# Climate Change Redux



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

The discovery adds to the ongoing mystery of Antarctica's expanding sea ice. *According to climate models, the region's sea ice should be shrinking* each year because of global warming. *Instead, satellite observations show the ice is expanding*, and the continent's sea ice has set new records for the past three winters. At the same time, Antarctica's ice sheet (the glacial ice on land) is melting and retreating.

http://news.yahoo.com/robot-sub-finds-surprisingly-thick-antarctic-sea-ice-161703215.html


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

You are never to present facts denying climate change. Do you remember so want to jail logical, factual people.


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

Expanding ice and no recorded warming is easily explained as the fault of global warming. Someone will be along shortly to enlighten us, if they're not stuck in a snowbank.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

We know a fair amount about the sea ice under the Arctic thanks to decades of submarine research, but the Antarctic is more of a head-scratcher: there's a significant land mass in the way, and climate scientists modeling a warming world are baffled by the behavior of the southern ice.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/1...arctic_sea_ice_is_thicker_than_first_thought/


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Saving the equivalent of some 130 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide _so cheaply_ would be a big win. But it is still only a tenth of what would need to be done to ensure that the temperature in 2100 is _no more than 2Â°C higher than it was at the time of the Industrial Revolution_âthe limit that the countries of the world have committed themselves to.

http://www.economist.com/news/brief...ve-done-most-slow-global-warming-deepest-cuts


----------



## Glade Runner (Aug 1, 2013)

Ice cover on the Great Lakes earlier than the last 40 years.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

HDrider, you said yourself the Antarctic land mass was losing ice. More runoff from the land mass means the water around Antarctica is less saline, which makes it more prone to freezing. Face it, the globe is indeed slowly warming, and this nice little blanket of fossil fuel emissions is part of the cause.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Glade Runner said:


> Ice cover on the Great Lakes earlier than the last 40 years.


So true, and we are setting or tying records that go back to 1906 way before any of this global warming nonsense came about.


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

greg273 said:


> HDrider, you said yourself the Antarctic land mass was losing ice. More runoff from the land mass means the water around Antarctica is less saline, which makes it more prone to freezing. Face it, the globe is indeed slowly warming, and this nice little blanket of fossil fuel emissions is part of the cause.


Er, you might want to understand the loss of ice before you attribute it to "global warming".

_Antarctica is a land of ice. But dive below the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, and you'll find fire as well, in the form of subglacial volcanoes._
_ Now, a new study finds that these subglacial volcanoes and other geothermal "hotspots" are contributing to the melting of Thwaites Glacier, a major river of ice that flows into Antarctica's Pine Island Bay. Areas of the glacier that sit near geologic features thought to be volcanic are melting faster than regions farther away from hotspots, said Dustin Schroeder, the study's lead author and a geophysicist at the University of Texas at Austin. _


_ This melting could significantly affect ice loss in the West_
http://www.livescience.com/46194-volcanoes-melt-antarctic-glaciers.html


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

And look a little deeper into the subject and you will see that 'subglacial volcanoes' are but ONE contributor to loss of land ice on Antarctica. WARMER ocean and air temps are the others that I am sure you'd rather ignore.


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

Glade Runner said:


> Ice cover on the Great Lakes earlier than the last 40 years.


I haven't been following, but is the ice forming this year already? I know last year the lakes had near record ice cover. How many years will it take for them to become a trend?

I remember seeing a news item several years back where in the European alps, skiing had been shut down in some areas due to no snow. It was a one year thing. But it was attributed to........ "global warming". Those kind of stories are absolute bunk, but they are everywhere. How does one fight the insanity?

They can pick a one year anomaly, but we sure are not allowed, are we?


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

greg273 said:


> And look a little deeper into the subject
> and you will see that 'subglacial volcanoes' are but ONE contributor
> to loss of land ice on Antarctica. WARMER ocean and air temps are
> the others that I am sure you'd rather ignore.


*********************************
who produce tons of 'selected' charts taken from questionable locations
and/or methods, that state "thus saith us....you now* MUST* believe!" 
At best this is *NOT* even scientific, but rather has transcended into 
the realm of a religious cult whose adherents must convert the 
masses in order to maintain control over their individual fiefdoms. :drum:


----------



## Buffy in Dallas (May 10, 2002)

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrDq6tD5Lzc[/ame]

Y'all might want to invest in long underwear!

There are plenty more videos. Just go to youtube and search mini ice age.


----------



## bigjon (Oct 2, 2013)

argue either side,here in cny?its weird.neice #2 just had 7' of snow (Depew-buffalo).neice #1 looking at noreaster in Massachusetts.i'm here in cny thinkin about mowin the lawn one more time!go figure!


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

I talked to a climatologists 2 years ago who lives in my area. He told me then we were entering a mini ice age for the next 5 to 7 years. And he is a liberal.


----------



## Skandi (Oct 21, 2014)

One thing people seem to forget is that for most of the earths history there have been NO polar ice sheets. We're still coming out of the last iceage, the records would predict a mini iceage is due very soon (5-20 years driven by solar cycles) but after that it will continue to warm. Average world temperatures when most of the worlds carbon rich rocks were layed down were 15C (sorry do not know what that is in F) higher than they are today (and sea level was about 300ft higher but that will not happen for a different reason). Whether man is accelerating the warming is kind of a moot point, it will warm, and we should worry about how to adapt to the change rather than suggest stupid ways to try and stop it. I am however all for limiting ALL emissions, polution is a bad idea golbal warming or no.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

I thought the real concern had nothing to do about this much or that much ice, warmer temps, colder temps, more rain, less rain, whatever, which, as we all know, swings in varying amounts - usually dependent on weather patterns, over years and decades anyway, as it always has.

Unless my information is incorrect, the real global warming threat comes from data showing how the *levels of CO2 have increased dramatically in modern times*, as measured by ice cores.

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/


----------



## myheaven (Apr 14, 2006)

This year we had two seasons spring and winter. We have already been -12 that's Nirmal for the end of january. we are 20-40 Â° below normal. our warmest day was 92 this year. that's not even hot. it was too cold most days to swim. I was seriously counting on global warming so I didn't have to move south.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

plowjockey said:


> I thought the real concern had nothing to do about this much or that much ice, warmer temps, colder temps, more rain, less rain, whatever, which, as we all know, swings in varying amounts - usually dependent on weather patterns, over years and decades anyway, as it always has.
> 
> Unless *my information is incorrect*, the real global warming threat comes from data showing how the *levels of CO2 have increased dramatically in modern times*, as measured by ice cores.
> 
> http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/


It is, incorrect..


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

plowjockey said:


> I thought the real concern had nothing to do about this much or that much ice, warmer temps, colder temps, more rain, less rain, whatever, which, as we all know, swings in varying amounts - usually dependent on weather patterns, over years and decades anyway, as it always has.
> 
> Unless my information is incorrect, the real global warming threat comes from data showing how the *levels of CO2 have increased dramatically in modern times*, as measured by ice cores.
> 
> http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/


 
I'm not going to go searching for it but it would be interesting to know what the CO2 increases are in the oceans now, especially the Pacific. We know that the oceans are acidifying now so it must be getting right up there pretty high for acidification to be happening. And we know that the Pacific is the engine that runs the entire world's climate and that the Pacific is a lot warmer now than it was 30 years ago. The surface heat from the warmer Pacific is what caused the jet stream to shift the polar vortex to the south last winter and it's doing it again now this winter with the super-typhoon as the precursor, while everywhere else on the globe is experiencing changes in their seasons too. I suspect that the polar vortex shifts moving south over North America during the winters will be a new trend from now on as long as the Pacific is continuing to increase in warmth. 

After the 4 month long record breaking heatwaves without rain that we had here in my part of the normally "wet" coast this past summer I anticipated that the polar vortex would shift south earlier this year than it did last year and I'm glad I prepared for it. Right as rain and with the coming of super-typhoon Nuri which was caused by the warmer Pacific, we got more tropical warm rain here in the month of November than what we would ordinarilly get in a year and everything in the rain-shadow east of the Rockies got dumped on with snow because of Nuri causing the polar vortex to shift south earlier than last year. 

So I'm thinking if this keeps up in this same pattern then next year we'll probably see the Pacific's super-typhoons happening in October instead of November, the polar vortex will shift south again as part of the pattern and all of North America will get chilly and snowier for longer again. For sure it will be interesting to see how the rest of this coming winter season proceeds.


----------



## fireweed farm (Dec 31, 2010)

greg273 said:


> HDrider, you said yourself the Antarctic land mass was losing ice. More runoff from the land mass means the water around Antarctica is less saline, which makes it more prone to freezing. Face it, the globe is indeed slowly warming, and this nice little blanket of fossil fuel emissions is part of the cause.


Duh, but ice means colder?? Yes the education system in America needs some help.

Greg, that's what I've been reading as well.
Antarctica is a unique situation due to the unique ocean currents, so where South Africa and the Galapagos (on equator) have cold ocean currents passing by, and northwestern Europe has warm currents keeping it mild even for their northern latitude, Antarctica has cold currents spiraling around the continent in a loop, without pressure from the warmer currents elsewhere, making it less effected by worldwide cycles than elsewhere on the planet, at least in the meantime.
That said, it is getting warmer there, glaciers are moving faster and faster to the ocean (snowpack is lost and becoming fresh water which freezes easily in the cool convection current), and even penguin colonies are reaching further and further south, as the climate is allowing.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

myheaven said:


> This year we had two seasons spring and winter. We have already been -12 that's Nirmal for the end of january. we are 20-40 Â° below normal. our warmest day was 92 this year. that's not even hot. it was too cold most days to swim. I was seriously counting on global warming so I didn't have to move south.


Yes so was I.
Lets see many records have been broke or tied as we are getting Colder.
But what some of those that believe in the GW religion, many of the GW huggers seem to forget that these records that are being broken are back in the very early 1900.
Well WHAT SET the records back then?
Then population of the US was only 1/3 of what it is today.
Ah were the Glaciers melting back then?
Or maybe it was all those horses running around pooping, nope the cattle was belching a lot more.

No lets just Make Up some nonfactual story to MATCH what is happening now so the low information voter and reader can see for themselves when we plug this faked data into a computer to make up a make-believe chart to look like the world is ending soon. Ya Thats The Ticket.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

I am loving this year's weather. A first dusting of snow this week.


----------



## manfred (Dec 21, 2005)

Global warming? I'm all for it.


----------



## unregistered358967 (Jul 17, 2013)

Vahomesteaders said:


> I talked to a climatologists 2 years ago who lives in my area. He told me then we were entering a mini ice age for the next 5 to 7 years. And he is a liberal.


The teenagers at our middle school have switched from their beloved cropped yoga pants to jeans..that's all the proof I need...


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

I truly laugh at climate change. This is not new, it is normal. With or without man on this earth it will alter. New York was under glaciers, Alaska had palm trees and grass grazing mastering herds roaming race right where I live now. The folks by of tusks here is not unheard of today esp with the erosion of beach cliffs.

It is a waste of man's effort to stop nature. Better to shift funding to adapting.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

HDRider said:


> It is, incorrect..


The linked article even contradicts itself.



> Researchers suspect these regional differences could result from stronger winds or increased meltwater from the Antarctic ice sheet, or a combination of both factors.


It's the same old same old. People read a new story and believe what they want to believe.

2012 had some of the hottest temperatures on record, winter and summer. Many were just certain it was due to global warming. I rolled my eyes at them, too.

If the huge increases in modern day CO2 is not an immediate problem, what about 50 or 100 years from now? 

Who cares, right? 

Same as the view against the banning of DDT, hydraulic mining, leaded gasoline, toxic vehicle emissions and dioxins.

As long as I get _mine_


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

kasilofhome said:


> Alaska had palm trees and grass grazing mastering herds roaming race right where I live now.


 Now think about WHY that occurred... in the distant geologic past, the bedrock making up Alaska was closer the equator, and the CO2 levels were five times what they are today. And no, the dinosaurs weren't driving Buicks. Massive volcanic eruptions and mountain building were the main contributors to that CO2 level. One of the main reason the temperature eventually dropped was the sequestering of atmospheric CO2 into plant life that died and was buried. The vast coal swamps, oil shales, and petroleum deposits of the Carboniferous Period represent that era. Now we are digging them up, and putting them back into the atmosphere. That is just the facts Kasilofhome. Use your own intelligence and think what will happen if we recreate the atmosphere of when the earth was much much hotter. 
No one is claiming the earth 'never changed until mankind came along', that is simply nonsense. It is constantly changing. And this time, we are helping that change along. And no, I don't think we are going to stop it, but lets be honest and realize our actions can and do have an effect. Human-derived fossil fuel emissions release over a HUNDRED times more CO2 than ALL the volcanoes on earth on a year-to-year basis.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

You can't just say things like that without Scientific data to back it up, and here is one that says you CAN'T tell the difference between what Volcanoes put out and what man has been doing with fossil fuels they are indistinguishable from fossil fuel.
So saying something like 100 times more manmade C02 over what volcanoes do is just pure stable floor sweepings.
6.0 Conclusion: *Three Million Volcanoes "Can't be Wrong"
*


> The second most erupted gas on the planet next to steam has a significant magmatic source in which it is preferentially fractionated towards the surface.* On the scale of atmospheric composition, the isotopic composition of volcanogenic CO2 is effectively indistinguishable from fossil fuel CO2 due to the complete lack of statistically significant carbon isotope determinations for each of the contributing volcanic and tectonic provinces*. Moreover, molar oxidation estimates cannot be used to constrain volcanogenic CO2 output because such estimates neglect the fact that carbon is not the only abundant element on the planet that preferentially combines with oxygen. It is only through emission monitoring taken in statistically significant empirical samples for each volcanic province that we may calculate a scientific estimate of total worldwide volcanic CO2 emission and perhaps, with statistically significant carbon isotope data for each volcanic province, we may one day be able to distinguish volcanic and industrial CO2 contributions in the atmosphere.
> 
> Eruptions and volcanic geochemistry are highly variable and so too are volcanic emissions. The lack of any sizeable volcanic eruptions (on the scale of Krakatoa, Tambora, Laki, Huaynaputina, Kuwae, Eldja, etc.) in the 20th Century confirms the volcanic quiescence of this time. Perhaps the reduction of frequency and amount of SO2 ejected into the stratosphere may explain the slight upward trend of atmospheric temperature last century. Perhaps the simplest explanation for the last century's volcanic quiescence is a greater and more consistent release of volcanic gases in passive emissions whose sub-surface accumulation would have otherwise resulted in the buildup of pressure in magma chambers, and consequently much more violent eruptions.


 http://carbon-budget.geologist-1011.net


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Arabinan Knight, we've been over this a dozen times, you are still wrong. I guess I can post the facts again...
The amount of CO2 released by volcanoes is admittedly estimated... and even the VERY HIGHEST estimations are a hundred times LESS than the estimations for human industrial emissions, which are far easier to quantify. 



> The solid Earth contains a huge quantity of carbon, far more than scientists estimate is present in the atmosphere or oceans. As an important part of the global carbon cycle, some of this carbon is slowly released from the rocks in the form of carbon dioxide, through vents at *volcanoes and hot springs. Published reviews of the scientific literature by **MÃ¶rner and Etiope (2002) and Kerrick (2001)** report a minimum-maximum range of emission of 65 to 319 million tonnes of CO2** per year.* Counter claims that volcanoes, especially submarine volcanoes, produce vastly greater amounts of CO2 than these estimates are not supported by any papers published by the scientists who study the subject.
> *The burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use results in the emission into the atmosphere of approximately 30 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide per year worldwide, according to the EIA. The fossil fuels emissions numbers are about 100 times bigger than even the maximum estimated volcanic CO2 fluxes.*


 http://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm
http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/archive/2007/07_02_15.html


----------



## Guest (Nov 27, 2014)

arabian knight said:


> You can't just say things like that without Scientific data to back it up, and here is one that says you CAN'T tell the difference between what Volcanoes put out and what man has been doing with fossil fuels they are indistinguishable from fossil fuel.
> So saying something like 100 times more manmade C02 over what volcanoes do is just pure stable floor sweepings.
> 6.0 Conclusion: *Three Million Volcanoes "Can't be Wrong"
> *
> ...


Ever try to eat jello with chopsticks ?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Facts form some governmental agency is like No Facts At All.~!


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

arabian knight said:


> Facts form some governmental agency is like No Facts At All.~!


That is the point of this debate.. 

Climate change proponents have an agenda. My belief that agenda is to slow US (and other more developed nations') growth to let other less developed nations catch up to a more measurable level of industrialization. They are trying to level the worldwide playing field. Who ever they are...

Some believe in CG because they hate what humans have done to the Earth.

Some are skeptical regarding CG because they do not think it can be man-managed.

Choose your side...


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

HDRider said:


> Climate change proponents have an agenda.


 
Then again some of us just want to look at the facts as presented by basic science and chemistry, and realize that if you increase the amount of heat-trapping molecules in the air, the global temperature is likely to increase. Where is the 'agenda' in that? I have never supported the carbon-credit scammers, nor the doomsayers, nor those that want to tax industry out of existance... but nor do I support the people who think they can pollute endlessly with no consequences.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

greg273 said:


> Then again some of us just want to look at the facts as presented by basic science and chemistry, and realize that if you increase the amount of heat-trapping molecules in the air, the global temperature is likely to increase. Where is the 'agenda' in that? I have never supported the carbon-credit scammers, nor the doomsayers, nor those that want to tax industry out of existence... but nor do I support the people who think they can pollute endlessly with no consequences.


There are many constituencies I did not list. I tried to list the two poles.

Some do believe like you, right or wrong, some do indeed believe what they are told.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

HDRider said:


> There are many constituencies I did not list. I tried to list the two poles.
> 
> Some do believe like you, right or wrong, some do indeed believe what they are told.


 There is also a large contingent of people who immediately equate 'global warming' with 'AlGore and the liberals', and with no scientific background whatsoever, will disregard anything associated with the subject.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

If only I did not have a good high school science classes which were the New York state regents honors studies in the seventies. It was not a rouge teaching dept or one school district but a state wide program. Got a 100 on the state admin final. Climate chage*s were covered. It is a repeating issue. It happened be for man and since man.*


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

HDRider said:


> That is the point of this debate..
> 
> Climate change proponents have an agenda. My belief that agenda is to slow US (and other more developed nations') growth to let other less developed nations catch up to a more measurable level of industrialization. They are trying to level the worldwide playing field. Who ever they are...
> 
> ...


The world is already hounding China to clean up their CO2 and other pollution, they too are considering more natural gas, for economic as well as environmental reasons.

If our power industires change from coal to NG, other than the hit to coal producers, what's the downside to the rest of our economy?

To some extent, maybe you are right.



> Javadekar said that poorer countries shouldnât be expected to eschew cheap fossil fuels and limit their industrial growth. He echoed a common sentiment among developing economies that industrialized nations -- namely the *U.S. and those in Europe -- are morally obligated to make the largest emissions cuts, since they spent the past century burning fossil fuels and growing their economies,* the Times noted.


http://www.ibtimes.com/indias-envir...eenhouse-gas-emissions-despite-rising-1694867


----------



## Crisste (Nov 17, 2014)

Every time I come across someone who doesn't believe that man is responsible for global warming, I have inquire about how often they go to church. 

Science and religion are mutually exclusive at their foundations and its usually the church folks who lack any serious understanding of science.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Global Warming to many has now Become a religion. The followers are just going over and over the same thing that was said so many years ago but that time it was a Ice Age coming. Now it is this scam called global warming which they changed the title to just Climate Change to make it more PC. They did that to see how many now would be the new followers, but the same old hashed out make up charts faked data into computers to make charts look as sinister and gloom and doom as they can get it.
Even Al Gore had to finally admit the so called hockey Stick chart was Made Up. So much for their god. 
And now what will they do when we now are going into 30 years of COOLING. Yes that is correct. So much for their Johnny Come Lately prognostications.
Oh now they will blame GW that is now going to cause a cooling period. LOL
The earth and so many other factors weigh in as to how climate acts that man is just a small pimple on a huge blue ball traveling through space and is the 3rd Rock From The Sun of which really is the culprit and weather maker on this earth for the last 4.5 billion years and the earths cyclical movements throughout time and it wobbles as it does this moving around the Sun.


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

Crisste said:


> Every time I come across someone who doesn't believe that man is responsible for global warming, I have inquire about how often they go to church.
> 
> Science and religion are mutually exclusive at their foundations and its usually the church folks who lack any serious understanding of science.


?????


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

Crisste said:


> Every time I come across someone who doesn't believe that man is responsible for global warming, I have inquire about how often they go to church.
> 
> Science and religion are mutually exclusive at their foundations and its usually the church folks who lack any serious understanding of science.


I guess folks like Isaac newton and Einstein had no understanding of science. Considering they were both Christians. Go figure!


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Crisste said:


> Every time I come across someone who doesn't believe that man is responsible for global warming, I have inquire about how often they go to church.
> 
> Science and religion are mutually exclusive at their foundations and its usually the church folks who lack any serious understanding of science.


Ignorance abounds in all circles, like your post as an example.


----------



## unregistered358967 (Jul 17, 2013)

Crisste said:


> Every time I come across someone who doesn't believe that man is responsible for global warming, I have inquire about how often they go to church.
> 
> Science and religion are mutually exclusive at their foundations and its usually the church folks who lack any serious understanding of science.


Guess I'm an exception - we go to church almost every week and I freeze my butt off walking in and pray for warmer weather.  I know what you're getting at and yep, I've seen it..but not all of us who are religious are unschooled.


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

2dogs-mom said:


> Guess I'm an exception - we go to church almost every week and I freeze my butt off walking in and pray for warmer weather.  I know what you're getting at and yep, I've seen it..but not all of us who are religious are unschooled.


You walk and pray too? I do as well. And hunt and pray, and .... But we obviously know not what science is, cuz we are christian....

:buds:


----------



## Crisste (Nov 17, 2014)

HDRider said:


> EDITED DUE TO INSULT


I see you're an ad hominem practitioner ?? I guess that is to be expected from some of those circles you mentioned.

Not sure where I heard this, but its worth repeating. 

When you squeeze an orange, you get orange juice. Most people would find it strange if apple juice came out.

So why is it when you squeeze a christian, what comes out is anything but God??

When one looks at the Republicans, the religious arm of our political system more or less, you see a plethora of anti-climate positions. A systematic lack of belief in the statistics, the science, and the evidence.

And yet, a profound belief in mythology for which there has never been any evidence. 

Religion and science are like oil and water. They always have been.


----------



## DAVID In Wisconsin (Dec 3, 2002)

Crisste said:


> Every time I come across someone who doesn't believe that man is responsible for global warming, I have inquire about how often they go to church.
> 
> Science and religion are mutually exclusive at their foundations and its usually the church folks who lack any serious understanding of science.


Wow! Are you for real?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Crisste said:


> EDITED DUE TO INSULT.


Wow!! How self unaware can someone be?


----------



## unregistered358967 (Jul 17, 2013)

DAVID In Wisconsin said:


> Wow! Are you for real?


I have my suspicions, let's just say that.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Crisste said:


> Every time I come across someone who doesn't believe that man is responsible for global warming, I have inquire about how often they go to church.
> 
> Science and religion are mutually exclusive at their foundations and its usually the church folks who lack any serious understanding of science.





Crisste said:


> I see you're an ad hominem practitioner ?? I guess that is to be expected from some of those circles you mentioned.
> 
> Not sure where I heard this, but its worth repeating.
> 
> ...


I don't agree with this from the view point of looking at the big picture. First of all, global climate change is not just about America, it's global, it's about the whole world and while most people in the world now recognize climate change is happening (no matter what the reason is) there are still many who are deniers. Their religious/scientific/political view points are irrelevant because many of them have no religious or scientific or political view points and a person doesn't have to know anything about those things to be able to recognize that climate change is happening or to deliberately turn a blind eye to it. Religions exist in all countries but it is not as much of a priority in most other countries as it is in America anyway, America is kind of fixated on it and has a global reputation for being obsessed with religions.

There is a reason why many people all over the world are still in denial about climate change but it's not because of religion or science. It's because of greed and money and the fear of losing or sacrificing money and luxury consumer products, and in _some_ places it's also about politics.

I'm personally anti-religions (any religions) but I don't think you should be using climate change denialism as an excuse to attack any religion, I don't care if it's christianity or any other religion. I think that's pretty lame and unrealistic.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Crisste said:


> I see you're an ad hominem practitioner ?? I guess that is to be expected from some of those circles you mentioned.
> 
> Not sure where I heard this, but its worth repeating.
> 
> ...


Yet some of us have looked at actual data by many sources including the federal government and universities and that data reveals huge discrepancies in what we're being told. I previously posted how, according to the data, America is not only carbon neutral, but a sink for other countries as well. That data and the fact that the un say there IS global warming, I mean global climate change, indicates an agenda is being foisted upon sheeples and unfortunately, those folks don't think much for themselves.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Paumon said:


> I don't agree with this from the view point of looking at the big picture. First of all, global climate change is not just about America, it's global, it's about the whole world and while most people in the world now recognize climate change is happening (no matter what the reason is) there are still many who are deniers. Their religious/scientific/political view points are irrelevant because many of them have no religious or scientific or political view points and a person doesn't have to know anything about those things to be able to recognize that climate change is happening or to deliberately turn a blind eye to it. Religions exist in all countries but it is not as much of a priority in most other countries as it is in America anyway, America is kind of fixated on it and has a global reputation for being obsessed with religions.
> 
> There is a reason why many people all over the world are still in denial about climate change but it's not because of religion or science. It's because of greed and money and the fear of losing or sacrificing money and luxury consumer products, and in _some_ places it's also about politics.
> 
> I'm personally anti-religions (any religions) but I don't think you should be using climate change denialism as an excuse to attack any religion, I don't care if it's christianity or any other religion. I think that's pretty lame and unrealistic.


I can't believe as much as you and I have gone back and forth on this you still don't get it.

*The argument is that climate change cannot be managed by man.*

_I'm personally anti-anti-religions (any religions) but I don't think you should be using climate change managed by man as an excuse to attack any religion, I don't care if it's Christianity or any other religion. _


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

HDRider said:


> Saving the equivalent of some 130 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide _so cheaply_ would be a big win. But it is still only a tenth of what would need to be done to ensure that the temperature in 2100 is _no more than 2Â°C higher than it was at the time of the Industrial Revolution_&#8212;the limit that the countries of the world have committed themselves to.
> 
> http://www.economist.com/news/brief...ve-done-most-slow-global-warming-deepest-cuts


Repeat - *But it is still only a tenth of what would need to be done to ensure that the temperature in 2100 is no more than 2Â°C higher than it was at the time of the Industrial Revolution*

And I love how the Chinese claim carbon credit for their one child policy. Sure,,, that is why they do that... Sure...


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

HDRider said:


> I can't believe as much as you and I have gone back and forth on this you still don't get it.
> 
> *The argument is that climate change cannot be managed by man.*
> 
> _...... <snip> ...... _


 
:facepalm: 

I can't believe as much as you and I have gone back and forth on this that you still don't get it that _that_ is your argument, not mine.

I think that particular argument is silly. LOL.

But what the hey, we're all entitled to our own opinions, right?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Paumon said:


> :facepalm:
> 
> I can't believe as much as you and I have gone back and forth on this that you still don't get it that _that_ is your argument, not mine.
> 
> ...


So you do agree that CG cannot be managed by man.. Right?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

But even if we were to convince everyone to stop cutting down trees, start re-foresting the planet, switch to environmentally friendly fuels and energy production methods, and generally try to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the Earth's temperature *could* continue to climb. It could take as long as 1,000 years after a complete halt of greenhouse gas emissions for environmental measures like sea level and ocean surface temperature to return to pre-industrial levels [source: NOAA]. In addition, other factors besides greenhouse gas emissions can contribute to global warming.

While some regions on Earth are experiencing a cooling trend, the overall average temperature has increased about 0.74 degrees Celsius since the 1800s [source: National Climatic Data Center]. 

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/reverse-global-warming.htm


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

HDRider said:


> So you do agree that CG cannot be managed by man.. Right?


No. I do not agree with that.

One more time:

Climate change today is being contributed to and hastened un-naturally by man's presence and everything that man does on earth. 

If all of mankind was to suddenly disappear today the climate change would slow down and proceed at a more leisurely, natural pace.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

I know, lets just make sure no CO2 of any kind from anywhere is getting into the atmosphere.
Ya thats the ticket and turn earth Once Again Into a Huge Big Ice Ball floating in space.
It has been through a few of them before Ice-ball Earth, yes keep all C02 from happening. Sounds like a plan to me.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

To Paumon's credit, I finally get it.

The argument is not whether climate change is happening. Most people agree with that.

That said, there is a contingent of folks (let's call them de-nihilist or nihilist for short) that throw the denier label up and get up in you face when one debates man's ability to manage CG.

The Nihilist don't try to win the argument, because there really is no argument. They try to change the argument.

Got it? I got it..


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Paumon said:


> No. I do not agree with that.
> 
> One more time:
> 
> ...


I got all excited for nothing.. Please show some evidence that man can manage CG.. 

Or are you suggesting that all humans commit suicide (please, you go first) and let the Earth spin without us? That IS what I suspected all along.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

What does CG stand for?

It stopped raining today and now the sun is shining so I'm going go out for a walk in the remaining hour of sunshine, indulge in a spliff and take some pictures of the glorious sunset.

While I'm soaking up what nature has to offer to please my spirit I'll debate with myself whether or not I want to discuss climate change any further.

Frankly I'm beginning to feel like it's a pointless discussion since it seems like too many people are incapable of discussing it without sneering and expressing contempt and sarcasm. That's not what I call a discussion, it's just people venting discontent at each other and I don't think that's constructive.

I might come back to the topic, I might not. I'll think about it.


----------



## Crisste (Nov 17, 2014)

HDRider said:


> Please show some evidence that man can manage CG..


The word "manage" is a tricky term because it can mean a lot of different things. 

We would be better off changing that word to "affect" because that is basically what we are doing. 

Could man prevent natural climate change? I think we could if that was our only goal but that's an unrealistic view. Yes, its technically feasible but that doesn't mean we are capable of doing it. 

Can man prevent the climate change (the warming) that we have caused? Again, technically feasible but that doesn't mean we are capable of doing it. 

Preventing climate change will require life style changes for every human on earth. Emissions restrictions, population controls, food production, etc etc.

Its never going to happen. As a species, we are not cooperative enough with each other to solve such chronic problems as those which require sacrifice without profit.

But that's not to say that global warming won't be solved as I think the problem is going to start to fix itself within a few decades Eventually, we're going to have a perfect storm of weather conditions that will bring 130 degree summers to the food belt(s) of the world. When that happens, there will be wide spread crop failures and people will starve. Forrest fires will pump even more CO2 into the air and accelerated permafrost melt will contribute with CH4 (methane) which is 20x (unit for unit) more damaging than CO2. 

Eventually, the climate will destroy much of our ability to support ourselves and the ecosystem will self-correct.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Paumon said:


> What does CG stand for?
> 
> It stopped raining today and now the sun is shining so I'm going go out for a walk in the remaining hour of sunshine, indulge in a spliff and take some pictures of the glorious sunset.
> 
> ...


Climate Change. Should have been CC.

You are the one who poked your nose into this thread. I could not care less if you come back or not.


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

Crisste said:


> Religion and science are like oil and water. They always have been.


Nope.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Crisste said:


> The word "manage" is a tricky term because it can mean a lot of different things.
> 
> We would be better off changing that word to "affect" because that is basically what we are doing.
> 
> ...


I agree with everything you've said above.

I think we could have prevented the climate chaos that we're headed into now if people had been cognizant a hundred years ago of what the consequences of industrialization and over-population would be. But what's done is done and now it's too late to put the genie back in the bottle. 

I think it's still possible to put the brakes on to slow down and lessen the coming chaos but I don't foresee that happening either. Because as you've mentioned the crux of the matter is that not enough people are cooperative enough to make the lifestyle changes which require sacrifice of profit. I'll add to that, not enough are willing to sacrifice the luxury conveniences that so many of our westernized sybaritic societies have become accustomed to and feel they are entitled to and that less privileged societies are still aspiring to achieve.



> But that's not to say that global warming won't be solved as I think the problem is going to start to fix itself within a few decades. Eventually, we're going to have a perfect storm of weather conditions that will bring 130 degree summers to the food belt(s) of the world.


I think it's already started to fix itself and we have less than a decade ahead of us before we see those 130 degree summers in global food belts plus a continuation of the wild deep freeze winters which have only just started a couple of years ago.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

arabian knight said:


> Facts form some governmental agency is like No Facts At All.~!


So, now NASA is all a bunch of liars also. 

What make the "facts" from the opposition more accurate?

Just curious.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

plowjockey said:


> So, now NASA is all a bunch of liars also.
> 
> What make the "facts" from the opposition more accurate?
> 
> Just curious.


You don't bite the hand that feeds or funds you. You go along with the scheme.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Nasa is different since Obama took over and now has the logical duty of 


Improving the self esteem of Muslims.


I am not making that up at all.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Vahomesteaders said:


> You don't bite the hand that feeds or funds you. You go along with the scheme.


 I'l keep that in mind next time some petroleum company geologist or paid spokesman for the oil industry tells us theres no such thing as climate change and CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas. 
Actually I'd rather listen to the eggheads at NASA and NOAA rather than some paid shill for the fossil fuel industry.


----------



## Glade Runner (Aug 1, 2013)

greg273 said:


> I'l keep that in mind next time some petroleum company geologist or paid spokesman for the oil industry tells us theres no such thing as climate change and CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas.
> Actually I'd rather listen to the eggheads at NASA and NOAA rather than some paid shill for the fossil fuel industry.


Of course you'd rather. They've been turned into a propaganda arm by the Outlaw in Chief so the uninformed are easier to control.


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

greg273 said:


> I'l keep that in mind next time some petroleum company geologist or paid spokesman for the oil industry tells us theres no such thing as climate change and CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas.
> Actually I'd rather listen to the eggheads at NASA and NOAA rather than some paid shill for the fossil fuel industry.


So you honestly think, that if a person thinks and knows that global warming is a huge farce, a hoax of epic proportions, they are automatically a paid oil schill? 

What if you live in the north, like I do, and recognize that "global warming", (which is supposed to affect the north first and most vigorously), just isn't happening. I mean not even a bit.

It is easy for a soul from, oh let's just say balmy southern Illinois, to make assumptions about what is happening in the north from the ridiculous media reporting.

A suggestion for you if I may? Look at the daily weather of places like Churchill Manitoba, Inuvik, Northwest Territory, Uranium city, Saskatchewan, or Yakutsk Russia. Do this DAILY for three or four years like I have done, and you will soon realize that global warming, especially that which is supposed to affect the north the most, the fastest, and the worst, is simply not happening.

As a matter of fact, from the data I suggest, one could very easily think the north is cooling.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Yes and we just had the 3rd coldest Thanksgiving on Record. On Record~
Now someone will come back and say well here in CA it is HOT.
SO?
The temperature Averages OUT Over the rest of the earth and when you Average the temperatures together it is not getting warmer.
Just like rain fall. Sure some places are not getting enough but other places are getting too much.
It averages out to be the same rainfall as the earth has ever had. But those that worship GW just use thew datas coming out from the paces that are not getting enough rain NOW, and leave out the data from the rest of the world.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Vahomesteaders said:


> You don't bite the hand that feeds or funds you. You go along with the scheme.


So, then, NASA are now a bunch of liars, also?

The list of groups, that Conservatives _do_ trust, keeps getting shorter and shorter. Wonder when it will reach _zero_.


It is a "scheme" indeed. 

*[FONT=&quot]Joint Statement Following the Soviet-United States [/FONT]**[FONT=&quot]Summit[/FONT]**[FONT=&quot] Meeting in [/FONT]**[FONT=&quot]Moscow[/FONT]*

*[FONT=&quot]June 1, 1988[/FONT]*




> The two leaders expressed their satisfaction with activities since the Washington summit in expanding cooperation with respect to global climate and environmental change, including in areas of mutual concern relating to environmental protection, such as protection and conservation of stratospheric ozone and a possible global warming trend. They emphasized their desire to make more active use of the unique opportunities afforded by the space programs of the two countries to conduct global monitoring of the environment and the ecology of the Earth's land, oceans and atmosphere. They underscored the need to continue to promote both bilateral and multilateral cooperation in this important area in the future.


http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1988/060188b.htm


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

The ice is melting, the polar bears are gunna go extinct:

http://weather.gc.ca/city/pages/mb-42_metric_e.html


----------



## fireweed farm (Dec 31, 2010)

farmerDale said:


> So you honestly think, that if a person thinks and knows that global warming is a huge farce, a hoax of epic proportions, they are automatically a paid oil schill?
> 
> What if you live in the north, like I do, and recognize that "global warming", (which is supposed to affect the north first and most vigorously), just isn't happening. I mean not even a bit.
> 
> ...


A few q's, FD.
Where do you source your information, to have such an opinion?
What do you think about environment canada, or the cbc?
In your opinion, how do you explain the summer ice loss in the arctic?
How do you explain the larger than previously recorded sea ice in Antarctica?
And where does your irrigation water come from?


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

fireweed farm said:


> A few q's, FD.
> Where do you source your information, to have such an opinion?
> What do you think about environment canada, or the cbc?
> In your opinion, how do you explain the summer ice loss in the arctic?
> ...


I run a government climate station for one thing. It is several yards outside my front door. It has been in operation since the late 40's, so I have the numbers that say it is definitely not warming. It is getting wetter, and much cooler than historically. The growing season has stayed about the same length, but spring has been getting later, so has fall. Because I farm, and every single day I am relying on weather and climate, I pay close attention to what is going on, and if changes are occurring. Our area used to seed in late April to early May. For a decade though, it has been a week or two later. Falls, have very thankfully followed suit, otherwise we would be right in trouble, as our growing season is so short. We used to get MANY days in summer above 30 C, but the last decade or more, we have hardly ever seen those temps. Winters have been cold and long, as usual.

I have a HUGE interest in climate because of the above, and so I literally look at the temperatures of MANY, like a dozen or more places daily from my bookmarks bar. When I see the media running a "record warm" story, or when they speak about the ice melting in the summer, because I have been watching the weather over the course of the year, I know for a fact it is false, because 5 to 10 degrees below average temperature, for weeks at a time, does not melt ice. Lately, it has been up to 15 degrees BELOW normal around here and across the north, but you don't hear about it, do you? If it was 15 degrees ABOVE normal, anywhere on the planet, the warmists would be in panic mode. Environment Canada? Depends what specifically you are talking about I guess.

The CBC? A huge waste of our money. A billion dollars of left wing propaganda, funded by we the taxpayers is what it is.

Summer ice loss in the arctic has been happening since there was ice in the arctic. But the thing no one talks about is that the ice extent has been INCREASING in the arctic. But no one is saying it, because the polar bears need to be in trouble to make it a story worthy of the news, so they avoid the truth. This past summer, they were exhorting about the "puddle" that appeared at the north pole, as a sign of impending doom. Guess what? It happens almost every year. And guess what else? The temperature soon after that story plummeted, and highs were back below zero for the rest of the summer.

As far as antarctic ice increasing, same thing. Both poles increase and decrease in ice through the centuries. It is not that big an issue, IMO.

And finally, irrigation water? We don't irrigate, nor do most farmers in Western Canada. So I don't know what to tell you on irrigation water. I do not know what the question means really. In the tiny irrigation areas, where it is dry enough to irrigate, they use water from the South Saskatchewan river. Which has been having record high flows, because of plentiful rain the past several years. When Henry Kelsey visited in 1690-92, the river flow was very low. I wonder if that was caused by the bison, or the indians???


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Skandi said:


> I am however all for limiting ALL emissions, polution is a bad idea golbal warming or no.


OK everyone, no farting!


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Beano for everyone, including the cows. LOL


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Glade Runner said:


> Of course you'd rather. They've been turned into a propaganda arm by the Outlaw in Chief so the uninformed are easier to control.


 Awareness of CO2 as a greenhouse gas predates 'The Evil One' Obama by about seventy-five years.


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

farmerDale said:


> I run a government climate station for one thing. It is several yards outside my front door. It has been in operation since the late 40's, ......


FarmerDale, would you mind telling what latitude you are located? You often refer to your location as being in the north (which, in Canada, I always think of north as being anything north of the 60th latitude) and that it's wet where you are so I'm guessing you must be north of the 55th latitude into the boreal forest and lakes area, not in the southern part of Canada south of the 55th?


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Vahomesteaders said:


> I guess folks like Isaac newton and Einstein had no understanding of science. Considering they were both Christians. Go figure!


Einstein was Jewish and he believed as Spinoza did that there was no personal God.


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

Fennick said:


> FarmerDale, would you mind telling what latitude you are located? You often refer to your location as being in the north (which, in Canada, I always think of north as being anything north of the 60th latitude) and that it's wet where you are so I'm guessing you must be north of the 55th latitude into the boreal forest and lakes area, not in the southern part of Canada south of the 55th?


North is relative in Canada, because of the way the forest runs. I think also of north as being north of the 60th, but for our mostly american friends, even Minnesota is "up north". 

I am at around 53 lattitude, near the edge of the boreal. After 20 miles north of me, there are two highways you would cross if you went straight north until the arctic ocean. In that sense, wilderness is right here. To a Yukoner, I would be a southerner... 

In Ontario, there is much "northland" south of the 49th...


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

plowjockey said:


> So, then, NASA are now a bunch of liars, also?
> 
> The list of groups, that Conservatives _do_ trust, keeps getting shorter and shorter. Wonder when it will reach _zero_.
> 
> ...


Well they have been launching rockets since the 60s and still can't figure out how to keep them from blowing up. So not sure they know as much as you think.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Vahomesteaders said:


> Well they have been launching rockets since the 60s and still can't figure out how to keep them from blowing up. So not sure they know as much as you think.


Arrghhhh! I had a payload on the rocket that went boom on Wallops Island last month. That was a private launch, can't blame NASA for that one.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Vahomesteaders said:


> Well they have been launching rockets since the 60s and still can't figure out how to keep them from blowing up. So not sure they know as much as you think.


You missed the point completely.

The _globa_l issue of "climate change" has been around since at least Reagan.

The Right seems to be confused that this is just another modern day Obama plot, to rule the world. 

Sometime i wonder if the Right does not oppose issues, just for the sake of opposing them.

CFC's, in the 1980's is a perfect example. Scientists stated that they were eating up the ozone layer. Of course, to Conservatives, it was all just Liberal poppycock, lies just to further some "agenda". American business would never survive, adhering to this "junk science".

Was a hole in the ozone layer and the possible threats real? How am I supposed to know? I'm not a scientist.

Well, CFC's were banned anyway, Businesses survived, flourished and scientists report recently that the ozone layer is back to was it was in the 1950's. Ok, maybe it really is, maybe it was never a problem at all.

Did it even matter? I don't know, I'm not a scientist. I do know that I am not burned up from the Sun's radiation, but maybe it was never a problem, in the first place.

We are not scientists, but we are happy to rely solely on what someone else tells us - for or against.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

farmerDale said:


> As a matter of fact, from the data I suggest, one could very easily think the north is cooling.


 The 'data you suggest' is a few point measurements, and you are relying heavily on ONE station, ie, yours. Not saying you are a liar by any means, I trust you are reporting what you've seen accurately. However, 'global warming' does not mean hotter everywhere, all the time, all at once. Despite your very limited 'data', the global data taken and compiled by NASA shows an slight rise in temps over the past 40 years.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/g...014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=1200&pol=rob


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

greg273 said:


> The 'data you suggest' is a few point measurements, and you are relying heavily on ONE station, ie, yours. Not saying you are a liar by any means, I trust you are reporting what you've seen accurately. However, 'global warming' does not mean hotter everywhere, all the time, all at once. Despite your very limited 'data', the global data taken and compiled by NASA shows an slight rise in temps over the past 40 years.
> 
> http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/g...014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=1200&pol=rob


Of course global warming does not mean hotter everywhere, because it is not called "GLOBAL warming" any more, so that no matter what happens, "climate change" can be called upon to come to the rescue.

My point is, in the north, the warming and the melting and the dire consequences of humans emitting Co2, is supposed to be most pronounced. It is not pronounced at all. The media keeps reporting this crap about melting ice, about the dire polar bear situation, yet in reality, there are natural cycles. The northwest passage has been more open hundreds of years ago than it is now. There was less ice in the 10th century. Where did the polar bears live when there was an ice free arctic ocean? 

Every single day, we get dire news items about the need to fix the problem, while we literally sit here freezing our butts off. Yet again. Imagine if our area of Canada, ( an enormous area at the moment), was currently 15 degrees ABOVE normal, instead of the 15 BELOW we are at right now.

The warmists would be jumping up and down in glee. But they are silent, because 15 degrees BELOW normal, does not fit their mold, and they can not explain it. I am talking about a huge area, not a few points in a few square miles. Our high tomorrow, is in fact 20 degrees C BELOW our normal high. Can you imagine if it was 20 degrees ABOVE normal? We would hear no end of the proof of the signs of warming.

Or maybe you are like so many others? That is is bloody cold right now, IS a sign of warming. Because that makes so much sense...


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

You're talking about weather, not climate. The overall trend is up. I never claimed it was 'dire', personally i'd rather see global warming than global cooling.
And yes, there are natural cycles, that has never stopped. But now, in addition to those 'natural cycles', there is the increase in greenhouse gasses caused by putting into the atmosphere several million years worth of buried sunlight in a few generations time. Its a grand experiement being lived out in real time. You can disagree with the politics attached to it, but basic chemistry and physics don't change because you don't like AlGore.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Without weather there would be no climate. If I am wrong explain.

Climate change did not exist in the 80,90, it is a fairly new label to replace gobble warming...Heck go back a few years and it was the term used recently got here about 4 years ago.


The c.f. bulbs were energy saving and cost saving.

Nature recycles matter carbon cycle is needed. Man did not create earth as this controlling it is out of the question

I keep wondering what if the GW OR CC folks had been around during the ice age. Imagine the claims the would have made..... EARTH WILL SELF COMBUST IN THE YEAR 1791


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

plowjockey said:


> You missed the point completely.
> 
> The _globa_l issue of "climate change" has been around since at least Reagan.
> 
> ...


Those "horrible" cfc's were also used in no - contaminate fire fighting....Halon is one name! Eliminating it caused a world of hurt in the electronics industry until an exception was made. Scientists were wrong about the ozone hole, most are still clueless.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

JeffreyD said:


> Those "horrible" cfc's were also used in no - contaminate fire fighting....Halon is one name! Eliminating it caused a world of hurt in the electronics industry until an exception was made. Scientists were wrong about the ozone hole, most are still clueless.


Since halon is gone, Is there a huge increase in fires, at data centers the media is not making us aware of? 

The electronics industry, seems to be doing just fine, after making the necessary changes. No?

http://www2.dupont.com/FE/en_US/products/fe13.html


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

kasilofhome said:


> Without weather there would be no climate. If I am wrong explain.
> 
> Climate change did not exist in the 80,90, it is a fairly new label to replace gobble warming...Heck go back a few years and it was the term used recently got here about 4 years ago.
> 
> ...


 And then there is We are going to have More Hurricanes stronger ones etc. etc. etc.
Well that was once again another huge Mistake by the GW folks.

It has been a record-breaking NINE YEARS since a Category 3 hurricane (or stronger) made landfall along U.S. coastlines.
And so this years season comes to a close today. LOL


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

arabian knight said:


> And then there is We are going to have More Hurricanes stronger ones etc. etc. etc.
> Well that was once again another huge Mistake by the GW folks.
> 
> It has been a record-breaking NINE YEARS since a Category 3 hurricane (or stronger) made landfall along U.S. coastlines.
> And so this years season comes to a close today. LOL


and having been proved wrong, the alarmist crowd, even within this thread, continue to make dire predictions based on models and theories that don't work.


----------



## Glade Runner (Aug 1, 2013)

greg273 said:


> Awareness of CO2 as a greenhouse gas predates 'The Evil One' Obama by about seventy-five years.


Which of course has absolutely zero to do with my comment but is of course typical left misdirection.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Glade Runner said:


> Which of course has absolutely zero to do with my comment but is of course typical left misdirection.





> propaganda arm by the Outlaw in Chief


NASA and NOAA have been gathering data and warning about the threat since before Reagan.

The coal and petroleum industries, etc. have _plenty_ to gain, by denying the existence of global warming.

What does NASA, NOAA and for that matter, Obama, have to _gain_, by acknowledging that is exists as a climate threat?


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

plowjockey said:


> NASA and NOAA have been gathering data and warning about the threat since before Reagan.
> 
> The coal and petroleum industries, etc. have _plenty_ to gain, by denying the existence of global warming.
> 
> What does NASA, NOAA and for that matter, Obama, have to _gain_, by acknowledging that is exists as a climate threat?




Well, so glad you asked I will be short and to the point.

Money and power

Money....look at how money ....the result of taxpayers work has gone to supporters of Obama.

Power......equals control as in regulations what cha is another fleecing of worker and wealthiest in that regulations often have fees ...permits, and studies increasing costs ...slowing growth out of the recession/depression for the nation while shifting more of the result of work....Money into certain persons and agencies.

This governmental pick of which business benefit is not capitalist economy but rather a socialist economy that erodes a republic society as it ends up with a empowered single group holding the money of the worker.

It undermines freedom.

Now, who was screaming when the ice ages came and went before..explain how it is that there is the overlooked reality that ice ages have come and gone before.

Did caveman use spray deodorant, or did herds of mastadon simple fart too much. Why is it that this is a crisis......Money & power and as Gruber says stupid people will buy the scam.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

plowjockey said:


> NASA and NOAA have been gathering data and warning about the threat since before Reagan.
> 
> The coal and petroleum industries, etc. have _plenty_ to gain, by denying the existence of global warming.
> 
> What does NASA, NOAA and for that matter, Obama, have to _gain_, by acknowledging that is exists as a climate threat?


More power and control over the people! That's what all this climate nonsense is truly about.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

kasilofhome said:


> Did caveman use spray deodorant, or did headshot marathons simple fart too much. Why is it that this is a crisis......Money & power and as Gruber says stupid people will buy the scam.


I sincerely hope this is not a serious statement. 

Misinformed biased people squawked endlessly (still do) about the creation of the EPA and how it's ruining our world. It was all a Liberal scam.

Of course, they are doing it, breathing relatively clean air and having a sip of clean water, in a house without lead or asbestos (mostly).

I can see it now.

Cavemen building a fire in a cave then dying, from CO poisoning(unknown to them). Some cavemen suggest maybe the fire should be outisde. Other cavemen insist that is ridiculous. Why put the fire out side, when cold cavemen are inside the cave? It's a scam to draw cavemen out of the safety of the cave, where they will be attacked.

Fortunately, the smart one's prevailed.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

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


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

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


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Yep, some cave man more than likely died by doing the same thing we people in 2014 do.....fail to use fire properly. You might be interested in knowing that Eskimos used whale oil to light inside igloo 4000 year s ago. ...they are pretty air tight.. a group of kids and a church leader builds one just about every winter for sleep outs.


----------



## Tyler520 (Aug 12, 2011)

Ice core samples (GISP, GRIP, Vostok, and NOAA GEOCARB III) once and for all disprove anthropogenic climate change - period. end of story.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Tyler520 said:


> Ice core samples (GISP, GRIP, Vostok, and NOAA GEOCARB III) once and for all disprove anthropogenic climate change - period. end of story.


 No, they don't at all. They show climate has changed before, which is not news to anyone who studies this, and has ZERO to do with the climate altering effects of fossil fuel burning.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

But at any point on Earth, wind/solar is more accurately called intermittent energy.
Yes lets get the things straight and use words that are Accurate in describing these pipe dreams so called green energy sources. It is so funny when you REALLY think about it.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

arabian knight said:


> But at any point on Earth, wind/solar is more accurately called intermittent energy.
> Yes lets get the things straight and use words that are Accurate in describing these pipe dreams so called green energy sources. It is so funny when you REALLY think about it.


 Not really sure what your post has to do with the topic, but yeah, it is funny watching people who have no experience with renewable energy telling those who actually use it that 'it doesn't work'.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Greg why do you NEED to control nature. As you stated climate change has happened before. Is it it truly out of your range of understanding and acceptance to see that though man using fossil fuels only quote recently that nature .....with our man's effort, under went all prior changes and those prior changes ....some so violent changes ....as to freeze a large mammal solid in a duration of time so quick that food it consumed was preserved without spoilage.

Man using oil, coal etc had nothing to do with it.

You dismiss nature, while claiming it is to preserve nature. Nature is about change.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Well it sure won't work on a huge scale that the US needs POWER is what it is about and OIL and GAS is the way for many many any years into future. we have so much Oil And GAs for 200 to 500 YEARS. And by that time other types will be in use. But Not NOW.
So many out of work now we need to get Oil Flowing Through as many PIPELINES as can be Built. And even small self contained reactors that will POWER even small cities. They are already being built. Wind is a laugh and solar is even more of a ha ha.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

*Renewables Not Renewable*


> There is an incessant chorus from the green gospelers glorifying ârenewableâ energy and warning disbelievers that continued use of carbon fuels will ---- the world to eternal fires of global warming.
> 
> Their ire is focused on carbon dioxide, one very minor but beneficial atmospheric gas accused of causing more of everything bad: pollution and extreme weather, droughts and floods, snowstorms and hurricanes, malaria and mosquitos, icebergs and glacier retreat, heat waves and blizzards, declining polar bears and multiplying cane toads.





> First, carbon dioxide produced by burning coal, oil, gas, diesel, petrol, or wood is not a pollutant in the atmosphere, not the key driver of global warming or climate change, but a boon to all plants (and thus all life). It is clean and green. There is thus no environmental or climate justification for punitive taxes on carbon dioxide, or for really silly stuff like emissions trading or carbon capture and burial.


http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/12/renewables_emnotem_renewable.html#ixzz3KqO6TMkc


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

arabian knight said:


> Well it sure won't work on a huge scale that the US needs POWER is what it is about and OIL and GAS is the way for many many any years into future. we have so much Oil And GAs for 200 to 500 YEARS. And by that time other types will be in use. But Not NOW.
> So many out of work now we need to get Oil Flowing Through as many PIPELINES as can be Built. And even small self contained reactors that will POWER even small cities. They are already being built. Wind is a laugh and solar is even more of a ha ha.


 Its pretty obvious you have no idea what you're talking about regarding wind and solar power, (they work, and they work well) but I'l bite... Should we just wait till all the oil and coal is gone, then start working on alternatives? Not a great idea. And who said anything about not using oil? You know darn well we're gonna burn it till its gone, but it would monumentally stupid to not work on alternatives NOW. 
I know its tough to stay on topic when you are completely uninformed about said topic, but please try, or start your own thread about how 'solar power doesn't work' and we can go over the reasons why you're mistaken there.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

We have hundreds of year of God given fossil fuels before it is gone. During this time none have said not to seek out solutions. It is not all or nothing deal. 

Changes mean adapting.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

kasilofhome said:


> We have hundreds of year of God given fossil fuels before it is gone. *During this time none have said not to seek out solutions. It is not all or nothing deal. *
> 
> Changes mean adapting.


LOL

This is post #111

I challenge anyone to go back and show where anyone on the Right, stated that climate change, was anything other than "nothing".

It the same old same old.

We got plenty of coal. We are not personally experiencing "global warming".

Who cares about the future?


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

Why don't you come to VA and see the failed and abandoned wind farms. They are all over the nation. Inconsistent at best. Solar can work but the cost to maintain the equipment and batteries is astronomical. Heck the batteries themselves not only cost around 1000 a piece but cost 4 times the material to make as a standard car battery. And at best you may get 4 years out of them. So with an average of 12 batteries per house at a cool 12k every 4 to 5 years people will go broke trying to keep the lights on.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Vahomesteaders said:


> Solar can work but the cost to maintain the equipment and batteries is astronomical. Heck the batteries themselves not only cost around 1000 a piece but cost 4 times the material to make as a standard car battery. And at best you may get 4 years out of them. So with an average of 12 batteries per house at a cool 12k every 4 to 5 years people will go broke trying to keep the lights on.


 I don't know where you get your info regarding solar power and batteries, but its wrong. The T-105 batts I use are closer to $150, not a thousand dollars. Properly maintained, they are good for closer to 7-8 years, not '4 years at best'. 
And what is this 'astronomical cost' to maintain equipment?? I've had my system installed since 05 and have had ZERO maintenance on the equipment, which consists of an inverter, charge controller, and a few switches. You're spreading misinformation.


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

Saw a commenter on a news site brag about having an electric car. A car they NEED TO PLUG IN TO AN OUTLET THAT GETS ITS ELECTRICITY FROM COAL!!! 

Made me chuckle.

Didn't that huge solar farm in Calif. Kill thousands of birds every month? And wind is the same. The envirowhacks want to use "clean energy" at all costs to appease their cushy feelings. Well why do they not care about the birds?


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

plowjockey said:


> LOL
> 
> This is post #111
> 
> ...



YEP,you are right....or would you rather be ...... left. 

I say that what is now .....today climate change but just a bit ago global warming and if one goes back a few more years it was the next ice age a coming........yet I and many of those labeled right have not have had the need to rename our position .....steady have we gone saying.... it is natural nature for which has been happening. I bet others will also maintain for many years into the future that gravity is what keeps humans on earth ...not floating into space AND WE HAVE NO PROBLE WITH THAT TOO.

So, you do not think that today's cc, yesteryears gw'ers prior Ice agers a coming folks sound like chicken little......with a God complex. It would really help I'd you simply were stable.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

'Global cooling' was essentially a fringe theory about pollution blocking out sunlight that happened to get hyped up by the press. Among those that studied climatology, the consensus was that this effect would be cancelled out by the increase in greenhouse gasses. 



> *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,* i.e., a larger and faster-growing body of literature projecting future warming due to greenhouse gas emissions.


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


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Greg, you I say must be younger than sixty. Or you forgot the seventies. The arrival is a reinvention of what was. Those who were not cognitive at the time can accept the fairytale revolutionary of the facts.

Raise your hand if you watched the movie at school with the racially displayed American native in full dress canoeing down a stream, paddling thru garbage as narrator told the tale that and ice age was called miming due to man's polluting the air, water, and land. It was about the whole class period. So say thirty minutes.

There was a shorter version that was chopped to be a tv ad.

Remember the weekly reader..discussion of the movie was there in the current event.

I remember this quite well. For a day I thought that I had solved the issue. With travel to the moon I thought it could be sent to the moon.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

farmerDale said:


> Didn't that huge solar farm in Calif. Kill thousands of birds every month? And wind is the same. The envirowhacks want to use "clean energy" at all costs to appease their cushy feelings. Well why do they not care about the birds?


Yes those sharp Serrated Edges must do a number on anything that flies into them.
After all 150 MPH is spinning mighty fast some even are higher at then ends of those Huge Blades. Slices them up but good~!


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

greg273 said:


> 'Global cooling' was essentially a fringe theory about pollution blocking out sunlight that happened to get hyped up by the press. Among those that studied climatology, the consensus was that this effect would be cancelled out by the increase in greenhouse gasses.


They also assumed at the time that the earth's self-regulating capabilities were unlimited. In other words, if we produced more greenhouse gases then more plants would thrive and consume those gases. Scientists now question how unlimited the earth's self-regulating capabilities might be, and whether we might have already exceeded it's capabilities.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

I firmly do not question that come the day the sun dies that earth will go with it. Of that is an application of science. Crazy hum


----------



## Tyler520 (Aug 12, 2011)

courtesy of GISP2, GRIP, Vostok and GEOCARB III:


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Thanks Tyler, although your charts have nothing to do with AGW, when CO2 is heading up higher than it has been in 800,000 years. Notice the second chart, which tracks CO2 and temp estimates over 400K years. CO2 and temp have a positive correlation, much like scientists have been saying for years.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

kasilofhome said:


> YEP,you are right....or would you rather be ...... left.
> 
> I say that what is now .....today climate change but just a bit ago global warming and if one goes back a few more years it was the next ice age a coming........yet I and many of those labeled right have not have had the need to rename our position .....steady have we gone saying.... it is natural nature for which has been happening. I bet others will also maintain for many years into the future that gravity is what keeps humans on earth ...not floating into space AND WE HAVE NO PROBLE WITH THAT TOO.
> 
> So, you do not think that today's cc, yesteryears gw'ers prior Ice agers a coming folks sound like chicken little......with a God complex. It would really help I'd you simply were stable.


the chart i had posted showed CO2 levels escalating massively in the last century, or so.

What natural about that?

Let's get real.

If CO2 was deemed to be cause global cooling, the the Right would be against that too.

They are against many areas of change, they don't understand.


----------



## Tyler520 (Aug 12, 2011)

greg273 said:


> Thanks Tyler, although your charts have nothing to do with AGW, when CO2 is heading up higher than it has been in 800,000 years. Notice the second chart, which tracks CO2 and temp estimates over 400K years. CO2 and temp have a positive correlation, much like scientists have been saying for years.


These charts provide absolutely no evidence that > CO2 = >Temp.

Correlation =/= causation, and more finite data sets show that quite well.

The resolution of data commonly utilized by modern "scientists" (mid 19th century to present) is so minute as to be smaller than a pixel on these graphs - they are far too miniscule to even matter. 

However, the more significant point of of the charts being that these climatic changes are quite arguably extremely normal and predictable at a grand resolution, and that climate conditions of the past have been overwhelmingly greater than they are now


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

And another thing there is no way to tell the difference what man might be putting in the air in CO2 vs what volcanoes puts C02 into the atmosphere . That was posted a few back.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

arabian knight said:


> And another thing there is no way to tell the difference what man might be putting in the air in CO2 vs what volcanoes puts C02 into the atmosphere . That was posted a few back.


 Yes, you did post that, and no, there is no chemical difference. However getting a good estimate for the amounts is possible... and human activity is responsible for MUCH more CO2 than volcanoes.. about a HUNDRED TIMES more using the most conservative estimates. Of course you laughed it off as 'government numbers no one can trust' even though you provided NO numbers of your own.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Tyler520 said:


> These charts provide absolutely no evidence that > CO2 = >Temp.


 They most certainly do show a positive correlation, especially in the far more accurate 400k-year timescale. Whether CO2 has historically lagged or led the increase in temps is irrelevant to our current situation, in which CO2 is on a steady increase.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Tyler520 said:


> However, the more significant point of of the charts being that these climatic changes are quite arguably extremely normal and predictable at a grand resolution, and that climate conditions of the past have been overwhelmingly greater than they are now


 Yep, climate is always in a state of change. And this time we are helping it along.


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

greg273 said:


> Yep, climate is always in a state of change. And this time we are helping it along.


I wish...


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

:buds:


plowjockey said:


> the chart i had posted showed CO2 levels escalating massively in the last century, or so.
> 
> What natural about that?
> 
> ...


You choose to look at a minute microscopic period of time and base too much on that small period of time. Really carbon is and has been for along time simply recycling. From air to captured in the rain falling to earth captured in the air in a breath to time human bodies to breath. Being absorbed by trees to become fuel to burn in the bodies of life forms or burn in a fire to save a life form from freezing or stored in the earth to shoot out of a volcano.

Now Greg you unlike the majority of people who truly study volcanos....oh I happen to live near a major volcano study facility. They consider volcano as major carbon producers often times stating that they are the major contributors.

Next man is a part of nature, as are fish and lions etc. In as much as birds fly and fish swim and lions kill to survive man to has a role as a part of nature. We humans have been give dominion by nature in the same way that nature has balanced into cycles. 

We do not know the day we will die individually but we accept we will each die.

With science sun to have a season to begin and a time to end. When it ends those molecules will simply be something else.


Man is not the creator we do not know it all there is plenty to prove when studying the solar that man is but a speck on a mite of a flea......we impact the world little.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

For Greg and Plowjockey (and anyone else who must deal with climate change deniers) - In the event you haven't already seen some of them, I thought you might find the following links interesting. I was doing some research on internet about how climate change deniers have turned into a cult with common ground and common fallacies that they all use as arguments as if they were quoting from a book of scriptures for deniers. Many of their fallacies have already been used in this topic so you will get a chuckle when you see them mentioned in the articles as being part of the denier cult's common litanies repeated over and over again. 

I was a bit surprised as I hadn't expected there to be as many hits as I got about it having turned into a cult (hundreds of thousands of entries), many articles, scientific and laymen's opinion pieces, even books that have been written recently about the climate change denier cult and its common factors. There's even a series of articles titled _"How to talk to a climate change denier"_  and there's lists of countries that show which countries have from the least to the most deniers and what their demographics are. Not surprisingly, USA tops the global list with most deniers and with the most common demographics and belief systems which I am sure you would quickly recognize. 

So, if you want to pick up on some interesting tid-bits about how to talk to deniers (if you must) and to ignore the repetitious insults and accusations that many of them use to bait people when they get desperate, check out some of these sites:


http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Global_warming_denialism

https://www.google.ca/search?q=clim...=ivns&ei=zXGBVJ69LcPqoASL3oCYAQ&start=10&sa=N

https://www.google.ca/search?q=clim...d=ivns&ei=IGyBVNajGobvoAT7yYKQAQ&start=0&sa=N


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

And yet there is no such book.......just logic, facts, and history. 
There is an agenda of control and power grab by those who push the fear of the end of the world as "we have known it".....we follow there super plan ....reduce population......now.....who do we getting rid of.....people we do not know...the unborn......those that have severed their purpose.....elderly
Condense population into communities that logically can not independently be self sustainable thus food and water and energy need to be further controlled.....caste system necessitated ....reorder accomplished out of fear ....

The most logical conclusion in reviewing the facts of nature is nature has ebbs and flows.. high pressure needs a low pressure....north needs a south pole. Weather patterns change... climate is a repeated weather pattern with similar reference points.
Climates change too. Such is the reality of life. Nothing stays the same. You do not have to fear change or wrinkles, gray hair, live and achieve. 

You can't erase history.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Paumon said:


> For Greg and Plowjockey (and anyone else who must deal with climate change deniers) - In the event you haven't already seen some of them, I thought you might find the following links interesting. I was doing some research on internet about how climate change deniers have turned into a cult with common ground and common fallacies that they all use as arguments as if they were quoting from a book of scriptures for deniers. Many of their fallacies have already been used in this topic so you will get a chuckle when you see them mentioned in the articles as being part of the denier cult's common litanies repeated over and over again.
> 
> I was a bit surprised as I hadn't expected there to be as many hits as I got about it having turned into a cult (hundreds of thousands of entries), many articles, scientific and laymen's opinion pieces, even books that have been written recently about the climate change denier cult and its common factors. There's even a series of articles titled _"How to talk to a climate change denier"_  and there's lists of countries that show which countries have from the least to the most deniers and what their demographics are. Not surprisingly, USA tops the global list with most deniers and with the most common demographics and belief systems which I am sure you would quickly recognize.
> 
> ...


There you go again... Most people are not denying that CC is happening. They are saying man cannot have a measurable effect on changing it. A fact you yourself agree, though you squirm when you admit it.

Those smug insults you throw can be hurled right back at you and those like you, that want to see the human race disappear from the Earth.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

HDRider said:


> There you go again... Most people are not denying that CC is happening. They are saying man *cannot* have a measurable effect on changing it. .


 Its not that we CANNOT change, more like we 'WILL NOT' have a measurable effect on changing it, because lets face it, we humans like our energy, we like to burn stuff, and we're going to keep burning hydrocarbon fossil fuels till either they or we are gone. 
So yes, we are going have to live with whatever changes come our way. Just don't sit back and peddle the fiction that we didn't help cause this increase in greenhouse gasses and temperature, because the vast preponderance of evidence disputes that fiction.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

greg273 said:


> Its not that we CANNOT change, more like we 'WILL NOT' have a measurable effect on changing it, because lets face it, we humans like our energy, we like to burn stuff, and we're going to keep burning hydrocarbon fossil fuels till either they or we are gone.
> So yes, we are going have to live with whatever changes come our way. Just don't sit back and peddle the fiction that we didn't help cause this increase in greenhouse gasses and temperature, because the vast preponderance of evidence disputes that fiction.


Greg,
Everything I have read, some of I posted on this thread, and many things I have posted repeatedly on HT within our tiresome debate, that says we could cut back CO2 tremendously and it would have minimal effect. I would be happy to see you post something that indicated otherwise.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

HDRider said:


> Greg,
> Everything I have read, some of I posted on this thread, and many things I have posted repeatedly on HT within our tiresome debate, that says we could cut back CO2 tremendously and it would have minimal effect. I would be happy to see you post something that indicated otherwise.


You've obviously been reading the wrong stuff.

_Scientists say that unless we curb the emissions that cause climate change, average U.S. temperatures could be 3 to 9 degrees higher by the end of the century._
http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/climatebasics.asp?gclid=CJiA3rvMr8ICFUVgfgodQwwAzQ


----------



## Tyler520 (Aug 12, 2011)

Nevada said:


> You've obviously been reading the wrong stuff.
> 
> _Scientists say that unless we curb the emissions that cause climate change, average U.S. temperatures could be 3 to 9 degrees higher by the end of the century._
> http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/climatebasics.asp?gclid=CJiA3rvMr8ICFUVgfgodQwwAzQ


the same people who said the polar ice caps should be gone by now


----------



## Tyler520 (Aug 12, 2011)

greg273 said:


> Whether CO2 has historically lagged or led the increase in temps is irrelevant to our current situation, in which CO2 is on a steady increase.


Your sole argument is as follows: "increased CO2 = temperature increase," which is arguably false, and you have just admitted that your entire argument is bull-----.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Nev, your source is akin to asking Josh earnest if the president acted unconstitutional.
A hired gun does the payers bidding.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Nevada said:


> You've obviously been reading the wrong stuff.
> 
> _Scientists say that unless we curb the emissions that cause climate change, average U.S. temperatures could be 3 to 9 degrees higher by the end of the century._
> http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/climatebasics.asp?gclid=CJiA3rvMr8ICFUVgfgodQwwAzQ


Post something from that link that says how much reduction is needed to reverse CC and how we can do it without devastating our economy. Copy a snippet that says how to reduce CO2 to reverse CC and still maintain our economy. I wager its not in there.

I have posted many quotes basically saying it can't be reversed or even realistically slowed. Repeat from post earlier in this thread: http://www.economist.com/news/brief...ve-done-most-slow-global-warming-deepest-cuts

_Saving the equivalent of some 130 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide so cheaply would be a big win. But it is still *only a tenth of what would need to be done to ensure that the temperature in 2100 is no more than 2Â°C higher* than it was at the time of the Industrial Revolution&#8212;the limit that the countries of the world have committed themselves to. _


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Nevada said:


> You've obviously been reading the wrong stuff.
> 
> _Scientists say that unless we curb the emissions that cause climate change, average U.S. temperatures could be 3 to 9 degrees higher by the end of the century._
> http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/climatebasics.asp?gclid=CJiA3rvMr8ICFUVgfgodQwwAzQ


A little more for you Mr. Nevada.

The European Union and many scientific bodies have concluded that 
avoiding the most severe outcomes will require keeping the total global average warming to no more than 2ÂºC/3.5ÂºF relative to pre-industrial levels (about 1.1CÂº/2ÂºF above present levels). 

Currently, the atmospheric CO2 concentration stands at 382 ppm and is increasing by about 2 ppm per year

However, before deciding, for example, that stabilizing at 550 ppm is the best we can do, we should recognize that if we do choose that level, weâd most likely exceed the 2ÂºC/3.5ÂºF threshold. 

http://www.climatecommunication.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/presidentialaction.pdf


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Even more Mr. Nevada

The goal of moderate abatement is to slow greenhouse gas emissions and give society more time to solve the problem. One version of this policy would commit every economically developed nation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 20% below 1988 levels per dollar of gross domestic product (GDP) by the year 2000. Because this emissions limit is stated in terms of GDP, total emissions could still grow as the population or economy expands. Moderate abatement would not prevent climate change. But, if all the world did it, it would reduce the impacts of climate change by about 25% by the middle of the next century.

Stringent abatement is the most ambitious climate change policy. By reducing total greenhouse gas emissions worldwide to 60% below 1988 levels and holding them there permanently, it aims to prevent climate change altogether. Unlike moderate abatement, which allows emissions to rise as the economy grows, moderate abatement does not allow any emissions growth beyond 60% below 1988 levels. Thus, in order for the world economy to grow and for living standards to rise in the developing world, ever more innovative ways to prevent emissions from growing would have to be found. If all the world did it, stringent abatement would prevent global climate change.

http://www.gcrio.org/gwcc/booklet3.html


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

HDRider said:


> Even more Mr. Nevada
> 
> The goal of moderate abatement is to slow greenhouse gas emissions and give society more time to solve the problem. One version of this policy would commit every economically developed nation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 20% below 1988 levels per dollar of gross domestic product (GDP) by the year 2000. Because this emissions limit is stated in terms of GDP, total emissions could still grow as the population or economy expands. Moderate abatement would not prevent climate change. But, if all the world did it, it would reduce the impacts of climate change by about 25% by the middle of the next century.
> 
> ...


This is an issue of catastrophic consequences. You can either put your faith in scientific experts, or put your faith in right-wing politicians & Fox News pundits. But don't expect politicians and new pundits to stand behind their predictions. Those people don't care how it turns out, just as long as taxes are low and the right businesses thrive.

It's one thing to be wrong, but quite another to side against common scientific wisdom and be wrong.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Tyler520 said:


> Your sole argument is as follows: "increased CO2 = temperature increase," which is *arguably* false, and you have just admitted that your entire argument is bull-----.


 Ok, lets argue it. You're the one who posted the chart showing a positive historic correlation between temp and CO2 over the past 400,000 years. Of course CO2 isn't the only thing responsible for keeping our planet toasty, but its a big one, even at the relatively low (but increasing) concentrations found in the atmosphere. 
By the way, what exactly IS your argument? So far, you've only posted a few well-worn charts that we've all seen before, and called my posts 'BS' without adding much of anything else to the debate, other than to say 'well its happened before, so we can't possibly be causing it', which of course is completely illogical.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Nevada said:


> This is an issue of catastrophic consequences. You can either put your faith in scientific experts, or put your faith in right-wing politicians & Fox News pundits. But don't expect politicians and new pundits to stand behind their predictions. Those people don't care how it turns out, just as long as taxes are low and the right businesses thrive.
> 
> It's one thing to be wrong, but quite another to side against common scientific wisdom and be wrong.


 I am not so sure about the 'catastrophic' nature of it all... unless one lives in a coastal city. But I agree, FOX has nothing to lose by sticking their head in the sand (or possibly somewhere else). They have no integrity to lose, and their loyal viewers don't care. For them, if the 'environmentalists' want something, its pretty much guaranteed FOX (the Chamber of Commerce media wing) is going be against it.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Nevada said:


> This is an issue of catastrophic consequences. You can either put your faith in scientific experts, or put your faith in right-wing politicians & Fox News pundits. But don't expect politicians and new pundits to stand behind their predictions. Those people don't care how it turns out, just as long as taxes are low and the right businesses thrive.
> 
> It's one thing to be wrong, but quite another to side against common scientific wisdom and be wrong.


Or rely on the fact....historical proven reality that man has survived prior ends and flows in the weather and this round ....unlike midevil times we are far better prepared...We have sources of heat, we have better homes we have Saratoga installation. We have motor power to transport people while people are warm. We have better food storage methods. We have oil and gas and coal and we are trained in using those fuels.

We, as a species have naturally been lead to prepare for change. 

Don't take our preps.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Nevada said:


> This is an issue of catastrophic consequences. You can either put your faith in scientific experts, or put your faith in right-wing politicians & Fox News pundits. But don't expect politicians and new pundits to stand behind their predictions. Those people don't care how it turns out, just as long as taxes are low and the right businesses thrive.
> 
> It's one thing to be wrong, but quite another to side against common scientific wisdom and be wrong.


What did I say about Fox news and politicians? Why do you always go off point?


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

HDRider said:


> There you go again... Most people are not denying that CC is happening. They are saying man cannot have a measurable effect on changing it. A fact you yourself agree, though you squirm when you admit it.
> 
> Those smug insults you throw can be hurled right back at you and those like you, that want to see the human race disappear from the Earth.


Yeah, yeah. I know you're just imagining me squirming and wishing for the human race to disappear.  :hohum: :hand:


Here, find your numbers in this litany. Several have already been repeated by posters in this thread but I'm sure y'all can be relied on to repeat them again. https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

kasilofhome said:


> :buds:
> 
> You choose to look at a minute microscopic period of time and base too much on that small period of time. Really carbon is and has been for along time simply recycling. From air to captured in the rain falling to earth captured in the air in a breath to time human bodies to breath. Being absorbed by trees to become fuel to burn in the bodies of life forms or burn in a fire to save a life form from freezing or stored in the earth to shoot out of a volcano.
> 
> ...


That's the whole point! 

*Man-made CO2* - *during modern times*

The point about "all natural" is just ridiculous, IMO

Lead is a natural substance, but it was deemed that too much of it in our environment was not necessarily a good thing. Much to the chagrin of Conservatives, lead was removed, even though they were absolutely certain, that doing so, spelled the end of modern man.

They were wrong that time, too, just like DDT, seat belts, birth control, etc. .


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

plowjockey said:


> That's the whole point!
> 
> *Man-made CO2* - *during modern times*
> 
> ...


Now, if one truly cared and wanted to know if we are truly nearing a man made crisis one should look into earth past. 

Carbon dioxide levels were be for man and graph clearly show strong fluctuations prior to man. Earth survived and life is here. One rarely worries about swimming in an ocean which is truly the natural seward system for fish and many water mammals. 

Nature and living alters the carbon dioxide levels as life needs it.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

kasilofhome said:


> Now, if one truly cared and wanted to know if we are truly nearing a man made crisis one should look into earth past.
> 
> Carbon dioxide levels were be for man and graph clearly show strong fluctuations prior to man. Earth survived and life is here. One rarely worries about swimming in an ocean which is truly the natural seward system for fish and many water mammals.
> 
> Nature and living alters the carbon dioxide levels as life needs it.


So, if we really do care, we show it, by not caring at all? 

"don't worry, be happy", has really not worked all that well in the past, regarding man's influence on the earth.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

In negatively impacting fossil fuel use to force implementation of green energy that is not able to meet the needs or reliability,or affordability is foolish.

To implement false reports and new blurbs to scare folks.....remember the presidents said...promised he would cause utilities cost to skyrocket to push his agenda. Then remember many of his ardent supporter were in the green energy development business and they did so get funded by the admin. And those companies took the funding and went under netting us nothing but debt.

If you care about a bride planning an out door wedding in a rainy season you could

freak out get in a panic and work to find and hire a flim flan company to develope cloud juicing machines for big bucks
Or you could calmly arrange a back up in door location.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

kasilofhome said:


> In negatively impacting fossil fuel use to force implementation of green energy that is not able to meet the needs or reliability,or affordability is foolish.
> 
> To implement false reports and new blurbs to scare folks.....remember the presidents said...promised he would cause utilities cost to skyrocket to push his agenda. Then remember many of his ardent supporter were in the green energy development business and they did so get funded by the admin. And those companies took the funding and went under netting us nothing but debt.
> 
> ...


At least it's clear now, that the fight is not about climate change, but instead, about protecting coal companies, slamming Obama, his cronies and big business.



> In 2013, Iowa and South Dakota produced more than 25% of their generation from wind energy.


http://www.windenergyfoundation.org/about-wind-energy/faqs



> freak out get in a panic


Climate change has been a global issue, at least since the Reagan administration.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

How about taking a seventy five percent pay cut.

The math is if you think a 75 percent cut in money is doable. I mean are you jumping for joy and all excited cause 25 percent is a problem....not happy happy news. As I have said and you keep proving me right....we are not any where we need to be to drop oil and move over to a new energy king. I Wil not replace an old wore car for 25 percent of the car parts for a new car...I need to have a working car today.
Try paying your tab at the restaurant by offering to settle it for twenty five cents on the dollar

Being that I have mentioned that this junk agenda has been going on since be for the seventies clearly having voted for Reagan in the 80s I am aware the the current pres.did not create this mess.....but he is using it and the .....how were the called specially by his teammates....stupid. if people are offended just don't point fingers at me....this administration knows their audience. They need stupidity in order to reach their goals. Obama himself points out when folks at stupidly. 

But he likes to create problems for Americans in path. But that is a movie series not a simple little post.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Yes this president wants Americans Poor.
He wants them to be dependent on HIM and The Government.
Simple as that. There is even now in the lame duck Congress talk to go after Pensions. That ought to go over in a good way.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

At least SOME, even on the left, think the EPA is outta line:

http://joemiller.us/2014/12/harvard...il&utm_term=0_065b6c381c-08cc799aa4-230980529

The Environmental Protection Agency&#8217;s proposed rule to cut carbon dioxide emissions from power plants is unconstitutional because it violates the Tenth Amendment and the Fifth Amendment, according to a noted liberal Harvard law professor.

&#8220;In short, coal has been a bedrock component of our economy and energy policy for decades,&#8221; writes constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe. &#8220;The [EPA&#8217;s rule] demonstrates the risk of allowing an unaccountable administrative agency to &#8216;make&#8217; law and attempt to impose the burden of global climate change on an unlucky and unfortunate few.&#8221;


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

At least now we are getting to the _meat_, of all this.

This is about economics, not whether, or not, we are damaging the earth.

It's just being disguised as such.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

No, dear if you got that from my post you miss understood what I posted.

To aid you about my point of view

Carbon dioxide is a usefully and healthy gas as plants require it and with out it human bodies would not be sent the message to breath.

Next

We need energy as humans because the energy enables us to have food,shelter,water and heat ....cooling too. All of nature makes use of what is available to survive and it is natural and normal for man, who is as much nature a a wood owl.

Next

Other means of non fossil fuel are not yet ready for world widnde prime application. That is due both to technology and price. Nuclear energy intimates many.

Next

The need to switch is being pushed by the falsehood of climate issues are controllable by man, and that climate change is unnatural, critical, and the result of man. Man has and does impact earth as do butterflies. Beavers change the courses of water flooding and droughts change yet not one beaver has to get approval to live life as a beaver. 

There are many reasons so just because not every single reason is put in every post does not negate any of the multitude of rational reasons for laughing at climate change. Standing up to reduce the spread of miss information.

Man needs to prepare to adapt and improve and laugh at ourselves when we take on too much credit for our ability to control earth. Man is not all powerful.


----------

