process tends to downplay and ignore real dangers. It has become obvious that we need to reduce emissions faster than the conventional wisdom of a few years ago suggested.


Good stuff!


----------



## DEKE01

supernovae said:


> Simple answer.. Fossil fuels are carbons that the earth has spent hundreds of millions of years sequestering. We should stop pulling those out.
> 
> *IOW, you don't know and are just guessing.
> *
> 
> i think homesteading is a great thing to. Locally resourced food, water, meats, respect for land, modest living (in many cases.. not all), "back to the earth" mindset.. is the world big enough for people to do this on a large scale?
> 
> *YES!*
> 
> I think the bigger question is what is stopping us from acting? and why?


1. we are not confident CO2 is a serious problem and not just the latest chicken little drama from those afraid of change, afraid of technology, or afraid of man
2. if CO2 is a serious problem, we know the "solutions" proposed will cause great economic harm. 
3. The "solutions" proposed will not work
4. If some of the shrill here are correct, it is too late to do anything to reverse the situation so why cause more harm to accomplish nothing


----------



## supernovae

DEKE01 said:


> *Indeed.*


Indeed, your statement is all hat, no cattle.


----------



## supernovae

DEKE01 said:


> 1. we are not confident CO2 is a serious problem and not just the latest chicken little drama from those afraid of change, afraid of technology, or afraid of man
> 2. if CO2 is a serious problem, we know the "solutions" proposed will cause great economic harm.
> 3. The "solutions" proposed will not work
> 4. If some of the shrill here are correct, it is too late to do anything to reverse the situation so why cause more harm to accomplish nothing


Completely baseless and irrational arguments.

1. There is a high confidence in the issues of rising greenhouse gases
2. You absolutely don't know this.
3. Again, you can't claim to know this.
4. Not at all.


----------



## arabian knight

If we quit doing CO2 all over the world Today in 100 years it would NOT change the World temp by 1/2 a degree or NOT AT ALL. It seems worthless and not worth the extra bucks to TRY, and to believe such things as MAN is causing such things to happen. Man is not that powerful only Mother Earth is. And earth has been changing of the last .45 Billion Years and will continue to do so whether man is on this planet or not. Man can not stop it, man can not slow it down IF change is what is happening Man will HAVE to adopt to it. Man is just a pimple as far as the earth is concerned.


----------



## HDRider

supernovae said:


> Carbon duality.
> 
> Define first world standards. Does first world mean consuming at unsustainable levels off the backs of these nations that are exporting all the goods we buy right up? Essentially their carbon footprint is part of our "standard of living" and another one of those imaginary things we refuse to accept/change.
> 
> I'd wager that the "standard of living" in a green / carbon neutral economy is something we could export and will improve our quality of life.
> 
> china definitely needs to get off their coal standard if they want to survive. It's not only CO2 issues and climate problems they create by physical health and well being issues.
> 
> Maybe the US can sell them some new technologies to solve their energy demands
> 
> 
> 
> Good stuff!


I had hoped you would be better than this. Strike down another indefensible greenie weenie.


----------



## JeffreyD

supernovae said:


> Completely baseless and irrational arguments.
> 
> 1. There is a high confidence in the issues of rising greenhouse gases
> 2. You absolutely don't know this.
> 3. Again, you can't claim to know this.
> 4. Not at all.


I posted links here from the government and other sources such as a reputable university, data with they had gathered. Put together, they show America as a carbon sink, not a producer. It seems your ignoring those statistics to parrot exactly what the IPCC puts out as factual information, when the reality is that the IPCC has been committing fraud for years.


----------



## supernovae

arabian knight said:


> If we quit doing CO2 all over the world Today in 100 years it would NOT change the World temp by 1/2 a degree or NOT AT ALL. It seems worthless and not worth the extra bucks to TRY, and to believe such things as MAN is causing such things to happen. Man is not that powerful only Mother Earth is. And earth has been changing of the last .45 Billion Years and will continue to do so whether man is on this planet or not. Man can not stop it, man can not slow it down IF change is what is happening Man will HAVE to adopt to it.


The only way we can adapt is to change and not changing is not adapting to it. Its absurd to think we should just stick our heads in the sand. That's not the smart way, that's not the rational way, and most importantly, its never been the American way.



> Man is just a pimple as far as the earth is concerned.


Only if you think the only thing we're good for is being popped and gone.


----------



## supernovae

HDRider said:


> Why don't all you Greenies pack up and move to China. I am sure they'd love to have you. It looks like you'd have plenty of work to keep you busy.


:umno:

Not only is this absurd, it has nothing to do with reality or this discussion and i LOVE the pejorative framing of "greenies"..


----------



## supernovae

JeffreyD said:


> I posted links here from the government and other sources such as a reputable university, data with they had gathered. Put together, they show America as a carbon sink, not a producer. It seems your ignoring those statistics to parrot exactly what the IPCC puts out as factual information, when the reality is that the IPCC has been committing fraud for years.


This is absolutely not true. The US only sequesters 20% of our own output. I already posted the studies on this.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/usinventoryreport.html

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ccs/federal.html

http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/article/2014/06/20140626302674.html

greenhouse gas effects & studies:

http://search.arxiv.org:8081/?query=greenhouse&in=

Stanford topics on energy / sequestration / rates

http://energyseminar.stanford.edu/taxonomy/term/43?page=1

Maps of geologic sequestration:

http://energy.usgs.gov/Environmenta...roductionandUse/GeologicCO2Sequestration.aspx

There is MUCH more to "Climate science" than just the UN, Al Gore, the IPCC and whatever organization you fail to understand but hate with a passion. In fact, Carbon / CO2 PPM could care less WHAT any of that is, its going to happen regardless of Al Gore, George Bush, IPCC, UN, NATO, US, CHINA or whatever you're going to use to justify your disbelief.


----------



## supernovae

HDRider said:


> You belittle yourselves with an abundance of unreasonable abstractions.
> 
> Maybe at least in China you could do some good.


Nice rhetoric, still doesn't change the facts. Maybe in china you can do some good.. what does that make us sound like, 6 year olds? please..

BTW, I love my motorcycle and how about that new electric Harley? interesting eh? Would you know enough to ask about this stuff or do you think people who give a crap are "Anti" everything you?


----------



## JeffreyD

supernovae said:


> This is absolutely not true. The US only sequesters 20% of our own output. I already posted the studies on this.
> 
> http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/usinventoryreport.html
> 
> http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ccs/federal.html
> 
> http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/article/2014/06/20140626302674.html
> 
> greenhouse gas effects & studies:
> 
> http://search.arxiv.org:8081/?query=greenhouse&in=
> 
> Stanford topics on energy / sequestration / rates
> 
> http://energyseminar.stanford.edu/taxonomy/term/43?page=1
> 
> Maps of geologic sequestration:
> 
> http://energy.usgs.gov/Environmenta...roductionandUse/GeologicCO2Sequestration.aspx
> 
> There is MUCH more to "Climate science" than just the UN, Al Gore, the IPCC and whatever organization you fail to understand but hate with a passion. In fact, Carbon / CO2 PPM could care less WHAT any of that is, its going to happen regardless of Al Gore, George Bush, IPCC, UN, NATO, US, CHINA or whatever you're going to use to justify your disbelief.


Data from the epa, data from the University of North Carolina agricultural department are far more reliable than some of those sources you site. Interesting that the epa says one thing, but their data says another. Do the math, data proves beyond any doubt, that not only are we in a cooling period, but we produce less Co2 than we consume. I don't care about maps and charts, data is the only thing that matters , and the data disputes the rhetoric spewed forth by un-balanced environmentalists who have been brainwashed by some of these enviro-religious cults!

So, prove the data wrong!


----------



## HDRider

supernovae said:


> Nice rhetoric, still *doesn't change the facts*. Maybe in china you can do some good.. what does that make us sound like, 6 year olds? please..
> 
> BTW, I love my motorcycle and how about that new electric Harley? interesting eh? Would you know enough to ask about this stuff or do you think people who give a crap are "Anti" everything you?


I agree. The primary fact being, humans cannot reverse climate change, even if we all went naked and only ate wild berries.


----------



## kasilofhome

And how is most of the ele made.... fossil fuel.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

Well one thing is for sure. Those who make it their life's goal to focus on completely unfounded and debatable science will surely miss out on the many joys of life we currently have. And most who have surrendered to the global warming scam despite so much evidence against will never let go of their god of science even though he had failed them time and time again. I remember when Gore started all this. Every prediction and promise he made fell by the wayside. Wanna know something else? The Methode used for measuring ppm. Had been tested and proven to have inaccuracies. Kudzu like carbon dating. It can measure nothing older than 10000 years and even that is questionable. So science is all theories with very few being proven


----------



## supernovae

JeffreyD said:


> Data from the epa, data from the University of North Carolina agricultural department are far more reliable than some of those sources you site. Interesting that the epa says one thing, but their data says another. Do the math, data proves beyond any doubt, that not only are we in a cooling period, but we produce less Co2 than we consume. I don't care about maps and charts, data is the only thing that matters , and the data disputes the rhetoric spewed forth by un-balanced environmentalists who have been brainwashed by some of these enviro-religious cults!
> 
> So, prove the data wrong!


Post your data, this thread is too much of a monster for me to go looking for it as i'm not seeing any of your claims in Google or Bing searches nor any of the scientific research publications i can access through online libraries or arxiv.


----------



## supernovae

HDRider said:


> I agree. The primary fact being, humans cannot reverse climate change, even if we all went naked and only ate wild berries.


Humans went to the moon
Humans explored the solar systems with robot rovers
Humans have robots exploring Mars
Humans have learned about the universe of the small, atomic theory, germs, DNA, Genetics.
Humans have learned about the universe of the large - suns, moons, planets, galaxies, galaxy clusters, super clusters, cosmic microwave background, relativity, newtonian physics.

So when you keep saying whatever we do, we can't fix it or can't change. I say. :umno:

It took 9 years from blowing up rockets to landing on the moon. It may take a LONG time to reduce/reverse green house gases.

The only surefire way to fail, is to not act.

BTW, nothing beats standing around naked and eating fresh berries though!


----------



## JeffreyD

supernovae said:


> Nice rhetoric, still doesn't change the facts. Maybe in china you can do some good.. what does that make us sound like, 6 year olds? please..
> 
> BTW, I love my motorcycle and how about that new electric Harley? interesting eh? Would you know enough to ask about this stuff or do you think people who give a crap are "Anti" everything you?


I know enough about motorcycles to answer any questions you have! I personally would never ride an electric motorcycle on a daily basis. I am familiar with electric motors and the different types of batteries that are being used and being developed. I have 18 electric forklifts, 14 are order pickers, 2 are reach back turret lifts, and 2 are normal forklifts.(I also have a few propane powered lifts)

I owned a motorcycle shop in Valencia Cal.


----------



## HDRider

supernovae said:


> Humans went to the moon
> Humans explored the solar systems with robot rovers
> Humans have robots exploring Mars
> Humans have learned about the universe of the small, atomic theory, germs, DNA, Genetics.
> Humans have learned about the universe of the large - suns, moons, planets, galaxies, galaxy clusters, super clusters, cosmic microwave background, relativity, newtonian physics.
> 
> So when you keep saying whatever we do, we can't fix it or can't change. I say. :umno:
> 
> It took 9 years from blowing up rockets to landing on the moon. It may take a LONG time to reduce/reverse green house gases.
> 
> The only surefire way to fail, is to not act.
> 
> BTW, nothing beats standing around naked and eating fresh berries though!


Now we are coming back closer together. First I agree on the berry thing.

Second, if you say science and private enterprises' quest for profits might someday develop the flux capacitor and unlimited pollution free energy, I agree again.

But jumping up and down, pulling your hair, and yelling at everyone as they go about living their lives is not going to help. People will always do what is in their own best interests and fascists will always try to overpower them by any means necessary. Right now, the fascist tool is to gen up irrational fear levels about man-made climate change.

Enjoy the berries.


----------



## supernovae

Vahomesteaders said:


> Well one thing is for sure. Those who make it their life's goal to focus on completely unfounded and debatable science will surely miss out on the many joys of life we currently have. And most who have surrendered to the global warming scam despite so much evidence against will never let go of their god of science even though he had failed them time and time again. I remember when Gore started all this. Every prediction and promise he made fell by the wayside. Wanna know something else? The Methode used for measuring ppm. Had been tested and proven to have inaccuracies. Kudzu like carbon dating. It can measure nothing older than 10000 years and even that is questionable. So science is all theories with very few being proven


There is nothing unfounded or debatable about the facts and i'm certainly not missing out on the joys of life.

Everything else you say is just living in blissful denial.

Measuring is an engineering problem, we have that one figured out. We know enough about issues of measurement that the precision of measurements is part of the experiment and data sets to begin with. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_and_precision


----------



## unregistered358967

Hello, I'm here for the naked berry eating. :nanner:


----------



## supernovae

HDRider said:


> But jumping up and down, pulling your hair, and yelling at everyone as they go about living their lives is not going to help. People will always do what is in their own best interests and fascists will always try to overpower them by any means necessary. Right now, the fascist tool is to gen up irrational fear levels about man-made climate change.
> 
> .


My father always told me that if you find something worth fighting for, fight for it. Even in the face of opponents with no mercy. The attacks don't mean much to me since i know they're baseless.

I get it people don't want to change.. but at the same time, i don't get it how people assume life is miserable if they do change. 

I think the most disappointing thing though is a lot of you folks have a million excuses to not even try and no good reason not to do it.

i mean, look above.. people saying i'm un-American (greenies!).. that's laughable... its "not the American way".. what does that even mean? i mean, seriously.. when this website is in the history books are future anthropologists going to say "did those people really tell other human beings trying to make a difference in their life that they're unpatriotic and un-American"

what makes people behave this way? That's what i want to know.

I don't care the hundreds of ways you try and insult people who care, i'm just curious why you feel its worth insulting to begin with and why you're so passionate against the ideas of CO2 / GW that these debates rage on.

what do CO2 / climate change /GW deniars gain by calling the science / politics / ramifications of green house gases un american? what value do you get trying to do character attacks vs attacking the data? why bring up Al Gore? why bring up UN? What is the agenda you're trying to support/convey/portray that is being hurt by actually giving a crap about how we impact the one and only planet we live on?

i have no problems with the science of the data.. only new data can change that. But i'm enthralled by the human condition that creates the "anti" environment culture.

To me, it sounds like giving up is the new 'merica.. hate is the new 'merica. Greed is the new 'merica.. or maybe, its just always been this way all along.


----------



## supernovae

JeffreyD said:


> I know enough about motorcycles to answer any questions you have! I personally would never ride an electric motorcycle on a daily basis. I am familiar with electric motors and the different types of batteries that are being used and being developed. I have 18 electric forklifts, 14 are order pickers, 2 are reach back turret lifts, and 2 are normal forklifts.(I also have a few propane powered lifts)
> 
> I owned a motorcycle shop in Valencia Cal.


after experiencing the torque & acceleration of electric drive, i can't go back to gas guzzling myself 

cool shop!

i wish there were large trucks with electric drive and diesel generation on them too.. i'm hooked! (much like the voltec drive but built for hauling)


----------



## HDRider

supernovae said:


> My father always told me that if you find something worth fighting for, fight for it. Even in the face of opponents with no mercy. The attacks don't mean much to me since i know they're baseless.
> 
> I get it people don't want to change.. but at the same time, i don't get it how people assume life is miserable if they do change.
> 
> I think the most disappointing thing though is a lot of you folks have a million excuses to not even try and no good reason not to do it.
> 
> i mean, look above.. people saying *i'm un-American (greenies!).*. that's laughable... its "not the American way".. what does that even mean? i mean, seriously.. when this website is in the history books are future anthropologists going to say "did those people really tell other human beings trying to make a difference in their life that they're unpatriotic and un-American"
> 
> *what makes people behave this way?* That's what i want to know.
> 
> I don't care the hundreds of ways you try and insult people who care, i'm just curious why you feel its worth insulting to begin with and why you're so passionate against the ideas of CO2 / GW that these debates rage on.
> 
> what do CO2 / climate change /GW deniars gain by calling the science / politics / ramifications of green house gases un american? what value do you get trying to do character attacks vs attacking the data? why bring up Al Gore? why bring up UN? What is the agenda you're trying to support/convey/portray that is being hurt by actually giving a crap about how we impact the one and only planet we live on?
> 
> i have no problems with the science of the data.. only new data can change that. But i'm enthralled by the human condition that creates the "anti" environment culture.


Being green is not un-American. No one said that. Being a weenie is un-American.

Regarding the question of why people behave as they do, nothing can explain that. Case in point. You buy what you want. I'll buy what I want. Just stop selling to me. No means no.


----------



## DEKE01

supernovae said:


> Completely baseless and irrational arguments.
> 
> 1. There is a high confidence in the issues of rising greenhouse gases
> 2. You absolutely don't know this.
> 3. Again, you can't claim to know this.
> 4. Not at all.


1. then why are IPCC types quitting and being fired for not buying into the AGW hype? I keep asking this Q and your side doesn't want to answer it. Why are real climatologists, on the payroll of pro-AGW in one form or another backing away from the crisis predictions? 

2. I can know that great economic harm will fall upon coal mining towns in WV and PA. I can know that Comrade Obama has promised us that electric rates will skyrocket. So your statement is baseless and irrational

3. I don't claim to know much of anything in regard to this supposed science, it is your side that knows so much that keeps being proven wrong. The science you put forth says CO2 was much higher than it is now, that there have been both hotter and colder times during the high CO2, that CO2 has increased at faster rates than it is now. Only when your side cherry picks data do you get to make the crazy claims that the sky is falling. 

Some of your side, within this thread, have said we have passed the tipping point. See, even when I use the hype supplied by the AGW-is-religion crowd, I'm told I'm wrong. Your side also cites the China and India problems so that even if the US went to zero carbon emissions, the world would still be going in the wrong CO2 direction. Once again, if I use the info/hype you guys say, you claim it is wrong. 

4. In saying it is too late, once again I am referencing what your side says. Perhaps you guys need to get together and decide what you believe. Then we can have a more productive convo. But you aren't going to decide because just like global cooling>>>global warming>>>climate change, you present a moving target because there are so many holes in the science. 

So how is that end of winters and snow, as well as the more and stronger hurricanes, the projected temp increases during 2000 - 2020 working out for you? If the science and models are wrong about next year, not much chance they have of being right in 50 or 100 years.


----------



## supernovae

DEKE01 said:


> 1. then why are IPCC types quitting and being fired for not buying into the AGW hype? I keep asking this Q and your side doesn't want to answer it. Why are real climatologists, on the payroll of pro-AGW in one form or another backing away from the crisis predictions?


I don't need to read/talk about IPCC



> 2. I can know that great economic harm will fall upon coal mining towns in WV and PA. I can know that Comrade Obama has promised us that electric rates will skyrocket. So your statement is baseless and irrational


Utility rates skyrocketed when utilities started manipulating markets a few years ago, and they recovered.

Coal jobs can be replaced with other jobs. I know in PA they're building wind farms, those mountain ridges are perfect for it.



> 3. I don't claim to know much of anything in regard to this supposed science, it is your side that knows so much that keeps being proven wrong. The science you put forth says CO2 was much higher than it is now, that there have been both hotter and colder times during the high CO2, that CO2 has increased at faster rates than it is now. Only when your side cherry picks data do you get to make the crazy claims that the sky is falling.


All i keep repeating are the facts. What you do with the facts is up to you. The fact is, CO2 levels are increasing and are surpassing 400 ppm and we can identify that the burning of fossil fuels is the growing part.

How you choose to accept that or deny that is up to you. I'm not falling for changing the topic/debate.



> Some of your side, within this thread, have said we have passed the tipping point. See, even when I use the hype supplied by the AGW-is-religion crowd, I'm told I'm wrong. Your side also cites the China and India problems so that even if the US went to zero carbon emissions, the world would still be going in the wrong CO2 direction. Once again, if I use the info/hype you guys say, you claim it is wrong.


It's not my side. I do not take sides in this argument. Facts speak for themselves. You however, are obviously politically biased as we have meet before in the alternative energy forum where the first thing you did was jump on my about them taxes. Not falling for it.

Also, i'm an adult. I can take care of myself. I can reduce my emissions. Setting a positive example is a good thing. China and India will have to go green to compete. Simple as that. I'm not stopping because of some misguided view of china and india.



> 4. In saying it is too late, once again I am referencing what your side says. Perhaps you guys need to get together and decide what you believe. Then we can have a more productive convo. But you aren't going to decide because just like global cooling>>>global warming>>>climate change, you present a moving target because there are so many holes in the science.


Whats with picking sides? Whats with all the distractions? You're the one that has a problem figuring out what to believe.



> So how is that end of winters and snow, as well as the more and stronger hurricanes, the projected temp increases during 2000 - 2020 working out for you? If the science and models are wrong about next year, not much chance they have of being right in 50 or 100 years.


Working great if you actually know what they're talking about.. again, none of this changes the facts that CO2 levels are rising and we know its man made CO2 and we know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that causes climate change and we know that bigger winters, hotter summers, more snow, less snow is all climate change - especially when measured beyond the days weather and differences over a period of time.. and we have fairly good weather data since man started collecting it. You do realize that weather is all dependent on temperature and energy in the system right? cold/hot is just the measure of the amount of energy in a system. Co2 captures more energy. Not rocket science. We also know the energy rate in watts over distance that co2 stores.


temperature: energy perceived as temperature: a form of transferred energy that arises from the random motion of molecules and is felt as temperature, especially as warmth or hotness.

But again, no sides.


----------



## arabian knight

We need to get building new nuclear plants, get all the coal plants up and running before the it really hits the poor harder then it already has. 65% of this country get their electricity from Coal Fired Electric plants. 3 in my area have closed as well as the one I get my electric from. Thank you Obama for getting my electric bill so high I NOW have to ask four added help from the State of WI. 
And WHO pays for that? The Tax Payers.
Get this pipeline built as fast as it can be. Build more refineries, so we can KEEP the gas HERE. Like it not this country and the World as far as that goes is going to use oil.
Like or not this country was built and will continue to run on OIL, GAS and Natural Gas. Wind can only help such a tiny amount that it is so tiny that it is not even non the charts.
Wind as well as solar are just a pipe dream at best by the greenie folks. If someone wants to put up his or her own wind electric generator go for it. But don't try to push your agenda on us or the rest of the country. Keep going as you want.
This is a free country to do want you want but don't FORCE others to do the same.~!


----------



## unregistered353870

Paumon said:


> I think it's too late to reverse or turn around the climate change that is already underway, that we have been contributing to and causing to accelerate. I do not think it's too late to stop contributing to it - so to speak, to take our foot off the accelerator and stop feeding it the fuel that's been causing the acceleration. There are a number of ways to stop feeding it that fuel.
> 
> Will it reverse it? No. Will it stop it? No.
> 
> Will it slow its progress enough for us to make the necessary adjustments that will allow us to cope with continuing climate change? Hopefully.


Thanks for explaining. Makes sense to me now.


----------



## supernovae

arabian knight said:


> We need to get building new nuclear plants, get all the coal plants up and running before the it really hits the poor harder then it already has. 65% of this country get their electricity from Coal Fired Electric plants. 3 in my area have closed as well as the one I get my electric from. Thank you Obama for getting my electric bill so high I NOW have to ask four added help from the State of WI.
> And WHO pays for that? The Tax Payers.
> Get this pipeline built as fast as it can be. Build more refineries, so we can KEEP the gas HERE. Like it not this country and the World as far as that goes is going to use oil.
> Like or not this country was built and will continue to run on OIL, GAS and Natural Gas. Wind can only help such a tiny amount that it is so tiny that it is not even non the charts.
> Wind as well as solar are just a pipe dream at best by the greenie folks. If someone wants to put up his or her own wind electric generator go for it. But don't try to push your agenda on us or the rest of the country. Keep going as you want.
> This is a free country to do want you want but don't FORCE others to do the same.~!


Wind accounts for 5% of our energy production with a cool 174.7 terawatt-hours for the last year with new capacity coming online daily.

I read a little bit about the closings and it appears the nuke and coal plants are being shutdown because they cost a lot more to operate than the natural gas other other power plants in place. The utility markets are actually showing surplus supply. Stinks that there will be jobloss, but on the flipside do you see that the ONE nuke power plant dismantling will remove 1,000+ acres of land for 60 years so it can be decontaminated. Is that what we really want to build more of? Thats almost 2 square miles of dead land. Thats a HUGE tax burden and cost that will last 2 generations!

Electric rates by state pretty much appear on par to utilization which is a supply and demand based market, nothing obama controls.

http://www.electricchoice.com/images/electricity-prices-by-state-map-2012-med.jpg

Lastly, pipelines are expensive and have huge tax burden since taxpayers are usually the ones stuck with paying for right of way on the pipeline. Not to mention security of it.. as for coal plants, tax payers get stiff with not only the coal burning, coal distribution but also cleanup from coal mining and superfunds from mountain top removals and the poisoning of massive amounts of land and streams .

Those jobs are better invested in other technologies and instead of just screaming about it, we should do something about it.

No one wants higher prices. I don't wish that upon anyone, but inflation is here.. there is a lot of people competing for energy and population is growing so it comes down to market dynamics such as supply and demand.

Like any good "homesteader" (or anyone wanting to be) self-sufficiency and sustainability is in our blood. Not sure why so many people deny that here. We want better food, healthier animals who live a dignified if even short life and we want happy families and peace with nature.. i can't think of any other better way to do that than to invest in our future as much as we invest in the pride of what we claim we want our future to be.


----------



## kasilofhome

Yes coal fired ele plants cost more because the current president has kept that one promise to increase the cost to coal fired plant to deliberately cause such energy to "skyrocket" with the added cost of regulation.

Pipelines are safe ways to transport fuels. Pipelines are economically improving economy where they are built. And Cariboo love the Alaska pipeline in reading the population.


----------



## arabian knight

And what some fail to get into their heads is pipelines are safe. 
There are Millions of miles of pipelines in the US alone. That carry NG, Oil Gasoline, and other things that are in use in todays highly mechanized world of machines and vehicles of all kinds.
2.5 Million miles~ 
One more is not going to make ANY difference in ANY so called little animal sanctuaries ANY safer if the Keystone is not built. Believe ME it WILL be built. Come heck or high water. It will get built and it will put many Americans to work building it too.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

From the founder of Green peace.

Dr. Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace, quit the activist environmental organization in 1986 after it strayed away from objective science and took a sharp turn to the political left.

Testifying on Feb. 25 before the Senate Environmental and Public Works Committeeâs Subcommittee on Oversight, he took issue with the U.N.âs Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claim that âSince the mid-20th century it is âextremely likelyâ that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming."

Moore pointed out âThere is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth's atmosphere over the past 100 years,â arguing that âperhaps the simplest way to expose the fallacy of extreme certainty is to look at the historical record.â 

He told the committee: âWhen modern life evolved over 500 million years ago, CO2 was more than 10 times higher than today, yet life flourished at this time. Then an ice age occurred 450 million years ago when carbon dioxide was 10 times higher than today.â

Moore also noted that âThe increase in temperature between 1910 and 1940 was virtually identical to the increase between 1970 and 2000. Yet the IPCC does not attribute the increase from 1910â1942 human influence.â Why then, he asks, âdoes the IPCC believe that a virtually identical increase in temperature after 1950 is caused mainly by human influence, when it has no explanation for nearly identical increase from 1910 to 1940?â

Moore emphasized that there is no reason to believe that a warmer climate would be anything but beneficial for humans and the majority of other species. On the other hand, there is ample reason to believe that a sharp cooling of the climate would bring disastrous results for human civilization.

Dr. Fritz Vahrenholt, a prominent Socialist and a father of Germanyâs environmental movement, has become another strong critic of the IPCCâs alarmist global warming doctrine. His lack of trust began while serving as an expert reviewer for an IPCC renewable energy report as the renewable energy division head of Germanyâs second largest utility company.

Upon discovering and pointing out numerous factual inaccuracies to IPCC officials, they simply brushed them aside. Stunned by this, he began to wonder if IPCC reports on climate change were similarly sloppy. After digging into the IPCCâs climate report he was horrified to find similar incompetency and misrepresentations, including climate models that were fudged to produce exaggerated temperature increases.

Dr. Vahrenholt concluded: âThe facts need to be discussed sensibly and scientifically, without first deciding on the results.â And although CO2 may have some warming influence, he believes that the sun plays a far greater role in the whole scheme of things.

James Lovelock, a highly respected scientist, predicted in 2006 that: âBefore this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where climate remains tolerable.â 

More recently, however, he admitted to MSNBC: âWe donât know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books . . . mine included . . . because it looked clear cut . . . but it hasnât happened.â

The 92-year-old Lovelock went on to note, âThe climate is doing its usual tricks . . . thereâs nothing much happening yet even though we were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now.â He added, âYet the temperature has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising . . . carbon dioxide has been rising, no question about that.â

Moore, Vahrenholt, and Lovelock are but three within an expanding multitude of scientists who are cooling on climate alarm. 

When previously asked on Fox Business News who is responsible for promoting unwarranted fear and what their motives are, Moore said: âA powerful convergence of interests. Scientists seeking grant money, media seeking headlines, universities seeking huge grants from major institutions, foundations, environmental groups, politicians wanting to make it look like they are saving future generations. And all of these people have converged on this issue."

Moore warns that, âThe alarmism is driving us through scare tactics to adopt energy policies that are going to create a huge amount of energy poverty among the poor people. It's not good for people and itâs not good for the environment. In a warmer world we can produce more food."

Nobel Laureate physicist Dr. Ivar Giaever has referred to global warming ideology as a âpseudoscienceâ that begins with an emotionally-appealing hypothesis, and âthen only looks for items which appear to support it,â while ignoring ample contrary evidence. 

Tragically, that pseudoscience does greatest injustice to those who can least afford it.


----------



## supernovae

Vahomesteaders said:


> From the founder of Green peace.
> 
> Dr. Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace, quit the activist environmental organization in 1986 after it strayed away from objective science and took a sharp turn to the political left.
> 
> .....


Dr. Patrick Moore is a sellout to the heartland instute that runs politically motivated conventions to spread lies about Co2 simply being plant food. It's absurd.

He also talks about global warming being a good thing so he can plant trees where glaciers melt.. which is nice coming from a tree farming family that should know trees don't grow in the altitudes glaciers form, but facts don't matter.

Just another ol' hippy gone yuppy. No news here. Just really good whitewashing.

http://heartland.org/patrick-moore

Right-wing think tank/propaganda service not biased on science. But alas, its not illegal to make things up and turn them into a conference.

He's basically gone on air and agreed the planet is getting warmer, doesn't understand what CO2 really is (he's an ecologist, he understands it darn right, just refuses to accept the evidence) and his ultimate answer is "gee golly then, lets plant more trees for food then"

He's often spoke of high CO2 450 million years ago.. 450 million years ago there weren't vertebrates so we hadn't even evolved yet (ancestors lived in water..) and the end of this great "co2" period was the largest extinction event recorded in fossil history.


----------



## kasilofhome

supernovae said:


> Dr. Patrick Moore is a sellout to the heartland instute that runs politically motivated conventions to spread lies about Co2 simply being plant food. It's absurd.
> 
> He also talks about global warming being a good thing so he can plant trees where glaciers melt.. which is nice coming from a tree farming family that should know trees don't grow in the altitudes glaciers form, but facts don't matter.
> 
> Just another ol' hippy gone yuppy. No news here. Just really good whitewashing.
> 
> http://heartland.org/patrick-moore
> 
> Right-wing think tank/propaganda service not biased on science. But alas, its not illegal to make things up and turn them into a conference.
> 
> He's basically gone on air and agreed the planet is getting warmer, doesn't understand what CO2 really is (he's an ecologist, he understands it darn right, just refuses to accept the evidence) and his ultimate answer is "gee golly then, lets plant more trees for food then"
> 
> He's often spoke of high CO2 450 million years ago.. 450 million years ago there weren't vertebrates so we hadn't even evolved yet (ancestors lived in water..) and the end of this great "co2" period was the largest extension event recorded in fossil history.[/QUOTE
> 
> 
> That idea of where trees grow is a blatant false tale. Why because at the akaskcan north slope in the core samples are Palm trees and many other tree samples. What do the think the cartoons that roamed Alaska ate....
> 
> Facts are better than fictional regurgitated talking points. Sorry but I know you may grow trees but that does not give your feeling on where trees grow any standing.


----------



## Paumon

kasilofhome said:


> That idea of where trees grow is a blatant false tale. Why because at the akaskcan north slope in the core samples are Palm trees and many other tree samples. What do the think the cartoons that roamed Alaska ate....
> 
> Facts are better than fictional regurgitated talking points. Sorry but I know you may grow trees but that does not give your feeling on where trees grow any standing.


When it was hot there in Alaska and across the northern Arctic regions, before the glaciers came, there were many vegetation and tree types, including palms, and many huge bodied animals. Then the glaciers came and the glaciers bulldozed down all the trees and other vegetation. That is how those ancient tree and plant specimens show up in the core samples. 

But when those glaciers came they didn't just bulldoze down all the trees, they also gouged down deep into the earth to solid bedrock and bulldozed up all of the topsoil, all organic material, and they pushed it ahead of them as the glaciers advanced to the south. When the glaciers melted (retreated) they left the topsoil and other organic material behind them in the south and all that was exposed after their retreat was rock (the Canadian Shield) with deep gouges in the rock that filled in with water - the 3 million known lakes. Over the course of time plants advanced across the rock but only tundra plants and stunted trees that can grow on poor acid soil and muskeg peats. Needful trees and plants fit for human use won't grow there now without the addition of uncounted billions upon billions of tons of soil amendments being transported to those places. Plus they need a climate that is more suitable for growing things.

Where there are now still remaining glaciers - the glaciers that are melting now - there is only rock underneath those glaciers, no organic material, no soil. Patrick Moore wants to grow trees in the places where the melting glaciers are now, after the glaciers are melted and gone. But nobody can grow anything on glacier beds, it's solid rock. 

So where is he proposing to take the multiple billions of topsoil and soil amendments from to put there on top of the glacier beds so that he can grow trees there? Who will give up their billions of tons of good soil for a pipe dream?

And once the mountain glaciers are all gone, even if Mr. Moore could find and transport that much soil to the glacier beds - where will he get water from there in the high bare, stony mountains to provide water to the plants and trees he wants to plant there?

It doesn't matter what grew there and lived there before the glaciers came because the glaciers changed the land and when the remaining glaciers are gone they will leave behind rocky desolation. You can't plant trees there.


----------



## Paumon

This is for anyone who has children/students that are interested in learning more about the impacts of climate change .... or even for adults and adult students that prefer to see a simplified basic explanation about climate change: http://epa.gov/climatestudents/impacts/signs/index.html


----------



## Paumon

From yesterday's news. These huge 80 meter wide craters were discovered a month ago. They are methane blow holes leading to methane caverns deep under ground in Siberia, apparently collapsing and opening up due to the changing climate there thawing the permafrost. Being nicnamed Dragon's Mouth.

Here is the story:

http://www.news.com.au/technology/e...e-climate-change/story-fnjwvztl-1227006746397


----------



## Paumon

Here's a graph for you guys.

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/










This graph, based on the comparison of atmospheric samples contained in ice cores and more recent direct measurements, provides evidence that atmospheric CO2 has increased since the Industrial Revolution.


----------



## DEKE01

Well karen has taken all the joy out of this thread. :grump: And I put so much effort into my emoticon story of two star crossed lovers. Drat. 

Oh well, time to move on to something more productive. But I leave you with...

Vahomesteader...excellent contribution and the response you got was typical sell out conspiracy stuff because to accept that there are climatologists, I posted a few further back in the thread, who aren't part of the 97% fraudulent settled science consensus is too upsetting. 

For others, I see lots of "facts" being tossed around. Unfortunately, many of those facts are opinions, and not facts...for instance ignoring that CO2 can not be the dominant, and perhaps not even highly significant, factor in global warming when science tells us that CO2 levels were 5x higher when global temps were both hotter and colder than current.


----------



## kasilofhome

[

Explain the fertile matsu of Alaska, or the kenai where I live. Or the layers of sand grave top soil organic materials that repeat in the core samples.... oh I guess all those core sample are faked. The fossil fuel fokes made it all up.

I live surrounded by glaciers today I know my area.

False info is bought and sold to make money and fear.






QUOTE=Paumon;7167202]When it was hot there in Alaska and across the northern Arctic regions, before the glaciers came, there were many vegetation and tree types, including palms, and many huge bodied animals. Then the glaciers came and the glaciers bulldozed down all the trees and other vegetation. That is how those ancient tree and plant specimens show up in the core samples. 

But when those glaciers came they didn't just bulldoze down all the trees, they also gouged down deep into the earth to solid bedrock and bulldozed up all of the topsoil, all organic material, and they pushed it ahead of them as the glaciers advanced to the south. When the glaciers melted (retreated) they left the topsoil and other organic material behind them in the south and all that was exposed after their retreat was rock (the Canadian Shield) with deep gouges in the rock that filled in with water - the 3 million known lakes. Over the course of time plants advanced across the rock but only tundra plants and stunted trees that can grow on poor acid soil and muskeg peats. Needful trees and plants fit for human use won't grow there now without the addition of uncounted billions upon billions of tons of soil amendments being transported to those places. Plus they need a climate that is more suitable for growing things.

Where there are now still remaining glaciers - the glaciers that are melting now - there is only rock underneath those glaciers, no organic material, no soil. Patrick Moore wants to grow trees in the places where the melting glaciers are now, after the glaciers are melted and gone. But nobody can grow anything on glacier beds, it's solid rock. 

So where is he proposing to take the multiple billions of topsoil and soil amendments from to put there on top of the glacier beds so that he can grow trees there? Who will give up their billions of tons of good soil for a pipe dream?

And once the mountain glaciers are all gone, even if Mr. Moore could find and transport that much soil to the glacier beds - where will he get water from there in the high bare, stony mountains to provide water to the plants and trees he wants to plant there?

It doesn't matter what grew there and lived there before the glaciers came because the glaciers changed the land and when the remaining glaciers are gone they will leave behind rocky desolation. You can't plant trees there.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Paumon

kasilofhome said:


> Paumon said:
> 
> 
> 
> When it was hot there in Alaska and across the northern Arctic regions, before the glaciers came, there were many vegetation and tree types, including palms, and many huge bodied animals. Then the glaciers came and the glaciers bulldozed down all the trees and other vegetation. That is how those ancient tree and plant specimens show up in the core samples.
> 
> But when those glaciers came they didn't just bulldoze down all the trees, they also gouged down deep into the earth to solid bedrock and bulldozed up all of the topsoil, all organic material, and they pushed it ahead of them as the glaciers advanced to the south. When the glaciers melted (retreated) they left the topsoil and other organic material behind them in the south and all that was exposed after their retreat was rock (the Canadian Shield) with deep gouges in the rock that filled in with water - the 3 million known lakes. Over the course of time plants advanced across the rock but only tundra plants and stunted trees that can grow on poor acid soil and muskeg peats. Needful trees and plants fit for human use won't grow there now without the addition of uncounted billions upon billions of tons of soil amendments being transported to those places. Plus they need a climate that is more suitable for growing things.
> 
> Where there are now still remaining glaciers - the glaciers that are melting now - there is only rock underneath those glaciers, no organic material, no soil. Patrick Moore wants to grow trees in the places where the melting glaciers are now, after the glaciers are melted and gone. But nobody can grow anything on glacier beds, it's solid rock.
> 
> So where is he proposing to take the multiple billions of topsoil and soil amendments from to put there on top of the glacier beds so that he can grow trees there? Who will give up their billions of tons of good soil for a pipe dream?
> 
> And once the mountain glaciers are all gone, even if Mr. Moore could find and transport that much soil to the glacier beds - where will he get water from there in the high bare, stony mountains to provide water to the plants and trees he wants to plant there?
> 
> It doesn't matter what grew there and lived there before the glaciers came because the glaciers changed the land and when the remaining glaciers are gone they will leave behind rocky desolation. You can't plant trees there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Explain the fertile matsu of Alaska, or the kenai where I live. Or the layers of sand grave top soil organic materials that repeat in the core samples.... oh I guess all those core sample are faked. The fossil fuel fokes made it all up.
> 
> I live surrounded by glaciers today I know my area.
> 
> False info is bought and sold to make money and fear.
Click to expand...

Your hostile sarcasm doesn't look good on you. Are you capable of having a discussion without the big nasty chip on the shoulder tipping you over? If you keep it up I'm not going to answer any more of your questions for you.

You seem to keep on forgetting that I lived there too for a good 20 years or more before you were even born, and I also know the area. The Matsu you're talking about is a protected micro-climate delta type valley with a river running through it and it's right on the south coast - it's not possible for it to not be fertile. Likewise for the Kenai.

 

*Matanuska-Susitna Valley* shown shaded in red 

Those fertile areas and the existing glaciers there now were formed after the continental glaciers of the ice age retreated. The fertility was and still is a direct consequence of the existence of salmon spawning far inland all through Alaska, British Columbia, Yukon. The glaciers you have there in Alaska, and those that are on the Pacific Coast Range mountains and the Rockies are relative newborns, they're all younger than the glaciers that came down from the Arctic. 

So how about you explain to us exactly where those cores you're talking about came from and how and when Alaska and all lands west of the Rocky Mountains were formed.

Maybe this will help you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Last_glacial_vegetation_map.png


----------



## Vahomesteaders

Anybody who gets their information from the Us govt, UN leaders and the EPA, and calls it facts should seriously know better than that. They are all in it to make MONEY! They are the propoganda machines. Like was said earlier it doesnt take a rocket scientist to see that the numbers dont add up. When the scientist say we are releasing X amount of-PPM of Co2 a year then they say each tree can filter X amount of Co2 a year then add up the numbers you find if you add the trees and all the plants on the earth together, you realize that we have more than enough plants to counter rising Co2 levels. Our sun is getting hotter. That in turn makes us hotter. The sun is the guilty party here on earths grumblings.


----------



## arabian knight

Oh ya lets just blame everything that can't be explained right away on GW. That huge hole is one example

*Speculation was rampant.* People suggested it could have been caused by a meteorite, an underground explosion related to nearby natural gas fields.
And even the GW folks have been on board with their dire warnings about Global Warming. What a piece of Jump on something that is not found out the cause about and blame GW on it. Ya thats the ticket. And THAT is what makes those GW folks look like fools, they jump right in and saturate the news as if that is what caused such holes to come about. Well Holes have been happening on this earth for years. And GW is NOT what has cause them and until for certain this is found out what casued the speculation that is running rampart should not make the news.
That is what is BAD about the internet. Too many of these stories get sensationalized by ALL the ANTI groups~!

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/mysterious-crater-found-in-siberia-2014-7#ixzz3931l6oSs


----------



## supernovae

Vahomesteaders said:


> Anybody who gets their information from the Us govt, UN leaders and the EPA, and calls it facts should seriously know better than that. They are all in it to make MONEY! They are the propoganda machines.


Where do you get your information then? Universities are part of the US govt, Schools are part of the government, Libraries are part of the government, TV is part of the government.. The internet you're using to spread these lies was started by the government. This makes absolutely no sense and is nothing short of hysteria. Are you telling me the entire free world is wrong and you're right just because you said so? Our universities don't work in a bubble, our schools don't work in a bubble, our government doesn't work in a bubble... (just has really pathetic short sighted foreign policy, but thats another subject)



> Like was said earlier it doesnt take a rocket scientist to see that the numbers dont add up. When the scientist say we are releasing X amount of-PPM of Co2 a year then they say each tree can filter X amount of Co2 a year then add up the numbers you find if you add the trees and all the plants on the earth together, you realize that we have more than enough plants to counter rising Co2 levels. Our sun is getting hotter. That in turn makes us hotter. The sun is the guilty party here on earths grumblings.


It just takes a little bit of biology, chemistry and physics. We do NOT have enough plants to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. If we did, the PPM wouldn't be increasing. 

The sun is NOT getting hotter and we can easily identify when solar cycles peak and valley. Not only that, but because of global warning when the solar cycles do peak, the earth retains heat that used to just be reflected back because of CO2. Our polar ice caps are great regulators of temperature.

You're right, it absolutely is not rocket science. So once again, how is it, that you - ignoring all the math, all the physics, all the chemistry, all the biology are right and everyone else is wrong? Please do explain.


----------



## supernovae

kasilofhome said:


> Facts are better than fictional regurgitated talking points. Sorry but I know you may grow trees but that does not give your feeling on where trees grow any standing.


The amount of glaciers that survive today at the lower altitudes where trees survive is negligible and facing the facts one would realize that the concept of turning them into arable lands is absurd.

Yes, i poked fun at the absurdity. I wasn't claiming to be absolute. Quoting that dude as some outstanding source of non biased information is what was wrong. I'm pretty sure there are some glacial deposits at lower atmospheres that you may be able to plant food on, but that still doesn't mean AGW isn't happening just because you want to attack me as a person to make such a claim.

Yes, i was being snarky. I'm so glad you caught that. You bait me, i bait you, we all lose. I was hoping we could clearly see this and get it out in the open rather than having to debate the absurdity of stuff that doesn't really matter to the discussion at hand. CO2 is rising, we can measure the human impact to that, and even if you want more arable land, that doesn't mean Humans don't have their cost to our ecology.


----------



## supernovae

arabian knight said:


> Oh ya lets just blame everything that can't be explained right away on GW. That huge hole is one example
> 
> *Speculation was rampant.* People suggested it could have been caused by a meteorite, an underground explosion related to nearby natural gas fields.
> And even the GW folks have been on board with their dire warnings about Global Warming. What a piece of Jump on something that is not found out the cause about and blame GW on it. Ya thats the ticket. And THAT is what makes those GW folks look like fools, they jump right in and saturate the news as if that is what caused such holes to come about. Well Holes have been happening on this earth for years. And GW is NOT what has cause them and until for certain this is found out what casued the speculation that is running rampart should not make the news.
> That is what is BAD about the internet. Too many of these stories get sensationalized by ALL the ANTI groups~!
> 
> Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/mysterious-crater-found-in-siberia-2014-7#ixzz3931l6oSs


I look at this and i wonder what person would call others "Fools", especially if they're trying to say they're better then another.

Then i realize calling people fools doesn't mean anything, its just a way for our brains to tell us we're better than something.

Why do we tell ourselves we're better than something? Its usually because there is a deficiency or void that we're trying to over compensate for and in most cases its lacking knowledge to actually have a clear and concise or rational discussion about something.

So instead of speaking in facts, we call each other fools.. "greenies" or as of lately "weenies". We start liking like minded people who are just as irrational and we start building these communities of like minded people. We start turning political and before you know it, everyone is so wrong that being right is the hard thing to do because it would make us look like idiots.

But there is nothing wrong with being an idiot. That's part of life. Some people really are proud of being an idiot. 

So please people. Think before you speak. Calling people "fools" doesn't make you sound intelligent, better, superior nor does it mean the facts are on your side. 

There are people everywhere with an agenda. We can keep fighting about the extreme left or the extreme right, or we can do what any rational creature would do and focus on the facts.

For the issue of CO2 and greenhouse gases doesn't matter which side of the isle you're on. That's an issue all in your head.

If someone wants to jump to conclusions and say god did it, aliens did it, global warming did it, they can do that. It doesn't mean the whole world is doing it and even if the whole world did it, it doesn't mean its right.

Heck, the world swore our planet was once flat.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

supernovae said:


> Where do you get your information then? Universities are part of the US govt, Schools are part of the government, Libraries are part of the government, TV is part of the government.. The internet you're using to spread these lies was started by the government. This makes absolutely no sense and is nothing short of hysteria. Are you telling me the entire free world is wrong and you're right just because you said so? Our universities don't work in a bubble, our schools don't work in a bubble, our government doesn't work in a bubble... (just has really pathetic short sighted foreign policy, but thats another subject)
> 
> 
> 
> It just takes a little bit of biology, chemistry and physics. We do NOT have enough plants to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. If we did, the PPM wouldn't be increasing.
> 
> The sun is NOT getting hotter and we can easily identify when solar cycles peak and valley. Not only that, but because of global warning when the solar cycles do peak, the earth retains heat that used to just be reflected back because of CO2. Our polar ice caps are great regulators of temperature.
> 
> You're right, it absolutely is not rocket science. So once again, how is it, that you - ignoring all the math, all the physics, all the chemistry, all the biology are right and everyone else is wrong? Please do explain.


Dr. Waleed Abdalati is Nasa's top scientist. He says. "It's not rocket science (or big $$$$ research obscuring its findings with acronymic codes to confuse common sense) to see that the latter half of the 20th century was a period of increased solar activity unmatched since recording of which began. The peaks may have decreased somewhat in the last 20 years BUT were still far above the average of the 400 year period- making the expectation that this 20 year period should be observing a cooling effect from solar influence patently absurd. The sun was about 30% dimmer when the Earth first formed 4.6 billion years ago. This is well known. However that process of stellar evolution is so slow it has no effect on the climate on timescales of thousands of years. The only real relevance of this to the AGW is that it explains how a snowball Earth could ocurr with high levels of atmospheric CO2 Note the climate has been much warmer in the past, even with the dimmer Sun, the most feasible explanation is the higher levels of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere at the time. This is known as the Faint Young Sun Paradox. You will also notice that there were no man made influences affecting the earth at those times of greater C02 explosion"

I just let the Rocket Scientist explain it. lol


----------



## supernovae

Vahomesteaders said:


> Dr. Waleed Abdalati is Nasa's top scientist. He says. "It's not rocket science (or big $$$$ research obscuring its findings with acronymic codes to confuse common sense) to see that the latter half of the 20th century was a period of increased solar activity unmatched since recording of which began.


Solar activity doesn't increase heat trapping, it simply increases the short term heat of the system. CO2 Traps this heat. The cycle of solar min/solar max is easily discernible.



> The peaks may have decreased somewhat in the last 20 years BUT were still far above the average of the 400 year period- making the expectation that this 20 year period should be observing a cooling effect from solar influence patently absurd. The sun was about 30% dimmer when the Earth first formed 4.6 billion years ago.


Its so well known, its part of our fundamental understanding. You're fighting something i'm not fighting. We understand this stuff fairly well, we observe the sun 24x7 with satellites. This is part of the climate modelling we use.



> This is well known. However that process of stellar evolution is so slow it has no effect on the climate on timescales of thousands of years. The only real relevance of this to the AGW is that it explains how a snowball Earth could ocurr with high levels of atmospheric CO2 Note the climate has been much warmer in the past, even with the dimmer Sun, the most feasible explanation is the higher levels of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere at the time. This is known as the Faint Young Sun Paradox. You will also notice that there were no man made influences affecting the earth at those times of greater C02 explosion"


So wait, you just said earlier you don't believe in the evolution of our planet. You just said life couldn't have existed in such a climate and now you're telling me that you understand it and accept it?

Do you also understand that while CO2 is a greenhouse gas, if a planet is covered in ice, it is reflecting most of the suns energy back out? Also, depending on the atmosphere that existed at this time, there may have been less water vapor (since it was all frozen) and thusly even if CO2 was exceedingly high, water vapor still accounts for a massive amount of stored energies which would have laid frozen.

Please, do us a favor. Stop. This is just getting absurd.



> I just let the Rocket Scientist explain it. lol


i wish you would


----------



## Vahomesteaders

No I don't believe in evolution but I let one of your own explain it to you. Just because you use big words and try to sound educated does not make anything you say correct. If odds all still just your opinion based on a theory that despite what you day is all just a theory add it is highly debated in the field of science and no solid consensus has been made. So we are both stating our opinion and what wet base it on. Does mean either one of us is right. Cause nobody really knows what's going on.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

The fact is this. This is a homesteading site. Folks come here to learn why their goat just pooped a yellow brick or why their rooster has a clubbed for and hops in circles. Some city people even come to find out what the Oval shaped Brown thing is that just came out of their chicken. They talk gardening and canning pickles. Most care very little for psuedoscience theories that won't affect any of is or or children. They just want to live a simple life and do their part to help nature. Nor argue theories.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

Stupid auto correct. Lol


----------



## MJsLady

> I just let the Rocket Scientist explain it. lol


My fil was a rocket scientist. (The Apollo missions and a series of rockets and satellites.) He also was a creationist. (if asked how the earth began he said In the beginning God created)
He didn't believe in the climate change now being pushed. Yes the climate changes, and it has cycles from decade to decade that move as nature demands, regardless of mankind and animal kind.


----------



## Evons hubby

supernovae said:


> But there is nothing wrong with being an idiot. That's part of life. Some people really are proud of being an idiot.


Yeppers, and some are really really good at it too!


----------



## supernovae

MJsLady said:


> My fil was a rocket scientist. (The Apollo missions and a series of rockets and satellites.) He also was a creationist. (if asked how the earth began he said In the beginning God created)
> He didn't believe in the climate change now being pushed. Yes the climate changes, and it has cycles from decade to decade that move as nature demands, regardless of mankind and animal kind.


A lot of people believed in God and still do, that isn't what this is about. I know more Christians who understand global warming / climate science and have a firm grasp of Evolution than i do who don't, but anecdotal evidence still doesn't change the facts.

Lots of people in the 60s were very religious, i don't doubt that. Even scientists. But people in the 60s also thought they were infallible and could do no wrong and a lot of the laws we're stuck under today are a direct result of their lack of regard for the future they stopped dreaming of.


----------



## supernovae

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yeppers, and some are really really good at it too!


The google and bing gods will archive this discussion for eternity and i'll be proud to be known to have simply stood on the side of facts and evidence.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

supernovae said:


> The google and bing gods will archive this discussion for eternity and i'll be proud to be known to have simply stood on the side of facts and evidence.


Depends on where you spend eternity. Lol


----------



## supernovae

Vahomesteaders said:


> The fact is this. This is a homesteading site. Folks come here to learn why their goat just pooped a yellow brick or why their rooster has a clubbed for and hops in circles. Some city people even come to find out what the Oval shaped Brown thing is that just came out of their chicken. They talk gardening and canning pickles. Most care very little for psuedoscience theories that won't affect any of is or or children. They just want to live a simple life and do their part to help nature. Nor argue theories.


Is this were true, why did this topic get opened? why are you still responding? Someone cared enough to start this discussion, i care enough to participate in it. Homesteading doesn't have to be one thing or another.

I don't care about pseudoscience which is why i'm responding to it. It's bad for taking care of sick chickens, its bad for discovering why something pooped a yellow brick and its bad for canning pickles. For the science of poop, the science of sick chickens and the science of canning is still science even if we pretend it isn't.


----------



## kasilofhome

Posted many links here on
The thread 
Al must have been right
On July 5 2013
Post num. 14


----------



## kasilofhome

In the 1930s during the new deal a government program open up to push to get people to move to the mat su due to the great farm potential. Along with the kenai the mat such is a farming ag area even today.

It is part of the history of Alaska.


----------



## supernovae

kasilofhome said:


> In the 1930s during the new deal a government program open up to push to get people to move to the mat su due to the great farm potential. Along with the kenai the mat such is a farming ag area even today.
> 
> It is part of the history of Alaska.


and?

The ecology of the mat-su is over eons, not a few years and it still doesn't change the fact the source of the glacial sediments is above the tree line and WITHOUT the glacial sediments such a biomass wouldn't exist. Just seems to be a catch 22, not a harvest win.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matanuska_Formation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mat_Su,_Alaska

None of this really changes the fact that the person who was quoted is a partner for a conservative think tank with an obvious political ideology and that no scientific group recognized their "climate conference".


----------



## JeffreyD

supernovae said:


> Solar activity doesn't increase heat trapping, it simply increases the short term heat of the system. CO2 Traps this heat. The cycle of solar min/solar max is easily discernible.
> 
> 
> 
> Its so well known, its part of our fundamental understanding. You're fighting something i'm not fighting. We understand this stuff fairly well, we observe the sun 24x7 with satellites. This is part of the climate modelling we use.
> 
> 
> 
> So wait, you just said earlier you don't believe in the evolution of our planet. You just said life couldn't have existed in such a climate and now you're telling me that you understand it and accept it?
> 
> Do you also understand that while CO2 is a greenhouse gas, if a planet is covered in ice, it is reflecting most of the suns energy back out? Also, depending on the atmosphere that existed at this time, there may have been less water vapor (since it was all frozen) and thusly even if CO2 was exceedingly high, water vapor still accounts for a massive amount of stored energies which would have laid frozen.
> 
> Please, do us a favor. Stop. This is just getting absurd.
> 
> 
> 
> i wish you would


I posted links that prove that at least America is NOT producing more Co2 than we ate sinking. We ate helping the rest of the world already! Prove the epa wrong!


----------



## supernovae

JeffreyD said:


> I posted links that prove that at least America is NOT producing more Co2 than we ate sinking. We ate helping the rest of the world already! Prove the epa wrong!


Please post them again, i can't find them. I've already looked everywhere and there are only 2 countries listed as being carbon neutral by goals by the year 2020. 

I've looked on google, bing, ArxIV and the university publications i have access to through my library cards to no avail and everything i do find and everything i've linked a couple of times goes against what you are saying.

In fact, i've seen quite the opposite. Our insatiable appetite for cheap oil and drilling/fracking/tar oil is actually increasing our CO2 output as we're removing forests and sinks by doing this. Canada is having the same problem and they at least ratified the kyoto treaty.


----------



## Paumon

Vahomesteaders said:


> The fact is this. This is a homesteading site. Folks come here to learn why their goat just pooped a yellow brick or why their rooster has a clubbed for and hops in circles. Some city people even come to find out what the Oval shaped Brown thing is that just came out of their chicken. They talk gardening and canning pickles. Most care very little for psuedoscience theories that won't affect any of is or or children. They just want to live a simple life and do their part to help nature. Nor argue theories.


Just a gentle reminder for you, since you are a newbie to this homesteading forum and been here less than 2 months. The HT forum has existed for something like 12 years. The administrators of the forum kindly provided a general chat forum for people who want to talk about other things that they don't want to talk about on the poultry, goat, gardening, cooking and other assorted homesteading related forums. *General* Chat. If you don't want to discuss climate change, science, religion, politics, evolution, dinosaurs or any other mundane worldly topics nobody is forcing you to do so. You are posting here in GC by your own choice but if you don't like the topics here and all you want to discuss is homesteading and farming related topics then there is an abundance of homesteading sub-forums available for that purpose.


----------



## DEKE01

I'm now a believer in AGW caused climate chaos. There was a documentary about it on TV last night. I didn't get to see much of it, but it shows how super tornadoes will result in sharks raining down on NYC streets. You should see it...Sharknado2. NOW the science is settled.


----------



## DEKE01

Uh oh...another fact 

"we're removing forests"

that is not a fact, at least not in the US. I did not find data on Canadian forests. 

http://forestry.about.com/library/bl_us_forest_acre_trend.htm

Forested land in US increasing since 1960s

On a personal level my farm is a small data point in agreement with the trend. In the 1940s my farm was cattle pastures, in the late 60s it was orange groves, by the late 80s it was a tree farm and as of 2011 it was a mixed use tree farm / silvapasture. 

BTW, grazed prairie/pasture does a better job of carbon sequestration than does forests. But hey, REAL facts only get in the way of this convo.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

I can tell you right now. I am a wood worker. Oak is in mass shortage right now. Some lumber companies have been out for over a month. Many places cant even get fence boards and posts right now. They have been tighening restrictions on logging. I know im haveing logers look at my property right now and the stupid forestry dept wants me to put in a culvert over a 1ft wide trench that runs down through my woods that is a water way for rain runoff on the mountain. Its a complete sham to get permit money from me.


----------



## Paumon

DEKE01 said:


> I'm now a believer in AGW caused climate chaos. There was a documentary about it on TV last night. I didn't get to see much of it, but it shows how super tornadoes will result in sharks raining down on NYC streets. You should see it...Sharknado2. NOW the science is settled.


Was it as hilarious as Sharknado 1? That first one was highly entertaining, cracked me right up. :hysterical:


----------



## JeffreyD

supernovae said:


> Please post them again, i can't find them. I've already looked everywhere and there are only 2 countries listed as being carbon neutral by goals by the year 2020.
> 
> I've looked on google, bing, ArxIV and the university publications i have access to through my library cards to no avail and everything i do find and everything i've linked a couple of times goes against what you are saying.
> 
> In fact, i've seen quite the opposite. Our insatiable appetite for cheap oil and drilling/fracking/tar oil is actually increasing our CO2 output as we're removing forests and sinks by doing this. Canada is having the same problem and they at least ratified the kyoto treaty.


Posts 422, 432, 433. I'm looking for numbers not problems or excuses! You need to refine your search to get data, not opinions! The data is clear, only a little math is involved. I'm still a bit skeptical about those data figures myself, but their are clear.


----------



## Paumon

Population is relevant and due to growing population the forest land trends are never going to get back up to what they once were before the settlers deforested so much land.

Human Population of USA in 1900 = 76,212,168 

Human Population of USA in 1960 = 179,323,175

Human Population of USA in 2014 = 319,510,848 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_in_the_United_States

_Prior to the arrival of __European-Americans__ about one half of the United States land area was forest, about 4,000,000 square kilometres (990,000,000 acres) in 1600, yet today it is only about 3,000,000 square kilometres (740,000,000 acres).[1] Nearly all of this deforestation took place prior to 1910, and the forest resources of the United States have remained relatively constant through the entire 20th century.[1]_
_The 2005 __Food and Agriculture Organization__ (FAO) Global Forest Resources Assessment ranked the United States as seventh highest country losing its __old growth forests__, a vast majority of which were removed prior to the 20th century._



This graph depicts forest cover in the United States by geographic region.

__



Map of above ground woody biomass across USA today


----------



## Paumon

And for Canada:

http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/publications/statistics-facts/1241


Canada has 10 percent of the world&#8217;s forests.
Canada has 397.3 million hectares (ha) of forest, other wooded land and other land with tree cover, which represent 53.8 percent of its total surface area of 738.5 million ha.1
Canada&#8217;s forest, other wooded land and other land with tree cover are made up of 347.7 million ha (87.5 percent) of forest, 41.8 million ha (10.5 percent) of other wooded land and 7.8 million ha (2 percent) of other land with tree cover.
In Canada, the predominant tree species on forest land are spruce (53.2 percent), poplar (11.6 percent) and pine (9.3 percent).
*Forest Land*

*Figure 4. Percentage of forest in Canada*










Canada has the largest area of certified forest in the world &#8211; more than 149.8 million ha. Approximately 42 percent of the world&#8217;s certified forest area is in Canada. The area of certified forests in Canada is approximately the size of Quebec.
Approximately 8 percent of Canada&#8217;s forest area is protected by legislation. By law, all forests harvested (less than 1 percent annually) on Canada&#8217;s public land must be successfully regenerated


----------



## kasilofhome

You skipped one third of the United States ....The Alaskan great forest.


----------



## Paumon

kasilofhome said:


> You skipped one third of the United States ....The Alaskan great forest.


I know - doing a search now to try to find the stats and a map if possible.


----------



## Paumon

This was the only pictorial I could find for Alaska:





There is a different picture here https://accap.uaf.edu/?q=project/assessing-climate-change-impacts-forested-ecosystems-alaska but it won't be copied.


----------



## supernovae

DEKE01 said:


> Uh oh...another fact
> 
> "we're removing forests"
> 
> that is not a fact, at least not in the US. I did not find data on Canadian forests.
> 
> http://forestry.about.com/library/bl_us_forest_acre_trend.htm
> 
> Forested land in US increasing since 1960s
> 
> On a personal level my farm is a small data point in agreement with the trend. In the 1940s my farm was cattle pastures, in the late 60s it was orange groves, by the late 80s it was a tree farm and as of 2011 it was a mixed use tree farm / silvapasture.
> 
> BTW, grazed prairie/pasture does a better job of carbon sequestration than does forests. But hey, REAL facts only get in the way of this convo.


cherry picking  We're talking about measuring since the industrial age, so 200+ years. Yeah, we have improved. It took "greenies" as you call them to start the re-forestation and it took laws requiring lumber companies to actually "manage" the land. It's all stuff we learned and adapted to. I mean, this is after all, the period by which man made co2 is actually measurable and by which AGW is based entirely upon.

You can bet your beans in the 1960s people complained that planting trees would be too expensive and hurt jobs.. but they did it.

The modern example is that the tar sands in Canada are supposed to be recovered when done. The oil companies up there claim they have recovered 20% of the 300+ square miles of strip mine land, but the reality is they haven't. Its estimated to be at .02% - not even one percent restored and sadly, they're "Restoring" it to arrable land to raise livestock on which sort of defeats the purpose of it going back to what it once was.

Should i keep going on?

This supports the idea of living and learning exactly, why spin it around to justify NOT learning from our past? We used to remove entire forests until people spoke up and demanded better stewardship of the land and we have gotten better.. but now instead of trees and minerals being in demand, its oil and who knows how long it will take before we change that.

We do some cool stuff with superfund dollars, but it isn't' cheap and mines have been one expense after another dollar and environmental wise. http://www.epa.gov/aml/


----------



## kasilofhome

29.1 million acres of forest in Alaska.


----------



## Paumon

Not much by comparison with the 740 million acres in the lower 48. And what nobody should forget is that with climate change now all of the forests in all of North America are at much greater risk from wildfires (as already evidenced by thousands of wildfires this summer) and what the wildfires don't get the spreading plague of mountain pine beetles are going after. Remember, the beetles don't only go after pines and they're now headed to the south and east of the continent.

For anyone who wants to be proactive about trying to protect your own wooded properties from the encroaching pine beetles and other tree beetles here is some helpful information: http://www.mountainpinebeetletreatment.com/


----------



## JeffreyD

And then there is all the other vegetation, millions and millions of acres of lush, green, carbon sucking vegetation!


----------



## DEKE01

supernovae said:


> cherry picking  We're talking about measuring since the industrial age, so 200+ years. http://www.epa.gov/aml/


no, you used the present tense and so did I. US forests are increasing. Present tense.


----------



## supernovae

DEKE01 said:


> no, you used the present tense and so did I. US forests are increasing. Present tense.


You do realize the quote you're using was me talking about removing forests for oil shale strip mining right? reclamation efforts have largely failed because we are still developing technologies to handle the residual chemicals from the mining process itself and the holding tanks left..


----------



## supernovae

JeffreyD said:


> And then there is all the other vegetation, millions and millions of acres of lush, green, carbon sucking vegetation!


That can't keep up with the output we have. we're at 5.4 million thousand tons of Co2 a year just for the US. That's a huge number

The ENTIRE US Biomass only accounts for sequestration of 20% of our output.

http://www.usgs.gov/blogs/features/...questration-helping-balance-the-carbon-cycle/


----------



## supernovae

DEKE01 said:


> See messages 420, 422, and 423. I admit they are a minority, but those msgs reference people on the payroll of pro-AGW, prior to coming out of the closet as "deniers" they were respected climatologists. They are skeptics of the supposed 97% consensus, and are skeptics of the doom and gloom silliness of AGW--->human extinction.
> 
> I'm growing bored with this topic so I'm not going to spend the time finding it, but somewhere I read something like of the supposed 97% AGW consensus, only about a third of those believe there will be serious human disruption, a third believe AGW is will create big problems but nothing we can't deal with, and about a third believed AGW not be a net negative. None of the climatologists I have read believe in the human extinction clap trap, but I'm sure you'll be able to dig up somebody because drama is what sells and gets presidents to shut down the coal industry without a real plan to deal with the very real human suffering it will cause.


I went and looked those up. I don't trust anything from breitbart ..

I'd much rather trust the source that breitbart used: (it really sucks that news is based on political bias these days)

http://www.usgs.gov/blogs/features/...questration-helping-balance-the-carbon-cycle/

Good news, Eastern US is a sink. Lets keep it that way.. ahh crap, bad news is that sink is diminishing 20% by 2050.. because of decreases in forest cover. Overall, the US only sequesters 20% of its CO2 emissions.

Part of those trees that you or someone referenced, i'll have to do more research on that, but it seems the numbers were only for sequestration of man made co2 as if natural co2 just disappears as well, I think we look at it from a complete system perspective, not swapping out and ignoring the other chunk. researching!

cool website here to explore the data:

http://landcarbon.org/

Let me know if you find a region that actually has growing forests in the map explorer.. most look to be dropping by 1-3%


----------



## JeffreyD

supernovae said:


> That can't keep up with the output we have. we're at 5.4 million thousand tons of Co2 a year just for the US. That's a huge number
> 
> The ENTIRE US Biomass only accounts for sequestration of 20% of our output.
> 
> http://www.usgs.gov/blogs/features/...questration-helping-balance-the-carbon-cycle/


I got a different number from the epa. It's in a link to them that I posted previously! According to the links I posted, trees alone more than offset our carbon output! 

Isn't the above link really just a blog, like it says right there in the link it's self?

Eta: After perusing that site...WOW what a load of UN drivel! Many of the topics their promoting have been proven false years a go, and any references to the ipcc, renders that site biased and unless for those seeking the truth. That site just promotes the brainwashing of the gullible. 

Please do carry on!


----------



## arabian knight

JeffreyD said:


> I got a different number from the epa. It's in a link to them that I posted previously! According to the links I posted, trees alone more than offset our carbon output!
> 
> Isn't the above link really just a blog, like it says right there in the link it's self?


Sure this Joe is just a GOVERNMENT Reporter for a rag magazine. Blogs are his way of getting his one sided views out on the net.
State government reporter for Gannett New York newspapers, including the @DandC, @LoHud and @pressconnects. Tips? jcampbell1(at)gannett(dot)com


----------



## JeffreyD

supernovae said:


> I went and looked those up. I don't trust anything from breitbart ..
> 
> I'd much rather trust the source that breitbart used: (it really sucks that news is based on political bias these days)
> 
> http://www.usgs.gov/blogs/features/...questration-helping-balance-the-carbon-cycle/
> 
> Good news, Eastern US is a sink. Lets keep it that way.. ahh crap, bad news is that sink is diminishing 20% by 2050.. because of decreases in forest cover. Overall, the US only sequesters 20% of its CO2 emissions.
> 
> Part of those trees that you or someone referenced, i'll have to do more research on that, but it seems the numbers were only for sequestration of man made co2 as if natural co2 just disappears as well, I think we look at it from a complete system perspective, not swapping out and ignoring the other chunk. researching!
> 
> cool website here to explore the data:
> 
> http://landcarbon.org/
> 
> Let me know if you find a region that actually has growing forests in the map explorer.. most look to be dropping by 1-3%


If you read the sources I gave you, you would see that the numbers are from ALL sources, not just man made. America is more than carbon neutral!


----------



## supernovae

JeffreyD said:


> It appears that America is carbon neutral! :happy:
> 
> Now something must be wrong with my calculations for this to be true. Not only are we carbon neutral, but also a carbon sink for other countries to boot!!
> 
> According to the epa, Americans produce 5 billion metric tonnes of Co2. That equals just over 11 trillion pounds!
> 
> According to the American Forests website an average tree can use 48 pounds of Co2 per year..sounds high...they got their info from the North Carolina university forestry department.
> 
> 1 pound of Co2 is 8.74 cubic feet. 8.74 cubic feet per week average doesn't sound so bad considering trees don't breath regular "air" only Co2.
> 
> Now, according the the 2004 Forestry Census, the USA has about 247 billion trees!
> 
> So:
> 
> 11,023,000,000,000 lbs of output.
> Divided by 247,000,000,000 trees.
> Equals.....approximately 44 pounds per tree of Co2!
> 
> This doesn't take into consideration all the other plants that use Co2!
> 
> Where am I going wrong here? This can't be true!


Just quoting this because you keep telling me you have sources for this. The calculation you have here is based on sequestration of only man made CO2. Which is fine, if you ignore naturally occurring CO2 that needs to be balanced as well.

It's safe to bet that being we're in the northern hemisphere and known for our forests compared to the south and middle east that the US would be a huge natural CO2 sink, but its my understanding that the sink only absorbs the natural + ~20% of man made CO2 per year and that is why the PPM is going up.

I found this document which explains how to calculate sequestration rate of trees:

http://www.broward.org/NaturalResou...ts/Calculating CO2 Sequestration by Trees.pdf

interesting stuff, but numbers look half of what you show, but even half of what you so is 30% more than what the USGS predicts using data available from actual surveys, measurements and field studies.

found more data.

In 2006, gross greenhouse gas emissions in the United States were equivalent to 7,054 million metric tons (15 .5 trillion pounds) of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2 eq .) . Forests take in CO2 and water, store carbon in wood, and release oxygen . The carbon stored in forests is released back into the atmosphere when trees are burned, such as in forest fires, or when dead trees and leaves decay . Forest management can affect greatly the amount of carbon stored; vigorously growing forests store more carbon than slow growing ones . When trees are made into lumber or paper, some CO2 is released, but much continues to be stored in the products or eventually in landfills . Substituting wood for nonrenewable materials can also reduce CO2 in the atmosphere by reducing fossil fuel energy use . In 2006, a net 745 million metric tons (1 .6 trillion pounds) of CO2 eq . were removed from the atmosphere and stored in forests and forest products in the 48 conterminous States . This offsets about 11 percent of gross U .S . CO2 emissions from all sources .

http://www.fia.fs.fed.us/library/brochures/default.asp

that clears it up. The all sources is included with that 7,054 million metric tons # and the reduction rate sounds about right.


----------



## supernovae

arabian knight said:


> Sure this Joe is just a GOVERNMENT Reporter for a rag magazine. Blogs are his way of getting his one sided views out on the net.
> State government reporter for Gannett New York newspapers, including the @DandC, @LoHud and @pressconnects. Tips? jcampbell1(at)gannett(dot)com


It's a blog that consolidates data sets available from the EPA.

You guys are pulling stuff from breitbart aren't ya?

Double standard much? 

BTW, Thanks to the 1964 "Reserved forests law" that was passed we haven't decimated our forest reserves. That jives up with the stuff Deke was taking about but didn't want to mention since its obvious he's anti government.

i'm guessing you didn't even read the links from the blog either


----------



## JeffreyD

supernovae said:


> Just quoting this because you keep telling me you have sources for this. The calculation you have here is based on sequestration of only man made CO2. Which is fine, if you ignore naturally occurring CO2 that needs to be balanced as well.
> 
> It's safe to bet that being we're in the northern hemisphere and known for our forests compared to the south and middle east that the US would be a huge natural CO2 sink, but its my understanding that the sink only absorbs the natural + ~20% of man made CO2 per year and that is why the PPM is going up.
> 
> I found this document which explains how to calculate sequestration rate of trees:
> 
> http://www.broward.org/NaturalResou...ts/Calculating CO2 Sequestration by Trees.pdf
> 
> interesting stuff, but numbers look half of what you show, but even half of what you so is 30% more than what the USGS predicts using data available from actual surveys, measurements and field studies.
> 
> found more data.
> 
> In 2006, gross greenhouse gas emissions in the United States were equivalent to 7,054 million metric tons (15 .5 trillion pounds) of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2 eq .) . Forests take in CO2 and water, store carbon in wood, and release oxygen . The carbon stored in forests is released back into the atmosphere when trees are burned, such as in forest fires, or when dead trees and leaves decay . Forest management can affect greatly the amount of carbon stored; vigorously growing forests store more carbon than slow growing ones . When trees are made into lumber or paper, some CO2 is released, but much continues to be stored in the products or eventually in landfills . Substituting wood for nonrenewable materials can also reduce CO2 in the atmosphere by reducing fossil fuel energy use . In 2006, a net 745 million metric tons (1 .6 trillion pounds) of CO2 eq . were removed from the atmosphere and stored in forests and forest products in the 48 conterminous States . This offsets about 11 percent of gross U .S . CO2 emissions from all sources .
> 
> http://www.fia.fs.fed.us/library/brochures/default.asp
> 
> that clears it up. The all sources is included with that 7,054 million metric tons # and the reduction rate sounds about right.


Nope, your wrong! Co2 output has gone down. The links from the epa said All greenhouse gas was about 7000 metric tonnes, ALL gases. Co2 is about 5000 metric tonnes. 

A brochure? Really???

The numbers are not in dispute, are factual, and didn't come from a blog or biased source. Just data.

Yes, it is settled!

Eta: all these charts and such came from brochures! Hahahahahaha! That's to funny! Sure, it's from the government, but did you bother to check out the folks listed as contributors? Apparently not! Some actually do work for the government, but their affiliations confirm a bias!


----------



## supernovae

JeffreyD said:


> Nope, your wrong! Co2 output has gone down. The links from the epa said All greenhouse gas was about 7000 metric tonnes, ALL gases. Co2 is about 5000 metric tonnes.
> 
> A brochure? Really???
> 
> The numbers are not in dispute, are factual, and didn't come from a blog or biased source. Just data.
> 
> Yes, it is settled!



The brochure is from the US forest service. The very service for the numbers I quoted from you. ALso, the forestry data you quoted was from 2004.. even older than the single quote I found from 2006 but which is probably available in 2010 data.

You can download the data, you can view it on interactive maps. I'll say it again. 

I'm not sure why you think you're being funny or cool. It's completely lost on me.

You are the only person who says the US is carbon neutral

In a funny way though, you are right. US output has gone down as we have increased efficiency requirements and shutdown old power plants. Should I thank the government for their action then? i'm not sure.. you have me confused. I'm supposed to like them when its convenient and hate them at the same time. Should I hate the forestry service for the 1964 law that saved our forests and national parks? Should I hate the EPA for energy policy that is reducing CO2 emissions compared to previous years? Should I hate the investment in non polluting technology?

Which way do you want it?

I hope we continue through with efficiency, I hope the east coast sink stays a sink. I hope the west coast doesn't dry out faster than we expect. I hope people continue to invest in our future and we convert to less polluting and less greenhouse gas emissions. Don't see it as a bad thing.


----------



## JeffreyD

supernovae said:


> The brochure is from the US forest service. The very service for the numbers I quoted from you. ALso, the forestry data you quoted was from 2004.. even older than the single quote I found from 2006 but which is probably available in 2010 data.
> 
> You can download the data, you can view it on interactive maps. I'll say it again.
> 
> I'm not sure why you think you're being funny or cool. It's completely lost on me.
> 
> You are the only person who says the US is carbon neutral
> 
> In a funny way though, you are right. US output has gone down as we have increased efficiency requirements and shutdown old power plants. Should I thank the government for their action then? i'm not sure.. you have me confused. I'm supposed to like them when its convenient and hate them at the same time. Should I hate the forestry service for the 1964 law that saved our forests and national parks? Should I hate the EPA for energy policy that is reducing CO2 emissions compared to previous years? Should I hate the investment in non polluting technology?
> 
> Which way do you want it?


Why not go to the links I provided. They are very clear to anyone. You haven't quoted anything from my links. The data is from 2012! You trust who you want to. I have provided the proof that refutes your assertions, yet You can't see the forest for the trees! I have to laugh because your refusal to look at the data and the fact that you keep up the foolishness of your comments, I find hysterical! ! Have you been here in a different incarnation! Your posts seem oddly familiar!


----------



## supernovae

JeffreyD said:


> Why not go to the links I provided. They are very clear to anyone. You haven't quoted anything from my links. The data is from 2012! You trust who you want to. I have provided the proof that refutes your assertions, yet You can't see the forest for the trees! I have to laugh because your refusal to look at the data and the fact that you keep up the foolishness of your comments, I find hysterical! ! Have you been here in a different incarnation! Your posts seem oddly familiar!


how many times can I say this. Someone linked the statements you made.. like #422, 431 and 432 or something like that. YOu have no links with the exception of a breitbart link in those references and the data you reference direct in the post is from the US forest service, the very service I just linked to that you made fun of.

If my posts seem oddly familiar its probably because there are other people with similar educations and experiences. I find your debating style oddly familiar as well since I've heard it all before. Where does that get us?

I'm not refusing anything, you're the one actually writing about refusing data because it comes from the forest service, epa, USGA or some other service (while conveniently quoting it yourself).


----------



## DEKE01

supernovae said:


> http://www.usgs.gov/blogs/features/...questration-helping-balance-the-carbon-cycle/


interesting that that site says forests store carbon the most whereas I've read in several places recently that grazed prairie stored more. Well that small piece of science is not settled. I'll leave it to you to research if you like.


----------



## DEKE01

Since Karen deleted a bunch of informative stuff, and some humorous stuff, I've been trying to not make any of this personal. Please see if you can do the same. 

I am not anti-gov't. I'm libertarian, which is pro-gov't but anti-big gov't. There is a big difference.

I'm also a tree hugging, bunny loving, environmental whacko who wants clean air and water. But that doesn't mean I believe everything that a UN panel says about AGW or other environmental issues. It was the UN Human Rights commission that had members such as China, Iran, Libya, Cuba, and Saudi Arabia denouncing Israel as the world's worst offender of human rights.


----------



## JeffreyD

supernovae said:


> It's a blog that consolidates data sets available from the EPA.
> 
> You guys are pulling stuff from breitbart aren't ya?
> 
> Double standard much?
> 
> BTW, Thanks to the 1964 "Reserved forests law" that was passed we haven't decimated our forest reserves. That jives up with the stuff Deke was taking about but didn't want to mention since its obvious he's anti government.
> 
> i'm guessing you didn't even read the links from the blog either


We're you saying my links were from Brietbart?


----------



## JeffreyD

supernovae said:


> how many times can I say this. Someone linked the statements you made.. like #422, 431 and 432 or something like that. YOu have no links with the exception of a breitbart link in those references and the data you reference direct in the post is from the US forest service, the very service I just linked to that you made fun of.
> 
> If my posts seem oddly familiar its probably because there are other people with similar educations and experiences. I find your debating style oddly familiar as well since I've heard it all before. Where does that get us?
> 
> I'm not refusing anything, you're the one actually writing about refusing data because it comes from the forest service, epa, USGA or some other service (while conveniently quoting it yourself).


Wow, there were NO links from anything Brietbart! Get your facts straight. You say you solve complex problems for a living, yet you can't even get links here straight! I just went and checked.......nothing from Brietbart! 

NEXT!!!!!


----------



## supernovae

JeffreyD said:


> Wow, there were NO links from anything Brietbart! Get your facts straight. You say you solve complex problems for a living, yet you can't even get links here straight! I just went and checked.......nothing from Brietbart!
> 
> NEXT!!!!!


ok, then do me a favor and link the messages you are talking about. You and DEKE are tag teaming here, I can't tell if you're the same person or what, but either way, I guess it was DEKE who said some message numbers where you were mentioning numbers with no links.

So once again.. one of you provide some context please. 

I believe DEKE mention message 422 431 and 432 in this thread.. but I've lost track, everyone is more interested in shooting the messenger rather than the message. That goes nowhere.


----------



## supernovae

Here is an interesting video showing the quantum mechanics of green house gases.

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EJOO3xAjTk[/ame]


----------



## JeffreyD

supernovae said:


> ok, then do me a favor and link the messages you are talking about. You and DEKE are tag teaming here, I can't tell if you're the same person or what, but either way, I guess it was DEKE who said some message numbers where you were mentioning numbers with no links.
> 
> So once again.. one of you provide some context please.
> 
> I believe DEKE mention message 422 431 and 432 in this thread.. but I've lost track, everyone is more interested in shooting the messenger rather than the message. That goes nowhere.


I did some complex problem solving here. The posts that were deleted changed the numbers on the rest of the posts. So technically, my post numbers have been changed and I quoted the wrong numbers, so I apologize! Hehe, as of now the posts with links from me are....
442 443


----------



## Paumon

supernovae said:


> Here is an interesting video showing the quantum mechanics of green house gases.


That was interesting. It's not relevant but it made me think of something that a neighbour man told me today. He is an ebony black skinned man who came here from near Mt. Kilimanjaro in Tanzania, Africa. He told me that the sun burns and hurts the skin more here than it does where he comes from.


----------



## supernovae

JeffreyD said:


> I can't post links from my smart phone..go figure! So here's some things to ponder:
> 
> "In the United States, since 1990, the management of forests and non-agricultural land has acted as a net sink of CO2, which means that more CO2 is removed from the atmosphere, and stored in plants and trees, than is emitted."
> 
> I got my 5 billion tonne figure from here and other sources.
> 
> http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/co2.html
> 
> 
> I got my tree Co2 use from :
> 
> http://www.americanforests.org/discover-forests/tree-facts/
> 
> Tree Facts
> 
> "Carbon sequestration, air quality, and climate change
> A tree can absorb as much as 48 pounds of carbon dioxide per year, and can sequester one ton of carbon dioxide by the time it reaches 40 years old. [1]
> One large tree can provide a supply of oxygen for two people. [2]"
> 
> http://www.ncsu.edu/project/treesofstrength/treefact.htm
> 
> "A tree can absorb as much as 48 pounds of carbon dioxide per year and can sequester 1 ton of carbon dioxide by the time it reaches 40 years old."
> 
> None of this takes into consideration all the other vegetation.
> 
> I cant locate the number of trees link....ill have to get it later!


Yay, finally some links.

All of your provided links simply reference the same government data I posted which you claim is false.

The maximum is never formalized as an average in anything we do.

The US forestry service does have a calculative absorption rate that i actually linked to and provided the PDF for in how to calculate it. The very calculation that all of the references you provide use to suggest a maximum efficiency of co2 sequestration.

The US forestry service calculates the sequestration rate based upon populations of trees not 100% of which are old growth full canopy. The "Flyer" you made fun of shows tree acres by age, size and canopy as well as by district that is tracked.

The interactive map also allows you to see sequestratoin and emission rates based upon the districts and it allows you to see which industries have the largest impact as an industry as well as how much burden the US automobile and transportation system is "Averaged" out to emit.

I'm out to teach Science, Technology, Engineering, Art and Math to kids for a week, so it will be ~10 days before i can respond to anything here.

None of which indicate a neutral nor negative sequestration rate and all of which support the 20% rate but also a very good rate of actually lower emissions and more optimal energy use. (yay!)

Have fun!


----------



## Paumon

supernovae said:


> I'm out to teach Science, Technology, Engineering, Art and Math to kids for a week, so it will be ~10 days before i can respond to anything here.


Have a great week away teaching those kids. :thumb:


----------



## HDRider

_*Policies invoked in its name are grossly immoral.*


__Former British Chancellor of the Exchequer Nigel Lawson, in an essay for Standpoint magazine in May adapted from a speech he gave to the Institute for Sustainable Energy and the Environment at the University of Bath:_ 

Throughout the ages, something deep in man's psyche has made him receptive to apocalyptic warnings that the end of the world is nigh. And almost all of us, whether we like it or not, are imbued with feelings of guilt and a sense of sin. How much less uncomfortable it is, how much more convenient, to divert attention away from our individual sins and reasons to feel guilty, and to sublimate them in collective guilt and collective sin.

Why does this matter? It matters, and matters a great deal, on two quite separate grounds. The first is that it has gone a long way towards ushering in a new age of unreason. It is a cruel irony that, while it was science which, more than anything else, was able by its great achievements, to establish the age of reason, *it is all too many climate scientists and their hangers-on who have become the high priests of a new age of unreason.*

http://online.wsj.com/articles/notable-quotable-climate-change-unreason-1407097679


----------



## DEKE01

Here is an article about Dr. Michaels, climatologist, former president of the American Association of State Climatologists, research professor of Environmental Studies at the University of Virginia, and contributing author and reviewer of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

In short, he calls AGW pseudoscience and falls in that category of scientists that firmly believe in man made global warming caused by fossil fuel burning and CO2 production, but says he can't find the evidence it is a bad thing. You'll note that much of the argument within these HT threads is to show proof of fossil fuels---> CO2---> higher temps, but where is the science that shows it is a net negative? 

http://townhall.com/columnists/brucebialosky/2014/08/10/saving-the-planet-one-denier-at-a-time-n1876445

Dr. Michaels, &#8220;In the Assessment&#8217;s 1,200 horror-studded pages, almost everything that happens in our complex world &#8211; sex, birth, disease, death, hunger, and wars, to name a few &#8211; is somehow made worse by pernicious emissions of carbon dioxide and thejogglingof surface temperature by a mere two degrees.&#8221; 

...

"It is fair to say that Dr. Michaels did not argue with some of the basic facts asserted by the Global Warming supporters. It is just that he does not see from where they are drawing their conclusions. Michaels expressed strongly that he thinks the GW supporters had little or no science to back up their conclusions. "


----------



## supernovae

DEKE01 said:


> Here is an article about Dr. Michaels, climatologist, former president of the American Association of State Climatologists, research professor of Environmental Studies at the University of Virginia, and contributing author and reviewer of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.


He's a self described climate skeptic funded by the CATO institute, of course he wants to deny the science for a political agenda.

He's bought and paid for by the KOCH brothers.


----------



## arabian knight

Oh ya those E-V-I-L Koch brothers. Boy they get around and really mess with the liberal min don't they?
Nice NOW is the time to visit Death valley nice and COOL there. LOL
Death Valley Sets New Temperature Record &#8212; for Coolness

Death Valley, Calif., which holds the world record for the highest temperature ever recorded, hit a high of just 89 degrees on Sunday, Aug. 3 &#8212; the coolest high temperature on record for the date.

Climate Depot, a website skeptical of manmade global warming claims, linked to an article in The Washington Post disclosing that the Death Valley temperature was 15 degrees lower than the previous record of 104 degrees set in 1945.


----------



## DEKE01

supernovae said:


> He's a self described climate skeptic funded by the CATO institute, of course he wants to deny the science for a political agenda.
> 
> He's bought and paid for by the KOCH brothers.



ound:

:hysterical:

well, that is certainly taking the issue head on. If he is just spouting nonsense because he's being paid to do so, I'm sure you have lots of good science to disprove it... 

I'll wait... :bored:


----------



## unregistered353870

supernovae said:


> He's a self described climate skeptic funded by the CATO institute, of course he wants to deny the science for a political agenda.
> 
> He's bought and paid for by the KOCH brothers.


And all the scientists you believe are politically neutral unpaid volunteers, right?


----------



## supernovae

jtbrandt said:


> And all the scientists you believe are politically neutral unpaid volunteers, right?


They're not paid off by the Koch brothers.

Look, when you deniers cite someone, at least give someone worthy of citing. This person doesn't actually deny global warming, he in fact calls it "greening".

CATO and KOCH, not exactly champions of non biased policies and views and deep pockets into the existing energy systems.

Oh, and please do cite the evidence you claim to have of the other 10s of thousands of scientists who understand global warming.


----------



## DEKE01

jtbrandt said:


> And all the scientists you believe are politically neutral unpaid volunteers, right?


Yes, JT, if the scientists are on the payroll of the Koch bros, he is biased against AGW, but if the scientist is on the payroll of a university or the IPCC sponsoring states, the scientist is completely unbiased. That's the way it works. Don't you get it? :smack 

Uh......oh....wait...just...a...sec

The guy I cited was a university and IPCC paid scientist. Oh nooooo, now my world is all turned upside down. /sarc off/

Another problem with the left is reveled in "He's a self described climate skeptic." The "believers" only believe those that are "believers". Any good scientist will tell you he is supposed to be a self described skeptic. That's the way good science is supposed to work.


----------



## unregistered353870

supernovae said:


> They're not paid off by the Koch brothers.
> 
> Look, when you deniers cite someone, at least give someone worthy of citing. This person doesn't actually deny global warming, he in fact calls it "greening".
> 
> CATO and KOCH, not exactly champions of non biased policies and views and deep pockets into the existing energy systems.
> 
> *Oh, and please do cite the evidence you claim to have of the other 10s of thousands of scientists who understand global warming.*


What the heck are you talking about? I claimed nothing...I simply asked a question, which you didn't really answer, but it was rhetorical anyway. We all know you're allowed to discount sources because of who signs their checks, but if anybody questions any source of yours because of how they're funded it is "unfair" because they're pure as the driven snow.


----------



## unregistered353870

DEKE01 said:


> Another problem with the left is reveled in "He's a self described climate skeptic." The "believers" only believe those that are "believers". Any good scientist will tell you he is supposed to be a self described skeptic. That's the way good science is supposed to work.


That's an excellent point. The purest approach to science is open-minded skepticism. Asserting that "the science is settled" at every opportunity is just about the opposite of that.


----------



## arabian knight

jtbrandt said:


> What the heck are you talking about? I claimed nothing...I simply asked a question, which you didn't really answer, but it was rhetorical anyway. We all know you're allowed to discount sources because of who signs their checks, but if anybody questions any source of yours because of how they're funded it is "unfair" because they're pure as the driven snow.


 Ya reading that post I sure had my Laugh for the day. Oh the Koch Brothers get so much blame they MUST be running this country, and the World according to SOME. LOL

Time to go eat, glad I didn't have my mouth full of food when I read that post it was hilarious for sure.


----------



## supernovae

DEKE01 said:


> Yes, JT, if the scientists are on the payroll of the Koch bros, he is biased against AGW, but if the scientist is on the payroll of a university or the IPCC sponsoring states, the scientist is completely unbiased. That's the way it works. Don't you get it? :smack
> 
> Uh......oh....wait...just...a...sec
> 
> The guy I cited was a university and IPCC paid scientist. Oh nooooo, now my world is all turned upside down. /sarc off/
> 
> Another problem with the left is reveled in "He's a self described climate skeptic." The "believers" only believe those that are "believers". Any good scientist will tell you he is supposed to be a self described skeptic. That's the way good science is supposed to work.


Look, I know you don't like the IPCC, or government, or government organizations. I know the talking points, I know the angle, none of which changes the facts here.

Global warming is the "Framing" of our understanding of greenhouse gases, gases that we can measure with great certainty to be increasing and we can measure the increase of man made CO2 vs natural CO2 by the molecular structure of these gases.

There are some "scientists" who side against global warming, but do so by diluting it to be "global greening" or "more arable" lands or whatever it may be - they hardly ever go against AGW or greenhouse gases because they know it would be career suicide, so they "Spin it" and "Frame it" to match their political ideology. (which is why may people call it "climate change" "global warming" "greenhouse gases.." yaddy yaddy yadda..

It's too bad we don't teach ourselves reasoning and logic skills as it would be super easy to understand we're not debating the facts of CO2 and AGW once again, but rather how one wants to spin it to fit their agenda by politically framing the issue.


----------



## DEKE01

supernovae said:


> They're not paid off by the Koch brothers.
> 
> Look, when you deniers cite someone, at least give someone worthy of citing. This person doesn't actually deny global warming, he in fact calls it "greening".


I've been quite clear and repeatedly said there are 4 camps in this debate

1. those who do not believe the climate is changing at all. 
2. those who believe in climate change as a natural process
3. those who believe in AGW but it isn't bad
4. AGW believers who think it is a net negative. 

And based on some of the input on HT, perhaps I should add a 5th group who believe that AGW is real and we that humans will be extinct before the end of the century. 

My cited scientist, who is highly qualified and IPCC approved, falls into camp 3. So I don't understand your comment about "worthy". I personally remain somewhere between 2 and 3, but I'm open to further science proving me wrong. I'm still waiting on your science which proves not just AGW but how it translates into the dire consequences.


----------



## supernovae

arabian knight said:


> Ya reading that post I sure had my Laugh for the day. Oh the Koch Brothers get so much blame they MUST be running this country, and the World according to SOME. LOL
> 
> Time to go eat, glad I didn't have my mouth full of food when I read that post it was hilarious for sure.



Please go back and re-read what I typed out. I never blamed anything on the Koch brothers, I just stated facts. The guy is on the board of the CATO institute which is an institute founded by the KOCH brothers who do actively deny AGW science(s). Their politics and foundations they support are painfully obvious, so much so it would be an amazing lack of intelligence to not see what they represent.


I honestly don't find anything amusing at all about CATO, Koch or what they represent.


----------



## supernovae

DEKE01 said:


> I've been quite clear and repeatedly said there are 4 camps in this debate
> 
> 1. those who do not believe the climate is changing at all.
> 2. those who believe in climate change as a natural process
> 3. those who believe in AGW but it isn't bad
> 4. AGW believers who think it is a net negative.
> 
> And based on some of the input on HT, perhaps I should add a 5th group who believe that AGW is real and we that humans will be extinct before the end of the century.
> 
> My cited scientist, who is highly qualified and IPCC approved, falls into camp 3. So I don't understand your comment about "worthy". I personally remain somewhere between 2 and 3, but I'm open to further science proving me wrong. I'm still waiting on your science which proves not just AGW but how it translates into the dire consequences.



If you're really pushing #3, then why were there so many pages of people denying AGW? I've been away for a week and not interested in re-reading everything, but I don't remember the original premise being "AGW is good for people after all"

Are you now agreeing that AGW is good and not denying the science behind it?


----------



## Glade Runner

supernovae said:


> He's a self described climate skeptic funded by the CATO institute, of course he wants to deny the science for a political agenda.
> 
> He's bought and paid for by the KOCH brothers.


Wonder how many people Thomas Steyer's 100 million is buying? Of course it's OK when the Eco Fascist lefty billionaires spend their money to produce lies and propaganda in wholesale lots.


----------



## DEKE01

supernovae said:


> *There are some "scientists" who* side against global warming, but do so by diluting it to be "global greening" or "more arable" lands or whatever it may be - they* hardly ever go against AGW or greenhouse gases because they know it would be career suicide, so they "Spin it" and "Frame it" to match their political ideology.* (which is why may people call it "climate change" "global warming" "greenhouse gases.." yaddy yaddy yadda..
> 
> It's too bad we don't teach ourselves reasoning and logic skills as it would be super easy to understand we're not debating the facts of CO2 and AGW once again, but rather how one wants to spin it to fit their agenda by politically framing the issue.


THANK YOU!

Thank you for finally admitting that there is real political bias and punishment within the scientific community against those who question your unsettled science. Will you also admit that that means the funding of science by IPCC and governments could also be equally biased to produce desired results?


----------



## DEKE01

supernovae said:


> If you're really pushing #3, then why were there so many pages of people denying AGW? I've been away for a week and not interested in re-reading everything, but I don't remember the original premise being "AGW is good for people after all"
> 
> Are you now agreeing that AGW is good and not denying the science behind it?


I'm a skeptic, I'm not pushing anything other than not giving into wholesale propaganda. I just checked, and I have not been elected as spokesman for anyone else here, so I won't to explain why some hold their views. 

You asked for logic...No one I remember has said, "AGW is good for people after all." You have twisted my words, "isn't bad" to nothing I was trying to say.


----------



## supernovae

DEKE01 said:


> I'm a skeptic, I'm not pushing anything other than not giving into wholesale propaganda. I just checked, and I have not been elected as spokesman for anyone else here, so I won't to explain why some hold their views.
> 
> You asked for logic...No one I remember has said, "AGW is good for people after all." You have twisted my words, "isn't bad" to nothing I was trying to say.


I'm not twisting any words, i'm just quoting what was said and you're deflecting everything.

You said it yourself, that you believe AGW is in 4 camps.

Which one are you in? Then, we can discuss then merits of how/why or go our separate ways.

Playing all 4 camps at the same time when its politically convenient is just a waste of anyone's time to respond to.


----------



## HDRider

supernovae said:


> He's a self described climate skeptic funded by the CATO institute, of course he wants to deny the science for a political agenda.
> 
> He's bought and paid for by the KOCH brothers.


I see you are back and still in the deep end. It is sad to me that you are given the opportunity to share your views with kids. Sad.


----------



## DEKE01

supernovae said:


> I'm not twisting any words, i'm just quoting what was said and you're deflecting everything.
> 
> You said it yourself, that you believe AGW is in 4 camps.
> 
> Which one are you in? Then, we can discuss then merits of how/why or go our separate ways.
> 
> Playing all 4 camps at the same time when its politically convenient is just a waste of anyone's time to respond to.


You are twisting words when you create a straw man that some believe AGW is good. No one has said that. Surely you understand "not bad" is not the same as "good". You asked for logic, that is basic grammar logic. 

I told you where I stand. I'm a skeptic and still waiting for SOMEONE to tell me the science that says, IF AGW is real, how does it translate into real dire consequences.


----------



## arabian knight

HDRider said:


> I see you are back and still in the deep end. It is sad to me that you are given the opportunity to share your views with kids. Sad.


Yes I have mentioned that before and it is crying sad for sure.


----------



## supernovae

HDRider said:


> I see you are back and still in the deep end. It is sad to me that you are given the opportunity to share your views with kids. Sad.


You know what is sad? People like you, who jump to conclusions on things they have no clue about. I mean, do you seriously think I brain washed kids? Were you there? Did you not see the smiles on their faces as we built rockets? Did you see the smiles on their faces as we talked about how engines worked? Did you help build their breadboards and talk about electronics and see the cool stuff they invented on their own? Were you there helping them get to their activities, teaching them to swim? challenging them to do things that they didn't think they could do like high rope, rock wall climbing and rope swinging into the middle of a river having never swam in anything but a kiddy pool?

I hope your proud of yourself for saying what you did, your true spirit really shines through.

I'm not offended by anything you say, I'm just appalled a fellow human being could stoop so low. Now i'm just more energized to do more volunteering thank you!

Once again though, none of this changes the facts... so if you have something we can really talk about as adults, lets keep it that way!


----------



## HDRider

supernovae said:


> You know what is sad? People like you, who jump to conclusions on things they have no clue about. I mean, do you seriously think I brain washed kids? Were you there? Did you not see the smiles on their faces as we built rockets? Did you see the smiles on their faces as we talked about how engines worked? Did you help build their breadboards and talk about electronics and see the cool stuff they invented on their own? Were you there helping them get to their activities, teaching them to swim? challenging them to do things that they didn't think they could do like high rope, rock wall climbing and rope swinging into the middle of a river having never swam in anything but a kiddy pool?
> 
> I hope your proud of yourself for saying what you did, your true spirit really shines through.
> 
> I'm not offended by anything you say, I'm just appalled a fellow human being could stoop so low. Now i'm just more energized to do more volunteering thank you!
> 
> Once again though, none of this changes the facts... so if you have something we can really talk about as adults, lets keep it that way!


Did I say brainwash?


----------



## supernovae

DEKE01 said:


> You are twisting words when you create a straw man that some believe AGW is good. No one has said that. Surely you understand "not bad" is not the same as "good". You asked for logic, that is basic grammar logic.


I asked for clarification, I never made such a statement that not bad equals good. You're views on AGW are as clear as mud, I don't know what they are other than anti-government and anti-IPCC



> I told you where I stand. I'm a skeptic and still waiting for SOMEONE to tell me the science that says, IF AGW is real, how does it translate into real dire consequences.


This data is already out there and has many scenarios that show the risks of increasing CO2 levels. 

Lets be real though, you're not a skeptic and you're most certainly not the type of person that waits for someone to TELL you something. If you were a skeptic, you would have a litany of issues against the potential consequences of AGW and evidence for why you're skeptic of those claims. If you wanted SOMEONE to tell you something you would actually listen to what they have to say would you not?


----------



## Paumon

DEKE01 said:


> I've been quite clear and repeatedly said there are 4 camps in this debate
> 
> 1. those who do not believe the climate is changing at all.
> 2. those who believe in climate change as a natural process
> 3. those who believe in AGW but it isn't bad
> 4. AGW believers who think it is a net negative.
> 
> And based on some of the input on HT, perhaps I should add a 5th group who believe that AGW is real and we that humans will be extinct before the end of the century.


You missed out the most important category of all and it's the category that many people right here on this board posting in this topic or in other topics over the years have claimed to fall into. I say it's the most important category because it's my understanding that the majority of people world wide who recognize climate changes believe the same thing.

The category is those who understand that climate change is a natural ongoing process and believe that humans have contributed to the hastening and extremity of this cycle of change since the onset of the industrial revolution and world wide mass pollution.


----------



## supernovae

HDRider said:


> Did I say brainwash?


Tell me, what did you really mean then? how could me, teaching children, make you sad and someone else cry? Please elaborate.


----------



## Paumon

supernovae said:


> Tell me, what did you really mean then? how could me, teaching children, make you sad and someone else cry? Please elaborate.


It was an childish, baiting personal insult not worthy of a response. Why bother to respond and ask for further elaboration about a deliberate insult that was said with the intent to get you to respond in kind?

Consider the source and their agenda. If they have nothing constructive to contribute they will resort to personal insults.


----------



## DEKE01

Paumon said:


> You missed out the most important category of all and it's the category that many people right here on this board posting in this topic or in other topics over the years have claimed to fall into. I say it's the most important category because it's my understanding that the majority of people world wide who recognize climate changes believe the same thing.
> 
> The category is those who understand that climate change is a natural ongoing process and believe that humans have contributed to the hastening and extremity of this cycle of change since the onset of the industrial revolution and world wide mass pollution.


Those folks are in categories 3 and 4. 

And don't try to speak for the majority of people in the world. I suspect that the 3 - 4 BILLION people in the world today that live in less than a dollar a day don't give a flip about global warming. In some areas, desertification is happening because horribly poor people are burning every piece of carbon they can scrounge in order to have cooking fires and heat. Remember Maslow's hierarchy of needs. If desperately poor people can't find food, water, and shelter, they are not going to have time to care about what the world might do 100 or 1000 years from now.


----------



## supernovae

DEKE01 said:


> Those folks are in categories 3 and 4.
> 
> And don't try to speak for the majority of people in the world. I suspect that the 3 - 4 BILLION people in the world today that live in less than a dollar a day don't give a flip about global warming. In some areas, desertification is happening because horribly poor people are burning every piece of carbon they can scrounge in order to have cooking fires and heat. Remember Maslow's hierarchy of needs. If desperately poor people can't find food, water, and shelter, they are not going to have time to care about what the world might do 100 or 1000 years from now.


These non industrial people don't really give a flip because they're not largely contributing to the excess CO2 that industrialized nations are and ironically, they're living in modest houses, usually in very "green" ways - often the first to use wind / solar electricity too! They're culturally "closer" to how their life reflects the life of the planet around them and it shows. These countries don't really register at all in the man made CO2 emission tracking by country/nation.

Non sequitur.


----------



## DEKE01

supernovae said:


> I asked for clarification, I never made such a statement that not bad equals good. You're views on AGW are as clear as mud, I don't know what they are other than anti-government and anti-IPCC
> 
> 
> 
> This data is already out there and has many scenarios that show the risks of increasing CO2 levels.
> 
> Lets be real though, you're not a skeptic and you're most certainly not the type of person that waits for someone to TELL you something. If you were a skeptic, you would have a litany of issues against the potential consequences of AGW and evidence for why you're skeptic of those claims. If you wanted SOMEONE to tell you something you would actually listen to what they have to say would you not?


My goal is not to make my views clear to you, which is a good thing because I don't know how many times and ways I can say that I'm a skeptic. All along I keep asking the same Q and the believers never want to address except to say stuff about Koch Brothers. Why is it that when the IPCC approved scientists are deniers does the scientific community personally attack them instead of presenting science to discredit the skeptic's ideas? 

I also keep asking, and the Q is repeatedly ducked, if AGW is real, where is the science that shows it is real bad?


----------



## DEKE01

supernovae said:


> These non industrial people don't really give a flip because they're not largely contributing to the excess CO2 that industrialized nations are and ironically, they're living in modest houses, usually in very "green" ways - often the first to use wind / solar electricity too! They're culturally "closer" to how their life reflects the life of the planet around them and it shows. These countries don't really register at all in the man made CO2 emission tracking by country/nation.
> 
> Non sequitur.


So you agree with my point that Paumon should not speak for what the Majority of the world believes?


----------



## JeffreyD

supernovae said:


> You know what is sad? People like you, who jump to conclusions on things they have no clue about. I mean, do you seriously think I brain washed kids? Were you there? Did you not see the smiles on their faces as we built rockets? Did you see the smiles on their faces as we talked about how engines worked? Did you help build their breadboards and talk about electronics and see the cool stuff they invented on their own? Were you there helping them get to their activities, teaching them to swim? challenging them to do things that they didn't think they could do like high rope, rock wall climbing and rope swinging into the middle of a river having never swam in anything but a kiddy pool?
> 
> I hope your proud of yourself for saying what you did, your true spirit really shines through.
> 
> I'm not offended by anything you say, I'm just appalled a fellow human being could stoop so low. Now i'm just more energized to do more volunteering thank you!
> 
> Once again though, none of this changes the facts... so if you have something we can really talk about as adults, lets keep it that way!


We've tried to engage you in honest debate to no avail! It's your way or the highway. ..that is what is sad. Adults don't stoop to spewing lies and posting hateful rhetoric because they disagree with the opposing argument, as you do! I see you for what you are!


----------



## supernovae

JeffreyD said:


> We've tried to engage you in honest debate to no avail! It's your way or the highway. ..that is what is sad. Adults don't stoop to spewing lies and posting hateful rhetoric because they disagree with the opposing argument, as you do! I see you for what you are!



If you were interested in honest debate, you wouldn't call talking about facts as lies nor rhetoric and you could cite specific cases where I may have used such. I would be more than happy to correct myself if this were indeed true.


----------



## JeffreyD

supernovae said:


> I asked for clarification, I never made such a statement that not bad equals good. You're views on AGW are as clear as mud, I don't know what they are other than anti-government and anti-IPCC
> 
> 
> 
> This data is already out there and has many scenarios that show the risks of increasing CO2 levels.
> 
> Lets be real though, you're not a skeptic and you're most certainly not the type of person that waits for someone to TELL you something. If you were a skeptic, you would have a litany of issues against the potential consequences of AGW and evidence for why you're skeptic of those claims. If you wanted SOMEONE to tell you something you would actually listen to what they have to say would you not?


Yes, the data is out there. I provided proof that global warming is not as serious a threat as environments would have us believe. You just can't stand the fact that for all your complex problem solving prowess, you've been proven wrong.....again!


----------



## supernovae

DEKE01 said:


> So you agree with my point that Paumon should not speak for what the Majority of the world believes?


I don't understand what you're claiming here. I have never seen Paumon speak for the majority of the world, just reference to scientific consensus which is called consensus for a reason (the end result of a long and lengthy decision making process based on observational and historical data and scientific scrutiny thereof)


----------



## HDRider

Paumon said:


> It was an childish, baiting personal insult not worthy of a response. Why bother to respond and ask for further elaboration about a deliberate insult that was said with the intent to get you to respond in kind?
> 
> Consider the source and their agenda. If they have nothing constructive to contribute they will resort to personal insults.


Sorry Mother. You always did like him better than me.


----------



## JeffreyD

supernovae said:


> Tell me, what did you really mean then? how could me, teaching children, make you sad and someone else cry? Please elaborate.


Because your pushing your religion on unsuspecting nieve children! They will believe that you are telling them the truth...but you don't tell them that it's only your person opinion.


----------



## supernovae

JeffreyD said:


> Yes, the data is out there. I provided proof that global warming is not as serious a threat as environments would have us believe. You just can't stand the fact that for all your complex problem solving prowess, you've been proven wrong.....again!


You have done no such thing.

What is the basis for the environmental impact you are modeling your belief from? What are your measurements? How are you measuring these? 

Where have I been proven wrong?


----------



## DEKE01

supernovae said:


> I don't understand what you're claiming here. I have never seen Paumon speak for the majority of the world, just reference to scientific consensus which is called consensus for a reason (the end result of a long and lengthy decision making process based on observational and historical data and scientific scrutiny thereof)


msg 607 which you liked.


----------



## HDRider

supernovae said:


> Tell me, what did you really mean then? how could me, teaching children, make you sad and someone else cry? Please elaborate.


If you "teach" the "facts" as you have represented them here, then it is sad they are given such a malformed "opinion".

If all you did was teach them about rockets and applied science, then it makes me happy. 

You departed this forum on your mission trip to teach the kids leaving the impression with me that you would have much, or least some, to say about man managing climate change.


----------



## JeffreyD

Paumon said:


> It was an childish, baiting personal insult not worthy of a response. Why bother to respond and ask for further elaboration about a deliberate insult that was said with the intent to get you to respond in kind?
> 
> Consider the source and their agenda. If they have nothing constructive to contribute they will resort to personal insults.


You lead by example!


----------



## JeffreyD

supernovae said:


> If you were interested in honest debate, you wouldn't call talking about facts as lies nor rhetoric and you could cite specific cases where I may have used such. I would be more than happy to correct myself if this were indeed true.


Go back and re read your own posts. It's abundantly clear!


----------



## supernovae

JeffreyD said:


> Because your pushing your religion on unsuspecting nieve children! They will believe that you are telling them the truth...but you don't tell them that it's only your person opinion.


:rotfl:

Best troll post yet.

I mean, seriously, were you there? do you even know what we did? is this a serious reply? I can't tell.


----------



## JeffreyD

supernovae said:


> You have done no such thing.
> 
> What is the basis for the environmental impact you are modeling your belief from? What are your measurements? How are you measuring these?
> 
> Where have I been proven wrong?


I provided government data that clearly refutes America's Co2 output in posts 432, 442!
The data I presented is from the US government and an agricultural university. You provided data from the ipcc which has been proven to have been falsified. Prove my data wrong...but you won't, because all you have are the ipcc and their proponents.


----------



## supernovae

JeffreyD said:


> Go back and re read your own posts. It's abundantly clear!


What is?


----------



## JeffreyD

supernovae said:


> :rotfl:
> 
> Best troll post yet.
> 
> I mean, seriously, were you there? do you even know what we did? is this a serious reply? I can't tell.


You asked! I based my assumption on your posts here! And you call me a troll!!!! ound::hysterical:


----------



## JeffreyD

supernovae said:


> What is?


Never mind complex problem solver!!! Read post 624.


----------



## supernovae

JeffreyD said:


> I provided government data that clearly refutes America's Co2 output in posts 432, 442!
> The data I presented is from the US government and an agricultural university. You provided data from the ipcc which has been proven to have been falsified. Prove my data wrong...but you won't, because all you have are the ipcc and their proponents.


I never once mentioned the IPPC, the only thing I laughed about was how much you told me my sources were untrusted yet they're the very reference for the materials you mentioned.

YOu know, back when you made fun of me for linking a brochure - a brochure by the same forestry service that collects the data that you said you linked because you don't trust the government.

Also, the same data where I showed the scientific understanding of sequestration rates and the formula that is used to calculate and measure these rates that shows your calculation to be 50-60% inflated and that there is no recorded post industrial age country by any scientific consensus or admission that is recognized as being carbon neutral that exists in the world.

But yet, i'm supposed to believe your fuzzy math because you reference a forum post that once again, cherry picks the same data I referenced that you refuse to believe?

really?

Of course this was all debated. I just started to ignore it because its not based on fact. It's based on irrational fear of government data, cherry picking the HIGHEST possible sequestration amount and doesn't indicate the ever growing amount of CO2 in our atmosphere. It's the same data that shows china growing its emissions too that you guys gladly accept when you tell me to move there. hilarious.. not.


----------



## DEKE01

supernovae said:


> You're views on AGW are as clear as mud, I don't know what they are other than anti-government and anti-IPCC


:hijacked:

I meant to return to this before. Please quit saying I'm anti-gov't. You don't know what you're talking about. I''ll be pro gov't as long as there are men who have evil in their hearts and other men so gutless or stupid that they follow the evil men. Gov't is a necessary condition of man. If for no other reason, we need a gov't because Hitler, Stalin, Napoleon, Alexander, Caesar, and a kajillion petty despots have had gov'ts. 

If you want to state my views, I'm anti-big-gov't. If the US gov't would stick to the powers given it within the CONS and balance it's budget, I would be just fine with our gov't.

I'm anti-IPCC because like most UN agencies, it has been corrupted by some of those kajillion petty despots that have gov'ts, like Iran, Libya, North Korea, Cuba, etc


----------



## supernovae

JeffreyD said:


> You asked! I based my assumption on your posts here! And you call me a troll!!!! ound::hysterical:


I didn't ask you anything, you chimed in on your own 

troll: In Internet slang, a troll (/&#712;tro&#650;l/, /&#712;tr&#594;l/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people,[1] by posting inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion


----------



## JeffreyD

supernovae said:


> I never once mentioned the IPPC, the only thing I laughed about was how much you told me my sources were untrusted yet they're the very reference for the materials you mentioned.
> 
> YOu know, back when you made fun of me for linking a brochure - a brochure by the same forestry service that collects the data that you said you linked because you don't trust the government.
> 
> Also, the same data where I showed the scientific understanding of sequestration rates and the formula that is used to calculate and measure these rates that shows your calculation to be 50-60% inflated and that there is no recorded post industrial age country by any scientific consensus or admission that is recognized as being carbon neutral that exists in the world.
> 
> But yet, i'm supposed to believe your fuzzy math because you reference a forum post that once again, cherry picks the same data I referenced that you refuse to believe?
> 
> really?
> 
> Of course this was all debated. I just started to ignore it because its not based on fact. It's based on irrational fear of government data, cherry picking the HIGHEST possible sequestration amount and doesn't indicate the ever growing amount of CO2 in our atmosphere. It's the same data that shows china growing its emissions too that you guys gladly accept when you tell me to move there. hilarious.. not.


Cherry picking indeed! Your religious zealotry for the environmental is clouding your judgement. That much is clear! Carry on! It's not worth the effort constantly repeating myself.


----------



## JeffreyD

supernovae said:


> I didn't ask you anything, you chimed in on your own
> 
> troll: In Internet slang, a troll (/&#712;tro&#650;l/, /&#712;tr&#594;l/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people,[1] by posting inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion


You described your posts perfectly.


----------



## supernovae

DEKE01 said:


> :hijacked:
> 
> I meant to return to this before. Please quit saying I'm anti-gov't. You don't know what you're talking about. I''ll be pro gov't as long as there are men who have evil in their hearts and other men so gutless or stupid that they follow the evil men. Gov't is a necessary condition of man. If for no other reason, we need a gov't because Hitler, Stalin, Napoleon, Alexander, Caesar, and a kajillion petty despots have had gov'ts.
> 
> If you want to state my views, I'm anti-big-gov't. If the US gov't would stick to the powers given it within the CONS and balance it's budget, I would be just fine with our gov't.


What does any of this have to do with AGW though? When the constitution was written, no one of that time could have predicted the future we created and live in today.

No government or constitution is perfect by any means.


----------



## supernovae

JeffreyD said:


> Cherry picking indeed! Your religious zealotry for the environmental is clouding your judgement. That much is clear! Carry on! It's not worth the effort constantly repeating myself.


That would be great if you would stop then.


----------



## Paumon

HDRider said:


> Sorry Mother. You always did like him better than me.


Well that's one thing you've said I agree with. In the short time he's been on this forum he's demonstrated he's emotionally stable, balanced and fair-minded, he doesn't have selective memory, selective comprehension and selective intellect and he hasn't resorted to tossing out childish personal insults and condescending, hostile derision to try to get the better of someone else. What's not to like about that?


----------



## DEKE01

supernovae said:


> What does any of this have to do with AGW though? When the constitution was written, no one of that time could have predicted the future we created and live in today.
> 
> No government or constitution is perfect by any means.


Wow, you're making my head spin. It has nothing to do with AGW so I don't know why you brought it up.


----------



## JeffreyD

Paumon said:


> Well that's one thing you've said I agree with. In the short time he's been on this forum he's demonstrated he's emotionally stable, balanced and fair-minded, he doesn't have selective memory, selective comprehension and selective intellect and he hasn't resorted to tossing out childish personal insults and condescending, hostile derision to try to get the better of someone else. What's not to like about that?


Nothing if it were true. But, since this person parrots your beliefs, of course you find no fault. It's to be expected.


----------



## Paumon

Thanks Jeff, I'm taking that as a compliment because it sounds like you approve of all those virtues and you're attributing all of those virtues to me too. :grin:


----------



## HDRider

Paumon said:


> Well that's one thing you've said I agree with. In the short time he's been on this forum he's demonstrated he's emotionally stable, balanced and fair-minded, he doesn't have selective memory, selective comprehension and selective intellect and he hasn't resorted to tossing out childish personal insults and condescending, hostile derision to try to get the better of someone else. What's not to like about that?


I am rubber and you are glue... Sorry Mother. I am such a bad, bad boy.


----------



## JeffreyD

Paumon said:


> Thanks Jeff, I'm taking that as a compliment because it sounds like you approve of all those virtues and you're attributing all of those virtues to me too. :grin:


Take it however you want!


----------



## Paumon

Well guys, all this back and forth tit-for-tat stuff is getting boring so I'm going to go visit a friend and enjoy this evening's super-moon rise and sunset over a glass or two of some of BC's finest. Later as I continue to come across more _"Signs of Climate Change"_ I'll continue to post them and if ya'll want to argue over them you can fill your boots.

Speaking of signs of climate change and some of the GOOD things that have come out of it, and speaking of fine wines - here's one for you. This week the BC Okanagan desert region has just received one of the highest honors having been designated as the world's 2nd best wine region to visit (after Portugal) and partake of some of the best award-winning wines in the world. In large part this success is due to climate change happening in this province. If you've never tried the Okanagan desert district's ice wines you don't know what you're missing.

http://www.vancitybuzz.com/2014/08/okanagan-valley-named-worlds-2nd-best-wine-region-visit/


----------



## supernovae

DEKE01 said:


> Wow, you're making my head spin. It has nothing to do with AGW so I don't know why you brought it up.



How is your head spinning?

My head is spinning because the only answer i get time after time here isn't based on data, its based on people belittling one another, poking holes in "big government" or downright being insulting.

I didn't start any of this side-tracked nonsense and i keep trying to bring it back to the middle.

Since we know how much CO2 humans release each year and we can measure the molecular isotypes and see a difference in emission co2 from man vs natural co2 from the environment and we can see how this has increased greatly since the industrial age, i'm not sure what there is to debate.

Do you see that as "good"? Should we not try and reduce our emissions? CO2 is a gas that plants need, but there is enough "natural" co2 we don't need to add more and history shows that while we recovered a HUGE amount of forests after we made it a LAW in the 1950's and 1960's that the forests had to be restored and preserved, that we saved our butts back then, so why the fear against laws and action now?

Why can't we do the same today? I'm sure the lumber mills, paper mills and loggers swore up and down their way of life would end when these laws required stewardship of the land, but did they? Didn't we preserve their way of life by preserving forests?

We have a horizon of sorts that people don't want to cross out of uncertainty and fear, that isn't really established in reality. We can diminish our CO2 emissions and increase our quality of life big time. Just think of how much clean air the east coast would have if we switched from coal power to green or even nuclear energy (hopefully based on smaller reactors and newer technology such as the salt reactors). Just imagine how many people could stop suffering from allergies & asthma... how kids may one day see the stars again and look up at a clear sky free of smog. We can do this, we can commit to a better future and make small changes without "impacting our way of life" because we have done it for as long as we lived.

This discussion shouldn't be about the IPCC or big government or which politically biased news source you want to believe in. It should be about the future of humanity, not our obsession with our rather wasteful past and our obsession with over consumption at all costs. We need balance, we need to talk about balance and the only way we can do that is if we choose to meet in the middle and stop polarizing everything as if its black and white and most important we shouldn't insult each other just because we have differing views. There is a LOT more to AGW than just what the US Gov or IPCC has on the topic, but AGW is going to be a part of the US strategy moving forward as it absolutely has an impact on our survival not just as a species, but as a nation.

It may not just be "rising temps".. it may be "Rising seas" or worse yet "rising acidic seas" that no longer provide natural sequestration and start leaking out all the CO2 they store and have massive kill-offs and O2 depletion.. if the seas were to become chemically unstable that would spell doom for a large part of humanity that requires the oceans for its protein amongst many other things.

The earth itself, will recover eventually. The sun has a few billion years of fuel left.. but will humanity live beyond its own egos for much longer?


----------



## arabian knight

Man can not Stop whatever MAYBE happening, he is not the Cause of whatever MAYBE happening. MAN can NOT even SLOW it UP, whatever MAYBE happening. It is a Natural Occurrence that earth has been doing for the last 4.5 BILLION years. IF Something IS going on ONLY Mother Earth can and will know and do something about whatever MAYBE Happening. Man is just a tick on the clock of time, he means nothing to the Earth. The earth is always ion change. And right now as the Coolness is happening all over the earth it is a good thing. Ice Age Here We Come. LOL
Water does not just disappear either. It just MOVES from One Place To Another. It Never just disappears off the earth. There is still just as much water on this earth as there gads been for millions of years.


----------



## Paumon

arabian knight said:


> Man can not Stop whatever MAYBE happening, he is not the Cause of whatever MAYBE happening.
> 
> And right now as the Coolness is happening all over the earth it is a good thing. Ice Age Here We Come. LOL
> 
> Water does not just disappear either. It just MOVES from One Place To Another. It Never just disappears off the earth. There is still just as much water on this earth as there gads been for millions of years.


Anything man does, man can stop doing. If man is causing anything then man can stop what he is doing to cause it.

There is no coolness happening all over the earth. Just because it's cooler right now in your specific location does not mean it's cooler everywhere. It's a little bit cooler this summer where you are, and a lot hotter than usual in other places not very far away from your location.

Water can and does disappear through the separation of the 2 chemicals hydrogen and oxygen that compose water - it's called water splitting and there are several ways in which water splitting and decomposition of water can happen.


----------



## supernovae

arabian knight said:


> Man can not Stop whatever MAYBE happening, he is not the Cause of whatever MAYBE happening. MAN can NOT even SLOW it UP, whatever MAYBE happening. It is a Natural Occurrence that earth has been doing for the last 4.5 BILLION years. IF Something IS going on ONLY Mother Earth can and will know and do something about whatever MAYBE Happening. Man is just a tick on the clock of time, he means nothing to the Earth. The earth is always ion change. And right now as the Coolness is happening all over the earth it is a good thing. Ice Age Here We Come. LOL
> Water does not just disappear either. It just MOVES from One Place To Another. It Never just disappears off the earth. There is still just as much water on this earth as there gads been for millions of years.


Man can slow it up because we can measure the impact we have. It's basic math and science.

Also, man has done MUCH to destroy the planet.. all those heavy metals we pumped up and poured into the water have made fishing in the gulf coast a surefire way to get cancer with so much mercury and PCB contamination. It took the earth eons to sequester that stuff deep into coal and mineral beds and we thought we could just pump it out and throw it across the world without regard.

Yet, its science that shows us that the species we consider "Sport fish" are almost harmful to eat.. we almost killed off our crab fisheries, shrimp fisheries and oyster beds multiple times but gosh darnnit, it was science and biologists and government that got in the way and fixed it.

At this point, i'm not sure what it is you're trying to say. We have analytical minds that can reason, compute and discern data and the data is telling us what we need to do and yet only when it hits the fan, do we bother to act.


----------



## arabian knight

Paumon said:


> Water can and does disappear through the separation of the 2 chemicals *hydrogen and oxygen that compose water *- it's called water splitting and there are several ways in which water splitting and decomposition of water can happen.


Ya that is called Clouds. Or Water Vapor, but it IS Still there, and falls elsewhere around the earth it does not Just Disappear off the face of the earth.
And IF you want to go BACK to the Earth's infancy, yes there was more water on earth. But I am saying a few million years ago not a few Billion Years ago. 
Earth was at one time a Molten mass of liquid rock.
And also earth was a Frozen Ice Ball.
Don't reach that far back to prove some point that does not matter in the Real Time of NOW.
And of course we NEVER EVER want water to be brought to the earth like it once was. If that happens it is good bye to humans.


----------



## unregistered353870

arabian knight said:


> Ya that is called Clouds. Or Water Vapor, but it IS Still there, and falls elsewhere around the earth it does not Just Disappear off the face of the earth.


That's not correct. When hydrogen and oxygen separate, it is no longer water. Clouds are still water. Separated hydrogen and oxygen are not clouds.


----------



## arabian knight

jtbrandt said:


> That's not correct. When hydrogen and oxygen separate, it is no longer water. Clouds are still water. Separated hydrogen and oxygen are not clouds.


Yes over billion of years I brought up that site that said 1/4 of earths water ls Gone. But if you read the article they ar stalking the earth in its Infancy. And that takes many years to go boom.
But the headlines of those doom and gloomers that still harp on GW hang their coattails on such National Enquirer headings. But lets not hope that a huge comet or astroid doesn't being us more water any time soon.

And how about this from 
Â© Utah Education Network


> Water Cycles
> All of the water that is on the earth has always been here. Earth never gets water added to it--nor does water disappear from the earth.* Water is constantly recycled in a process known as the hydrologic or water cycle.*
> 
> Fresh water is more scarce than you might think. 97% of all the water on the earth is in the oceans, and so only 3% is fresh water. About 2.4% of the water on earth is permanently frozen in glaciers and at the polar ice caps. About 1/2 of 1% of the water on earth is groundwater. Only about 1/100 of 1% of the water on earth is in the rivers and lakes. Water is essential to life on earth, so it is important that we protect our water resources.


 See there is more to it then just a simple one liner.

http://www.uen.org/themepark/cycles/water.shtml


----------



## unregistered353870

The water cycle has nothing to do with hydrogen and oxygen that have separated...when they split, they leave the cycle. They can recombine and go back into the cycle, but my point was that hydrogen and oxygen separate from each other are not called clouds as was claimed in your previous post.


----------



## Paumon

A little bit of trivia, just for the heck of it.

http://www.colorado.edu/news/releas...s-new-water-splitting-technique-could-produce



> A University of Colorado Boulder team has developed a radically new water splitting technique that uses the power of sunlight to efficiently split water into its components of hydrogen and oxygen, paving the way for the broad use of hydrogen as a clean, green fuel.


----------



## HDRider

Paumon said:


> A little bit of trivia, just for the heck of it.
> 
> http://www.colorado.edu/news/releas...s-new-water-splitting-technique-could-produce


Are you rooting for both?

Despite the discovery, the commercialization of such a solar-thermal reactor is likely years away. &#8220;With the price of natural gas so low, there is no incentive to burn clean energy,&#8221; said Weimer, also the executive director of the Colorado Center for Biorefining and Biofuels, or C2B2. &#8220;There would have to be a *substantial monetary penalty for putting carbon into the atmosphere, or the price of fossil fuels would have to go way up.&#8221;*


----------



## Paumon

HDRider said:


> Are you rooting for both?
> 
> Despite the discovery, the commercialization of such a solar-thermal reactor is likely years away. &#8220;With the price of natural gas so low, there is no incentive to burn clean energy,&#8221; said Weimer, also the executive director of the Colorado Center for Biorefining and Biofuels, or C2B2. &#8220;There would have to be a *substantial monetary penalty for putting carbon into the atmosphere, or the price of fossil fuels would have to go way up.&#8221;*


No, I'm not rooting for either, but for a different reason.

However, it really saddens me that anyone says there's no incentive to burn clean energy simply because it costs less money to foul our nest burning dirty energy. The savings in dirty money costs us so much more in other ways.


----------



## DEKE01

supernovae said:


> Should we not try and reduce our emissions? CO2 is a gas that plants need, but there is enough "natural" co2 we don't need to add more and history shows that while we recovered a HUGE amount of forests after we made it a LAW in the 1950's and 1960's that the forests had to be restored and preserved, that we saved our butts back then, so why the fear against laws and action now?


Why should we do anything about CO2 if it doesn't matter. Once again, where is the science that shows that higher levels of CO2 is a net negative?


----------



## Paumon

DEKE01 said:


> Why should we do anything about CO2 if it doesn't matter. Once again, where is the science that shows that higher levels of CO2 is a net negative?


This question has already been asked and answered repeatedly. Why don't you just go back to the beginning of the topic and read through it again instead of doing the pre-schooler's broken record "why?" routine?


----------



## Vahomesteaders

What's funny is someone actually believes all earths water that is upon it and in it came from asteroids. They also admit it's crust was all molten lava and in a state that no living organism could survive. Yet here we are and all the billions of plants and animals.


----------



## DEKE01

Paumon said:


> A little bit of trivia, just for the heck of it.
> 
> http://www.colorado.edu/news/releas...s-new-water-splitting-technique-could-produce


very cool. And it is stuff like this that makes me not worry about the sky falling. There will be new discoveries and inventions and techniques that you and I will never even dream of that will be major game changers. 

In the 70s people were saying the world would starve with 7B people but we have so much food we burn it to power cars. In the mid 60s, Gene Roddenberry, a guy with a great imagination, believed that in 300 years everyone would have a hand held device that they could use to communicate over vast distance and that another hand held device could be used to analyze personal health. It took 30 years to get cell phones and another 20 years to combine elements of Dr McCoy's medical scanner with the cell phone. Roddenberry, as clever as he was, didn't dream big enough.


----------



## DEKE01

Paumon said:


> This question has already been asked and answered repeatedly. Why don't you just go back to the beginning of the topic and read through it again instead of doing the pre-schooler's broken record "why?" routine?


Well, 650+ messages, forgive me if I don't remember them all. But I still don't believe the work has been done to connect CO2 levels to the dire consequences predicted by believers. And I've cited IPCC approved scientists who thin the same thing. 

I think you object to the "why" because you don't have an answer.


----------



## Paumon

Vahomesteaders said:


> What's funny is someone actually believes all earths water that is upon it and in it came from asteroids. They also admit it's crust was all molten lava and in a state that no living organism could survive. Yet here we are and all the billions of plants and animals.


Until somebody can prove beyond a doubt that it is otherwise it is as sensible an explanation as any other scientific explanation. There's lots of water in other parts of the universe so why shouldn't the components of water have been brought here by asteroids?

I'm wondering, did you make that post as an opening in hopes of getting into another debate about creationism vs. evolution?


----------



## Paumon

DEKE01 said:


> very cool. And it is stuff like this that makes me not worry about the sky falling. There will be new discoveries and inventions and techniques that you and I will never even dream of that will be major game changers.
> 
> In the 70s people were saying the world would starve with 7B people but we have so much food we burn it to power cars. In the mid 60s, Gene Roddenberry, a guy with a great imagination, believed that in 300 years everyone would have a hand held device that they could use to communicate over vast distance and that another hand held device could be used to analyze personal health. It took 30 years to get cell phones and another 20 years to combine elements of Dr McCoy's medical scanner with the cell phone. Roddenberry, as clever as he was, didn't dream big enough.


These things are true in the developed nations. Now if only the food replicators could also be invented, that would be a great feat.


----------



## Sumatra

One problem that has apparently not been addressed here how modern agriculture is turning 50 million acres of farmland into deserts everywhere(according to 2010 numbers). Now, I'm not gonna bash it, since it's feeding more people than it ever has before, but without a severe change in farming methods, things will only get worst. Not cutting down old forests and completely staying away from fossil fuels isn't the answer. Avoiding many petroleum-based fertilizers that acidify the soil and helping small farms, rather than restricting them with new laws, would be the first and largest step to take. As far as I'm concerned, this is the most pressing issue in climate change. The increased plant life would solve our two largest problems; the need for water, and lessened amounts of Co2. 


After that, we can discuss whether the theory of abiotic oil is viable or not.


----------



## Paumon

DEKE01 said:


> In the 70s people were saying the world would starve with 7B people but we have so much food we burn it to power cars.


The fact that we in developed nations have so much food that we burn it to power cars (another luxury that people in non-developed countries don't have) does not speak well of us. It's nothing to brag about, it speaks poorly of us. There are 7 billion people on earth and here are the World Hunger Statistics: 

Percent of world population considered to be starving *33% = 2,310,000,000*

Total number of children that die every year from hunger 1.5 million 

Time between deaths of people who die from hunger 3.6 seconds 

Total number of people in the world who suffer from hunger and malnutrition 800 million 

Total number of people who do not have enough to eat 936 million

Total percentage who do not have enough to eat who live in developing countries 98%

Total percentage of world&#8217;s hungry that live in 7 countries 65%

Number of people who died of hunger today 20,864

Total number of people who will die of hunger this year 7,615,360

Total percentage of American households at risk of hunger 14%


----------



## DEKE01

Paumon said:


> These things are true in the developed nations. Now if only the food replicators could also be invented, that would be a great feat.


We have a world surplus of food, but there is a distribution problem. 

Can you imagine how fat America would be if all people had to do was speak to the microwave and food kept coming out?


----------



## DEKE01

Paumon said:


> The fact that we in developed nations have so much food that we burn it to power cars (another luxury that people in non-developed countries don't have) does not speak well of us. It's nothing to brag about, it speaks poorly of us.


Apparently you misunderstood my tone. I agree with that.  I think it is foolish to use corn for gas when it produces so little net energy. However, the point of me bringing it up is to show how inaccurate our predictions can be. No one can foresee all the good things that are yet to come.


----------



## Paumon

DEKE01 said:


> Apparently you misunderstood my tone. I agree with that. I think it is foolish to use corn for gas when it produces so little net energy. However, the point of me bringing it up is to show how inaccurate our predictions can be. No one can foresee all the good things that are yet to come.


I understood your tone and found it neutral, I was not disagreeing nor finding fault with it. I was just pointing out though that 33% of the one prediction about world starvation came true. 33% is way too much no matter who they are or where they are.

I don't know if all of it can be blamed on lack of distribution though, rather than on dependency on distribution. Because prior to a century ago and the commonality of internal combustion engines and easier transportation there weren't very many people starving in either developed or undeveloped nations. People everywhere didn't have much of a problem with distribution of goods because there wasn't much distribution anyway, nobody was entirely dependent on trade from far away places and all nations provided their own essential food stuffs for themselves. There were no large populations of people living in remote, barren places waiting for essential foods to be delivered to them and there were no birth rate explosions. Any foods that came via trade routes from far away places were all luxury items, they were not essentials, and so whatever some people didn't know about they didn't miss and they didn't starve because they were already providing their own food for themselves. 

The population explosion and decrease in people providing for themselves, and subsequently the greater increase in starvation, came after the industrial revolution and the commonality of the faster and more frequent modes of transportation. People everywhere stopped providing as much for themselves as they had in the past in their own locations and became dependendent on distribution of essentials from far away places. And that dependency was very much encouraged because it meant more trade and more money and more business for the wealthy merchants who practically ruled the world through improved methods of faster transportation.


----------



## DEKE01

I take those hunger stats with a grain of salt. Some are just guesses because they come from low infrastructure countries where information is as reliable as stats in internet debates. US hunger stats I think are skewed because it serves the interests of welfare providers. Baring mental health issues, there really is no reason to go hungry for long in the US. And then there is the fact that either 67.84% or 79.63% of all internet statistics are made up, somewhat like your statement that prior to a century ago there wasn't much starvation. 

But that aside, there is hunger in the world, and much of it is sadly intentional in an effort to control a given population, North Korea and east Africa are examples. It has nothing to do with a lack of transportation or the industrial revolution.


----------



## HDRider




----------



## Paumon

Signs of Climate Change

It's so warm up there in the Arctic this summer that young adults have been trying something new and are going swimming to beat the heat. Unfortunately, swimming is such a new novelty up there (it's just not done in normally year round cold places) that people are forgetting that even though it's hot above the surface the ice water is still cold below the surface. So there have been a few drownings due to hypothermia from staying too long in the water and the Nunavut coroner has had to issue warnings.

http://www.nunatsiaqonline.ca/stori...ters_and_strong_currents_nunavut_coroner_war/


----------



## unregistered358967

DEKE01 said:


> Can you imagine how fat America would be if all people had to do was speak to the microwave and food kept coming out?



We sort of do except we speak into a little box and drive up to the window. Would you like fries with that?


----------



## HDRider

Paumon said:


> Signs of Climate Change
> 
> It's so warm up there in the Arctic this year that young adults have been trying something new and are going swimming to beat the heat. Unfortunately, swimming is such a new novelty up there (it's just not done in normally year round cold places) that people are forgetting that even though it's hot above the surface the ice water is still cold below the surface. So there have been a few drownings due to hypothermia from staying too long in the water and the Nunavut coroner has had to issue warnings.
> 
> http://www.nunatsiaqonline.ca/stori...ters_and_strong_currents_nunavut_coroner_war/


----------



## arabian knight

Ya so much for global Warming.


----------



## HDRider

HDRider said:


>


âDeath Valley, Calif., which is known for being the worldâs hottest location, maxed out at a relatively chilly 89 degrees on Sunday,â August 3, wrote Angela Fritz in the Washington Post. This reading, she added, âwas its coolest high temperature on record for the date by a whopping 15 degrees. The previous record of 104 was set in 1945.â Local meteorological data stretch back to 1911.

Fritz noted that Death Valleyâs average high in August is 115. âThis makes Sundayâs high temperature a ridiculous 26 degrees below normal,â she marveled. Death Valley that day was cooler than Spokane, Wash. (which reached 93), Missoula, Mont.(91), and Boise, Idaho (99).


----------



## HDRider

Paumon said:


> Signs of Climate Change
> 
> It's so warm up there in the Arctic this summer that young adults have been trying something new and are going swimming to beat the heat. Unfortunately, swimming is such a new novelty up there (it's just not done in normally year round cold places) that people are forgetting that even though it's hot above the surface the ice water is still cold below the surface. So there have been a few drownings due to hypothermia from staying too long in the water and the Nunavut coroner has had to issue warnings.
> 
> http://www.nunatsiaqonline.ca/stori...ters_and_strong_currents_nunavut_coroner_war/


âTHIS HAS BEEN THE COLDEST JULY SINCE 1967 . . . AND QUITE LIKELY THE COLDEST ON RECORD,â stated the National Weather Service in Little Rock, Arkansas. Communicating in ALL CAPS as NWS dispatches do, the Little Rock office called July âA MONTH WHICH SAW TEMPERATURES WELL BELOW THE 30-YEAR AVERAGE IN MUCH OF THE STATE.â Including those at Hot Springs Airport, Murfreesboro, and Pine Bluff, NWS identified 38 stations with record-low average monthly high temperatures. In some places, these readings began in the 1880s.


----------



## Paumon

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26025-beijings-coal-ban-may-herald-the-end-of-the-fuel.html

_"....... <snip> ..... __Beijing is planning to ban coal burning in its six central districts from 2020__. If energy-hungry China backs away from coal, the demise of the world's dirtiest fuel may be at hand._

_The Beijing plan was __announced__ on Monday by the city's __Municipal Bureau of Environmental Protection__. It is no pipedream. The first of four big coal-fired power stations, Gaojing, __shut last month__. The city plans to turn off the rest by the end of 2016, but two will be kept functional but mothballed for emergencies._

_Four new gas-fired plants, and pipelines to bring more gas to the city from Shaanxi province, are under construction. Smaller coal-burning factories and heating plants will also have to shut or move out by 2020._

_Last year, the government banned new coal-fired plants around smog-bound Shanghai and Guangzhou._

_China's growth in coal consumption has fallen from 18 per cent a year a decade ago to less than 3 per cent now. Consumption will probably __decline after 2020__, ....... <snip> ......."_


----------



## Paumon

HDRider said:


> âTHIS HAS BEEN THE COLDEST JULY SINCE 1967 . . . AND QUITE LIKELY THE COLDEST ON RECORD,â stated the National Weather Service in Little Rock, Arkansas. Communicating in ALL CAPS as NWS dispatches do, the Little Rock office called July âA MONTH WHICH SAW TEMPERATURES WELL BELOW THE 30-YEAR AVERAGE IN MUCH OF THE STATE.â Including those at Hot Springs Airport, Murfreesboro, and Pine Bluff, NWS identified 38 stations with record-low average monthly high temperatures. In some places, these readings began in the 1880s.


It's been a weird summer alright. On the other side of the continent it's the exact opposite story from the above.

*Record-breaking heatwaves, wildfires*

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/0...verites-cautioned-against-afternoon-exercise/


*Click on map below to enlarge*


----------



## arabian knight

Good there will be more for the USA. That is a good thing.


----------



## Paumon

HDRider said:


> âTHIS HAS BEEN THE COLDEST JULY SINCE *1967 *. . . AND QUITE LIKELY THE COLDEST ON RECORD,â stated the National Weather Service in Little Rock, Arkansas. Communicating in ALL CAPS as NWS dispatches do, the Little Rock office called July âA MONTH WHICH SAW TEMPERATURES WELL BELOW THE 30-YEAR AVERAGE IN MUCH OF THE STATE.â Including those at Hot Springs Airport, Murfreesboro, and Pine Bluff, NWS identified 38 stations with record-low average monthly high temperatures. In some places, these readings began in the 1880s.


I think this state of the climate report for July has more information and more maps. Also, it says it was the coolest July for the lower 48 since 2009. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/


----------



## lurnin2farm

> Percent of world population considered to be starving 33% = 2,310,000,000
> 
> Total number of people in the world who suffer from hunger and malnutrition 800 million
> 
> Total number of people who do not have enough to eat 936 million


Are these just made up or am I missing something because I am on my first cup of Java this morning? 

If 2.3 billion people are starving then why do only 936 million not have enough to eat?


One day, week, year does not a climate change make.. It is one of the coolest summers I can remember but last winter was also one of the coldest winters I can remember as well. 

I didnt go through all 30 pages so I'll ask here. Has the Gulf stream been talked about? Anyone looked at it lately? Europe has been having some pretty sever weather as well and the gulf stream slowing or shutting down would certainly cause that. In fact if it shuts down we will all be headed to Mexico.. How ironic would that be LOL.


----------



## HDRider

lurnin2farm said:


> Are these just made up or am I missing something because I am on my first cup of Java this morning?
> 
> If 2.3 billion people are starving then why do only 936 million not have enough to eat?
> 
> 
> One day, week, year does not a climate change make.. It is one of the coolest summers I can remember but last winter was also one of the coldest winters I can remember as well.
> 
> I didnt go through all 30 pages so I'll ask here. Has the Gulf stream been talked about? Anyone looked at it lately? Europe has been having some pretty sever weather as well and the gulf stream slowing or shutting down would certainly cause that. In fact if it shuts down we will all be headed to Mexico.. How ironic would that be LOL.


Buddy, you got no idea what you waded into. Be alert. Have another cup.


----------



## Paumon

lurnin2farm said:


> Are these just made up or am I missing something because I am on my first cup of Java this morning?
> 
> If 2.3 billion people are starving then why do only 936 million not have enough to eat?
> 
> 
> One day, week, year does not a climate change make.. It is one of the coolest summers I can remember but last winter was also one of the coldest winters I can remember as well.
> 
> I didnt go through all 30 pages so I'll ask here. Has the Gulf stream been talked about? Anyone looked at it lately? Europe has been having some pretty sever weather as well and the gulf stream slowing or shutting down would certainly cause that. In fact if it shuts down we will all be headed to Mexico.. How ironic would that be LOL.


I'll respectfully suggest you do some research to find out the differences between _starvation, malnutrition, hunger_, and _not enough_. They are not all the same thing.

Your point about last winter and this summer being cold in your location has already been brought up several times. And several times it's been pointed out that yes it's been cold only in some parts of North America - but not all of North America and not all of the world. Global climate change is about what's happening around the whole globe, not just what's happening in one small part of it. In some other parts of North America the temps have been the extreme opposite from temps where you are located. So I'd suggest you expand your horizons and take a look at what's happening in other places.

Nobody has brought up the gulf stream yet, nor the Pacific oscillation's el ninos or la ninas (neither of which have happened for 2 years) or la nadas (which is what_ has_ been happening and we've been stuck in for the past 2 years). 

Yes, Europe has been having some climate extremes. So have all other continents and sub-continents, not all to the same degree of extremity (some worse, some less) and not all in the same manner.


----------



## lurnin2farm

> I'll respectfully suggest you do some research to find out the differences between starvation, malnutrition, hunger, and not enough. They are not all the same thing.





> Percent of world population considered to be starving 33% = 2,310,000,000
> 
> 
> Total number of people in the world who suffer from hunger and malnutrition 800 million
> 
> Total number of people who do not have enough to eat 936 million


so 2.3 billion are starving but only 800 million suffer from malnutrition or hunger? 



> starÂ·vaÂ·tion
> stÃ¤r&#712;v&#257;SH&#601;n/Submit
> noun
> suffering or death caused by hunger.
> "thousands died of starvation"
> synonyms:	extreme hunger, lack of food, famine, undernourishment, malnourishment, fasting; deprivation of food; death from lack of food



I also respectfully suggest you get some new stats because the ones you posted are without merit. 1/3 of the population on the planet is not starving, hungry or malnurished. 

I take your 800 million as the number who could possibly be starving because they are hungry and malnurished but the other numbers are pretty much bunk.

Also since there are less than 7 million deaths per year from starvation, I think its safe to say that 33% of the worlds population is not starving. 



> The claim that 12 people die of hunger every minute in Africa is not supported by the available data.
> 
> The World Health Organisation&#8217;s admittedly imperfect mortality data suggests that fewer than 400,000 people died in Africa as a result of &#8220;nutritional deficiencies&#8221; in 2011, far lower than the 6.3-million suggested by the claim. The global estimate of 2.6-million children under the age of five , whose deaths are linked to malnutrition, is also far below the figure claimed for Africa alone.
> 
> - See more at: http://africacheck.org/reports/do-1...he-claim-is-exaggerated/#sthash.4uFnicug.dpuf


----------



## lurnin2farm

> Your point about last winter and this summer being cold in your location has already been brought up several times. And several times it's been pointed out that yes it's been cold only in some parts of North America - but not all of North America and not all of the world. Global climate change is about what's happening around the whole globe, not just what's happening in one small part of it. In some other parts of North America the temps have been the extreme opposite from temps where you are located. So I'd suggest you expand your horizons and take a look at what's happening in other places.
> 
> Nobody has brought up the gulf stream yet, nor the Pacific oscillation's el ninos or la ninas (neither of which have happened for 2 years) or la nadas (which is what has been happening and we've been stuck in for the past 2 years).


Are you denying that the climate isnt changing? There is no question that its changing. If your one of those CCD's (Climate change deniers) I respectfully suggest you do a little research. 
In the end the debate is meaningless because we will kill the planet before anyone agrees that there is a problem. If you dont think man can have an effect on climate just take a look at Beijing during the Olympics. All of that smog and pollution you saw was from power plants and emissions from autos ect.. All man made. Thats just a snapshot of whats going on around the planet and contrary to your beliefs I have been all over the planet. Not everywhere but quite a few different countries. Like I said, thats just a snapshot of the industrial revolution. We've been at it over 100 years now and you dont think we can have an effect? We have impacted, the oceans rivers and every source of water on this planet both above and below ground. We've impacted the Atmosphere, stratosphere and even caused holes in the ozone layers. We've destroyed the soil that gives us life. But no, man couldnt possible have an impact on the climate LOL. 

In the end the debate doesnt matter because we will all die and when mother earth has had enough of our arrogance she will shrug us off like the fleas that infest your cat or dog. 

If Greenland continues to melt at its current pace and it shuts down the gulf stream convection, we will see that happening sooner rather than later.


----------



## Paumon

lurnin2farm said:


> Are you denying that the climate isnt changing? There is no question that its changing. *If your one of those CCD's (Climate change deniers) I respectfully suggest you do a little research.*
> In the end the debate is meaningless because we will kill the planet before anyone agrees that there is a problem. If you dont think man can have an effect on climate just take a look at Beijing during the Olympics. All of that smog and pollution you saw was from power plants and emissions from autos ect.. All man made. Thats just a snapshot of whats going on around the planet and contrary to your beliefs I have been all over the planet. Not everywhere but quite a few different countries. Like I said, thats just a snapshot of the industrial revolution. We've been at it over 100 years now and you dont think we can have an effect? We have impacted, the oceans rivers and every source of water on this planet both above and below ground. We've impacted the Atmosphere, stratosphere and even caused holes in the ozone layers. We've destroyed the soil that gives us life. But no, man couldnt possible have an impact on the climate LOL.
> 
> In the end the debate doesnt matter because we will all die and when mother earth has had enough of our arrogance she will shrug us off like the fleas that infest your cat or dog.
> 
> If Greenland continues to melt at its current pace and it shuts down the gulf stream convection, we will see that happening sooner rather than later.


This is what happens when somebody jumps into a many pages long topic without having read the topic to see who is saying what, which you admitted to in your first post. By skipping over all of the posts you have missed out on some very crucial parts of the conversation and have jumped to some erroneous conclusions.

No, I'm not a climate change denier and if you read the topic you would see that. Please go back and read the whole topic, read my posts and other peoples' posts so you'll know who the deniers are, and who doesn't care and is deliberately contributing to climate change and boasting about contributing because they think it's funny, and who recognizes climate change is happening and is concerned about the very real hazards presented by it. 

You'll see I've already been saying basically the same things that you have just repeated in your above post, including submitting plenty of links and other thoroughly researched information about Greenland's rapid melt and about climate change events going on in other places in North America and the rest of the world.

When you can show evidence that you've actually read and absorbed this thread and have familiarized yourself with which people have been participating and what they've been saying, then get back to us with that and I'll provide you with the source that I got the starvation stats from.


----------



## lurnin2farm

Ok good, glad to hear we are pretty much on the same page. I also saw the site you got your data from. Ran across it in my searches. 

Last night I was watching a video where they interviewed Robert Shock (I spelled his last name wrong) Anyway, he's a geologist at BU and was one of the first in his field to dispute the age of the Sphinx. He's also spent some time at Gobleki Tepe in Turkey and Easter Island in the S pacific. One of the things he talked about was the sun going through cycles. 11 year, multihundred year, and then aproximately 10-12k year cycles. The last one was at the end of the last ice age aproximately 10-12k years ago. Also in the late 1800's there was an event that today would know out the power grids around the world. Bottom line is that the sun plays a huge role in our climate change. (Yes probably already discussed in this thread somewhere but worth mentioning again. )


----------



## JeffreyD

lurnin2farm said:


> Ok good, glad to hear we are pretty much on the same page. I also saw the site you got your data from. Ran across it in my searches.
> 
> Last night I was watching a video where they interviewed Robert Shock (I spelled his last name wrong) Anyway, he's a geologist at BU and was one of the first in his field to dispute the age of the Sphinx. He's also spent some time at Gobleki Tepe in Turkey and Easter Island in the S pacific. One of the things he talked about was the sun going through cycles. 11 year, multihundred year, and then aproximately 10-12k year cycles. The last one was at the end of the last ice age aproximately 10-12k years ago. Also in the late 1800's there was an event that today would know out the power grids around the world. Bottom line is that the sun plays a huge role in our climate change. (Yes probably already discussed in this thread somewhere but worth mentioning again. )


I've mentioned CME's and it got poo pooed. Some here truly believe that any sort of global climate change is caused by humans only, and they will except no other alternatives! Pretty sad really!


----------



## Vahomesteaders

I mentioned the Suns power on earth as well and it was gawked at. Lol funny how the sun can throw one solar storm and knock out out power grids around the world but not affect our climate. Lol


----------



## supernovae

JeffreyD said:


> I've mentioned CME's and it got poo pooed. Some here truly believe that any sort of global climate change is caused by humans only, and they will except no other alternatives! Pretty sad really!


All you do is ignore the evidence that we can measure the impact man has on CO2 levels and see that it is growing and that we don't have a natural means to sequester our CO2.

It's not hard math or physics or chemistry.

Pretty sad really indeed.


----------



## kasilofhome

Vahomesteaders said:


> I mentioned the Suns power on earth as well and it was gawked at. Lol funny how the sun can throw one solar storm and knock out out power grids around the world but not affect our climate. Lol


The arctic vortex blocked the sun s impact:clap: photO


----------



## supernovae

Vahomesteaders said:


> I mentioned the Suns power on earth as well and it was gawked at. Lol funny how the sun can throw one solar storm and knock out out power grids around the world but not affect our climate. Lol


Charged particles are what makeup "solar storms". These charged particles are normally redirected by our magnetic field into what we see as northern lights, however during heavy bursts, more charged particles may hit the atmosphere and penetrate. High energy particles and the magnetic "shockwave" can cause problems with our electronics, it isn't "heating us up" as you seem to believe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_flare

What does cause our atmosphere to hold heat is greenhouse gases.

"lol" is right..


----------



## arabian knight

JeffreyD said:


> I've mentioned CME's and it got poo pooed. Some here truly believe that any sort of global climate change is caused by humans only, and they will except no other alternatives! Pretty sad really!


Yes it is sad, as it is nearly if not really a religion to some that man causes everything bad to happen on this earth since day one. Gee all planets are warming up and man has not stepped one foot on them. LOL
But the Sun sure has. :happy2:


----------



## supernovae

arabian knight said:


> Yes it is sad, as it is nearly if not really a religion to some that man causes everything bad to happen on this earth since day one. Gee all planets are warming up and man has not stepped one foot on them. LOL
> But the Sun sure has. :happy2:


Our entire solar system has planets of varying temperatures, not all are warming up.


----------



## JeffreyD

supernovae said:


> All you do is ignore the evidence that we can measure the impact man has on CO2 levels and see that it is growing and that we don't have a natural means to sequester our CO2.
> 
> It's not hard math or physics or chemistry.
> 
> Pretty sad really indeed.


I've posted the information here! That fact that your religion won't allow you to believe the data that you, yourself said you posted here, is indeed, sad!

And your right, it's not hard to do the math, it just doesn't fit your agenda, so you keep running around in circles trying to prove your right, when the numbers do in fact, say your wrong!


----------



## supernovae

JeffreyD said:


> I've posted the information here! That fact that your religion won't allow you to believe the data that you, yourself said you posted here, is indeed, sad!


Look here, we have someone redefining data, religion and sad. This is fantastic folks. 



> And your right, it's not hard to do the math, it just doesn't fit your agenda, so you keep running around in circles trying to prove your right, when the numbers do in fact, say your wrong!


Oh dear lord, please post these numbers and show us your work. I would love to see this. (not just links to your fuzzy math where you continue to ignore that CO2 levels are increasing and that we have the science to understand how to measure man made co2 vs natural co2)

I'll be here waiting for it... just not holding my breathe. I know you will just try and insult people who don't have your same biases and you will redefine language and frame the topic to derail it to meaningless banter.

None of anything of what you have ever said, even your own fuzzy math can stand in the light of evidence that shows CO2 levels are still rising and that we have this awesome technology that can help us identify the isotopes of CO2 to see which ones come from our burning of fossil fuels.

Math is hard.

If CO2 levels were lowering, we wouldn't be having his discussion. Sequestration would be higher than combined output. Problem solved. This isn't the reality we live in.


----------



## DEKE01

supernovae said:


> All you do is ignore the evidence that we can measure the impact man has on CO2 levels and see that it is growing and that we don't have a natural means to sequester our CO2.
> 
> It's not hard math or physics or chemistry.
> 
> Pretty sad really indeed.


But you have yet to show how higher CO2 levels translate to climageden.


----------



## Paumon

You just aren't paying attention. Or maybe you're just thick and will never get it.


Whichever it is, nobody else can fix that for you.


----------



## JeffreyD

Paumon said:


> You just aren't paying attention. Or maybe you're just thick and will never get it.
> 
> 
> Whichever it is, nobody else can fix that for you.


You should follow your own advice!


----------



## DEKE01

Paumon, a personal attack is the best you can do? Come on, as long as we've been debating this in numerous threads, it should be easy for you. Give me some links that explain why CO2 AGW is a net negative. I repeatedly ask the same question and none of of the believers have an answer.


----------



## JeffreyD

supernovae said:


> Look here, we have someone redefining data, religion and sad. This is fantastic folks.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh dear lord, please post these numbers and show us your work. I would love to see this. (not just links to your fuzzy math where you continue to ignore that CO2 levels are increasing and that we have the science to understand how to measure man made co2 vs natural co2)
> 
> I'll be here waiting for it... just not holding my breathe. I know you will just try and insult people who don't have your same biases and you will redefine language and frame the topic to derail it to meaningless banter.
> 
> None of anything of what you have ever said, even your own fuzzy math can stand in the light of evidence that shows CO2 levels are still rising and that we have this awesome technology that can help us identify the isotopes of CO2 to see which ones come from our burning of fossil fuels.
> 
> Math is hard.
> 
> If CO2 levels were lowering, we wouldn't be having his discussion. Sequestration would be higher than combined output. Problem solved. This isn't the reality we live in.


Talk about insults! I just reflect the attitude that im presented with. Just go back through this thread and look for my posts. Its should be really for a complex problem solver. You'll find all the data and the "fuzzy" math that proves you wrong.

That is the reality!


----------



## Paumon

DEKE01 said:


> Paumon, a personal attack is the best you can do? Come on, as long as we've been debating this in numerous threads, it should be easy for you. Give me some links that explain why CO2 AGW is a net negative. *I repeatedly ask the same question and none of of the believers have an answer*.


 
It's not a personal attack. Really. It's resignation and acceptance that you can't or won't comprehend and you don't wish to. You prefer to fight. You repeatedly keep on posting this same thing over and over again: 

_"I repeatedly ask the same question and none of the believers have an answer."_ 

And repeatedly in various ways what you've asked for has been patiently explained by several people and you still don't get it or you ignore it and again you ask 

_"I repeatedly ask the same question and none of the believers have an answer."_ 

It comes across as deliberate heckling and it's weird. I don't know what your problem is but I don't think anyone else can fix it. So what's the point in other people beating their heads against a brick wall trying to explain something that you willfully refuse to see physical evidence of (but others can see it plain as day) and refuse to pay attention or even try to comprehend or else ignore what other people are patiently trying to explain to you? 

and again you ask _"I repeatedly ask the same question and none of the believers have an answer."_

It's a waste of time and it's disruptive. And like I said before, it's weird behaviour because it's obvious from your many other posts on the board about various things that you are not a stupid or intellectually handicapped person. If anything you'd have to be considered quite bright. So why the thickness about this one subject?

If we were in a particular class in school and you were doing that in class your would get an F for fail. The teacher would tell your parents that this is just not your subject, you have no ability to grasp it and your disruptive behaviour of repeatedly asking the same question over and over again is holding the rest of the students back and you need to be removed from the class and put into another class that teaches subjects that you have some grasp of and a willingness to learn.

It's nobody elses responsibility to try to pound something into your head to make you understand it. Some things just can't be fixed and need to be moved on from.

I don't consider it to be insulting to be telling you that, I think it's just being honest and straight forward.


----------



## DEKE01

And once again you try to distract from the question instead of answering it head on, preferring to make this about me rather than answering what should be a simple Q, where is the science to show it CO2 AGW is a net negative. 

From what I remember within the 35 pages of this thread as well as others, there is lots of science about how man is creating CO2; I get that man is making CO2 than would be natural at this moment in time. I don't think that point is debatable. I'll even give you a "settled science" on that narrow point. But surely even a believer such as yourself understands that there has to be more to the story. 

I've heard lots of now cliche and disproved claims, like drowning polar bears, more hurricanes, no more snow, weather models, etc, but let's agree those statements were made by alarmists with no basis in science. There are IPCC member scientists who have made ocean rising claims that amount to a couple of inches to many feet. Does this disparity mean that the effects of man made CO2 is not settled science? If the earth is warmer does by 2C, does that really mean it is bad for Oklahoma and good for Saskatchewan or is that simply supposition? I know lots of folks fear change. Is a fear of something that isn't exactly the way it is now what is driving the believers? 

Lastly, don't think that you are fooling anyone. When people question your CO2 position, you present all sorts of sites, graphs, and tables to justify your position. When I ask for science on the results of that CO2, you and bloopernova prefer to simply tell me I'm too ignorant to get it. You can do better...

or maybe you can't.


----------



## Paumon

DEKE01 said:


> And once again ........... you and bloopernova .......


And once again you've demonstrated that you're incapable of being in a discussion without being obtuse and disrespectful name calling.

Nobody owes you the attention that you're demanding.

I'll continue to post "Signs of Climate Change" but I don't have to pay any more attention to you. :hand:

Have a nice day.


----------



## DEKE01

You call me a name and then complain about name calling? Is that the critical thinking you put into climate change? Once again you prefer to make this about me rather than post science defending your claim. You'll probably get the thread shut down because of your words, but maybe that's what you want since I have exposed you.

So in reference to my prior Q, I guess that means you can't.


----------



## supernovae

DEKE01 said:


> You call me a name and then complain about name calling? Is that the critical thinking you put into climate change? Once again you prefer to make this about me rather than post science defending your claim. You'll probably get the thread shut down because of your words, but maybe that's what you want since I have exposed you.
> 
> So in reference to my prior Q, I guess that means you can't.


The only thing I see DEKE01 is that you are always doing your darnedest to cause these types of issues and pull out the worst in people because that is what you do. If you get the thread close, then i bet you feel pride in a job well done as no one will be able to refute DEKE01 who gets the last word.

Yes, I will be disappointed if the thread gets closed not because of name calling that shouldn't be happening but the fact Climate Change is worthy of a rational discussion. 

How about we all choose to be rational adults here and talk about facts?

A lot of people in this thread made it absolutely about "me" earlier, but i didn't threaten mods to close the thread did I? Not when HD said i was ruining kids by teaching Science, Technology, Engineering and Math to kids or when your cohorts made fun of me based upon my sources that ironically where the same sources he chose to use. It seems on this particular topic the opinions are heated and for reasons in great contrast to the facts as we know them. 

Lets stay on track here folks. No one is victorious when rational discourse is closed at the whims of moderation powers but I too would agree with moderation if the only response here is further name calling and hate.. That would be disappointing to say the least.


----------



## DEKE01

I don't want the thread closed. I want my Q answered instead of dodged. If repeatedly asking you for science to prove your conclusion brings out the worst in you, so be it. But again, why make it about me? I have not threatened to close the thread; I do not have that power. I was trying to caution P to choose her words better. 

I agree that we all should stay on track and not make it about you or me. We have a tiny piece of common ground upon which we can stand. However, with all this global warming, it is getting so hot I may start taking off my clothes and then we'll all be losers. 

Now, as to that science proving that man made CO2 is a net negative...your info please?


----------



## arabian knight

No one can Scientifically answer that. Man is not the culprit in changing the worlds climate. IF it is indeed changing. LOL Period


----------



## Paumon

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...es-melting-permafrost-global-warming-science/



> As the permafrost melts in the north, forests no longer grow straight. Sometimes the trees survive the stress and continue growing, uprighting themselves to vertical. Other times they collapse or drown from rising water tables as subterranean ice melts. Because such trees seem to stagger across the landscape, people often call them "drunken trees."
> 
> It's not just trees. Slumping land caused by melting permafrost also cracks pavement, breaks pipelines, and opens holes, causing expensive damage to houses and roads. Melting of ice crystals below the ground can cause slumps as large as 10 meters (33 feet) that can swallow a whole house. "We have families who have had to move because their houses are not safe anymore," says James.
> 
> Wildlife has been affected by the shifting landscape as well. James has seen declines in spawning fish, nesting birds, and small mammals. Drunken trees are becoming most prevalent in lowland arboreal forests across Alaska, Canada, and northern Eurasia. Right now, around 7 to 8 percent of the land in the middle boreal zone in Alaska is showing signs of drunken trees or other melting-related impacts.


----------



## Paumon

http://baynature.org/articles/top-10-signs-of-climate-change-northern-california/

*10 signs of climate change in northern California:*


*1. Crissy Field, San Francisco: Rising sea levels*

*2. Sacramento River: Decline in spring run off from the Sierra Nevada*

*3. Sierra Nevada: Glacial melt*

*4. Rise in lake water temperature*

*5. Monterey Bay: Ocean acidification*

*6. Massive wildfires*

*7. Change in Migratory Bird Patterns*

*8. Earlier spring flights for butterflies*

*9. Sacramento River: Decline in chinook salmon*

*10. Sierra Nevada: Changing vegetation patterns in forests*


----------



## Paumon

http://www.climatehotmap.org/

Global Warming Effects Around the World Climate Map

Explore the signs of global warming on this map. The evidence of climate change includes heat waves, sea-level rise, flooding, melting glaciers, earlier spring arrival, coral reef bleaching, habitat change, and the spread of disease - amongst other things.

The greatest concentration of global warming indicators on the map is in North America and Europe because that is where most scientific investigation has been done to date. As scientists focus increasingly on fingerprints of global warming in other regions&#8212;from Russia to Antarctica and Oceania to South America&#8212;the evidence they find will be added to the map.


----------



## arabian knight

Yes change is happening, and has been for the last 4.5 BILLION YEARS. Nothing new at all, nothing stays forever, there is not such a thing as NORMAL as earth is in constant change, and never has sat in one place facing the sun.
We spin around and Wobble all the time through space and so does the Sun, and so does the moon gets closer at times causing higher tides than 'normal' Hence look out next month at the Super Moon, 10's of Thousands of miles Closer to the Earth~! Causes all sorts of abnormal happenings. LOL
Noting new at all. Greenies tend to blame every cotton picken thing man does on GW and everything man does is bad for the earth. Man is here on this earth is just a pimple in the main score of things, and just a pimple on the surface of the earth, the earth doesn't care if man is resting on the surface at all. Earth will change if man is here or not.
Man is not that powerful never has been never will be. Can't stop what might be taking place, can't even slow it up if something is going on in the GW department.


----------



## Paumon

AK you are simply repeating what you've already said over and over in almost all of your posts in this conversation. I think we got that message.

So - do you believe that none of the above noted and well documented recent changes are actually happening? I only listed a few things and I'm not finished yet, there is more. Do you think these things are all just a hoax or figments of imagination?

If they are happening and when more and more of these kinds of changes are striking in more extremity and closer to home where you are, are you personally ready to cope with them? Or will you just throw in the towel and resign yourself to letting mother earth pop you as if you're just one more pimple?


----------



## JeffreyD

This is interesting!

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...ve-humidity-is-defying-global-warming-models/

Declining Humidity Is Defying Global Warming Models.

Relative humidity has substantially declined in recent decades, defying global warming computer models predicting higher amounts of atmospheric water vapor that will exacerbate global warming. The decline in relative humidity indicates global warming will be much more moderate than claimed by global warming activists.

The failure of relative humidity to hold constant or rise during recent decades is a lethal dagger in the heart of alarmist global warming claims. According to the UN computer models, rapidly rising absolute humidity will cause substantially more global warming than the modest warming directly caused by rising carbon dioxide levels. Given the potency of water vapor, even a small overstatement of atmospheric humidity levels in UN computer models will cause a very significant overstatement of future warming. And the data show UN computer models assume too much atmospheric humidity.


And this....

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...rming-alarmism-dwarf-warming-denier-research/

'Dark Money' Funds To Promote Global Warming Alarmism Dwarf Warming 'Denier' Research

Global warming activists claim vast amounts of untraceable special interest money fund global warming skeptics and give skeptics an unfair advantage in the global warming debate. The undeniable truth is global warming alarmists raise and spend far more money â including far more untraceable special interest âdark moneyâ â than global warming skeptics.

Even though $46 million is far short of the $1 billion claimed by Goldenberg, $46 million may still seem like a large amount of money. It is only a drop in the bucket, however, compared to the money raised and spent by groups supporting global warming activism.

Five environment-specific groups alone raise more than $1.6 billion per year (Greenpeace, The Nature Conservancy, World Wildlife Fund, National Wildlife Federation, and the Sierra Club). All five focus solely on environmental issues and are frequent and prominent advocates for global warming restrictions. When global warming activists claim global warming skeptics receive the lionâs share of funding in the global warming debate, they are lying through their teeth.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...-warming-hiatus-climate-change-ocean-science/

Has the Atlantic Ocean Stalled Global Warming?

This apparent hiatus in global warming has been fodder for skepticsâbut among climate scientists, it has sparked a search for the "sink" that is storing all the missing atmospheric heat.


----------



## arabian knight

And gee this is the lowest year in 30 years as far as tornadoes goes in the USA. Gee and THAT was one thing these GW fanatics were also warning about More storms stronger ones, and what happen to their predications on Hurricanes???? WOW are they off in left field on that one also.


----------



## Paumon

JeffreyD said:


> This is interesting!
> 
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...ve-humidity-is-defying-global-warming-models/
> 
> Declining Humidity Is Defying Global Warming Models.
> 
> 
> And this....
> 
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...rming-alarmism-dwarf-warming-denier-research/
> 
> 'Dark Money' Funds To Promote Global Warming Alarmism Dwarf Warming 'Denier' Research
> 
> 
> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...-warming-hiatus-climate-change-ocean-science/
> 
> Has the Atlantic Ocean Stalled Global Warming?
> 
> This apparent hiatus in global warming has been fodder for skeptics&#8212;but among climate scientists, it has sparked a search for the "sink" that is storing all the missing atmospheric heat.


Those were interesting ..... well 2 of them anyway. 

The first one about lack of humidity, I'm wondering why they're not taking into account all the snow that has fallen during the past 2 winters. Humidity is water vapour. It disperses in many ways, including the fact that vapour becomes rain or snow. So just because there is less humidity at the times their computer models are saying there should be more humidity doesn't mean the humidity isn't happening. It just means it's happening at a different time and getting dumped as high volumes of snow for months and months instead of manifesting as humidity. That's my hypothesis, anyway. Also - they never said WHERE there was less humidity than expected and I think they should have mentioned locations.

The 2nd article I wasn't impressed with because it was more of the same old same old. It was just more talk about politics and money and squabbling between opponents ..... just as boring to read about those thing in that article as it is to read about them here. It still didn't say anything important.

The 3rd one about hiatus and the Atlantic acting as a heat sink and maybe storing extra atmospheric heat was an interesting hypothesis, (and they were honest to admit it is just a hypothesis since they couldn't produce anything conclusive), but it's definitely something to think about and watch for more news about. And maybe, as they suggested with regards to the next el nino, their hypothesis will become something more conclusive one way or the other when the next el nino happens. 

Although now meteorologists seem to be having some doubts about whether or not there's going to be an el nino any time soon. In the spring they were all predicting it would be happening by early this summer and now they're saying it's looking less and less likely that it's going to happen at all this year. If it doesn't happen and if we stay stuck in this same neutral pattern that we've been in for the past 2 years then I'd guess that means more polar vortexes from Siberia and another long, cold, snowy winter just like last winter, or maybe even one that's worse and longer lasting. 

Going by the tail end of that article, if their hypothesis is correct then when their hiatus ends things will be even worse than they were before the hiatus started:



> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...-warming-hiatus-climate-change-ocean-science/
> 
> *The Hiatus Will End*
> 
> It's important to note that a pause in rising temperatures doesn't mean global warming isn't happening, writes Gerald Meehl, a senior scientist at NCAR, in an email. "Global warming hasn't stopped, it has temporarily shifted to the subsurface ocean," says Meehl, who first proposed that the Atlantic Ocean was storing some of the missing heat.
> 
> Indeed, it's just a matter of time before this heat is reflected in atmospheric temperatures, says Tung. If this 30-year cycle holds, we're starting to climb out of the current pause, he explains.
> 
> *"The frightening part," Tung says, is "it's going to warm just as fast as the last three decades of the 20th century, which was the fastest warming we've seen." Only now, we'll be starting from a higher average surface temperature than before.*


----------



## Paumon

arabian knight said:


> And gee this is the lowest year in 30 years as far as tornadoes goes in the USA. Gee and THAT was one thing these GW fanatics were also warning about More storms stronger ones, and what happen to their predications on Hurricanes???? WOW are they off in left field on that one also.


Haven't you heard the news? They all moved from USA to other countries that don't normally get them at all.

Man, you really, _really_ need to start paying attention to the news reports about all the wild and crazy climate events that are hitting hard in other places outside of your home base. 

Honestly AK, it sounds like you're living in a placid little bubble there in Wisconsin. What are you going to do when your bubble pops and you're not expecting it?


----------



## JeffreyD

Paumon said:


> Those were interesting ..... well 2 of them anyway.
> 
> The first one about lack of humidity, I'm wondering why they're not taking into account all the snow that has fallen during the past 2 winters. Humidity is water vapour. It disperses in many ways, including the fact that vapour becomes rain or snow. So just because there is less humidity at the times their computer models are saying there should be more humidity doesn't mean the humidity isn't happening. It just means it's happening at a different time and getting dumped as high volumes of snow for months and months instead of manifesting as humidity. That's my hypothesis, anyway. Also - they never said WHERE there was less humidity than expected and I think they should have mentioned locations.
> 
> The 2nd article I wasn't impressed with because it was more of the same old same old. It was just more talk about politics and money and squabbling between opponents ..... just as boring to read about those thing in that article as it is to read about them here. It still didn't say anything important.
> 
> The 3rd one about hiatus and the Atlantic acting as a heat sink and maybe storing extra atmospheric heat was an interesting hypothesis, (and they were honest to admit it is just a hypothesis since they couldn't produce anything conclusive), but it's definitely something to think about and watch for more news about. And maybe, as they suggested with regards to the next el nino, their hypothesis will become something more conclusive one way or the other when the next el nino happens.
> 
> Although now meteorologists seem to be having some doubts about whether or not there's going to be an el nino any time soon. In the spring they were all predicting it would be happening by early this summer and now they're saying it's looking less and less likely that it's going to happen at all this year. If it doesn't happen and if we stay stuck in this same neutral pattern that we've been in for the past 2 years then I'd guess that means more polar vortexes from Siberia and another long, cold, snowy winter just like last winter, or maybe even one that's worse and longer lasting.
> 
> Going by the tail end of that article, if their hypothesis is correct then when their hiatus ends things will be even worse than they were before the hiatus started:


You missed the whole point here! Global warming is a scam! It always has been, and will continue to be as long as the cultists are willing to follow their lead. It's called denial. Folks like you just can't admit you've been had, taken for a ride, bamboozled. It's simple really. ..... Follow the money! The climate change promoters never admit that their models never work, ever. But keep up the fight, at least it gives you something to worry about. Me, I'll continue to live and enjoy life!
I'm not worried at all!
And honestly, I don't see anything changing here, cooler than normal maybe, but no sea level rises, etc... There is the drought, but we do live in a desert, so it's nothing new!

Where are all these hurricanes hitting? We keep hearing how bad OUR season will be and...........

Nothing! Like the horrible hurricane that just hit Hawaii! :shrug:

Carry on!


----------



## kasilofhome

Yep, scam.


----------



## arabian knight

The biggest scam ever perpetrated on the American people as well as people around the world.


----------



## DEKE01

Paumon said:


> Haven't you heard the news? They all moved from USA to other countries that don't normally get them at all.
> 
> Man, you really, _really_ need to start paying attention to the news reports about all the wild and crazy climate events that are hitting hard in other places outside of your home base.
> 
> Honestly AK, it sounds like you're living in a placid little bubble there in Wisconsin. What are you going to do when your bubble pops and you're not expecting it?


I know you don't like it when I challenge you, but seriously, do you have data, real data and not anecdotes, to show an increase in frequency or severity of storms? 

And as you are admitting that the US has been relatively storm free, wouldn't that be one of those items in the "net negative" equation you don't want to confront that even believers have to admit is a benefit to AGW?


----------



## DEKE01

Paumon said:


> Those were interesting ..... well 2 of them anyway.
> 
> The first one about lack of humidity, I'm wondering why they're not taking into account all the snow that has fallen during the past 2 winters. Humidity is water vapour. It disperses in many ways, including the fact that vapour becomes rain or snow. So just because there is less humidity at the times their computer models are saying there should be more humidity doesn't mean the humidity isn't happening. It just means it's happening at a different time and getting dumped as high volumes of snow for months and months instead of manifesting as humidity. That's my hypothesis, anyway. Also - they never said WHERE there was less humidity than expected and I think they should have mentioned locations.
> 
> The 2nd article I wasn't impressed with because it was more of the same old same old. It was just more talk about politics and money and squabbling between opponents ..... just as boring to read about those thing in that article as it is to read about them here. It still didn't say anything important.
> 
> The 3rd one about hiatus and the Atlantic acting as a heat sink and maybe storing extra atmospheric heat was an interesting hypothesis, (and they were honest to admit it is just a hypothesis since they couldn't produce anything conclusive), but it's definitely something to think about and watch for more news about. And maybe, as they suggested with regards to the next el nino, their hypothesis will become something more conclusive one way or the other when the next el nino happens.
> 
> Although now meteorologists seem to be having some doubts about whether or not there's going to be an el nino any time soon. In the spring they were all predicting it would be happening by early this summer and now they're saying it's looking less and less likely that it's going to happen at all this year. If it doesn't happen and if we stay stuck in this same neutral pattern that we've been in for the past 2 years then I'd guess that means more polar vortexes from Siberia and another long, cold, snowy winter just like last winter, or maybe even one that's worse and longer lasting.
> 
> Going by the tail end of that article, if their hypothesis is correct then when their hiatus ends things will be even worse than they were before the hiatus started:


so there are questions and hypotheses about humidity and deep ocean currents not being correctly accounted for in the climate models...





...but the science is settled? :shrug:


----------



## rambotex

Global warming is a big pile of brown barnyard material.


----------



## greg273

rambotex said:


> Global warming is a big pile of brown barnyard material.


 I suspect your knowledge of one far exceeds your knowledge of the other. :cowboy:


----------



## JeffreyD

greg273 said:


> I suspect your knowledge of one far exceeds your knowledge of the other. :cowboy:


What an outstanding, intellectual comment for this thread!


----------



## arabian knight

JeffreyD said:


> What an outstanding, intellectual comment for this thread!


That is all they can do is diss and try ti misdirect things and call names. It is their their way, when you got nothing in the bank just slam the messenger.


----------



## greg273

arabian knight said:


> That is all they can do is diss and try ti misdirect things and call names. It is their their way, when you got nothing in the bank just slam the messenger.


 This coming from someone who regularly brings up AlGore in these discussions. Talk about 'nothing in the bank'... Are you still of the opinion that volcanic activity releases more CO2 than mankind does yearly?


----------



## Paumon

Greg, I've decided the best thing for me to try to do is ignore and not respond to the detractors and hecklers comments now. I'm sticking to reporting news or commenting on legitimate news reports that others may contribute.

Here is this month's latest updated news report from National Geographic about the southwest states droughts and how they're effecting surface water and drilling is rapidly depleting ground water and aquifers in the southwest. 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...er-california-drought-aquifers-hidden-crisis/


----------



## arabian knight

Cold summer: US daily record minimums outnumbering record maximums 3 to 1 in the last 30 days


> It was not long ago that we were bombarded with claims of record high temperatures in the US. For instance, PBS introduced their new widget in 2011, shown above, to track daily records.
> 
> As they pointed out:
> 
> We&#8217;ve built this widget so our viewers can understand the significance of the heat, not only in terms of raw degrees, but in a format that compares today&#8217;s temperatures to previous record highs.
> 
> As of last September, it was still running. (Not that they cared to show record daily lows as well!)












http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/23/cold-summer-us-daily-record-minimum-outnumbering-record-maximums-3-to-1-in-the-last-30-days/

And when the ice is melting in Iceland under the Volcano that is about to irrupt, UNDER THE ICE SHEET, It won't be long before the new religion called climate change folks will say the ice is melting because of global temps are up... LOL
Just wait till that bugger really does blow and you will see a LOT of melting ice. LOL


----------



## DEKE01

Paumon said:


> Greg, I've decided the best thing for me to try to do is ignore and not respond to the detractors and hecklers comments now. I'm sticking to reporting news or commenting on legitimate news reports that others may contribute.


And that strategy helps you avoid facing legit questions for which the believers have no answer.


----------



## Paumon

arabian knight said:


> ....... And when the ice is melting in Iceland under the Volcano that is about to irrupt, UNDER THE ICE SHEET, It won't be long before the new religion called climate change folks will say the ice is melting because of global temps are up... LOL
> Just wait till that bugger really does blow and you will see a LOT of melting ice. LOL


Thanks for mentioning that. It has already started erupting, it began today. 

I doubt that people will say the ice is melting because of climate change when it would be plainly obvious that magma and hot gases are the cause. 

Indeed melting ice may be a concern, but a bigger concern will be if the volcano starts spewing ash and toxic gases into the atmosphere, and how much there will be of it, and for however long the volcano continues to erupt. The last time its nearby sister erupted it continued erupting and emitting ash and gases for something like 8 years. So this eruption and its repercussions will be something for us all to watch with interest.

Here is the latest news report I found about Iceland's volcano that started erupting under the ice today. 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/iceland-volcano-bardarbunga-eruption-begins-1.2744897




> Iceland's Bardarbunga volcano began erupting Saturday under the ice of Europe's largest glacier, prompting the country to close the airspace over the volcano.
> 
> Thousands of small earthquakes have rattled the volcano, located deep beneath the Vatnajokull glacier, in the last week. Seismic data indicated that magma from the volcano was melting ice beneath the glacier's Dyngjujokull icecap, Meteorological Office vulcanologist Melissa Pfeffer said.
> 
> ..... Pfeffer said the amount of ash produced by the new eruption would depend on the thickness of the ice.
> 
> *"The thicker the ice, the more water there is, the more explosive it will be and the more ash-rich the eruption will be,"* she said.
> 
> ....... continued at link ...........


----------



## greg273

arabian knight said:


> Cold summer: US daily record minimums outnumbering record maximums 3 to 1 in the last 30 days


 And when we get a hot spell, you're going to say 'thats just weather!' lol some things never change.


----------



## arabian knight

*Glacier-like hazards found on Ben Nevis*


> On these fields, they have come across compacted, dense, ice hard snow call neve.
> *
> Neve is the first stage in the formation of glaciers, the team said.*
> 
> The team has also encountered sheets of snow weighing hundreds of tonnes and tunnels and fissures known as bergschrunds.
> 
> The large, deep cracks in the ice are found at the top of glaciers.


http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-28885119


----------



## Paumon

This is interesting. The water loss from drought in the western states is causing the land and mountains to rise.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/epic-drought-in-west-is-literally-moving-mountains/


----------



## JeffreyD

Paumon said:


> This is interesting. The water loss from drought in the western states is causing the land and mountains to rise.
> 
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/epic-drought-in-west-is-literally-moving-mountains/


Maybe it caused our earthquake today!


----------



## JeffreyD

Paumon said:


> Thanks for mentioning that. It has already started erupting, it began today.
> 
> I doubt that people will say the ice is melting because of climate change when it would be plainly obvious that magma and hot gases are the cause.
> 
> Indeed melting ice may be a concern, but a bigger concern will be if the volcano starts spewing ash and toxic gases into the atmosphere, and how much there will be of it, and for however long the volcano continues to erupt. The last time its nearby sister erupted it continued erupting and emitting ash and gases for something like 8 years. So this eruption and its repercussions will be something for us all to watch with interest.
> 
> Here is the latest news report I found about Iceland's volcano that started erupting under the ice today.
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/iceland-volcano-bardarbunga-eruption-begins-1.2744897


They've down graded the eruption to orange level now.


----------



## Paumon

JeffreyD said:


> Maybe it caused our earthquake today!


Are you anywhere near that earthquake? I hope you and family are all okay. I saw that on the news today, it made a mess in places.


----------



## JeffreyD

Paumon said:


> Are you anywhere near that earthquake? I hope you and family are all okay. I saw that on the news today, it made a mess in places.


Nope! I do appreciate the thought though! Really!! We live in the San Fernando Valley, Valley Village to be exact.

I lived here in 1971 when we had the Sylmar earthquake...6.6! My aunts house was shifted off the foundation and moved about 7 feet. It was jacked up and a new foundation was poured.

I still lived here when the 1994 Northridge earthquake hit.....6.7! That one was interesting because as we walked around checking on our neighbors, we could see a pattern of destruction. We lost our chimney and 2 brick walls, so did most of our neighbors, yet half a block away....nothing! There ended up being a definite line across the valley. A block on either side of the line... nothing...along the line ....destruction. We had a water bed at the time, and as soon as the shaking started my wife was up and getting our son (1 year old then) out of the house. When the shaking stopped, I went back in to check on things and the huge headboard had fallen over. I didn't realize it at the time it had hit my lower back as I was getting up....the hematoma was huge and my wife moved to her parents house for a few weeks! Took days to clean up all the broken glass and stone work. Everything in our house moved..except our 21" Ideck Liama monitor. It was so heavy, it took 2 men to move it!!

A few weeks later I went to see Lucile Jones at the Pasadena USGS office to ask about that path, they had an awesome aerial map that clearly showed it. She explained some about the fault line we live on!!!  So what do we do? We moved closer to the San Andreas fault! :smack We've since moved back to take care of my parents who are in their 90's. We've had a few smaller ones recently. Earthquakes will freak you out! The big ones always seem to happen in the wee hours of the morning. And there also seems to be a weather condition too! I know that sounds strange, but, here we say "earthquake weather"! Warm days, cool nights, high humidity. ...just a feeling. I remember a small quake we had when I was working QC at an aerospace company. My co-worker was a recent hire and she was from back east. WOW, did she freak out! She couldn't believe I just kept working! I lied and told her I was just used to them. Truth is, I was waiting for it to get worse before I reacted, couldn't let her know it really did scare me, I am a guy after all!!!!


----------

