# Darn!!! What happened to the Global Warming thread?



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

I wanted to throw this in to stir the pot:

 *IT`S CALLED WEATHER*
The Washington Post

The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulate, at Bergen, Norway.

Reports from fishermen, seal hunters, and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.

Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well-known glaciers have entirely disappeared.

Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds. Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.

* * * * * * * * *
*I apologize, I neglected to mention that this report was from **November 2, 1922,** as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post - 90 years ago.
******************
*Dang that pesky global warming.......................*


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

That's a great example of something a lot of people do now. They were looking at a local event and believing it was part of a global truth. Kind of reminds of people who get colder than average local winters and say, "global warming...pffff...more like global cooling" in the middle of a 10 year span of record high temperatures, and a rise in earth's average temperature.


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

Wistco: Do you want me to post the chart that shows no increase in average global temperatures for the past 18 years?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

-Course for the last 14 years the temperatures have REALLY gone DOWN not up. But keep believing the lies deceit and scam from the scums that brought this upon us. And now for the next 30 years we are going into a cooling trend.
But then don't ever report that in 2050 the temp will be going up by only less then One Percent of a degree, and by 2100 1.2% of a degree. Such minuet amount is nothing to get the world upset about, neither is it enough to make such drastic changes and TAX the bejeepers out of people.
And curtail companies from building and expanding because of such huge restrictions being places on them.
.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Post your charts. I'll post my charts. We'll all be back at square one, where you quote your favorite ideologues about how these are all just lies, and I cite a hundred more sources than you.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Oh and by the way. I'll put money on this... You're going to quote Bob Carter, who decided to use upper troposphere data. So basically, in order to prove himself right, he ignored a ton of data. Data he didn't like because it kind of implies that he's wrong.


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

Oxankle said:


> ....... *Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.*
> 
> * * * * * * * * *
> this report was from November 2, 1922, as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post - 90 years ago.


Regarding the bolded, underlined part in the above quote - that _"prediction"_ was never in the original report published in 1922. It's something that's been tacked onto it by the anti-GW person passing the email around (which has been going around since some time in 2008). No predictions of any kind were ever made in the original 1922 report to the US State Department or in the article published by Washington Post.

Also, quite a few other important parts of the original report have been left out of the email that has been doing the rounds. See original report below and note how different it is from the sensationalist report that was published by the Washington Post and in that hoaxed email.

The article published by the Washington Post in 1922 was based LOOSELY on information relayed by the American consul in Norway to the U.S. State Department in October 1922 and published in the _Monthly Weather Review_

As documented elsewhere, the warming phenomena observed in 1922 was about a local event in Spitzbergen only, it was not a trend applicable to the Arctic as a whole nor was it implied that it was the whole Arctic.

Here is the full, factual report in its entirety that was sent in 1922 to the US State Department:




> _The Arctic seems to be warming up. Reports from fisherman, seal hunters, and explorers who sail the seas about Spitzbergen and the eastern Arctic, all point to a radical change in climatic conditions, and hitherto underheard-of high temperatures in that part of the earth's surface. _
> 
> _In August, 1922, the Norwegian Department of Commerce sent an expedition to Spitzbergen and Bear Island under the leadership of Dr. Adolf Hoel, lecturer on geology at the University of Christiania. Its purpose was to survey and chart the lands adjacent to the Norwegian mines on those islands, take soundings of the adjacent waters, and make other oceanographic investigations. _
> 
> ...


_http://www.snopes.com/politics/science/globalwarming1922.asp_


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

wiscto said:


> Post your charts. *I'll post my charts.* We'll all be back at square one, where you quote your favorite ideologues about how these are all just lies, and I cite a hundred more sources than you.





wiscto said:


> Oh and by the way. *I'll put money on this*... You're going to quote Bob Carter, who decided to use upper troposphere data. So basically, in order to prove himself right, he ignored a ton of data. Data he didn't like because it kind of implies that he's wrong.


:huh: :shrug:

Why bother? It's a waste of time. You know it would just fall on deaf ears or get twisted around into more lies. The anti-climate change crowd doesn't want to know the truth and therefore doesn't want anyone else to know the truth. They just want to stir the pot and spread more lies. As noted in OP:



> _Darn!!! What happened to the Global Warming thread?_
> _I wanted to throw *this* in *to stir the pot*: ........
> _


:bored:


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Or I thought it was so kindergarten little kids most play games, I can find more and when I do I will have more, so I win. lalallalala. Any 6 year old can come up with that childhood tripe.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

arabian knight said:


> Or I thought it was so kindergarten little kids most play games, I can find more and when I do I will have more, so I win. lalallalala. Any 6 year old can come up with that childhood tripe.


Looking at more sources is how you learn. It's really nothing more than that. Acting like you can know the truth by looking for the one source that already agrees with you, and then touting that above all others without studying the debate at all, is pretty much the worst childhood tripe a person can try to get away with. No one is reading more to say they read more, we're trying to read more to understand the scientific debate.


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

Facts are that weather changes. It was once warm enough to colonize Greenland and it will be that warm again. Ice once extended far down into what is now the United States, and it will do that again someday. I see no reason to spend the taxpayer's money and destroy our economy to please a bunch of doomsday criers. It is if we are dealing with a suicidal cult.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Failure to adapt would be a little more along the lines of what a suicidal cult would consider reasonable.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Oxankle said:


> Facts are that weather changes. It was once warm enough to colonize Greenland and it will be that warm again. Ice once extended far down into what is now the United States, and it will do that again someday. I see no reason to spend the taxpayer's money and destroy our economy to please a bunch of doomsday criers. It is if we are dealing with a suicidal cult.


Al Gore and Obama told them the climate is changing, so they will gladly follow them over the cliff.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

I'm sure there are plenty of liberals who put about as much time and effort into learning the debate as you, Ox. You might have that part right. I doubt most people here know any better than they do, and yet there's all kinds of certainty.


----------



## BlackFeather (Jun 17, 2014)

dang that global warming....
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...algary-despite-middle-summer-bats-eyelid.html


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

What happened to the global warming thread?? It got buried under all that snow and ice!


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

BlackFeather said:


> dang that global warming....
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...algary-despite-middle-summer-bats-eyelid.html



That's not as unusual as you'd think. While it's not an everyday thing, Alberta has recorded snowfall in every month of the year.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

I wouldn't order palm trees yet. You might want to wait for a couple of thousand years.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

I read some "funny" sarcasm on the internet, and I never wanted to believe in it anyway because change scares me and reading takes too long, so I believed the first denial theory I read and started making fun of people for believing what they read!


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

wiscto said:


> *Looking at more sources is how you learn.* It's really nothing more than that. Acting like you can know the truth by *looking for the one source* that already agrees with you, and then touting that above all others without studying the debate at all, is pretty much the worst childhood tripe a person can try to get away with. No one is reading more to say they read more, we're trying to read more to understand the scientific debate.





wiscto said:


> I read some "funny" sarcasm on the internet, and I never wanted to believe in it anyway because change scares me and *reading takes too long*, so I believed the first denial theory I read and started making fun of people for believing what they read!


What makes you think skeptics aren't doing research, reading multiple sources or studying the debate? If only they'd read more sources they'd change their beliefs?

Especially these days, it's wise to look at issues w/ a skeptical eye. Too much corruption to have blind faith in anything.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Txsteader said:


> What makes you think skeptics aren't doing research, reading multiple sources or studying the debate? If only they'd read more sources they'd change their beliefs?
> 
> Especially these days, it's wise to look at issues w/ a skeptical eye. Too much corruption to have blind faith in anything.


What makes you think they are? You may think it's wise to look at issues with a skeptical eye, but most people still wont. I would say most human beings to ever live on this earth have lived and died without using the skeptical brain they were born with. Because it's easier to go to the source you already know you want to agree with and take everything they say on faith. It's what deniers are blaming climate change believers for, and it's what believers are blaming climate change deniers for, and 99% of them have no clue what they're talking about.

And if you're reading all of the arguments out there, you know that both sides leave out data that isn't favorable to their view. And you pay attention to what people around here say, after you've done a decent amount of reading on the subject, you can tell when people are just basing everything they say on a single report that made the right wing blogger rounds a few years back...and is now repeated over and over and over by FOX and all their friends. It's hard to take that seriously.


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

wiscto said:


> What makes you think they are? You may think it's wise to look at issues with a skeptical eye, but most people still wont. I would say most human beings to ever live on this earth have lived and died without using the skeptical brain they were born with. Because it's easier to go to the source you already know you want to agree with and take everything they say on faith. It's what deniers are blaming climate change believers for, and it's what believers are blaming climate change deniers for, and 99% of them have no clue what they're talking about.
> 
> And if you're reading all of the arguments out there, you know that both sides leave out data that isn't favorable to their view. And you pay attention to what people around here say, after you've done a decent amount of reading on the subject, you can tell when people are just basing everything they say on a single report that made the right wing blogger rounds a few years back...and is now repeated over and over and over by FOX and all their friends. It's hard to take that seriously.


Thing is we were told 10 years ago the end is nigh. Here it is 10 years later and it's still too darn cold in winter.... A 2C improvement will place me solidly into zone 5. Which if one was careful with placement certain fruit trees could prosper... However it's still too cold for peaches here on my snowy mountaintop. 


Due note this 2C change isn't the 6C professed by the warmest of the warmist camps...


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

wiscto said:


> I read some "funny" sarcasm on the internet, and I never wanted to believe in it anyway because change scares me and reading takes too long, so I believed the first denial theory I read and started making fun of people for believing what they read!


When I read an article about scientists using the CERN particle accelerator to prove that cosmic rays affect cloud formation, I had more proof the Sun is still the overwhelming factor in the Earth's climate bar none.

You can not refute that without the Sun, the Earth would be an ice ball. You also cannot refute that the Sun varies in output.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Darren said:


> When I read an article about scientists using the CERN particle accelerator to prove that cosmic rays affect cloud formation, I had more proof the Sun is still the overwhelming factor in the Earth's climate bar none.
> 
> You can not refute that without the Sun, the Earth would be an ice ball. You also cannot refute that the Sun varies in output.


Hey that is how all prior climate era's in history were explained prior to

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/12/10/history.environmental.movement/index.html

The green movement is out of control and is simply a power grubbing group today.

Look they need a crisis.. real or imagined.

The sun really is the key.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Darren said:


> When I read an article about scientists using the CERN particle accelerator to prove that cosmic rays affect cloud formation, I had more proof the Sun is still the overwhelming factor in the Earth's climate bar none.
> 
> You can not refute that without the Sun, the Earth would be an ice ball. You also cannot refute that the Sun varies in output.


I didn't say anything about any of that.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

stanb999 said:


> Thing is we were told 10 years ago the end is nigh. Here it is 10 years later and it's still too darn cold in winter.... A 2C improvement will place me solidly into zone 5. Which if one was careful with placement certain fruit trees could prosper... However it's still too cold for peaches here on my snowy mountaintop.
> 
> 
> Due note this 2C change isn't the 6C professed by the warmest of the warmist camps...


Nope. Even ten years ago they were saying that the end is hundreds and thousands of years away, hundreds of thousands of years depending on which warming related effect we're discussing..and that's really more for the coasts and some low level areas that the sea will reach through the Mississippi valley.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

I am sure that the climate is changing. Some of the many questions are:

1) did humans have much to do with it?
2)will the results be harmful, or, at least more harmful than the proposed "fixes"?
3)Can/should we "fix" it? 

I will say that I don't know, but, I am very suspicious of politicians who push the climate change agenda because the solutions always seem to be more power to the government. The government couldn't keep a brothel in NV afloat.


----------



## manfred (Dec 21, 2005)

I do not care about the seals.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Farmerga said:


> I am sure that the climate is changing. Some of the many questions are:
> 
> 1) did humans have much to do with it?
> 2)will the results be harmful, or, at least more harmful than the proposed "fixes"?
> ...


And keep in mind which politicians are pushing the "Climate Change" agenda.
When shysters known more for their lies than any accomplishment are telling the story, you can bet it's a lie.


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

Farmerga said:


> I am sure that the climate is changing. Some of the many questions are:
> 
> 1) did humans have much to do with it?
> 2)will the results be harmful, or, at least more harmful than the proposed "fixes"?
> ...





Cornhusker said:


> *And keep in mind which politicians are pushing the "Climate Change" agenda.*
> When shysters known more for their lies than any accomplishment are telling the story, you can bet it's a lie.


This leads me to ask both of you - which politicians and governments are you talking about? 

Are you including all politicians and all governments throughout the world or are you only talking about United States politicians and government?


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

wiscto said:


> Nope. Even ten years ago they were saying that the end is hundreds and thousands of years away, hundreds of thousands of years depending on which warming related effect we're discussing..and that's really more for the coasts and some low level areas that the sea will reach through the Mississippi valley.


Oh, So you were speaking of yourself? I mean not checking "facts" and following just one source... Sorry I misunderstood you. I thought you were suggesting that about other posters.


Here in a chart from the IPCC from 2007. Note as I had suggested 2C is a low end prediction. Do note that we should be expecting at least 1C by now per all the models and about 2C as an average by 2050. An over under of 50 years.

look here. 

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Fennick said:


> This leads me to ask both of you - which politicians and governments are you talking about?
> 
> Are you including all politicians and all governments throughout the world or are you only talking about United States politicians and government?


 Mostly the American Left and statist entities world wide, including the U.N. I simply find it odd that, in order to save ourselves from the melting ice caps, we must hand over even more of our liberty them.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

You would think by now the "We are from the government and we are here to help you." would be seen by all for what it is. You don't give more power to an entity that has demonstrated incompetence and cronyism. We threw out the bathwater and kept the baby which has grown into a Frankenstein like apparition. 

It doesn't need more power over our lives.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Power is going to be there, so all you're doing is changing the balance. If it isn't in the hands of government, it will shift back into the hands of the people we defended ourselves against in the first place. The only real action to take is to dismantle the two party system by destroying primary voting, create a more inclusive ballot, force every political ad to list all whose money or work went into creating it, limit individual campaign contributions to a dollar amount anyone can afford, and require all public officials to keep all personal money in the federal reserve banks for monitoring, go to return free taxes with no loopholes or deductions.

They want you to think that this is all impossible, that we can't slow down their corruption. They want you to think that our downfall is inevitable. They want you to dismantle the one thing standing in their way instead of fighting to take back as much power as we can.


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

wiscto said:


> Power is going to be there, so all you're doing is changing the balance. If it isn't in the hands of government, it will shift back into the hands of the people we defended ourselves against in the first place. The only real action to take is to dismantle the two party system by destroying primary voting, create a more inclusive ballot, force every political ad to list all whose money or work went into creating it, limit individual campaign contributions to a dollar amount anyone can afford, and require all public officials to keep all personal money in the federal reserve banks for monitoring, go to return free taxes with no loopholes or deductions.
> 
> They want you to think that this is all impossible, that we can't slow down their corruption. They want you to think that our downfall is inevitable. They want you to dismantle the one thing standing in their way instead of fighting to take back as much power as we can.


What gives you the idea that government is on your side (aka the side of the little guy?)

The levers of power have never been in the control of the poor, meek, or weak masses.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

stanb999 said:


> What gives you the idea that government is on your side (aka the side of the little guy?)
> 
> The levers of power have never been in the control of the poor, meek, or weak masses.


The government is the government. It's big, it's complex, it's local/state/federal and it's a lot of people with a lot of varying opinions. To say that they have never stuck up for the little guy is just inaccurate. You wouldn't have what you have if it didn't. To think otherwise is to ignore everything we know about history. It's about the balance of power. It's about the ongoing struggle. It's about doing what you can and then preparing for the next onslaught of greed and corruption. It's about not letting them fool you into believing that it's all hopeless while they eliminate the very last protections you have.

What we can say, without a doubt, is that if you don't maintain a balance against the power of those who are primarily motivated by their own greed and vanity, you will suffer far more than you are right now. Government was only ever created because of people like that in the first place. It's a necessary evil. But don't forget the NECESSARY part of that statement.


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

wiscto said:


> The government is the government. It's big, it's complex, it's local/state/federal and it's a lot of people with a lot of varying opinions. To say that they have never stuck up for the little guy is just inaccurate. You wouldn't have what you have if it didn't. To think otherwise is to ignore everything we know about history. It's about the balance of power. It's about the ongoing struggle. It's about doing what you can and then preparing for the next onslaught of greed and corruption. It's about not letting them fool you into believing that it's all hopeless while they eliminate the very last protections you have.
> 
> What we can say, without a doubt, is that if you don't maintain a balance against the power of those who are primarily motivated by their own greed and vanity, you will suffer far more than you are right now. Government was only ever created because of people like that in the first place. It's a necessary evil. But don't forget the NECESSARY part of that statement.



Still the fact remains.. governments protect special interest. Never the "masses". 

Here is a simple example... the EPA. The EPA "makes" big business comply to the rules. Who makes the rules? Who is on the "advisory board"? The businesses themselves. Which makes sense because who knows the most about running a chemical plant for instance? Of course it's the operator. So with their help we craft what is legal and illegal discharges into the "creek".

The thing is with those rules in place the business is now free to pollute some with government immunity. Because they are complying with the regulations you can't sue them for your crappy drinking water or dead fish.


So is it now clear why republicans passed the EPA into existence.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

stanb999 said:


> Still the fact remains.. governments protect special interest. Never the "masses".
> 
> Here is a simple example... the EPA. The EPA "makes" big business comply to the rules. Who makes the rules? Who is on the "advisory board"? The businesses themselves. Which makes sense because who knows the most about running a chemical plant for instance? Of course it's the operator. So with their help we craft what is legal and illegal discharges into the "creek".
> 
> The thing is with those rules in place the business is now free to pollute some with government immunity. Because they are complying with the regulations you can't sue them for your crappy drinking water or dead fish.


That's why we tried to become a special interest with money to spend. And that's why they're trying to destroy us.


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

wiscto said:


> That's why we tried to become a special interest with money to spend. And that's why they're trying to destroy us.


Do you think a new set of empty suits will be better than the present set of empty suits? The fact is it's not money that makes governments powerful. It's the ability to pass regulation. Remove the ability to regulate and the money would dry up because it would be pointless to contribute from a business perspective. It truly is just a business decision.

FYI this is a global warming thread... The purpose of the push for "one world government agreements" is to add an additional layer of regulation above that of countries to protect the mega corporations from tort and regulation in individual countries. What your advocating with your pursuits of international laws being sold as protecting the planet is going to politically disarm you completely.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

stanb999 said:


> Do you think a new set of empty suits will be better than the present set of empty suits? The fact is it's not money that makes governments powerful. It's the ability to pass regulation. Remove the ability to regulate and the money would dry up because it would be pointless to contribute from a business perspective. It truly is just a business decision.
> 
> FYI this is a global warming thread... The purpose of the push for "one world government agreements" is to add an additional layer of regulation above that of countries to protect the mega corporations from tort and regulation in individual countries. What your advocating with your pursuits of international laws being sold as protecting the planet is going to politically disarm you completely.


Wow. You're calling a cube a square. They look similar, but one is 3 dimensional. So... Point by point. 

1. Exactly. As soon as there is no regulation standing in their way, they will stop spending their money because then they will be able to do as they please. It's all interconnected. It wasn't their idea to BE regulated. They just corrupted the system that stood in their way. If we did exactly what they always wanted, we'd still have rivers on fire, burning since the 1930s.

2. You're incredible. In the same breath you blame the global warming crowd for wanting a one world government and you point out the desire of corporations to live under a one world government. Yet you seem to think that if we deregulate and leave the corporations to their own devices that we won't ultimately HAVE a one world government. We will. The elitists want to BE that government. Do you really not see that? They want to kill the EPA. We know that because they're paying Scott Walker, Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, and everyone else in the Republican party to SAY it. They want to want to kill everything that isn't 100% theirs. They don't like having to spend their money to corrupt the system. If you think this was all part of their grand plan, you're wrong. They're doing everything they can to undo what the people did to their precious stranglehold on power. And a big part of that plan is convincing people like you that government is the problem. Do you really believe that they would be trying to kill the EPA if the EPA was the ONLY way they strangle out the little guys? Wake up. The Folgers is hot. 

3. You're assigning beliefs to me that I never expressed. I never said anything about "one world government" or any of the other BS you just pulled out of your hat. The United States maintaining an EPA and climate regulations does not automatically lead to a one world government. There has to be an international agreement to turn power over to a completely separate governing body, and I never said I would support that.

4. Your assertion about money is honestly just ludicrous. Without that money, they could have never owned the EPA in the first place. You can't even be consistent within your own argument.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Evil 
People
Authority


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

One of the biggest obstacles that climate scientists are encountering today is the failed predictions of the past.

We've mentioned this before in these discussions but a mere 40-50 years ago, the UN and climatologists were making the same dire predictions as today.....except their warnings were about global cooling rather than warming. They had the evidence to prove their claims, just as they do today. And yet, no ice age.

It's kind of difficult to put one's faith into anything they say now. Of course, I've never had faith in anything coming out of the UN.


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

Farmerga said:


> Mostly the American Left and statist entities world wide, including the U.N. I simply find it odd that, in order to save ourselves from the melting ice caps, we must hand over even more of our liberty them.


Melting ice caps are the least of worries, there's much worse environmental impacts than that happening globally right now and even that is not the worst of what's yet to come. 

I think people everywhere should be more concerned about cooperating and working with the global community if they want to see humanity survive the future changes. Everyone needs to adapt and adjust their lifestyles to the global community and environmental changes to save their lives rather than continuing to be obsessed with individual personal liberties and greed for luxury that will no longer be practical or even possible. 

Those who stand in the way, who refuse to cooperate and adjust to the climate and global society's needs will just be over-ridden by the majority anyway.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Hold on.... how much damage has been done to the earth in "saving" it.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Fennick said:


> Melting ice caps are the least of worries, there's much worse environmental impacts than that happening globally right now and even that is not the worst of what's yet to come.
> 
> I think people everywhere should be more concerned about cooperating and working with the global community if they want to see humanity survive the future changes. Everyone needs to adapt and adjust their lifestyles to the global community and environmental changes to save their lives rather than continuing to be obsessed with individual personal liberties and greed for luxury that will no longer be practical or even possible.
> 
> Those who stand in the way, who refuse to cooperate and adjust to the climate and global society's needs will just be over-ridden by the majority anyway.


Wanna know something funny? Back in the 70s, scientists had suggested trying to melt the polar ice caps by pouring soot over them. 

That's a documented, verifiable fact.

All they had to do was wait 40 years.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Txsteader said:


> One of the biggest obstacles that climate scientists are encountering today is the failed predictions of the past.
> 
> We've mentioned this before in these discussions but a mere 40-50 years ago, the UN and climatologists were making the same dire predictions as today.....except their warnings were about global cooling rather than warming. They had the evidence to prove their claims, just as they do today. And yet, no ice age.
> 
> It's kind of difficult to put one's faith into anything they say now. Of course, I've never had faith in anything coming out of the UN.


 'Global cooling' was never as widespread a theory as people are now saying... even back then, the majority of climate researchers believed increasing CO2 would lead to increasing temps. 'Global cooling', because of particulate matter, is indeed a true thing, (look at how temps fall after major volcanic eruptions) but long-term it is outweighed by the effects of greenhouse gasses.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Here ya go Txsteader, some reading material for you regarding 'global cooling'. And if you don't like Wiki, you can always go to the footnotes section of the article and read the source material yourself.


> *Global cooling* was a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere culminating in a period of extensive glaciation. *This hypothesis had little support in the scientific community,* but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s and press reports that did not accurately reflect *the full scope of the scientific climate literature, which showed a larger and faster-growing body of literature projecting future warming due to greenhouse gas emissions.*


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

I find it interesting that the slight downward trend in temps started in the 40's and continued until the 70's... Coinciding with WW2, the post-war economic boom, and only ending when the US and western Europe began stricter pollution controls... So there ya go, once the skies cleared, the temp began to climb again. So go ahead, blame it on the EPA!


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

greg273 said:


> 'Global cooling' was never as widespread a theory as people are now saying... even back then, the majority of climate researchers believed increasing CO2 would lead to increasing temps. 'Global cooling', because of particulate matter, is indeed a true thing, (look at how temps fall after major volcanic eruptions) but long-term it is outweighed by the effects of greenhouse gasses.


It was widespread enough to warrant an article in Newsweek. 

Regardless of the claims of cooling not being as widespread, the fact remains that the *UN* and *climatologists* were making the dire predictions that it would impact millions of people via starvation and homelessness. Less than 50 years ago.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

:smack


greg273 said:


> Here ya go Txsteader, some reading material for you regarding 'global cooling'. And if you don't like Wiki, you can always go to the footnotes section of the article and read the source material yourself.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
> 
> I find it interesting that the slight downward trend in temps started in the 40's and continued until the 70's... Coinciding with WW2, the post-war economic boom, and only ending when the US and western Europe began stricter pollution controls... So there ya go, once the skies cleared, the temp began to climb again. So go ahead, blame it on the EPA!


yet if one were to use documents of the times
One would be reading that it such a view was factual and real.
Only it's failure has hindsight prevailed that it was a folly​


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

kasilofhome said:


> Hold on.... how much damage has been done to the earth in "saving" *it*.


Your question is confusing. Can you be clearer about what 'it' is? When you say 'it' are you talking about the earth, or the environmental habitats on earth, or animals on earth, or the humanity on earth? Or all of it?

Can you provide some examples of the type of damage done to the earth in saving whatever 'it' is?

I ask because I don't think damage can be done to the earth itself, but can be done to all those other things.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Well the tree huggers sure have messed things up on this earth specially the USA.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Fennick said:


> Your question is confusing. Can you be clearer about what 'it' is? When you say 'it' are you talking about the earth, or the environmental habitats on earth, or animals on earth, or the humanity on earth? Or all of it?
> 
> Can you provide some examples of the type of damage done to the earth in saving whatever 'it' is?
> 
> I ask because I don't think damage can be done to the earth itself, but can be done to all those other things.


The epa's handling of that abandoned gold mine is a great example of what not to do!
We put out forest fires instead of letting them burn, then the resulting fires cause much more damage.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

kasilofhome said:


> Hold on.... how much damage has been done to the earth in "saving" it.





Fennick said:


> Your question is confusing. Can you be clearer about what 'it' is? When you say 'it' are you talking about the earth, or the environmental habitats on earth, or animals on earth, or the humanity on earth? Or all of it?
> 
> *Can you provide some examples of the type of damage done to the earth in saving whatever 'it' is?*
> 
> I ask because I don't think damage can be done to the earth itself, but can be done to all those other things.


I think she's referring to the earth/environment.

One recent example comes to mind; the Gold Mine blowout/contaminated water release into the Colorado River by the EPA a couple weeks ago. It would be funny if it weren't so tragic.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)




----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

That gold mine blowout _was_ bad. Shocking! 

Why was there so much contaminated water in the mine? Who put it there? Surely not the EPA?


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Txsteader said:


> It was widespread enough to warrant an article in Newsweek.
> .


:hysterical:
Guess I'l just have to repeat this, you apparently didn't get it the first time

.


> *This hypothesis ("global cooling") had little support in the scientific community,* but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s and press reports that did not accurately reflect *the full scope of the scientific climate literature, which showed a larger and faster-growing body of literature projecting future warming due to greenhouse gas emissions.*


 Seems to me much of the opposition to the theory of AGW is based more on politics and ideology than science. Its pretty comical, all we get from folks on here is a bunch of vague (and often false) allegations, off-topic rants, and stupid internet memes that have very little to do with the subject.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

arabian knight said:


> Well the tree huggers sure have messed things up on this earth specially the USA.


Ever stop to ask yourself why it didn't all burn to the ground before we got here, or do you really think we should just cut all the trees down, you know, so they don't start on fire... ?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Fennick said:


> That gold mine blowout _was_ bad. Shocking!
> 
> Why was there so much contaminated water in the mine? Who put it there? Surely not the EPA?




http://www.vox.com/2015/8/10/9126853/epa-mine-spill-animas

Still, what's eye-catching here is that this time the EPA is at fault â not a mining company. Even though the agency was trying to clean up a toxic mess that has been simmering for decades, even though efforts to stem the flow of polluted mining water have often gone awry because it's an inherently difficult task, there's an undeniable irony in this whole debacle.

*"Itâs hard being on the other side of this, in terms of being the one who caused this incident," David Ostrander, the EPAâs head of emergency management, told a crowd in Durango, according to the Guardian. "We usually respond to emergencies, we donât cause them," he said.*


http://thefreethoughtproject.com/ge...ionally-poison-animas-river-week-toxic-spill/

A week prior to the spill, retired geologist Dave Taylor wrote a letter to the editor in âThe Silverton Standardâ pointing out that the EPA was planning a maneuver that could potentially cause toxins from mineshafts to flood into rivers. He also suggested that the EPA was aware of the possible outcomes, and were going forward with the plan anyway to gain funding.

In the letter, Taylor wrote:

*âBut make no mistake, within seven days, all of the 500gpm flow will return to Cememnt Creek. Contamination may actually increaseâ¦ The âgrand experimentâ in my opinion will fail.
And guess what [EPAâs] Mr. Hestmark will say then?
Gee, âPlan Aâ didnât work so I guess we will have to build a treatÂ¬ment plant at a cost to taxpayers of $100 million to $500 million (who knows).*


http://hotair.com/archives/2015/08/...epa-gold-mine-spill-just-get-worse-and-worse/
*Much of the text in the documents released Friday was redacted by EPA officials. *Among the items blacked out is the line in a 2013 safety plan for the Gold King job that specifies whether workers were required to have phones that could work at the remote site, which is more than 11,000 feet up a mountain.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

greg273 said:


> :hysterical:
> Guess I'l just have to repeat this, you apparently didn't get it the first time
> 
> . Seems to me much of the opposition to the theory of AGW is based more on politics and ideology than science. Its pretty comical, all we get from folks on here is a bunch of vague (and often false) allegations, off-topic rants, and stupid internet memes that have very little to do with the subject.


That's exactly what we get from you too! Scientists are not in agreement with agw. That's a fact no amount of whining and crying wolf will change that.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

arabian knight said:


> Well the tree huggers sure have messed things up on this earth specially the USA.


 Yeah right, tree huggers. More like people who build homes in (or have timber investments in) tinder-dry pine forests prone to lightning strikes and expect 'the government' to move heaven and earth to save them when the inevitable happens. 
And Arabian Knight, notice how I never post anything in the 'Horses' section of this forum? Thats because I don't know anything about horses. Kind of like you and climate science.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

JeffreyD said:


> That's exactly what we get from you too! Scientists are not in agreement with agw. That's a fact no amount of whining and crying wolf will change that.


 Nope, not all climate scientists think mankinds greenhouse gas emissions will cause global warming. Just the the vast majority of them. As far as me posting 'off topic rants' on this subject, nah, thats you and AKs department.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Txsteader said:


> One of the biggest obstacles that climate scientists are encountering today is the failed predictions of the past.
> .


 Whose fault is it if you believed an over-hyped, inaccurate Newsweek article from 1970, when the majority of climate scientists were saying the opposite??


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

greg273 said:


> Nope, not all climate scientists think mankinds greenhouse gas emissions will cause global warming. Just the the vast majority of them. As far as me posting 'off topic rants' on this subject, nah, thats you and AKs department.


I have to say, your really good at it! :thumb:

Not the vast majority of them either, that a real stretch.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

greg273 said:


> Whose fault is it if you believed an over-hyped, inaccurate Newsweek article from 1970, when the majority of climate scientists were saying the opposite??


I clearly remember the "facts" as presented by those "scientists". We were bombarded with the "facts" about global cooling and the new ice age that was going to kill us all if we didn't act right now.

What scientists were disagreeing with the cooling scam? Id really like to know. Link please.

What a joke! Over hyped is right!


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)




----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)




----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

Arabian Knight you clearly appear to be getting some kind of sick satisfaction and a big laugh out of the current severe droughts and wildfires and the tragic loss of the firefighters who died last Wednesday, the loss of communities, properties, livestock and homes and livelihoods and GRIEF of thousands of people.

The pictures you are posting are in extremely poor taste and the stupid captions on them are not relevant to the tragedies and great losses happening right now in the west on both sides of the border. 

Perhaps the next time some tragic climate event comes ripping and destroying lives and communities through your own location some of us here can find some heartless, sick pictures of it together with irrelevant captions to post here about it to make fun of you and your own personal grief and loss.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

greg273 said:


> Whose fault is it if you believed an over-hyped, inaccurate Newsweek article from 1970, when the majority of climate scientists were saying the opposite??


We weren't to believe warnings in the 70s by the *UN and climatologists* about global cooling but we're to believe warnings today by the *UN and climatologists* about global warming?

The Newsweek articles were inaccurate re: global cooling but they're accurate re: global warming?

The scientists were obviously wrong then but they're right now?

I would ask you......whose fault is it if you believe over-hyped and questionable articles today?


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

greg273 said:


> Nope, not all climate scientists think mankinds greenhouse gas emissions will cause global warming. Just the the vast majority of them. As far as me posting 'off topic rants' on this subject, nah, thats you and AKs department.


"Climate scientist" is not an actual field of study it's like trying to say your a sanitary engineer if you move trash. It's a made up feel good notion that has no place in reality. It's phraseology at it's worst. 

Chemists, physicists, and statisticians disagree with the global warming findings in their fields. For instance chemists know the most potent green house gas by far is water vapor. Water vapor partial pressure hasn't changed. Hence the earth hasn't warmed. It maybe retaining heat a bit longer into the evening but it's fleeting.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

[
Arabian knight


Please remember public control, I mean public censorship, wait it's um 
Political correctness.

If anyone might be offend shut up. Even if what you want to express deals with the issue, explores solutions you must bow down and think of how someone eles may not want that info.

Really if you fail to follow that you will be informed just how cruel you are for pointing out problems with solutions that are failing.


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

greg273 said:


> Whose fault is it if you believed an over-hyped, inaccurate Newsweek article from 1970, when the majority of climate scientists were saying the opposite??


I don't believe the only hype was in the 70's. The GW hype has been astounding. Arctic ice would be gone before now. snow would be a thing of the past. Stronger and more hurricanes... Bye bye polar bears. The list of nonsense predictions is endless.

The hype now is global warming causes late spring frosts.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-21/qch-frost-field-trial/6715106

*Climate change blamed for Australia's increased frost risk for cereal crops*


Dr Christopher said growers are already sowing their crops too late for optimum yield, in an attempt to ensure that they will flower later in the season when the frost risk is lower.

"We find that the losses due to this delayed sowing, especially in the northern region of Queensland and New South Wales, are actually much greater again than the actual losses that we're experiencing due to the actual frost damage."


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

kasilofhome said:


> [
> Arabian knight
> 
> 
> ...


For sure as there has been many droughts in CA, as most of CA is a desert but don't let that get in the way of nature just doing her thing. And then trying to blame man on it. LOL


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Txsteader said:


> We weren't to believe warnings in the 70s by the *UN and climatologists* about global cooling but we're to believe warnings today by the *UN and climatologists* about global warming?
> 
> The Newsweek articles were inaccurate re: global cooling but they're accurate re: global warming?
> 
> ...


 Again, for the third time this thread, 'global cooling' was a fringe-theory then, most scientists who studied this believed increasing CO2 would cancel out any cooling from particulate matter. Whether you believed it or not has no bearing on what the current state of research and data shows. 
And I don't believe hype, I believe what I have learned from chemistry and meteorology, that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, contributes to the greenhouse effect, and raising the concentrations will raise temperatures. THe only way it would NOT do that is if there is some negative feedback loop associated with higher CO2, like more cloud cover. Until you show me there is such a negative, or if the laws of chemistry and physics have changed, then I will go believe what I have learned.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

stanb999 said:


> Chemists, physicists, and statisticians disagree with the global warming findings in their fields. For instance chemists know the most potent green house gas by far is water vapor. QUOTE]
> 
> Not even going to address the first part of your post, other than to say you know darn well what the term 'climate scientist' means. And yes stan, there are indeed many such people from many different scientific disciplines that can be called 'climate scientists'.
> 
> No one disputes that water vapor is the most prevelant and potent greenhouse gas. CO2 ranks a close second, and is steadily rising due to human activity. Are you going to deny that?


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

greg273 said:


> stanb999 said:
> 
> 
> > Chemists, physicists, and statisticians disagree with the global warming findings in their fields. For instance chemists know the most potent green house gas by far is water vapor. QUOTE]
> ...


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

stanb999 said:


> greg273 said:
> 
> 
> > No co2 is a trace gas. The next biggest is methane... BTW co2 is within the frequency of water vapor. Meaning it is only applicable in the absence of water vapor.
> ...


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

greg273 said:


> Nope. CO2 is only PARTIALLY within the frequency for the IR absorbtion spectrum of water vapor, and the two do NOT 'cancel out'. Any detailed analysis of the spectrum shows there are peaks and valleys in the supposed 'overlap' zones that are covered by CO2 and NOT covered by H2O. And of course there are significant areas where they do NOT overlap.
> Sorry stan, CO2 is indeed a greenhouse gas, even on this watery planet.


Sure a tiny part of the ultra long wave portion of the spectrum is free to be absorbed by the CO2... the part of the spectrum void of actual particles. Water vapor is the principle green house producer and it has nothing to do with it's ir spectrum. What causes the "steady state" in our climate is waters ability to resist phase change.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

I can't wait till that tropical storm becomes a hurricane. The gw religious leaders will be falling all over themselves to post that it is because of gw that the hurricane is gaining strength and headed for Florida and the East Coast areas like NC
They will be salivating all over themselves then when it reaches the US shores. And can't help themselves to blame gw is causing this to happen.


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

arabian knight said:


> *I can't wait till that tropical storm becomes a hurricane.* The gw religious leaders will be falling all over themselves to post that it is because of gw that the hurricane is gaining strength and headed for Florida and the East Coast areas like NC
> They will be salivating all over themselves then when it reaches the US shores. And can't help themselves to blame gw is causing this to happen.


 
If you can't wait for it to become a hurricane then you're probably the only person in America wishing for it and doing the salivating and falling all over yourself.

I'm pretty sure there's a clinical word for people who want disasters to happen to other people and then get all excited and happy about it when it happens.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

arabian knight said:


> I can't wait till that tropical storm becomes a hurricane. The gw religious leaders will be falling all over themselves to post that it is because of gw that the hurricane is gaining strength and headed for Florida and the East Coast areas like NC
> They will be salivating all over themselves then when it reaches the US shores. And can't help themselves to blame gw is causing this to happen.


Here's a hint - be sure brain is engaged before putting fingers in gear!

Seriously, you want a hurricane, which causes destruction and likely death, just so you can smirk and say I told you so?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Surely people KNOW that hurricanes are GOOD in many many ways. Not those that wreck havoc to property but the ocean NEEDS hurricanes in many ways just look it up.
And besides those gw folks would like nothing better then having a strong one hit so they can once again spread their lies once again all over the net. And THAT is what I was posting about. Course those4 that believe in all this hype and gw hoax never will see it that way I guess.


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

Religious environmentalism always struck me as completely ridiculous because, for the most part, the claims and supposed concerns scream ignorance of nature. How does a movement that's supposed to be all about the preservation of nature end up sounding like a drug addicted suburbanite soccer mom trying to explain hog farming?

Tree huggers- let's take that proverbial example. Know what my front yard would be in one Summer of not mowing or cutting anything? A forest. A baby forest maybe, but a pretty good start of one. If there is an endangered species around here, it's a cleared pasture ready for grazing. But of course we're all going to suffocate to death if people cut down some trees.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Ah yes this makes me smile and laugh out loud a lot.


> To stop the solar boom, the government has reduced feed-in tariffs for photovoltaic schemes in the past few years. Since 2010, however, more than 5000 companies involved in the solar business have closed, shedding tens of thousands of green jobs.
> 
> Germanyâs biggest companies, such as Siemens and Bosch, are abandoning the industry too. Their renewable energy strategies resulted in costly debacles. Siemens, Europeâs largest engineering company, announced in June that it would close its entire solar division, at a loss of about â¬1bn


- See more at: http://www.thegwpf.com/benny-peiser-europe-pulls-plug-green-future/#sthash.oK6ZBA51.dpuf


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Green energy is a lobbyist golden calf.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

It kind of cracks me up that religious people make fun of the "religious nature" of environmentalists. It's amazing to me that you can point out all of the things that are wrong with their convictions, and not your own. Well... Maybe not. Because that's how religious activists tend to roll.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

wiscto said:


> It kind of cracks me up that religious people make fun of the "religious nature" of environmentalists. It's amazing to me that you can point out all of the things that are wrong with their convictions, and not your own. Well... Maybe not. Because that's how religious activists tend to roll.


Same with environmental activists, atheist activists, social activists, etc.... That's how they roll too, yet they fail to see just how wrong they really are! Guess couldn't see through those rose colored glasses.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

arabian knight said:


> Ah yes this makes me smile and laugh out loud a lot.
> 
> 
> - See more at: http://www.thegwpf.com/benny-peiser-europe-pulls-plug-green-future/#sthash.oK6ZBA51.dpuf


 Hmm... you want to see hurricanes hit the southeast, and get happy over businesses failing?? What a strange sense of humor you have. Are you happy that gas and oil drilling companies are laying off people left and right also?? Many solar panel companies are going out of business for one very simple reason... the all-too-familiar story of cheap Chinese imports flooding the market. Panels that used to cost $4 per watt are now less than a dollar per watt... and still dropping. 
Simply because government subsidies are unsustainable means NOTHING when the question is whether a certain technology works or not. Germany is phasing out subsidies because the country already gets 40% of its power from solar, (and yes, that is counting NIGHTTIME and cloudy days!) thus the subsidies had the desired effect, getting solar panels installed. Those same panels will be producing energy for the next 30+ years with no moving parts, using no fuel, emitting no pollution, and requiring very little maintenance.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

greg273 said:


> Hmm... you want to see hurricanes hit the southeast, and get happy over businesses failing?? What a strange sense of humor you have. Are you happy that gas and oil drilling companies are laying off people left and right also?? Many solar panel companies are going out of business for one very simple reason... the all-too-familiar story of cheap Chinese imports flooding the market. Panels that used to cost $4 per watt are now less than a dollar per watt... and still dropping.
> Simply because government subsidies are unsustainable means NOTHING when the question is whether a certain technology works or not. Germany is phasing out subsidies because the country already gets 40% of its power from solar, (and yes, that is counting NIGHTTIME and cloudy days!) thus the subsidies had the desired effect, getting solar panels installed. Those same panels will be producing energy for the next 30+ years with no moving parts, using no fuel, emitting no pollution, and requiring very little maintenance.


Aside from ignoring the million pound gorilla in the room, are you saying there's no toxic waste byproduct of the manufacturing processes for solar panels? Or batteries?


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

JeffreyD said:


> Same with environmental activists, atheist activists, social activists, etc.... That's how they roll too, yet they fail to see just how wrong they really are! Guess couldn't see through those rose colored glasses.


Ironically, here you are again. So proud of yourself, so condemning of them....for all of the things you do.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

JeffreyD said:


> Aside from ignoring the million pound gorilla in the room, are you saying there's no toxic waste byproduct of the manufacturing processes for solar panels? Or batteries?


 Of course there is some 'toxic waste' generated in making PV, just like there is toxic waste involved in nuclear energy, fossil fuels, and just about every product made by our modern society. How much 'toxic waste' does your machining operations generate? How much coal has to be burned to make the electricity to turn the lathes? How much uranium has be mined? How much water gets contaminated fracking natural gas and oil? All those things generate far more 'toxic waste' than making solar panels. 
Heres a little fact you should know about solar panels... the energy to create one, including mining, refining, manufacturing, etc, known as 'embodied energy', gets PAID BACK by the solar panel in about 2 years of operation. After that it just sits there generating power whenever light hits it, day in and day out, for 30+ years, generating no fumes, no pollution, and with no moving parts (other than little electrons spinning around a grid of silicon). Its a great technology, and getting better all the time.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

greg273 said:


> Of course there is some 'toxic waste' generated in making PV, just like there is toxic waste involved in nuclear energy, fossil fuels, and just about every product made by our modern society. How much 'toxic waste' does your machining operations generate? How much coal has to be burned to make the electricity to turn the lathes? How much uranium has be mined? How much water gets contaminated fracking natural gas and oil? All those things generate far more 'toxic waste' than making solar panels.
> Heres a little fact you should know about solar panels... the energy to create one, including mining, refining, manufacturing, etc, known as 'embodied energy', gets PAID BACK by the solar panel in about 2 years of operation. After that it just sits there generating power whenever light hits it, day in and day out, for 30+ years, generating no fumes, no pollution, and with no moving parts (other than little electrons spinning around a grid of silicon). Its a great technology, and getting better all the time.


Hers a little fact YOU should know, I was involved with the manufacturing process of solar panels, I know what the toxic waste is. I also worked for and with some of the major players in environmental activism. Have you been clued into the inner works and politics of the "great" environmental pushers?

I didn't think so.

Do you have any proof of those statements you just made? I'd really like to see them. What happens when the cell banks die and they need to be disposed of? You also seem to be saying that their are no fumes, plastic does outgas, you know that don't you?

My manufacturing process generate very little waste if any at all. All coolants are recycled and most are biodegradable. Scrap plastic is regroup and mixed with virgin material and used again. Waste is money, make sense?


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> Hers a little fact YOU should know, I was involved with the manufacturing process of solar panels, I know what the toxic waste is. I also worked for and with some of the major players in environmental activism. Have you been clued into the inner works and politics of the "great" environmental pushers?
> 
> I didn't think so.
> 
> ...


Truth is in the eye of the beholder. I was looking thru old Common Core threads and found this: http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/general-chat/516618-why-common-core-so-bad-7.html#post7110894
Posts 129 and 132 particularly.

The part about what Burbank schools can and can't call Special Ed was interesting.
What proof do you have behind your statements other than what you claim?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

basketti said:


> I was looking thru old Common Core threads and found this


Common Core is considered bad by educators because it holds teachers & administrators accountable. It's a direct measure of their effectiveness. They don't like being tested that way. They don't mind testing students and holding them accountable for performance, but teachers seem to think they're above that sort of thing.

The Common Core tests may or may not be fair, and that's a legitimate question. But the basic concept of holding teachers accountable for performance is a good thing.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

greg273 said:


> Of course there is some 'toxic waste' generated in making PV, just like there is toxic waste involved in nuclear energy, fossil fuels, and just about every product made by our modern society. How much 'toxic waste' does your machining operations generate? How much coal has to be burned to make the electricity to turn the lathes? How much uranium has be mined? How much water gets contaminated fracking natural gas and oil? All those things generate far more 'toxic waste' than making solar panels.
> Heres a little fact you should know about solar panels... the energy to create one, including mining, refining, manufacturing, etc, known as 'embodied energy', gets PAID BACK by the solar panel in about 2 years of operation. After that it just sits there generating power whenever light hits it, day in and day out, for 30+ years, generating no fumes, no pollution, and with no moving parts (other than little electrons spinning around a grid of silicon). Its a great technology, and getting better all the time.


It's amazing the things people find to suggest we shouldn't use and further develop the technology for solar and wind power. 

It's almost as if because it isn't perfect - we simply can't do it.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

JeffreyD said:


> Hers a little fact YOU should know, I was involved with the manufacturing process of solar panels, I know what the toxic waste is. I also worked for and with some of the major players in environmental activism. Have you been clued into the inner works and politics of the "great" environmental pushers?
> 
> I didn't think so.
> 
> ...


 1. If you were 'involved' in the solar panel manufacturing process, then you would know that there is nothing special about the solar industry that makes it any more toxic than a hundred thousand other industrial processes we use safely and take for granted every day. 

2. As to being 'clued in to the political 'inner works' of the environmentalists, I couldn't care less. They are probably just as ruthless, money-grubbing and deceitful as any other lobbying group. 

3. As to 'proof' of my statements, the embodied energy figures for solar panels can be found with a simple google search , if you're at all interested. I assure you I didn't just make those figures up. 

4. The glass, silicon, aluminum, and rare-earth metals in solar panels are recycleable at the end of their very long lifespan.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Nevada said:


> Common Core is considered bad by educators because it holds teachers & administrators accountable. It's a direct measure of their effectiveness. They don't like being tested that way. They don't mind testing students and holding them accountable for performance, but teachers seem to think they're above that sort of thing.
> 
> The Common Core tests may or may not be fair, and that's a legitimate question. But the basic concept of holding teachers accountable for performance is a good thing.


I would agree, but I was referring to the lying on that thread.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Obama has to get our minds off the economy. Seems to be working for many.


----------

