# The natural cause of climate change



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

In order to not believe in man-made climate change, you must first find the natural cause of climate change.
Criteria for presenting your natural cause of climate change:
A. Must be supported by a large scientific community, preferably several or most.
B. The cause must be happening now, and for the past couple decades.

*Now, unfortunately for most, man-made climate change by GHGs meets both criteria.*

C. You must provide a URL linking to your source. No unbased claims will be accepted.

For example:
Scientific Consenses | UCS


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

I just don't know what's happening!!! 
Last week, I wore shorts b/c it was sooooo warm. Today, I'm in my parka/gloves/knit hat...maybe I should post a pic...


----------



## Stephen in SOKY (Jun 6, 2006)

Are you seriously proposing we only look at data for the last 20 year?

ETA: My apologies, the correct quote is: "the past couple decades"


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

In order to believe in natural climate change, I only need to use my common sense. In order to believe in man-made climate change, I need to join forces with Al Gore. I vote for natural climate change.


----------



## bjba (Feb 18, 2003)

Why is the Union of Concerned Scientists the standard for scientific consensus? Why do you propose to ignore a vastly greater body of evidence than you propose to consider?


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

bjba said:


> Why is the Union of Concerned Scientists the standard for scientific consensus? Why do you propose to ignore a vastly greater body of evidence than you propose to consider?


umm,money?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> In order to now believe in man-made climate change, you must first find the natural cause of climate change.
> Criteria for presenting your natural cause of climate change:
> A. Must be supported by a large scientific community, preferably several or most.
> B. The cause must be happening now, and for the past couple decades.
> ...




Hope this helps!


http://www.sepp.org/research/scirsrch/slr-agu.html

Global Warming Will Not Raise Sea Level
Presented at the 1997 Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union


S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. 

Global sea level (SL) has undergone a rising trend for at least a century; its cause is believed to be unrelated to climate change [1]. We observe, however, that fluctuations (anomalies) from a linear SL rise show a pronounced anti-correlation with global average temperature--and even more so with tropical average sea surface temperature. We also find a suggestive correlation between negative sea-level rise anomalies and the occurrence of El Nino events. These findings suggest that--under current conditions-- evaporation from the ocean with subsequent deposition on the ice caps, principally in the Antarctic, is more important in determining sea-level changes than the melting of glaciers and thermal expansion of ocean water. It also suggests that any future moderate warming, from whatever cause, will slow down the ongoing sea-level rise, rather than speed it up. Support for this conclusion comes from theoretical studies of precipitation increases [2] and from results of General Circulation Models (GCMs) [3,4]. Further support comes from the (albeit limited) record of annual ice accumulation in polar ice sheets [5]. 

1. A. Trupin and J. Wahr. Geophys J. Int., 100, 441-453 (1990)
2. D. Bromwich. "Ice sheets and sea level" Nature, 373, 18 (1995)
3. S.L. Thompson, and D. Pollard. Eos 76, No. 46 Suppl.(1995); J. Clim. (1997)
4. H. Ye and J.R. Mather, Int. J. Climatol., 17, 155-162 (1997)
5. D.A. Meese et al., Science 266, 1680-1682 (1994)


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

http://www.sepp.org/policy declarations/statment.html


Statement by Atmospheric Scientists on Greenhouse Warming

WASHINGTON, D.C., FEBRUARY 27, 1992---As independent scientists, researching atmospheric and climate problems, we are concerned by the agenda for UNCED, the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, being developed by environmental activist groups and certain political leaders. This so-called Earth Summit is scheduled to convene in Brazil in June 1992 and aims to impose a system of global environmental regulations, including onerous taxes on energy fuels, on the population of the United States and other industrialized nations.

Such policy initiatives derive from highly uncertain scientific theories. They are based on the unsupported assumption that catastrophic global warming follows from the burning of fossil fuels and requires immediate action. We do not agree.

A survey of U.S. atmospheric scientists, conducted in the summer of 1991, confirms that there is no consensus about the cause of the slight warming observed during the past century. A recently published research paper even suggests that sunspot variability, rather than a rise in greenhouse gases, is responsible for the global temperature increases and decreases recorded since about 1880.

Furthermore, the majority of scientific participants in the survey agreed that the theoretical climate models used to predict a future warming cannot be relied upon and are not validated by the existing climate record. Yet all predictions are based on such theoretical models.

Finally, agriculturalists generally agree that any increase in carbon dioxide levels from fossil fuel burning has beneficial effects on most crops and on world food supply.

We are disturbed that activists, anxious to stop energy and economic growth, are pushing ahead with drastic policies without taking notice of recent changes in the underlying science. We fear that the rush to impose global regulations will have catastrophic impacts on the world economy, on jobs, standards of living, and health care, with the most severe consequences falling upon developing countries and the poor.

David G. Aubrey, Ph.D., Senior Scientist, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute

Nathaniel B. Guttman, Ph.D., Research Physical Scientist, National Climatic Data Center


Hugh W. Ellsaesser, Ph.D., Meteorologist, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory


Richard Lindzen, Ph.D., Center for Meteorology and Physical Meteorology, M.l.T.


Robert C. Balling, Ph.D., Director, Laboratory of Climatology, Arizona State University


Patrick Michaels, Ph.D., Assoc. Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia


Roger Pielke, Ph.D., Professor of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University


Michael Garstang, Ph.D., Professor of Meteorology, University of Virginia


Sherwood B. Idso, Ph.D., Research Physicist, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory


Lev S. Gandin, Ph.D., UCAR Scientist, National Meteorological Center


John A. McGinley, Chief, Forecast Research Group, Forecast Systems Laboratory, NOAA


H. Jean Thiebaux, Ph.D., Research Scientist, National Meteorological Center, National Weather Service, NOM


Kenneth V. Beard, Ph.D., Professor of Atmospheric Physics, University of Illinois


Paul W. Mielke, Jr., Ph.D., Professor, Dept. of Statistics, Colorado State University


Thomas Lockhart, Meteorologist, Meteorological Standards Institute


Peter F. Giddings, Meteorologist, Weather Service Director


Hazen A. Bedke, Meteorologist, Former Regional Director, National Weather Service


Gabriel T. Csanady, Ph.D., Eminent Professor, Old Dominion University


Roy Leep, Executive Weather Director, Gillett Weather Data Services


Terrance J. Clark, Meteorologist, U.S. Air Force


Neil L Frank, Ph.D., Meteorologist


Michael S. Uhart, Ph.D., Meteorologist, National Weather Service


Bruce A. Boe, Ph.D., Director, North Dakota Atmospheric Resource Board


Andrew Detwiler, Ph.D., Assoc. Prof., Institute of Atmospheric Sciences, S. Dakota School of Mines & Technology


Robert M. Cunningham, Consulting Meteorologist, Fellow, American Meteorological Society


Steven R. Hanna, Ph.D., Sigma Research Corporation


Elliot Abrams, Meteorologist, Senior Vice President, AccuWeather, Inc.


William E. Reifenyder, Ph.D., Consulting Meteorologist, Professor Emeritus, Forest Meteorology, Yale University


David W. Reynolds, Research Meteorologist


Jerry A. Williams, Meteorologist, President, Oceanroutes, Inc.


Lee W. Eddington, Meteorologist, Geophysics Division, Pacific Missile Test Center


Werner A. Baum, Ph.D., former Dean, College of Arts & Sciences, Florida State University


David P. Rogers, Ph.D., Assoc. Professor of Research Oceanography, Scripps Institution of Oceanography


Brian Fiedler, Ph.D., Asst. Professor of Meteorology, School of Meteorology, University of Oklahoma


Edward A. Brandes, Meteorologist


Melvyn Shapiro, Chief of Meteorological Research, Wave Propagation Laboratory, NOM


Joseph Zabransky, Jr., Associate Professor of Meteorology, Plymouth State College


James A. Moore, Project Manager, Research Applications Program, National Center for Atmospheric Research


Daniel J. McNaughton, ENSR Consulting and Engineering


Brian Sussman, Meteorologist


Robert D. Elliott, Meteorologist, Fellow, American Meteorological Society


H. Read McGrath, Ph.D., Meteorologist


Earl G. Droessler, Ph.D., North Carolina State University


Robert E. Zabrecky, Meteorologist


William M. Porch, Ph.D., Atmospheric Physicist, Los Alamos National Laboratory


Earle R. Williams, Ph.D, Assoc. Prof. of Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology


S. Fred Singer, Ph.D., Atmospheric Physicist, Univ. of Virginia, President, Science & Environmental Policy Project


Please note: Affiliations listed are for identification purposes only.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

http://www.sepp.org/key issues/keyissue.html


Global Warming Issue: Computer models forecast rapidly rising global temperatures, while data from weather satellites and balloon instruments show only slight warning. But since climate undergoes natural fluctuations, both warming and cooling on various timescales, it is important to determine how much of the observed warming is anthropogenic {human-caused}. In fact, this the key issue and still the subject of intense scientific debate. However, it is generally agreed that the key is comparison of the patterns of warming with those calculated from greenhouse models. Nevertheless, the general view among decisionmakers seems to be that the science is "settled" and that AGW is an uncontested fact. However, a detailel comparison of up-to-date observations with current models leads to the different results: The Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) of the US government issued its first and most important report in May 2006. The report show a clear disagreement between models and observations in the tropical region, which is the most sensitive for model validation. However, the Executive Summary claims, falsely, "clear evidence" for AGW. A more careful and more detailed examination of this issue reveals that the disparity between observations and models is real and significant; it suggests that a major part of current warming is due to natural causes and that the human component due to greenhouse gases is only minor. It also suggests that the computer models cannot be considered as having been validated by observations. 

But these same unreliable computer models underpin the Global Climate Treaty, negotiated at the 1992 Rio de Janeiro "Earth Summit," and are the driving force behind United Nations efforts to force restrictions on the use of oil, gas, and coal. The Third Conference of Parties (COP-3) to the Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) (a.k.a. Global Climate Treaty), meeting in Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997 agreed to set mandatory limits and timetables. Politicians were told that the science is "settled" and "compelling," when in reality, scientific experts still strongly disagree on the evidence. Considering the economic damage from energy rationing and taxation, the plans are drawing strong negatives in the U.S. Congress. Without firm evidence that an appreciable warming will occur as a result of human activities, or that its consequences would be harmful, there can be no justification for bureaucratic remedies or any action beyond a "no-regrets" policy of energy efficiency and market-based conservation. For additional commentary, see articles on Global Warming and the Energy Policy . See also Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warming's Unfinished Debate and the convenient 12 point summary of Global Warming: Unfinished Business. We also refer you to the "Scientific Case against the Climate Treaty," published in English, French and German.

The IPCC Controversy: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the science group that advises the United Nations on the global warming issue, issued assessment reports in 1990, 1996, 2001, and will issue its fourth report in 2007. While ostensibly an impartial collector and reporter of climate science, the IPCC has consistently promoted global warming fears in its Summary for Policymakers (SPM). In May 1996, unannounced and possibly unauthorized changes to the IPCC report touched off a firestorm of controversy within the scientific community. The draft of December 1995 was approved by national delegations. When the printed report appeared in May 1996, however, it was discovered that substantial changes and deletions had been made to the body of the report to make it "conform to the Policymakers Summary." The clandestine changes put a spin on the report's conclusions that "the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate." Lead authors of the crucial--and doctored--Chapter 8, dealing with the detection and attribution of climate change, have since backed off from this conclusion and now admit that it may take 10 years or more before any human influence on climate can be detected. In its third report, issued in 2001, the IPCC vigorously promoted a scientific result, termed the Hockeystick. Based on an analysis of proxy data, it was used to claim that the twentieth century was the warmest in the past 1000 years. This claim was meant to suggest that the warming of the twentieth century was due to human causes, specifically the growth in atmospheric greenhouse gases. Few noticed that such a result, even if real, had no bearing on AGW. In fact, it has since been demonstrated that the hockeystick result was based on the faulty application of statistical analysis and the consequence of an incorrect procedure. Furthermore, additional proxy data that had not been considered by the hockeystick team, or by the IPCC, suggest that the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was warmer than the twentieth century-- a conclusion in good accord with historic data such as settlement of Greenland.

The second IPCC report, falsely suggesting that the science is settled, led to the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. It called for substantial reductions in GH gas emissions by industrialized Nations, especially of CO2 from fuel burning. The United States and Australia have not ratified the Protocol. Most of the other nations are finding it difficult if not impossible to meet the Kyoto target; it is doubtful if they will be achieved by 2012 as planned.

For commentary and letters on this issue, see IPCC.

Regulatory Excess: In response to a lawsuit filed by the American Lung Association, an EPA-funded lobbying group, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has imposed ever more stringent standards on ground-level ozone and particulates. These standards are based on inadequate science and wildly unrealistic cost/benefit figures, yet EPA Administrator Carol Browner ignored comments put forth during the formal review process and zealously moved ahead. This put the Clinton Administration in a bind --as opposition rose among labor unions and industries, city mayors and members of Congress. In part, the fear is that Browner's extreme measures will stall current efforts to deal with urban air pollution by forcing revision of existing plans. But more important, if costly federal regulation forces industry to flee the inner cities, the loss of jobs and the effect that will have on the municipal tax base could exacerbate poverty and destroy efforts to revitalize urban neighborhoods. For related commentary, see Urban Scmog, Environment vs. Jobs, and Costs of Regulation.

As of this date the EPA is still ramping up targets for ozone and particulates, which counties in the United States are unlikely to meet. In many cases, the suggested targets for ambient air quality are close to or exceed natural backgrounds. Nor do they consider that most people spend most of their time indoors, subject to indoor air pollution that may be worse than ambient. The EPA does not regulate indoor air pollution; nor does the Clean Air Act permit the EPA to perform cost/benefit analyses. EPA's favorite targets have been emissions from automobiles and electric powerplants. The drive for tighter standards is being fueled also by global warming fears ansd attempts to control CO2 emissions. A new environmental initiative is the lawsuit against EPA by the state of Massachusetts, requiring EPA to regulate CO2 as a pollutant.This case is now before the Supreme Court. 

Ozone Depletion: Although environmental pressure groups had made exaggerated claims stratospheric ozone depletion by chlorofluorocarbons (most notably Freon) wafting into space, scientists have yet to see any increase of solar ultraviolet radiation at the Earth's surface. Actually, even the worst-case depletion scenario (the one that spawned all those bogus stories about blind sheep, blind rabbits, blind trout, plankton death, dead frogs, autoimmune disorders, and melanoma epidemics), would have resulted in only a minor increase in UV--one you could experience by driving just 60 miles closer to the equator, say from Washington, D.C. to Richmond, Virginia. Nevertheless, the Bush (Sr)White House hastily imposed a ban on CFC production, costing U.S. consumers multi-billions. And to make that sound like a good deal, the EPA is claiming a preposterous health benefit of $32 trillion. Meanwhile, a hugely profitable black market has been created because of the high cost of CFC substitutes and retrofitting air-conditioning systems. Indeed, news reports say the border traffic in "hot" Freon is running a close second to cocaine. Worse, Third World countries, exempt from the ban, are still using CFCs and building factories to produce more. Combine the two and it's unlikely that the ban has produced any benefit to stratospheric ozone. Now that all the handwringing has led to an international protocol, however, the issue is no longer in the public eye. As in the case of acid rain, another minor problem "fixed" by an expensive non-solution, hype has triumphed over substance. Indeed there has been much hype, including claims about an Arctic ozone hole, an annual increase of UV-B of 35 percent-- none of these real. There has been no noticable depletion, since about 1992; yet stratospheric chlorine is still increasing, albeit at a slower rate. Zealots are concentrating their efforts on getting a phase-out of methylbromide, an important agricultural fumigant. There has been no reported increase in stratospheric bromine, however. For additional commentary, see Stratospheric Ozone.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

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


Siegfried Fred Singer (born September 27, 1924) is an Austrian-born American physicist and emeritus professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia.[1] Singer trained as an atmospheric physicist and is known for his work in space research, atmospheric pollution, rocket and satellite technology, and as an outspoken critic of the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. He is the author or editor of several books including Global Effects of Environmental Pollution (1970), The Ocean in Human Affairs (1989), Global Climate Change (1989), The Greenhouse Debate Continued (1992), and Hot Talk, Cold Science (1997). He has also co-authored Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years (2007) with Dennis Avery, and Climate Change Reconsidered (2009) with Craig Idso.[2]

Singer has had a varied career, serving in the armed forces, government, and academia. He designed mines for the U.S. Navy during World War II, before completing his Ph.D. in physics from Princeton University in 1948 and working as a scientific liaison officer in the U.S. Embassy in London.[3] He became a leading figure in early space research, was involved in the development of earth observation satellites, and in 1962 established the National Weather Bureau's Satellite Service Center. He was the founding dean of the University of Miami School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences in 1964, deputy assistant administrator for the Environmental Protection Agency, and chief scientist for the Department of Transportation. He held a professorship with the University of Virginia from 1971 until 1994, and with George Mason University until 2000.[4]

Singer has been an advocate of the skeptical stance in the global warming controversy for a number of years. In 1990 he founded the Science & Environmental Policy Project to advocate this position,[5] and in 2006 was named by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as one of a minority of scientists said to be creating a stand-off on a consensus on climate change.[6] Singer argues there is no evidence that global warming is attributable to human-caused increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide, and that humanity would benefit if temperatures do rise.[7] He is an opponent of the Kyoto Protocol, and has said of the climate models that scientists use to project future trends that "models are very nice, but they are not reality and they are not evidence."[8]

Singer's position
In 2006, the CBC's Fifth Estate named Singer as one of a small group of scientists who have created what the documentary called a stand-off that is undermining the political response to global warming.[47] Singer argues there is no evidence that the increases in carbon dioxide produced by humans cause global warming, and that if temperatures do rise it will be good for humankind. He told CBC: "It was warmer a thousand years ago than it is today. Vikings settled Greenland. Is that good or bad? I think it's good. They grew wine in England, in northern England. I think that's good. At least some people think so."[48] "We are certainly putting more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere," he told The Daily Telegraph in 2009. "However there is no evidence that this high CO2 is making a detectable difference. It should in principle, however the atmosphere is very complicated and one cannot simply argue that just because CO2 is a greenhouse gas it causes warming."[7] *He believes that radical environmentalists are exaggerating the dangers. "The underlying effort here seems to be to use global warming as an excuse to cut down the use of energy," he said. "It's very simple: if you cut back the use of energy, then you cut back economic growth. And believe it or not, there are people in the world who believe we have gone too far in economic growth."[49]*He was interviewed for the documentary, The Great Global Warming Swindle, which aired on Britain's Channel 4 in 2007. The program presented the climate-change debate from the minority skeptical perspective.[50]


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> the natural cause of climate change.


Why?

You ignored tham all on the *many other *threads on this topic.

ALL causes are "natural"


----------



## zant (Dec 1, 2005)

Dude,you seriously need a life and a different religion....cults are for weirdos....


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

zant said:


> Dude,you seriously need a life and a different religion....cults are for weirdos....


??????


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Interesting person, this Fred Singer is.
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1


----------



## palani (Jun 12, 2005)

Here is your answer ... The phrase "climate change" originated in 1983. Prior to 1983 there could be no climate change either natural or man-made because the phrase had not yet been coined or defined.

Hope this helps.



Online Etymology Dictionary said:


> climate change
> 1983, in the modern "global warming" sense, from climate + change.


----------



## palani (Jun 12, 2005)

Now one of the root words of the phrase "climate change" is obviously climate (go figure). As to the origins of the word climate
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=climate&searchmode=none


Online Etymology Dictionary said:


> climate
> late 14c., Scottish, from O.Fr. climat, from L. clima (gen. climatis) "region, slope of the Earth," from Gk. klima "region, zone," from base of klinein "to slope," thus "slope of the Earth from equator to pole," from PIE base *klei- "to lean" (see lean (v.)). The angle of sun on the slope of the Earth's surface defined the zones assigned by early geographers. Meaning moved from "region" to "weather associated with a region" by c.1600. Related: Climatography.


So if we look at this base word it only means the slope of the earth with respect to the rays of the sun. 

Are you hoping to indicate that man had anything at all to do with the angle of any region of the earth to the sun?

Are you suggesting that this angle is in the process of CHANGING?

Has a shift of the axis of rotation of the Earth occurred as a result of mans activities?

Has the Sun changed position to cause a change in the angle of the Suns rays to the Earths surface?


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Heritagefarm said:


> In order to not believe in man-made climate change, you must first find the natural cause of climate change.
> Criteria for presenting your natural cause of climate change:
> A. Must be supported by a large scientific community, preferably several or most.
> B. The cause must be happening now, and for the past couple decades.
> ...


Heritagefarm, I'm not going to provide any links, I think it's a waste of time on this board where it would mostly fall on deaf ears and blind eyes. I'll just offer my opinion for YOU. 

I read the link you provided and agree with the scientific consensus: 

"_to swiftly establish and implement policies to bring about deep reductions in heat-trapping emissions. The strength of the science on climate change compels us to warn the nations about the growing risk of irreversible consequences as global average temperatures continue to increase over pre-industrial levels_".

Problem is, the warnings have all gone out already about reducing emissions but it ain't gonna happen because most people don't want to believe that emissions have any influence. Government leaders and scientists can warn people all they want but there's too many people who don't want to reduce their use of fossil fuels and driving their cars that are just turning their backs on the warnings. Nobody wants to give up their car culture, their luxuries and their addiction to oil.

Combine that with population explosion and there's little likelihood of there being much reduction of heat-trapping emissions. It really has to be an all or nothing endeavour in mutual cooperation from everyone for reduction of emissions to make a difference and that simply isn't going to happen. Another thing is that it's not only emissions that's contributing to climate change, it's other things too, like the rapid consumption of non-renewable resources and not keeping up with replacing and protecting resources that are renewable. 

That being the case I've come to the conclusion that we should all just carry on with our entitlement mentality and let nature fix the problem for us the way nature does it best, by natural apocalypse and widespread devestation. Once nature has eliminated most of the population through natural disasters, diseases and starvation then the planet will slowly get back to a more normal, healthier state again and be better off without all those humans.

My suggestion to you is to enlighten your family and their progeny and train them to be as self sufficient as possible and be prepared for the worst while hoping for the best. If they can understand that there won't be as many resources to rely on, that many of the plants and animals will die along with human populations from privation and disease then they can prepare ahead of time for that. It might be helpful if they're willing to relocate and contribute to the efforts of other "aware" communities that are presently taking steps towards cooperatively protecting and preserving the resources they already have. That may help to ensure their survival and the survival of their future generations.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> Interesting person, this Fred Singer is.
> http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1


The link you provided is a greenpeace project. They wouldn't be biased would they? So, Dr. Singer and the over 4000 other scientists are still wrong in your book? I see. I did notice that you at least finally looked him up. Do you refute what he say's? Do you have the backround that he has? So he was a consultant to an oil co. Where do YOUR scientists get funding from? If you did more research you might find out more truth about his funding and who he had worked for than was presented on a site that has a LOT to lose.

Nice try!

Your turn!


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

HeritageFarm, you may or may not have read my opinion... if not, I'll give it to you again.

The sad truth is there is absolutely nothing that can be done about AGW, if it exists. The "cures" that are proposed will do nothing to slow it down or stop it. Taxing "life", and anything that breathes (mostly) gives off CO2, so it could indeed be called a tax on life, will not stop living organisms from continuing to emit CO2.

If humans are the problem (making all this man made CO2), then the solution HAS to be to eliminate the problem... Aka, get rid of humans. Alas, 'taint gonna happen. I daresay NO ONE is going to volunteer to save the planet by sequestering their carbon six feet under ground. Well, a few might, but for it to be effective, about 95% of humans would have to be 'sequestered'.

My major problem with AGW acolytes is their hypocritical purity. If humans are the problem, AGW purists should abandon any and all actions and policies that might promulgate further human populations. In other words, if you're all for saving the earth from a warm spell, then you've got to abandon all forms of welfare. No more food to starving folks ANYwhere. No more medical research, no more vaccines, no more disaster assistance. Any time you help a human anywhere, your only hurting the earth.

Of course, no AGW proponent is going to do any of that... what they really want is a cash cow to fund all of their feel good projects, none of which will make a difference in the short or long term, as long as the human population increases.

For a goodly portion of earth's history, there was no ice, anywhere.

Global warming is an inconvenience.

Global cooling is a civilization killer.

Sorry, I don't have any links. I do have a degree in Geology. Too bad I didn't get my degree later, when the AGW flimflam came around. I could have jumped on that Mongo Cash Cow and milked it for a lifetime... like a goodly portion of the 'experts' are. When I was in school, Global Cooling was the rule.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Paumon said:


> Heritagefarm, I'm not going to provide any links, I think it's a waste of time on this board where it would mostly fall on deaf ears and blind eyes. I'll just offer my opinion for YOU.
> 
> I read the link you provided and agree with the scientific consensus:
> 
> ...


Cults and comunes(sp) have been around forever. I can say that they absolutly will NOT survive if humanity comes to the point to where millions of people are looking for food. Armed people who don't care about anything other than their next meal. These little comunities would be first on the list. The earth has been around a lot longer than plants and animals and it will still be here long after were gone! Enjoy life NOW.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

texican said:


> HeritageFarm, you may or may not have read my opinion... if not, I'll give it to you again.
> 
> The sad truth is there is absolutely nothing that can be done about AGW, if it exists. The "cures" that are proposed will do nothing to slow it down or stop it. Taxing "life", and anything that breathes (mostly) gives off CO2, so it could indeed be called a tax on life, will not stop living organisms from continuing to emit CO2.
> 
> ...



Very good! :clap:


----------



## Farmerwilly2 (Oct 14, 2006)

I kinda hope it does warm up a bit, I'd like a longer growing season. I kinda got you pegged as one of those Coast to Coast, george nori kind of koolaid drinkers. 

Boo---global warming gonna gitcha.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

palani said:


> Are you suggesting that this angle is in the process of CHANGING?
> 
> Has the Sun changed position to cause a change in the angle of the Suns rays to the Earths surface?


It's not the earth's surface and angle of sun rays hitting it that is changing. 

It is the oceans and ocean floor that is changing. It is the oceans that create climate, that creates wind and rain and changes in temperatures around the world.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Paumon said:


> It's not the earth's surface and angle of sun rays hitting it that is changing.
> 
> It is the oceans and ocean floor that is changing. It is the oceans that create climate, that creates wind and rain and changes in temperatures around the world.


Prove its humans that are causing this!


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Paumon said:


> It's not the earth's surface and angle of sun rays hitting it that is changing.
> 
> It is the oceans and ocean floor that is changing. It is the oceans that create climate, that creates wind and rain and changes in temperatures around the world.


I asked a lot of questions in your post above. How about an answer!


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

JeffreyD said:


> Prove its humans that are causing this!
> 
> *Why? Why does it matter what's causing it if it can't be stopped?*
> 
> ...


*Yes it will.*


----------



## Txrider (Jun 25, 2010)

Paumon said:


> It's not the earth's surface and angle of sun rays hitting it that is changing.
> 
> It is the oceans and ocean floor that is changing. It is the oceans that create climate, that creates wind and rain and changes in temperatures around the world.


And the oceans have always been changing, S America was once joined with Africa and the Atlantic did not even exist. The gap is widening a bit more and expanding the Atlantic ocean a little bit wider every day, and the Pacific is getting a little smaller every day.. 

The climate has been warming for about 10k years, and will warm more before going back into a glacial cycle that will put half of N America under a mile of ice and scrape cities like NY right off the landscape.. There are scientific studies that say man made global warming could stall that next glacial advance and put it off by an extra 20k years..

Climate change is always happening, has always happened and will always happen, humans or no humans,


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Paumon said:


> *Yes it will.*


Talk about arrogance! WOW!!! Nice cherry picking of my post. From the posts you make here, it really seems that you just don't like humans. Period! 

Your right, humans cannot stop global climate whatever it is called now. On that we can agree. With that in mind, lets use what the earth has to offer to make life better and more comfortable for us humans. I usually only talk this way to those that are sooo un-balanced and arrogant to think that they have all the answers and that we(those that don't or won't fall prey to false science) don't have a clue. Sorry. we've got a clue and global government climate change tax systems, endangered speices acts, etc..., are NOT the answer to this disruption carp being shoved down our collective throats. Also, i could give a care if you don't like my mannrs. Too bad!!! ( i learned from some of the best! Ever gone to an earth first meeting, Wilderness Society, CBD, Peta, SC, DOW, NRDC, etc...? I have (Noby is a friend of mine - we go back about 20 years)) You ought to here what they have to say and how they come across at meetings! 

I also agree that the earth is the cause of this so called climate disruption, and that there's nothing we can do about it. ( Have a clue as to how much Co2 is being spewed from the volcanic activity around Mammoth Lakes here in Ca? Can't stop it now can we?

What would "the balance of nature" be? Who determines it?

As far as countries that would adopt "states of awareness", there are a lot more and a lot bigger countries that are more concerned about there growth and health and comfort for there citizens, than a few trivial countries that are only claming this "awareness" for the money they get from being bribed.

What are YOU doing about your "carbon footprint"? If you have one, why? Is it ok for you, and not for others? Why? Your a habitat distroyer. You pollute just by being! Period! We all do/are. You use the earth's resources and want others to stop or to be eliminated. Yet you say you care! Good grief man!!!


----------



## Bigkat80 (Jan 16, 2007)

WHO Cares....IF it happens it wont happen for like 10,000 years we and all that know us will long be gone from here....this is pointless...no one and I mean abosolutely no one is gonna have there minds changed on this subject...on either side....its pointless...You either beleive in this fairy tale garbage and are gullable or you dont and are reasonable....end of discussion...


----------



## palani (Jun 12, 2005)

Paumon said:


> It's not the earth's surface and angle of sun rays hitting it that is changing.
> 
> It is the oceans and ocean floor that is changing. It is the oceans that create climate, that creates wind and rain and changes in temperatures around the world.


Words have definite meanings. If they did not have precise meanings they are worthless for communication.

Climate has nothing to do with the ocean levels. It has nothing to do with whether you want to wear a shirt or a parka. The word "climate" means the angle the suns rays make with the earths surface. This is not changing.

This concept nails down what is wrong with society today. Most everyone assumes because they are educated they know the topic. People who want to yank your chain do it by words and your assumptions.


----------



## Bigkat80 (Jan 16, 2007)

palani said:


> Words have definite meanings. If they did not have precise meanings they are worthless for communication.
> 
> Climate has nothing to do with the ocean levels. It has nothing to do with whether you want to wear a shirt or a parka. The word "climate" means the angle the suns rays make with the earths surface. This is not changing.
> 
> This concept nails down what is wrong with society today. Most everyone assumes because they are educated they know the topic. People who want to yank your chain do it by words and your assumptions.


How do you get that cfrom this...this is the accepted meaning of the word climate:



> n.
> 1.	The meteorological conditions, including temperature, precipitation, and wind, that characteristically prevail in a particular region.
> 2.	A region of the earth having particular meteorological conditions: lives in a cold climate.
> 3.	A prevailing condition or set of attitudes in human affairs: a climate of unrest.
> ...


----------



## palani (Jun 12, 2005)

Bigkat80 said:


> How do you get that cfrom this...this is the accepted meaning of the word climate:


I previously posted the original Scottish origin definition of the word "climate". Here it is again. This is the definition I accept.



> Originally Posted by Online Etymology Dictionary
> climate
> late 14c., Scottish, from O.Fr. climat, from L. clima (gen. climatis) "region, slope of the Earth," from Gk. klima "region, zone," from base of klinein "to slope," thus "slope of the Earth from equator to pole," from PIE base *klei- "to lean" (see lean (v.)). *The angle of sun on the slope of the Earth's surface defined the zones assigned by early geographers.* Meaning moved from "region" to "weather associated with a region" by c.1600. Related: Climatography.


You will find the "accepted meaning" of any word these days is subject to change. These language changes occur to effectively gradually turn up the heat so that the frog does not realize it is being boiled to death. This has been an ongoing practice since William the Conqueror took over England but the pace has accelerated since the U.S. (un)civil war.


----------



## Bigkat80 (Jan 16, 2007)

HUh Blah blah blah...WTH!!!!!! Nevermind...carry on....


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Bigkat80 said:


> HUh Blah blah blah...WTH!!!!!! Nevermind...carry on....


:hysterical: Gotta agree with you there, BK, that's exactly what I was thinking too - and who cares about the Scottish version of the definition of climate anyway? What Palani did is what's called throwing a _red herring_ into the discussion, something that both he and JeffreyD are good at when they get sulky (especially JD) and have nothing better to contribute but can't tolerate being ignored. 

"A *red herring* is a detail or remark inserted into a discussion, either intentionally or unintentionally, that sidetracks the discussion. The red herring is invariably irrelevant and is often emotionally charged. The participants in the discussion go after the red herring and forget what they were initially talking about; in fact, they may never get back to their original topic."
(Robert J. Gula, _Nonsense: Red Herrings, Straw Men and Sacred Cows: How We Abuse Logic in Our Everyday Language_. Axios, 2007)"


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

JeffreyD said:


> Talk about arrogance! WOW!!! Nice cherry picking of my post. From the posts you make here, it really seems that you just don't like humans. Period!


Yes dear, I cherry picked your post. I merely answered your questions that were relevant to the topic and ignored the emotionally charged red herrings and insults that you threw in as they aren't worthy of response. And I freely admit that I don't like YOU because you're so insulting and bad mannered, but I'm witholding judgement on the rest of humanity.


----------



## tgmr05 (Aug 27, 2007)

Personally, the natural cause of climate change is probably something man will not understand for many, many more years. Every year, experts are shocked, when they learn their models FAILED yet again to predict much of anything with any specificity. What is the most common claim of why? Global cooling/warming/climate change or whatever it will be called next year..... They assume man is somehow to blame for the failure of their models, when the REALITY is that man simply does not have the technology or ability to completely understand the complexities of the planet and its ever changing climate in relation to each individual part. Not to mention the sun, gravitational influences, core changes while spinning around the sun, etc., etc. Before any scientist can truly claim they know man is the sole reason for something disastrous to occur, there is a LOT more research and information necessary. 

Now does man have an impact? Sure, so does everything else alive on the planet that changes anything around them. Breathing changes conditions, putting off heat changes conditions, etc. So do volcanic eruptions, and we still cannot predict in any specific way what they do to the climate. Sure, for a brief period all that pollution will have immediate impacts, but so far, no one has clearly pointed out specifically what changes occurred based on percentages of gasses released, etc. over time and how they interact with other things. Simply too complex a problem for man to solve, at this time. To try and blame man, and claim we are all going to die if we do not do something - though no one knows for sure what exactly specifically we need to do, other than charge an exorbitant amount of money for certain emissions to help balance things - is simply a display of colossal ignorance, at this time. There simply is not enough information to truly see or understand what EXACTLY is going on, taking every aspect of the planet into consideration. Especially if someone is going to use time. We have how many years of records???? And, how old is the planet?? How many years of records would we really need to truly know the truth???


----------



## Txrider (Jun 25, 2010)

palani said:


> I previously posted the original Scottish origin definition of the word "climate". Here it is again. This is the definition I accept.


Then you are intentionally yanking people's chains and not communicating by choice.



> You will find the "accepted meaning" of any word these days is subject to change. These language changes occur to effectively gradually turn up the heat so that the frog does not realize it is being boiled to death. This has been an ongoing practice since William the Conqueror took over England but the pace has accelerated since the U.S. (un)civil war.


Common usage and meaning of words in a society has always changed and will always change. Sticking to an obsolete meaning is just being intentionally difficult.


Climate as in the accepted meaning, is changing. But as someone said the only natural balance is change, and we have been on a warming up cycle for over 10,000 years.


----------



## bjba (Feb 18, 2003)

> Originally Posted by palani
> I previously posted the original Scottish origin definition of the word "climate". Here it is again. This is the definition I accept.


What possible relevance can the Scottish meaning for a word whose etymology
is middle English, early French and Latin have? I agree this is a poor attempt at a red herring.


----------



## Ed Norman (Jun 8, 2002)

bjba said:


> What possible relevance can the Scottish meaning for a word whose etymology
> is middle English, early French and Latin have? I agree this is a poor attempt at a red herring.


Remember when old Snarlin Arlen Specter brought up Scottish Law during the Clinton impeachment? He made about as much sense as this definition.


----------



## Bret4207 (May 31, 2008)

tgmr05 said:


> Personally, the natural cause of climate change is probably something man will not understand for many, many more years. Every year, experts are shocked, when they learn their models FAILED yet again to predict much of anything with any specificity. What is the most common claim of why? Global cooling/warming/climate change or whatever it will be called next year..... They assume man is somehow to blame for the failure of their models, when the REALITY is that man simply does not have the technology or ability to completely understand the complexities of the planet and its ever changing climate in relation to each individual part. Not to mention the sun, gravitational influences, core changes while spinning around the sun, etc., etc. Before any scientist can truly claim they know man is the sole reason for something disastrous to occur, there is a LOT more research and information necessary.
> 
> Now does man have an impact? Sure, so does everything else alive on the planet that changes anything around them. Breathing changes conditions, putting off heat changes conditions, etc. So do volcanic eruptions, and we still cannot predict in any specific way what they do to the climate. Sure, for a brief period all that pollution will have immediate impacts, but so far, no one has clearly pointed out specifically what changes occurred based on percentages of gasses released, etc. over time and how they interact with other things. Simply too complex a problem for man to solve, at this time. To try and blame man, and claim we are all going to die if we do not do something - though no one knows for sure what exactly specifically we need to do, other than charge an exorbitant amount of money for certain emissions to help balance things - is simply a display of colossal ignorance, at this time. There simply is not enough information to truly see or understand what EXACTLY is going on, taking every aspect of the planet into consideration. Especially if someone is going to use time. We have how many years of records???? And, how old is the planet?? How many years of records would we really need to truly know the truth???


Kindly stop interjecting common sense in this nonsensical discussion...:happy:


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Paumon said:


> Yes dear, I cherry picked your post. I merely answered your questions that were relevant to the topic and ignored the emotionally charged red herrings and insults that you threw in as they aren't worthy of response. And I freely admit that I don't like YOU because you're so insulting and bad mannered, but I'm witholding judgement on the rest of humanity.


Could you please point out where i insulted you, and how my maners were different from yours? Also, you say that my posts were "emotionally charged", re-read YOUR pots and tell me they were not! Pot - kettle!

You may not like the fact that i refuted your claim of man made global climate disruption. Does that give you the right to insult me? Is that the best response you can come up with is to say you don't like me and that i'm ill mannored and insulting? Talk about red herrings! I do understand though, that your responses are typical of the unbalanced environmemtalists who can't be bothered by true science and resort to name calling and diversion! Nice try though!


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

"In order to not believe in man-made climate change, you must first find the natural cause of climate change."

Man-MADE climate change is another of those famous Straw Man arguments. Many people read things about climate change and have an immediate knee-jerk reaction without first figuring out what is written. There's also a bit of the False Dichotomy Fallacy thrown in, too. People seem to want to think of it in "black and white" either/or terms, and it's either all or nothing for them. Not every suggestion of climate change proposes that man is the ONLY thing causing it. Many people say that man is CONTRIBUTING to climate change.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

FourDeuce said:


> ..... Not every suggestion of climate change proposes that man is the ONLY thing causing it. *Many people say that man is CONTRIBUTING to climate change*.


I think that is becoming the general consensus with the AGW advocates and even amongst many of those who earlier denied that climate change was happening at all. Now that climate change is jumping up and slapping people in the face a lot of people are starting to change their point of view.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

JeffreyD said:


> Could you please point out where i insulted you, and how my maners were different from yours? Also, you say that my posts were "emotionally charged", re-read YOUR pots and tell me they were not! Pot - kettle!


My posts were pragmatic, not in the least bit emotionally charged, nor were they insulting towards anyone. Yours were. If you can't see how your "frothing at the mouth" rants and sulky demands directed at me are insulting and disrespectful then there is something not quite right with your powers of reason. So I think I will just ignore you from now on. You type a lot but you don't say much that is reasonable or worth paying attention to.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Paumon said:


> My posts were pragmatic, *not in the least bit emotionally charged*, nor were they insulting towards anyone. Yours were. If you can't see how your "frothing at the mouth" rants and sulky demands directed at me are insulting and disrespectful then there is something not quite right with your powers of reason. So I think I will just ignore you from now on. You type a lot but you don't say much that is reasonable or worth paying attention to.


:hysterical:

Please point out how they were insulting. Everything you posted above can be said about you and your posts. And please, by all means, put me on ignore. You don't think that the terms "frothing at the mouth", "sulky", etc.. are not insulting?

Your attempt at diversion is very telling of YOUR powers of reason. It's your way or the highway, nothing else. Typical!!


----------



## palani (Jun 12, 2005)

Bigkat80 said:


> HUh Blah blah blah...WTH!!!!!! Nevermind...carry on....


Yes, I agree that your comment is much more intelligent (to a zombie maybe).


----------



## palani (Jun 12, 2005)

Paumon said:


> :hysterical: Gotta agree with you there, BK, that's exactly what I was thinking too - and who cares about the Scottish version of the definition of climate anyway? What Palani did is what's called throwing a _red herring_ into the discussion, something that both he and JeffreyD are good at when they get sulky (especially JD) and have nothing better to contribute but can't tolerate being ignored.
> 
> "A *red herring* is a detail or remark inserted into a discussion, either intentionally or unintentionally, that sidetracks the discussion. The red herring is invariably irrelevant and is often emotionally charged. The participants in the discussion go after the red herring and forget what they were initially talking about; in fact, they may never get back to their original topic."
> (Robert J. Gula, _Nonsense: Red Herrings, Straw Men and Sacred Cows: How We Abuse Logic in Our Everyday Language_. Axios, 2007)"


You must be some sort of a head case to insist that YOU are the only one who can define a word based upon only the CURRENT definition of 'CLIMATE CHANGE' which has an entirely different meaning than 'CLIMATE'.

Words are specific and they mean (or should mean) only one thing at a time. If CLIMATE meant the angle the sun makes to the surface of the earth for 500 years and then someone chooses to call it the balmy weather found in the Bahamas why are you not willing to defend the 500 years of previous usage? Are you calling your ancestors ignorant?


----------



## palani (Jun 12, 2005)

Txrider said:


> Then you are intentionally yanking people's chains and not communicating by choice.


 I thought I had communicated my meaning very well, thank you kindly.





Txrider said:


> Common usage and meaning of words in a society has always changed and will always change. Sticking to an obsolete meaning is just being intentionally difficult.


 The one who defines a word also controls the people who choose to use it. Scholars use Latin not because it is a live language that is changing but because it is a dead language and does not change.




Txrider said:


> Climate as in the accepted meaning, is changing. But as someone said the only natural balance is change, and we have been on a warming up cycle for over 10,000 years.


 Climate as in the original meaning has stayed the same for 500 years. It is NOT changing. The word construction "climate change" defined as "global warming" is a concept intended to cause you to dip into your pocketbook and support Al Gores' alimony.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Words are specific and they mean (or should mean) *only one thing at a time*.


And yet YOU insist on using the OBSOLETE definiton

Once again you've rambled so much you defeated yourself

LOL


----------



## palani (Jun 12, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> And yet YOU insist on using the OBSOLETE definiton


That is my prerogative.



Bearfootfarm said:


> Once again you've rambled so much you defeated yourself
> 
> LOL


You might have noticed that in the world we live in left is right and up is down. Your concept of a defeat becomes my concept of a conquest and you are once again left with mud all over your face.


----------



## bjba (Feb 18, 2003)

The discussion of the use of obsolete word definitions is as absurd as the OP.
The climate has been changing since the event you believe created this planet and it will continue to change until the event you believe will destroy it.


----------



## palani (Jun 12, 2005)

bjba said:


> The discussion of the use of obsolete word definitions is as absurd as the OP.


 You would prefer an very NON-SPECIFIC definition in favor of one that is explicit and well defined?




bjba said:


> The climate has been changing since the event you believe created this planet and it will continue to change until the event you believe will destroy it.


So in order to change the angle of incident sunlight upon the surface of the earth would you rather believe the Sun is changing position or that the Earth is changing its axis of rotation? Do not forget that with four seasons the angle of incident sunlight at any place upon the Earth is constantly changing with the season.

Are you going to throw out the four seasons as well?


----------



## bjba (Feb 18, 2003)

> You would prefer an very NON-SPECIFIC definition in favor of one that is explicit and well defined? palani


I much prefer the Websters definition:



> To dwell.
> 
> 
> The condition of a place in relation to various phenomena of the atmosphere, as temperature, moisture, etc., especially as they affect animal or vegetable life.
> ...


Seems to me to be quite specific and since by your rules we are free to choose I choose this.


----------



## palani (Jun 12, 2005)

bjba said:


> Seems to me to be quite specific and since by your rules we are free to choose I choose this.


And that is YOUR prerogative. (You have made a poor choice).


----------



## megafatcat (Jun 30, 2009)

Why argue about the meaning of one word when the basic premise of the question is in error? In order to believe in man-made climate change you must find the agency that is changing the climate at a greater or more accelerated rate than in other periods of geological history. You must also prove that the climate is indeed changing beyond normal fluctuations. I see proof of neither.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Meaning moved from "region" to "weather associated with a region" by *c.1600*


You're only 400 years behind the times in your little world.



> So in order to change the angle of incident sunlight upon the surface of the earth would you rather believe the *Sun is changing *position or that the* Earth is changing* its axis of rotation?


They are both floating in space, so it's very likely the relationships are in constant flux.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Why argue about the meaning of one word when the basic premise of the question is in error?


Because it directs attention from the fact he can't give logical replies to ON TOPIC points.


----------



## bjba (Feb 18, 2003)

> (You have made a poor choice). palani[/QUOT
> 
> In your exiguous opinion.


----------



## Willowdale (Mar 19, 2007)

The hostility in this thread is kinda making me despair. Anyone who's been scuba diving over the past twenty years can see with their own eyeballs that reefs that were thriving twenty years ago are bleached and dead today, and that's happening all over the world. For crying out loud, the Great Northwest Passage used to be a mythological quest, and now it's freely navigable. Glacier National Park used to have a lot more glacier. This stuff isn't happening over centuries, it's happening over decades, and we can all see it with our own eyeballs. And these aren't minor changes! Not little bitty problems. Why would we not want to do everything we can to try to stop it?

If an asteroid were hurtling at the earth, would we have a fight about who caused it, and then a fight about the Scottish etymology of the work "hurtle"? I'm not going to go into the whole "scientists are liars" thing. Seems like that one only applies to mainstream scientists, and spares the fistfull of noble kook-balls who coincidentally agree with the scientist-blamer. 

I don't even understand the motivation. Who would stand in the path of an oncoming train? And try to get everyone else to stand there with them?

Maybe I'm just passionate about it because my farm's at 9' elevation to sea level. And I want my grand kids to enjoy it.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

You guys are all great. This has turned out to be the most hilarious topic about climate change that I've ever seen on this board, (and full of red herrings too). ound: 

I've been laughing so hard I have tears streaming, thanks for all the laughs. :thumb:

.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Willowdale said:


> The hostility in this thread is kinda making me despair.......
> 
> Maybe I'm just passionate about it because my farm's at 9' elevation to sea level. And I want my grand kids to enjoy it.


Please don't despair Willowdale, the hostility is par for the course in any topic about climate change on this board. That's just the way it is. Maybe in another couple of years when CC is full on slapping everyone in the face people will start getting more agreeable with each other about it and start discussing how to deal with it instead of debating about it and making accusations about consipracy theories.

I'm really sorry to hear that your farm is only at 9' elevation above sea level, that really is bad news. Maybe you could get ahead of the game and sell it now before it's too late to someone who's in denial about climate change, let the rising water be their problem, and you go get yourself another farm somewhere safer??? Just a thought. 

.


----------



## palani (Jun 12, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You're only 400 years behind the times in your little world.


 And you still cannot get it through your head that it is my choice to decide which definition I choose to convey my meaning.


----------



## palani (Jun 12, 2005)

Willowdale said:


> Maybe I'm just passionate about it because my farm's at 9' elevation to sea level. And I want my grand kids to enjoy it.


If it is dry land you are interested in then best study the techniques the Dutch used to reclaim the ocean.

In a legal sense if you are interested in dry land you had best figure out why you don't own your land and take appropriate measures to insure that your grand kids will own it in the future.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

I thought some of you might be interested in this week's news report from Reuters. Please note that it does NOT infer anything about whether or not climate change is caused my man. It's strictly a report about current findings.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LDE6AF1I1.htm

Source: Reuters



> * Colder winters possible in northern regions
> 
> * Shrinking sea ice causes airstream anomalies
> 
> ...


.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Hey, JeffreyD. You know all those lengthy reports that you posted on page 1, some of them are 13 to 18 years old. Kind of out of date I think.

.


----------



## Ed Norman (Jun 8, 2002)

naturelover said:


> * Colder winters possible in northern regions
> 
> * Shrinking sea ice causes airstream anomalies
> 
> ...


*

Hard hitting science you can bank on.*


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Ed Norman said:


> Hard hitting science you can bank on.


Could, should, would .... meh. Just more 'word' semantics to get picky over. 

You know how CC deniers keep asking if there's global warming then why are the winters getting so much worse instead of being warmer and doesn't that mean there is no gloabl warming happening? I think the whole point of the report was to explain to those people why winters are ALREADY getting more severe while summers are ALREADY getting more severe, and it's a warning to expect both winters and summers to continue getting worse for the reasons given. Now this is an explanation that most CC believers have already been saying for quite some time now anyway, it's a no brainer really, but the report from that study merely confirms it. 

You should interpret it which ever way works best for you and blow away the rest.

.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> And you still cannot get it through your head that it is my choice to decide which definition I choose to convey my meaning.


I realize it's *your choice* to live in your own world.
But you keep expecting others to go along with you



> Could, should, would .... meh. Just more 'word' semantics to get picky over.


In SCIENCE , *details *are everything.



> winters are ALREADY getting more severe while summers are ALREADY getting more severe


And yet they are STILL within NORMAL historical parameters.

Everyone makes a big deal out of "record" temperatures, but want to ignore the fact that most of those records go back less than 100 years.


----------



## Ed Norman (Jun 8, 2002)

naturelover said:


> Could, should, would .... meh. Just more 'word' semantics to get picky over.
> 
> You know how CC deniers keep asking if there's global warming then why are the winters getting so much worse instead of being warmer and doesn't that mean there is no gloabl warming happening? I think the whole point of the report was to explain to those people why winters are ALREADY getting more severe while summers are ALREADY getting more severe, and it's a warning to expect both winters and summers to continue getting worse for the reasons given. Now this is an explanation that most CC believers have already been saying for quite some time now anyway, it's a no brainer really, but the report from that study merely confirms it.
> 
> ...


The weather is not getting more severe. Maybe one area has a rough winter, the next area has a mild one this year. Same as always. Since forever, there are some winters different from other winters in any given area. We had a mild winter and a mild summer. That cancels out someone else's bad winter and summer. 

Here is a fun fact from today:



> UN IPCC Official Admits 'We Redistribute World's Wealth By Climate Policy'
> 
> By Noel Sheppard | November 18, 2010 | 11:27
> Noel Sheppard's picture
> ...


http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-s...-we-redistribute-worlds-wealth-climate-policy

If you could ever manage to get the outright thieves off of your team, I might listen to a few of your specious arguments. But until then...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> *Vladimir Petoukhov*, lead author of the study


Wasn't it a bunch of Russian "scientists" who said the BP oil well was going to collapse into a "black hole" and destroy the planet?


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

This is hilarious, absolutely hilarious. I put a very clear, concise, and perfectly acceptable criteria for the man-made climate change deniers to bring forth their evidence - not one post that met the criteria, not one! Do you guys realize how heavily you just killed your own argument? Major big time. And you still won't be able to answer.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> This is hilarious, absolutely hilarious. I put a very clear, concise, and perfectly acceptable criteria for the man-made climate change deniers to bring forth their evidence - not one post that met the criteria,


LOL

You've seen charts and data ad infinitum, and* PRETEND *no one has shown you anything at all

If you want to *pretend* the climate was always the same until the last couple of decades, all due to "man", then that's your choice to ignore MILLIONS of years of climate change before then


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

Heritagefarm said:


> This is hilarious, absolutely hilarious. I put a very clear, concise, and perfectly acceptable criteria for the man-made climate change deniers to bring forth their evidence - not one post that met the criteria, not one! Do you guys realize how heavily you just killed your own argument? Major big time. And you still won't be able to answer.


Please, from a geological standpoint, explain how, for roughly 60 million years, the earth was pretty much ice-free. And after that, multiple Ice Ages, where most of the planet was in a deep freeze... the glaciers surged towards the equator. Then they retreated during interglacial periods. Then surged, retreated, etc. We're in an interglacial period right now.

Answer me this, and only this, if you cannot muster an answer for those pesky periods of the planets history when both extremes of hot and cold oscillated back and forth... all without humans.

The question I have is............... What can man do to stop global whatever? The cap and trade and carbon tax proposals will not do one thing to slow down or mitigate what's happening. Will the AGW solutions include reducing the problem? Which is, if humans are the problem, eliminating humans must be the solution.

[Of course not... all the AGW 'solutions' are nothing but a cash tax cow for pet projects... which will in truth, only exacerbate the problem, by making life easier for people who live in regions where they couldn't/shouldn't be living in in the first place... and when anyone struggling gets comfortable, the absolute first thing they think about is getting jiggy with a member of the opposite sex, increasing the population... making more humans that'll make AGW even worse]

I'll jump on the bandwagon when I meet someone who'll acknowledge the truth. And isn't a hypocrite. Show me a person who's pro AGW, and anti... food aid, welfare, vaccines, humanitarian aid... oh, I think that'd be a very short list... You cannot keep just one uber liberal agenda and cast off the rest... its impossible. But, my contention is AGW is not logically compatible with the liberal agenda of helping others, if indeed AGW is true.


----------



## palani (Jun 12, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I realize it's *your choice* to live in your own world.
> But you keep expecting others to go along with you


Wherever did you get this notion. As a farmer I planted corn and soybeans and expected like kind in return at harvest.

Think of my contributions as thought-seeds and think of your mind as a barren waterless lifeless environment where no thought-seeds are ever going to take root that do not include beer or fishing.


----------



## palani (Jun 12, 2005)

"Climate change" is a word construction made by man to describe the effect of *man* on general warming of the planet. 

By definition all planet warming is not man-made because obviously there were periods of warming and cooling in the past. But by the definition above "climate change" only addresses the effects of man-kinds activities that result in global warming.

What about global cooling? This concept by the given definition above is not covered by the phrase "climate change". Global cooling would indeed be a CHANGE but not a WARMING change and the definition just given only applies to WARMING.

What about natural methods of warming the planet? By definition "climate change" has been designed to address only man-made causes so other natural causes do not fit in the classification of "climate change".

Again, narrow scope definitions of PHRASES using other English language words leave you with nothing but confusion. I believe this is the intent of coming up with these phrases.


----------



## Ed Norman (Jun 8, 2002)

palani said:


> Wherever did you get this notion. As a farmer I planted corn and soybeans and expected like kind in return at harvest.


From the online etymology dictionary:

Farmer: late 14c., "one who collects taxes, etc.," from Anglo-Fr. fermer, Fr. fermier, from M.L. firmarius, from firma

Live by the sword, die by the sword. You collect taxes, etc. There can be no argument. Plain as day, you tax collector.


----------



## palani (Jun 12, 2005)

Ed Norman said:


> From the online etymology dictionary:
> 
> Farmer: late 14c., "one who collects taxes, etc.," from Anglo-Fr. fermer, Fr. fermier, from M.L. firmarius, from firma
> 
> Live by the sword, die by the sword. You collect taxes, etc. There can be no argument. Plain as day, you tax collector.


Good one! :duel: Glad to see I have made a convert.

If you should think the connection between farming and tax collecting is far out check out the relationship of a churl to a sovereign:



> churl
> O.E. ceorl "peasant, freeman, man without rank," from P.Gmc. *kerlaz, *karlaz (cf. O.Fris. zerl "man, fellow," M.L.G. kerle, Du. kerel, Ger. Kerl "man, husband," O.N. karl "old man, man"). It had various meaning in early M.E., including "man of the common people," "a country man," "husbandman," "free peasant;" by 1300, it meant "bondman, villain," also "fellow of low birth or rude manners." For words for "common man" that acquire an insulting flavor over time, compare boor, villain. In this case, however, *the same word also has come to mean "king" in many languages* (e.g. Lith. karalius, Czech kral, Polish krol, Hungarian kiraly) via Charlemagne.





> Quote:sovereign
> late 13c., from O.Fr. soverain, from V.L. **superanus* "chief, principal," from L. super "over" (see super-). Spelling influenced by folk-etymology association with reign. Milton spelled it sovran, as though from It. sovrano. Meaning "gold coin worth 22s 6d" first recorded late 15c.; value changed 1817 to 1 pound. As an adj., attested from early 14c.; of remedies or medicines, "potent in a high degree," from late 14c.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> LOL
> 
> You've seen charts and data ad infinitum, and* PRETEND *no one has shown you anything at all
> 
> If you want to *pretend* the climate was always the same until the last couple of decades, all due to "man", then that's your choice to ignore MILLIONS of years of climate change before then


I've seen lot's of charts and data - pointing to man-made climate change. AND, I think YOU were the one arguing that climate measurements millions of years ago aren't accurate?:indif:


----------



## palani (Jun 12, 2005)

Heritagefarm said:


> I've seen lot's of charts and data - pointing to man-made climate change.


As DEFINED ALL climate change is man-made. It is built into the definition. You cannot go back and argue that nature has anything to do with something that is entirely made up in the mind of man.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Still no actual answer... Pathetic.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

palani said:


> As DEFINED ALL climate change is man-made. It is built into the definition.


We've had plenty that was NOT man-made. It is NOT "built into" the definition. It is expected, within the next couple decades/century the global temp will rise a wholloping 4-5 degrees Celsius.


----------



## palani (Jun 12, 2005)

Heritagefarm said:


> We've had plenty that was NOT man-made. It is NOT "built into" the definition. It is expected, within the next couple decades/century the global temp will rise a wholloping 4-5 degrees Celsius.


No. You have had NO climate change that is natural. It is defined to be man made. You cannot have it both ways. Once the phrase has been defined to be the mankinds contribution to changing weather then natural causes are not included at all.

Ultimately the only way to eliminate mankinds contribution to climate change is to eliminate mankind.

Are you seeking this ultimate solution?


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

palani said:


> No. You have had NO climate change that is natural. It is defined to be man made. You cannot have it both ways. Once the phrase has been defined to be the mankinds contribution to changing weather then natural causes are not included at all.
> 
> Ultimately the only way to eliminate mankinds contribution to climate change is to eliminate mankind.


*WTH*? What makes you think that? you'd have to live in denial, or fill yourself with loads of garbage science to actually believe that!


----------



## Pouncer (Oct 28, 2006)

Welp, I look at it differently. This planet is in constant flux. Every day, month, year, century, and so forth.

Changes in the local space environs (The Space Ribbon, anyone?), changes in the life cycle of the sun, changes in the polarity of the magnetic field, changes to the earth's surface, changes to the composition of the atmosphere.....etc, etc, etc.

From Pangea to todays' world maps, constant change on a geologic scale. Ice ages, interglacial periods....continue. 

Are we messing in our own bed? Ayep, look at the changes wrought from man's efforts to change the landscape. Prime example: The extensive farming which created the American dust bowl of the 30s. I am sure there are many other examples around the world too, if one cares to look at deforestation, grassland destruction, and so forth.

Some species will become extinct, and some will thrive in new niches, its the way of this natural world. 

JMO.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> *Think of my contributions as thought-seeds* and think of your mind as a barren waterless lifeless environment where no thought-seeds are ever going to take root that do not include beer or fishing


They more closely resemble fertilizer


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Hey, JeffreyD. You know all those lengthy reports that you posted on page 1, some of them are 13 to 18 years old. *Kind of out of date *I think


Data and facts don't change with age.
Heritage ASKED for data for the "*last couple of decades*"


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I've seen lot's of charts and data - pointing to *man-made *climate change


Like I stated, you PRETEND the climate never changed in the past.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Like I stated, you PRETEND the climate never changed in the past.


No I didn't. Quit cherry-picking.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> No I didn't. Quit *cherry-picking*


LOL

That's funny considering you started out asking for proof of NON "man made" changes, and now you've tried to narrow it to just a 20 year span, all the while ignoring *all *facts that show change is NATURAL *with or without *humans


----------



## palani (Jun 12, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> They more closely resemble fertilizer


 I can only yield to your superior knowledge of this topic.


----------



## palani (Jun 12, 2005)

Heritagefarm said:


> *WTH*? What makes you think that? you'd have to live in denial, or fill yourself with loads of garbage science to actually believe that!


No, I would just have to have a little more background in word construction than what you appear to have.

Take a peek. The topic starts under the unlikely word "CONSTRUCTION". Go down the list and see how many phrases were judicially determined. And this list is many of those constructions up until 1855. You will not find "climate change" there because it was not invented until 1983.

http://www.constitution.org/bouv/bouvier_c.htm

The list is not short. There are probably 8-10 pages of constructions that have had their meaning judicially determined. In the libraries now there are bookcases filled with these constructions. Entire volumes have been written about them.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

heritagefarm said:


> in order to not believe in man-made climate change, you must first find the natural cause of climate change.
> Criteria for presenting your natural cause of climate change:
> A. Must be supported by a large scientific community, preferably several or most.
> B. The cause must be happening now, and for the past couple decades.
> ...



*BOT*, *please!*


----------



## palani (Jun 12, 2005)

Heritagefarm said:


> *BOT*, *please!*


Why are you arguing with me when I am agreeing with you?

There is no natural cause of "climate change" because it has been defined to be man made.

Why do you want to eliminate mankind?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> Still no actual answer... Pathetic.


So you don't like the information and links I provided? Aren't you contributing to the so called distruction by increasing the methane in our atmosphere?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

naturelover said:


> Hey, JeffreyD. You know all those lengthy reports that you posted on page 1, some of them are 13 to 18 years old. Kind of out of date I think.
> 
> .


Some are not! I can't change your mind and you can't change mine. I was involved with the movement years ago and learned first hand from some of the leading people what their agenda REALLY was. Control! I will not be part of that anymore. Do you believe other scientists over Dr. Singer and the over 4000 non-biased scientists that refute man made global climate disruption? Why?

I too have found this thread funny, but in a sad way. To see folks so brain washed as to not see the truth is very, very sad indeed!


----------



## tgmr05 (Aug 27, 2007)

It will be interesting to see the same folks debating the same thing 40 years from now, and still man will not have the capability to really understand what is happening.

We have had expert scientists claim consensus on global cooling, change to global warming, and now state the most ridiculous position EVER -Global Climate Change. REALLY??? Now, whether it gets colder/warmer anything, they can claim to be correct. The climate has CHANGED forever. It has never been static. Will it change next year? You betcha, whether we tax carbon credits, learn to eat recycled toilet paper, or whatever.....

The planet does not have such a fragile climate system that it cannot tolerate humans. If so, the planet would have been destroyed long ago, by supervolcanoes, asteroids, or other so called natural phenomenon.

Maybe, just maybe, in 150 years, we will have the technology and ability to truly understand exactly how CFC really did change the climate, or better yet - and the more likely answer- learn how the complexities of the earths naturally evolving/changing systems dealt with the CFC emissions and continued to support life.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> There is no natural cause of "climate change" because it has been defined to be man made.


LOL 

If you can't win with facts and logic, "win" by *changing definitions*


----------



## chickenslayer (Apr 20, 2010)

The climate has been naturally changing for 4 billion years or so, why the fuss now?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

chickenslayer said:


> The climate has been naturally changing for 4 billion years or so, why the fuss now?


Because some scientists have forecasted devastating consequences to life as we know it, and even to human life itself.

Even if we assume for a moment that climate change is not caused by man (a fact that I'm not willing to concede to), does it necessarily follow that man can't do something to change the course of impending disaster? And if we can change the course of devastating climate change, or at least lessen its impact, what's wrong with taking corrective action?


----------



## palani (Jun 12, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> LOL
> 
> If you can't win with facts and logic, "win" by *changing definitions*


What is the prize if someone "wins"? Is it the recognition that the global warming people want to see people genocided? Would this be so that Al Gore can fly a bigger jet or leave the lights on when he exits his mansion?


----------



## palani (Jun 12, 2005)

chickenslayer said:


> The climate has been naturally changing for 4 billion years or so, why the fuss now?


4 billions of years ago there was nobody to care. There was no climate because the word had not been invented until the 14th century by the Scottish.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

palani said:


> 4 billions of years ago there was nobody to care. There was no climate because the word had not been invented until the 14th century by the Scottish.


Strange, I thought conservative Christians all believed that the earth was only 6,000 years old.


----------



## chickenslayer (Apr 20, 2010)

Nevada said:


> Strange, I thought conservative Christians all believed that the earth was only 6,000 years old.



That's another thread entirely, with a high probability that it will end up locked :grin:


----------



## palani (Jun 12, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Strange, I thought conservative Christians all believed that the earth was only 6,000 years old.


Really? I have never met one of those.

But then there are people today who think that man is human even though what is similar is not the same.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Because *some scientists have forecasted *devastating consequences to life as we know it, and even to human life itself.


So?

It wouldn't be the first mass extinction from NATURAL causes.

75% of all species that have existed have also died out.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> what's wrong with taking corrective action?


You can take any corrective action you choose.
No one will stop you


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> So?
> 
> It wouldn't be the first mass extinction from NATURAL causes.
> 
> 75% of all species that have existed have also died out.


You have no interest in saving the human race?


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> > what's wrong with taking corrective action?
> 
> 
> You can take any corrective action you choose.
> No one will stop you


Ummm ..... there are lots of people that are trying to stop other people from taking corrective action. They are those who are afraid of losing or having to give up something for themselves ..... i.e. loss of money, fear of increased taxes, loss of personal rights or privileges, conveniences, luxuries, etc.

.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

naturelover said:


> Ummm ..... there are lots of people that are trying to stop other people from taking corrective action. They are those who are afraid of losing or having to give up something for themselves ..... i.e. loss of money, fear of increased taxes, loss of personal rights or privileges, conveniences, luxuries, etc.


That's bad enough as it is, but to let the entire human race die out to preserve a lifestyle is being just a little self-centered, don't you think?


----------



## Ed Norman (Jun 8, 2002)

naturelover said:


> They are those who are afraid of losing or having to give up something for themselves ..... i.e. loss of money, fear of increased taxes, loss of personal rights or privileges, conveniences, luxuries, etc.
> 
> .


Now you're catching on. Welcome to our side.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Nevada said:


> That's bad enough as it is, but to let the entire human race die out to preserve a lifestyle is being just a little self-centered, don't you think?


Self-centered, yes. 

I don't think the entire human race will die out. Besides which, that doesn't concern me much. The human race deserves whatever it puts honest effort into achieving. I think it's rather self-centered to only be thinking about the continuation of the human race when there are already more humans on the planet now than have ever existed in the history of mankind.

I wouldn't want to see the human race die out, but really I'm more concerned about the planet as a whole and all living things and all resources. I agree with what another poster said about too many humans creating too much of an imbalance .... too much human pollution putting too much strain on the rest of the world as it functions as a whole, living, healthy organism.

I think the planet is not feeling very healthy right now and it's in the process of healing itself. It will get rid of whatever is making it feel sick.

.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Ed Norman said:


> Now you're catching on. Welcome to our side.


I'm not really on any person's side of the issue, only on the side of what I personally feel is best for the planet as a whole.

.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

JeffreyD said:


> So you don't like the information and links I provided?


You did not actually answer the question. If you think you did, you are sadly disillusioned.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> You *did not actually answer the question*. If you think you did, you are sadly disillusioned.


LOL

Deny deny deny


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

*Still no Answer? from HeritageFarm...
*
not surprised... I presented an inconvenient truth... to which AGW'ers cannot or will not answer.

Btw... do you have any science background?

Back when I was in school, it was frowned upon to reach conclusions and then go out and 'find' data that proved your point. Even worse was when you 'fudged' your data when it was inconveniently absent. As I was in geology, we called it geofudge.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

texican said:


> *Still no Answer? from HeritageFarm...
> *
> not surprised... I presented an inconvenient truth... to which AGW'ers cannot or will not answer.
> 
> ...


I have background science. And... I did indeed reach a conclusion first. The conclusion was, most scientists are concerned about climate change, and textbooks, particularly biological sciences, express concern about climate change, for it is a genuine concern. Now, I cannot be held amiss for reaching a conclusion before researching. Rather, I researched my original conclusion, and have not found data that negates man-made climate change. If it were a false conclusion, I would quickly change my opinion. It is, after all, hard to skew data that plainly shows that with the advent of industrialization, global temperature went up. It doesn't matter what methods were used, you can cherry-pick the graphs all you want, scientists have nothing to gain from climate change. We all have a lot to lose, in fact. It would be much more convenient for CO2 to not be a GHG, or if climate change isn't happening. Unfortunately, it is, and the temperature is going up. And the evidence is starting to show, but of course it's easy to just sluff off a drought here and there, and use an icestorm here and there as "proof" the climate is not changing. Well, the climate is changing; tough cookies. But, it is much easier for people to say, arrogantly, "Oh, the billions of people and millions of tons of air pollution, that doesn't make any difference." Never mind that fact that atmospheric CO2 has almost doubled, higher than it ever has been before, from what we know with certainty for the past couple centuries, and with relative certainty the past couple millennia.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> You have no interest in saving the human race?


Nothing *I *do will "save the human race".

Why the melodrama? 
No logical , rational points left?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Ummm ..... there are lots of people that are trying to stop other people from taking corrective action. They are those who are afraid of losing or having to give up something for themselves ..... i.e. loss of money, fear of increased taxes, loss of personal rights or privileges, conveniences, luxuries, etc.


There's no "corrective action" Nevada has been stopped from taking.
Has someone stopped you?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> There's no "corrective action" Nevada has been stopped from taking.
> Has someone stopped you?


We can't do it alone. It's going to take the cooperation of industry to have enough of an impact..


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Nothing *I *do will "save the human race".


But we can do it collectively.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> There's no "corrective action" Nevada has been stopped from taking.
> Has someone stopped you?


Well, we don't really know who or what might or might not be stopping Nevada, but good point I guess.

No, nobody has stopped me from being pro-active and taking corrective action in my own personal little corner of the world. But then, I live in a pro-active province where corrective action is strongly encouraged in all of our communities anyway. The vast majority of the population here thinks and acts "green" and is big on conservation, including that mindset being instilled in new immigrants being integrated into our society here. However, there is a big car culture happening here that's obviously never going to change and so about 20 years ago the province instituted the "Air Care" emissions program because of that. If your car doesn't pass the annual Air Care emissions test you can't get it insured or drive it until you get it fixed to within permissable emissions levels. There are emissions controls on factories and other industries too. My wetlands picture in my signature below is just one example of how everything here looks, clean and fresh and green.

.


----------



## Bigkat80 (Jan 16, 2007)

Paumon said:


> I think that is becoming the general consensus with the AGW advocates and even amongst many of those who earlier denied that climate change was happening at all. Now that climate change is jumping up and slapping people in the face a lot of people are starting to change their point of view.


My whole problem is once someone tries to lie to me i never again beleive what they say...if they had taken time and not manipulated the data i might be just as staunch a advocate as you...but once the need to lie was evident then I have discounted all else because of the lie....


----------



## Bigkat80 (Jan 16, 2007)

Willowdale said:


> The hostility in this thread is kinda making me despair. Anyone who's been scuba diving over the past twenty years can see with their own eyeballs that reefs that were thriving twenty years ago are bleached and dead today, and that's happening all over the world. For crying out loud, the Great Northwest Passage used to be a mythological quest, and now it's freely navigable. Glacier National Park used to have a lot more glacier. This stuff isn't happening over centuries, it's happening over decades, and we can all see it with our own eyeballs. And these aren't minor changes! Not little bitty problems. Why would we not want to do everything we can to try to stop it?
> 
> If an asteroid were hurtling at the earth, would we have a fight about who caused it, and then a fight about the Scottish etymology of the work "hurtle"? I'm not going to go into the whole "scientists are liars" thing. Seems like that one only applies to mainstream scientists, and spares the fistfull of noble kook-balls who coincidentally agree with the scientist-blamer.
> 
> ...


if your that passsionate about it then sell your property and move to higher ground...while your at it dont leave a large carbon footprint on your way out....it jsut ridiculous to think all this willy nilly running about sky iks falling global warming stuff is so serious to you people....utter rubbish


----------



## MJsLady (Aug 16, 2006)

eh being a creationist, this link sums up my thoughts pretty well.

aig


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

MJsLady said:


> eh being a creationist, this link sums up my thoughts pretty well.
> 
> aig


Yes, good, but all it did was call for more evidence.


----------



## Riverdale (Jan 20, 2008)

two words

carboniferous http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carboniferous

Krakatoa http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carboniferous

'nuff said


----------



## sammyd (Mar 11, 2007)

> For crying out loud, the Great Northwest Passage used to be a mythological quest, and now it's freely navigable


Wrong on both points.
It was traversed in 06 
and is not considered "freely navigable" by anyone


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> However, there is a big car culture happening here that's obviously never going to change and so about 20 years ago the province instituted the "Air Care" emissions program because of that. If your car doesn't pass the annual Air Care emissions test you can't get it insured or drive it until you get it fixed to within permissable emissions levels. There are emissions controls on factories and other industries too.


We do all that here.

My main point is it doesn't much matter what WE do unless the *entire world *does it too, and that is NOT going to happen.

Add to that the FACT that "climate change" is STILL mostly from NATURAL causes

Those who* ignore *the natural causes and claim it's ALL man made have lost all credibility


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> We do all that here.
> 
> My main point is it doesn't much matter what WE do unless the *entire world *does it too, and that is NOT going to happen.


That's a political problem. They need to get their act together. Failure to cooperate, and therefore endanger our lives by polluting our environment, should be considered an act of war. Someday political leaders will look at it that way.



Bearfootfarm said:


> Add to that the FACT that "climate change" is STILL mostly from NATURAL causes
> 
> Those who* ignore *the natural causes and claim it's ALL man made have lost all credibility


I still don't understand why it matters what's causing climate change. What's important is that we can do things to change the course, or at least lessen the impact.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> *I still don't understand *why it matters what's causing climate change


Then you haven't really read these threads at all.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Nevada said:


> That's a political problem. They need to get their act together. Failure to cooperate, and therefore endanger our lives by polluting our environment, should be considered an act of war. Someday political leaders will look at it that way.


Nevada - give it a bit of time. And please stop thinking in terms of only "our lives" being endangered. It's not only our lives at risk, it's the whole planet and everything on it as a complete living organism that needs to be taken into consideration. You have to look at the big global picture, not only at the little human picture. 

On a global basis there is already more cooperation happening than what many common citizens seem to realize. Just look at how many nations leaders are involved in the climate change summits. Those leaders aren't all talking only about money when they get together for their conferences. They're also discussing and formulating pro-active and correctional alternatives for cleaning up the planet, and arranging for what they can do to help poorer countries that are or will be the worst stricken by climate change. And look now, finally, finally at long last, both China and India have signed on and committed themselves just this year. That is a HUGE step forward in international cooperation.



> I still don't understand why it matters what's causing climate change. What's important is that we can do things to change the course, or at least lessen the impact


From a scientific point of view it IS important to try to determine what is contributing to climate change THIS TIME but there's no way to change the course of it. If there had ever been a time when humans could have stopped it or changed the course of it, that time is long past and it's too late now to alter it. But it's not too late to stop contributing to it, and determining what is causing it will be helpful in determining the best ways to stop contributing, and it will help to determine the future severity of climate change as it progresses and how it will impact different regions. It will help to lessen the impact, not on the planet as a whole, but on the individual societies and their environments. It will help to determine how individual nations can prepare for and counteract the effects of climate change.

For example, we now know for a fact that the glaciers are melting rapidly and draining into the oceans - which will ultimately raise ocean levels and toxify the oceans and continue altering the climate. There ARE things that can be done to conserve glacier water (our fresh drinking water), and there are things can be done to protect the glaciers and slow down their rate of melt, but it won't completely stop it. These are initiatives that need international cooperation to be put in place.

.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Bigkat80 said:


> My whole problem is once someone tries to lie to me i never again beleive what they say...if they had taken time and not manipulated the data i might be just as staunch a advocate as you...but once the need to lie was evident then I have discounted all else because of the lie....


Then don't look at the data and don't listen to what others have to say about it. You can easily come to conclusions for yourself without interference from others. All you have to do is observe with an unbiased and open mind what's physically, undeniably happening around the world and form your conclusions based on what your own eyes tell you. That is what both Paumon and myself did more than 35 years ago, long before anyone had ever heard the terms "global warming" or "climate change", and certainly long before that character Al Gore started talking about it. 

Who the heck is that guy when he's home anyway, why do so many people make such a fuss about him? What gives him any kind of authority? I never even heard of him until I joined this forum 4 years ago and I hugely resent being linked with him and some of the nonsense that he espouses.

.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Nevada said:
> 
> 
> > *I still don't understand *why it matters what's causing climate change
> ...


It matters from a scientific standpoint because it provides guidance on how to deal with the problem, but it doesn't relate to the question of whether to act. That decision political. The only thing that's important politically is that we agree that something needs to be done about it.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

We will adapt. Just think years ago we didn't even wear clothes. Then someone noticed how warm it was to wrap up in an animal skin. Those who can't adapt will drop by the wayside.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

pancho said:


> We will adapt. Just think years ago we didn't even wear clothes. Then someone noticed how warm it was to wrap up in an animal skin. Those who can't adapt will drop by the wayside.


Conservatives will change their tune about that when wealthy coastal land owners suddenly find their mulit-million dollar properties underwater. Of course, that will trigger a new round of bailouts so all the right people remain wealthy.

It's a repeating pattern. When I warned of economic doom 5 years ago the wealthy conservatives thought it was pretty funny, calling me a naysayer. They when it actually happened they whined to the administration and got trillions in bailouts.

It's always the same story; heads they win, tails we lose.


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

Heritagefarm said:


> I have background science. And... I did indeed reach a conclusion first. The conclusion was, most scientists are concerned about climate change, and textbooks, particularly biological sciences, express concern about climate change, for it is a genuine concern. Now, I cannot be held amiss for reaching a conclusion before researching. Rather, I researched my original conclusion, and have not found data that negates man-made climate change. If it were a false conclusion, I would quickly change my opinion. It is, after all, hard to skew data that plainly shows that with the advent of industrialization, global temperature went up. It doesn't matter what methods were used, you can cherry-pick the graphs all you want, scientists have nothing to gain from climate change. We all have a lot to lose, in fact. It would be much more convenient for CO2 to not be a GHG, or if climate change isn't happening. Unfortunately, it is, and the temperature is going up. And the evidence is starting to show, but of course it's easy to just sluff off a drought here and there, and use an icestorm here and there as "proof" the climate is not changing. Well, the climate is changing; tough cookies. But, it is much easier for people to say, arrogantly, "Oh, the billions of people and millions of tons of air pollution, that doesn't make any difference." Never mind that fact that atmospheric CO2 has almost doubled, higher than it ever has been before, from what we know with certainty for the past couple centuries, and with relative certainty the past couple millennia.


Thank you for replying... You admit getting the conclusion, then finding science that corroborates the conclusion. Thousands of scientists careers are at stake... They'd not have their jobs if it weren't for AGW.

Second part of my question was not addressed.

Exactly what will the AGW proponents cures do to stop global warming... and how does an AGW proponent reconcile all the other "liberal" feel good agendas... Food aid, vaccine/disease research, welfare, clean water, anything that keeps people (remember, People Cause AGW) alive.

If humans are the CAUSE... 
then you should avoid anything that'd increase the Human Population, which can only increase the problem.

You cannot hold diametrically opposed views at the same time, and retain any semblance of credibility. Sorry.

I have no problems with the concept of AGW... if people think they have any control over the planet and it's relation to the sun, and that they can do something about it, no skin off my back. They need something to keep them busy. My problem is the solutions proposed do nothing, and the same folks pushing the agenda, have other views that make the problem worse (increasing human populations).


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

texican said:


> Thank you for replying... You admit getting the conclusion, then finding science that corroborates the conclusion.


*I did NOT say that.*


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> It matters from a scientific standpoint because it provides guidance on how to deal with the problem


From a "scientific" standpoint, nothing you do matters since there has been CHANGE since the beginning of time, and there is no CONCLUSIVE proof man has made that much difference


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I did NOT say that.





> I did indeed *reach a conclusion first*


Sounds like you did to me too


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> From a "scientific" standpoint, nothing you do matters since there has been CHANGE since the beginning of time, and there is no CONCLUSIVE proof man has made that much difference


Do you have an authoritative reference to back the opinion that there's nothing man can to to change the course of climate change, or is that your own hypothesis?


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Sounds like you did to me too*.*


I did reach a conclusion; after research. And, I have not found evidence to the contrary. *What I did NOT do*, was reach a conclusion and then hopelessly scrabble for scraps of conspiracy theories and junk science to support my views, which is precisely what deniers (like you) do.


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

> What I did NOT do, was reach a conclusion and then hopelessly scrabble for scraps of conspiracy theories and junk science to support my views, which is precisely what deniers (like you) do.


 You dont seem to realize that you words or words like them are exactly why so many of us are skeptical. Its a religion to you and not science (Science doesnt involve calling those who have a different hypothesis deniers). If you have a hypothesis (which is all AGW is) then you keep researching trying to prove your case and just as importantly trying to disprove your own hypothesis to see if it still holds up. 

Personally I dont dispute that climate is changing and I dont think too many people are; the disagreement is over what is causing it and how to combat it if we even can. Look at some of your posts, you take it as a given that there is a scientific consensus which there clearly is not, then you have some who scare people with endless posts about rising sea levels and disappearing sand bars without exactly explaining that sand bars appear and disappear in river deltas all the time. Even Al Gore gave up on that one. And look at Willowdales post, scared that her farm is going to be inundated before her grandkids can enjoy it because its only 9' above sea level and AGW is going to rise the seas and put her farm under the sea. Nothing like that is even projected by the most ardent AGW supportive scientists, not in Willowdales lifetime, not her kids or her grandkids lifetime. Weather will change like it always has and sea levels have been steadily rising since before biblical times and it will continue to rise most likely. But we are talking about fractions of an inch in a generation....not 9 feet in 50 years.

If the scare tactics would stop and if people would stop being so insistent that its all man caused then we might get somewhere. If it is man made there is little we can do to combat it because we can agree on anything on this forum let alone this entire planet (sorry Naturelover, your belief that China and India are going to significantly decrease their carbon emissions is a quaint notion). I agree we need to explore new technologies, we need to take care of our piece of the planet and do what we can to reduce pollution and I dont know anyone who doesnt feel the same way.....but the chicken little act isnt helping and in fact I think Al Gores circus and the mess he has made has set back the environmental movement by at least a decdade.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

salmonslayer said:


> ..... If it is man made there is little we can do to combat it because we can't agree on anything on this forum let alone this entire planet (*sorry Naturelover, your belief that China and India are going to significantly decrease their carbon emissions is a quaint notion*). I agree we need to explore new technologies, we need to take care of our piece of the planet and do what we can to reduce pollution and I dont know anyone who doesnt feel the same way.....but the chicken little act isnt helping and in fact I think Al Gores circus and the mess he has made has set back the environmental movement by at least a decdade.


I never said I thought China and India would significantly decrease emissions (although one can hope) - but I think it's a big step that they've come on board and committed themselves to trying to do _something_.

A bit of side drift here - I was watching a National Geographic program on TV last night. Something I found interesting is what has been done in the Swiss Alps to help prevent a big glacier from melting.

A layer of *SAWDUST* on top. And it serves the purpose. 

Now how's that for an ingenious OLD new technology? Just like used to be done to store and insulate blocks of glacial ice in ice-houses before the days of refridgerators and freezers. 

.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Do you have an authoritative reference to back the opinion that there's nothing man can to to change the course of climate change, or is that your own hypothesis?


Read what I SAID

There is no CONCLUSIVE PROOF man has made a big difference in the climate.

There have been changes in the past just as "drastic" as the change more recently.

The biggest difference now is we *measure *it more closely.

Man could go extinct tomorrow, and the climate would STILL change from one extreme to another, just as it has for millions of years


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> hopelessly scrabble for scraps of conspiracy theories and junk science to support my views, which is precisely what deniers (like you) do.


LOL
Past data is not "junk science".
Junk science is falsified data reports and inaccurate satellite readings

Conspiracy theories have nothing to do with it, and I haven't mentioned them at all.
That's Nevada's department

You *DID say *you "came to a conclusion *FIRST*", and NOT that you "researched first".

Your own words are still there, and you're still denying proven facts

Read them carefully :



> I did indeed reach a conclusion first


Revised to:



> I did reach a conclusion; after research


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Now how's that for an ingenious OLD new technology?


LOL 
Another feel good -do nothing type of action:



> A layer of SAWDUST on top


They destroyed trees for the sawdust and burned oil to cut it and transport it

I bet they flew a big plane load of equipment and crew members over to take pictures of them "saving the glacier"

How many TONS of sawdust does it take to cover a glacier?


----------



## EDDIE BUCK (Jul 17, 2005)

Tell all the wealthy countrys they caused it,and send the money to places like Africa.Its not climate change, its lying to have wealth redistribution.You know,one of "O's"promises,evidently to his homeland.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/u-n-official-admits-we-redistribute-worlds-wealth-by-climate-policy/ Oh,and read a few of the replies on this link as well.


----------



## Bigkat80 (Jan 16, 2007)

salmonslayer said:


> You dont seem to realize that you words or words like them are exactly why so many of us are skeptical. Its a religion to you and not science (Science doesnt involve calling those who have a different hypothesis deniers). If you have a hypothesis (which is all AGW is) then you keep researching trying to prove your case and just as importantly trying to disprove your own hypothesis to see if it still holds up.
> 
> *Personally I dont dispute that climate is changing and I dont think too many people are; the disagreement is over what is causing it and how to combat it if we even can.* Look at some of your posts, you take it as a given that there is a scientific consensus which there clearly is not, then you have some who scare people with endless posts about rising sea levels and disappearing sand bars without exactly explaining that sand bars appear and disappear in river deltas all the time. Even Al Gore gave up on that one. And look at Willowdales post, scared that her farm is going to be inundated before her grandkids can enjoy it because its only 9' above sea level and AGW is going to rise the seas and put her farm under the sea. Nothing like that is even projected by the most ardent AGW supportive scientists, not in Willowdales lifetime, not her kids or her grandkids lifetime. Weather will change like it always has and sea levels have been steadily rising since before biblical times and it will continue to rise most likely. But we are talking about fractions of an inch in a generation....not 9 feet in 50 years.
> 
> If the scare tactics would stop and if people would stop being so insistent that its all man caused then we might get somewhere. If it is man made there is little we can do to combat it because we can agree on anything on this forum let alone this entire planet (sorry Naturelover, your belief that China and India are going to significantly decrease their carbon emissions is a quaint notion). I agree we need to explore new technologies, we need to take care of our piece of the planet and do what we can to reduce pollution and I dont know anyone who doesnt feel the same way.....but the chicken little act isnt helping and in fact I think Al Gores circus and the mess he has made has set back the environmental movement by at least a decdade.


Precisely...and I would add I am not sure that it will even have a negative effect...the last time we warmed we had an explosion of cultural and human advancement....Longer growing periods means more crops to feed the expanding earths population...GW may be the cure to the worlds hunger problem for all we know.....it may be the earths way of accomodating a larger population....kinda like a hog with worms eating more to maintain their size...


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> LOL
> Another feel good -do nothing type of action:
> 
> They destroyed trees for the sawdust and burned oil to cut it and transport it
> ...


Surely you jest. Think about it. It takes many tons and it makes perfect sense. Sawdust is a natural by-product of the lumber industry. Lumber is a renewable resource. Do you know what happens to all the millions upon millions of TONS of extra sawdust that doesn't get processed into other by-products for construction or woodstove-pellets or shipped to livestock farms for bedding and then gets composted? It gets BURNED in scrapwood burners. The towering sawdust and scrapwood burners at lumber mills are operating 24/7, for 365 days a year .... everywhere there is big logging industry there are sawdust burners. Maybe you don't have them where you are but they're a common sight in this part of the world because of the lumber industry here. So which would be better - use the unwanted sawdust on glaciers to prevent them from melting or burn all the unwanted sawdust and pump more soot into the air so the glaciers melt faster? It's another no brainer.

Millions of tons of unwanted sawdust gets burned every year because that's the most convenient way to dispose of it in a hurry. We are not living in convenient times anymore though, and whether or not oil gets used to cut wood for lumber or to transport the sawdust to manufactories or to glaciers is irrelevant. The sawdust is still going to be produced because the lumber industry isn't going to stop. If the sawdust is going to be produced anyway then we should be using it to protect the ice instead of burning it and contributing to the destruction of the ice.

.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

salmonslayer said:


> You dont seem to realize that you words or words like them are exactly why so many of us are skeptical. Its a religion to you and not science (Science doesnt involve calling those who have a different hypothesis deniers). If you have a hypothesis (which is all AGW is) then you keep researching trying to prove your case and just as importantly trying to disprove your own hypothesis to see if it still holds up.


I will stop calling them 'deniers' if they can actually answer the first post. Unfortunately, they cannot. That leaves man-made climate change withstanding, as in all the other debates.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Junk science is falsified data reports and inaccurate satellite readings


If you think that is what man-made climate change is based on, please provide a *link*. This is an internet debate. Anyone can post whatever malarkey they want; please use *citations*.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citation


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> We do all that here.
> 
> My main point is it doesn't much matter what WE do unless the *entire world *does it too, and that is NOT going to happen.
> 
> ...


And so do those who claim that climate change people ALL claim that it is man-made.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Read what I SAID
> 
> There is no CONCLUSIVE PROOF man has made a big difference in the climate.


No? There is pretty conclusive evidence that man has depleted the ozone layer to a severe extent. Are you suggesting that ozone depletion has had no impact on climate?


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

Heritage Farm, here is a good article that kind of sums up things for me and I suspect many others. http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/45462/. Anyone who is so strident in their beliefs whether its about climate change, religion, politics etc ought to be suspect IMO because they just cannot be objective. This article doesnt try to lay claim that climate change isnt happening; it just points out that there is so much hype about it that the real issue gets lost.

I consider myself an environmentalist, but a rational one. All of these doomsday scenarios that you apparently ascribe to just dont ring true nor do thjey generally hold up to actual scientific scrutiny and the fantastic schemes to combat these absolute unlikely and worst case scenarios are generally worse than the original problem. Reducing pollution and our carbon footprint is a good thing and we should be moving in that direction. Conserving energy and developing new technologies is a good thing and we should be proceeding with that but when you advocate destroying the economy of this country for an absolute minimum gain that will have a neglible effect on the problem then you have lost me. When you keep using scar tactics that keep getting repeatedly debunked then you have lost me, when you advocate putting saw dust on glaciers as a means to combat global warming then...you know I cant take you serious.

Everything we do has a consequence good or bad. Biodiesel and Ethanol? Turns out they are nprobably worse polluters and have had a serious impact on world food production, wind farms? well, they are not very efficient, they make noise pollution and they kill a lot of birds, solar? Expensive not very effective with todays technology, they require vast tracts of land, and they have limited use in much of the developed world. Nuclear? this makes sense to me but gee...that program got shut down decades ago by some of the same people who are global warming extremists and they do produce some of the most toxic pollution on the planet.

There is no free ride and everything we do has an affect on our environment, our way of life, our economy and indeed our national security. Do you honestly believe that all of these countries, most of whom are in the middle of economic crisis are going to further put themselves into a hole to combat a half inch rise in sea levels over the next 100 years?

If your worried about your grandkids future you might want to look at what is real and happening now because personally I think in a decade or two climate change will not be even in our thought pattern as our economy continues its decline, our social structure continues to erode, and we will be in constant warfare over natural resources and the expansion of countries and governments meant to do us harm.

But maybe you guys are right and China, India, the rest of Asia, Russia, Eurpope, South America, Mexico, the Middle East and Africa will all come to some meaningful agreement and we will in the spirit of common good will towards all men curb our greenhouse gas emissions and mutually support each others peoples and economies and thus save the planet from eventual destruction. I am already hearing "We are the World" playing in the background while we all hold hands.


----------



## palani (Jun 12, 2005)

FourDeuce said:


> And so do those who claim that climate change people ALL claim that it is man-made.


"Climate change" is DEFINED to be *man-made* global warming. You can't control the natural things that go into global warming (or even cooling).

Now the question is WHY such a term was defined. My allegation is that the only way to eliminate "climate change" is to eliminate the CAUSE of "climate change" .... MAN!!!!!

If you dislike something so intensely then you just have to be looking at removing the CAUSE of that thing.

Another genocide weapon.


----------



## palani (Jun 12, 2005)

This viewpoint then begs the question .... what is the OP of this thread talking about when bringing up the question of "natural causes" of "climate change"? Only to the extent that MAN is natural while corporations are not does this question make any sense.

Is this a MAN vs CORPORATION type of inquiry?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

palani said:


> "Climate change" is DEFINED to be *man-made* global warming. You can't control the natural things that go into global warming (or even cooling).


I don't know that to be true. I think there is every reason to believe that there are things man can do to help climate change direction or lessen the impact of the devastating effects of climate.


----------



## palani (Jun 12, 2005)

Nevada said:


> I don't know that to be true.


The CONSTRUCTION "climate change" came into being in 1983.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=climate+change&searchmode=none


> climate change
> 1983, in the modern "global warming" sense, from climate + change.


CONSTRUCTIONS are defined by MAN. I am a MAN. Therefore my definition is TRUE. Besides, as there was no "climate change" prior to 1983 then there was no problem. Straight foward Hegelian dialect problem, cause, solution method being used.


Nevada said:


> I think there is every reason to believe that there are things man can do to help climate change direction or lessen the impact of the devastating effects of climate.


A model showing the location of all the POLE and ZERO locations would be needed in order to determine how effective any change would actually be. A description of the EIGENVALUES and EIGENVECTORS involved would be helpful as well.


----------



## palani (Jun 12, 2005)

The reason I believe "climate change" is referring to only man made causes of global warming is because it is part of a Hegelian dialect. PROBLEM, CAUSE , SOLUTION. If there are NATURAL causes of global warming there is no SOLUTION (except maybe to destroy NATURE). This would be a hard sell even for Al Gore.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

palani said:


> The CONSTRUCTION "climate change" came into being in 1983.
> http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=climate+change&searchmode=none
> 
> 
> CONSTRUCTIONS are defined by MAN. I am a MAN. Therefore my definition is TRUE. Besides, as there was no "climate change" prior to 1983 then there was no problem. Straight foward Hegelian dialect problem, cause, solution method being used.


I really have no interest in word games.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

salmonslayer said:


> Heritage Farm, here is a good article that kind of sums up things for me and I suspect many others. http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/45462/. Anyone who is so strident in their beliefs whether its about climate change, religion, politics etc ought to be suspect IMO because they just cannot be objective. This article doesnt try to lay claim that climate change isnt happening; it just points out that there is so much hype about it that the real issue gets lost.
> 
> I consider myself an environmentalist, but a rational one. All of these doomsday scenarios that you apparently ascribe to just dont ring true nor do thjey generally hold up to actual scientific scrutiny and the fantastic schemes to combat these absolute unlikely and worst case scenarios are generally worse than the original problem. Reducing pollution and our carbon footprint is a good thing and we should be moving in that direction. Conserving energy and developing new technologies is a good thing and we should be proceeding with that but when you advocate destroying the economy of this country for an absolute minimum gain that will have a neglible effect on the problem then you have lost me. When you keep using scar tactics that keep getting repeatedly debunked then you have lost me, when you advocate putting saw dust on glaciers as a means to combat global warming then...you know I cant take you serious.
> 
> ...


I am not hyping anything. I am simply asking that the deniers present their evidence on which they base their flawed and ludicrous claims, which they have flailed to do! I have not exaggerated anything, if anything, the deniers are the exaggerated ones. I ask a very simple question that would be answerable provided climate change was NOT man-made, and it has not been answered.


----------



## palani (Jun 12, 2005)

Nevada said:


> I really have no interest in word games.


Do you let others define the words you use so that you can argue over the meaning?

Words have been used to control the people since before the time of William the Conqueror. Word games are all you have.


----------



## palani (Jun 12, 2005)

Heritagefarm said:


> ...it has not been answered.


IGNORE is the root of IGNORance.



> ignore
> 1610s, "not to know, to be ignorant of," from Fr. ignorer, from L. ignorare "not to know, disregard," from ignarus "not knowing, unaware" (see ignorant). Sense of "pay no attention to" first recorded 1801 and not common until c.1850. Related: Ignored; ignoring.


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

> I am not hyping anything. I am simply asking that the deniers present their evidence on which they base their flawed and ludicrous claims, which they have flailed to do! I have not exaggerated anything, if anything, the deniers are the exaggerated ones. I ask a very simple question that would be answerable provided climate change was NOT man-made, and it has not been answered


 And the same can be said of you. This one post of yours excellently proves the point I was making. We will get no where in any further discussions over this topic until both sides stop being irational and callng each other names.

Your free to believe what you want so I am not sure why you seem to need to pursue this. AGW is the hypothesis that needs to be proven not the other way around. No one anyone can prove AGW anymore than we can disprove it and there is equally little we can do to stop it if its happening. But keep calling people deniers and other derogatory adjectives, its really convincing. Personally, I think there is probably some validity on both sides and like most things the truth is somewhere in the middle.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

salmonslayer said:


> AGW is the hypothesis that needs to be proven not the other way around. No one anyone can prove AGW anymore than we can disprove it and there is equally little we can do to stop it if its happening. But keep calling people deniers and other derogatory adjectives, its really convincing. Personally, I think there is probably some validity on both sides and like most things the truth is somewhere in the middle.


Scientific acceptance does not work the same way a court of law works. In science, every point of view bears the burden of proof. In the absence of undeniable proof, the strongest argument prevails.

Over time the scientific community finds less and less reason to doubt certain points of view, so they become accepted as fact. They are still unproven facts, but still fact.

But we need to have prevailing ideas in science in order to preserve continuity. Otherwise we would have very little basis upon which we could form scientific opinion about technical problems. It's not a perfect system, but it's the system we've got.

Do you really think it's wise to go against the scientific community in matters of life & death? If engineers told you that a bridge should be built a certain way, would you ignore them on the basis of not having absolute proof?

http://www.vibrationdata.com/Tacoma.htm

How about when building a dam?

http://www.geol.ucsb.edu/faculty/sylvester/Teton_Dam/welcome_dam.html

Or a hotel walkway.

http://antoine.frostburg.edu/phys/invention/case_studies/disasters/kansas_city_walkway.html

The fact is that none of us would use an elevator or drive across a bridge without an innate faith in science, so we all believe in science. In fact our lives depend on it.

To belittle scientific knowledge through political rhetoric shows poor judgment, but to ignore scientific advice in matters of life & death is criminal.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> No? There is pretty conclusive evidence that man has depleted the ozone layer to a severe extent.


They don't really KNOW why the ozone layer gets depleted, and it's only been in the last 30 or so years they even KNEW it happened

For all we know, it could have been fluctuating for millions of years, since there was no way to measure it


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I am not hyping anything. I am simply asking that the deniers present their evidence on which they base their flawed and ludicrous claims, *which they have flailed to do*!


You keep repeating that even though you've been shown LOTS of other causes for climate change.

Denying them all doesn't make them go away


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> They don't really KNOW why the ozone layer gets depleted, and it's only been in the last 30 or so years they even KNEW it happened
> 
> For all we know, it could have been fluctuating for millions of years, since there was no way to measure it


"For all we know?" That's the proof for your point of view?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Anyone can post whatever malarkey they want; please use *citations*.


I haven't seen you post any DISPROVING natural causes, or PROVING it's all "man made.

I just see you keep denying the facts already presented


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

We say 'link, please', then denigrate the site or author - and no one's mind is changed and the sad thing is, not many are really thinking about the problem, only about supporting their own side or finding fault with the other side.

We have Al Gore, running around the world, using lots of fuel, by the way, telling us in 100, 1000, whatever we are going to be in trouble. There are those of us who wouldn't take Al Gore's word for anything. For me, that's because I just not sure he has ever had a 'word' of his own. There is also the fact he made some pretty good money doing this.

So, what do we do, some take one stand that we are in trouble in 1000 years, some have some pretty good ideas that it isn't true, others just think it has got to be flim-flam if Al Gore says it.

So, we go back and forth and back and forth about what might happen in 100 to 1000 years and don't look around and see what is happening right now that is going to get us in the next 10-20 years if we don't pay attention.

A lot of this nation has a serious fresh water problem and it is only getting worse. 

We do have pollution of the air, to attempt to deny that just is whistling past the graveyard.

We need to think about alternative energy. It would help in both the above instances.
Why not think about putting in place as much solar and wind energy as we can. Again, people have taken sides based on the perception that it is a liberal thang and therefore, must be bad.

We are digging up and destroying thousands of acres of good, food growing land in this country in search of coal. It not only makes the land useless for food production for a very long time, not sure how long. Some around here was 'reclaimed' about 40 years ago, and I think they have just recently gotten cattle to stay on it. 

It destroys underground water sources, the run off pollutes the lakes.

They are hauling out some very old trees here, hardwood, not just oak, but hickory, walnut, pecan. 

If we could stop that with some alternative energy - why not? It's isn't a liberal thing, it's a smart thing.

Our land is being polluted by pesticides and herbicides and the run off is getting in our lakes and rivers where we get our drinking water. How can we even believe all that gets 'cleaned out'. It can't.

If we can put in place some other alternatives to this dumping, why not consider it.

Mega farming has polluted a lot of this country, to say nothing of the effects of the food produced. If we could try to find better ways to raise those animals, rather than penned up with no sunlight or fresh air, why not try? We can't be producing clean food that way.

How about suggesting mega farms use their own manure for methane?

There are hundreds of ways we can prevent the 'gotcha' that is headed our way in a short time - but we are busy either trying to support or refute global warming that may/may not harm us in the next 100 to 1000 years.

Is our environment changing? Yes, it is. Is it a naturally occurring thing - common sense would say our world has been changing since God created it. Common sense, however, would also say we can't pump that much garbage and poison into the water, the air and the land, and dig up the land, and use, even abuse the earth as we have, without causing some problems.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> "For all we know?" That's the proof for your point of view?




Do you know of any comparative data on the ozone layer *in the past*?

They didn't have any data before the late 50's and it wasn't unti the late 80's they had the equipment to take accurate measurements

Here's some from NOW:

Note that 2 of the 3 possible causes are NATURAL

http://www.theozonehole.com/nasa7292003.htm

Between 1986 and 1987, several papers suggested *possible mechanisms *for the ozone hole, *including chemical, dynamical (meteorological), and solar cycle influences*.



> NASA satellite observations have provided the first evidence the *rate of ozone depletion in the Earth's upper atmosphere is decreasing*. This may indicate the first stage of ozone layer recovery.


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

palani said:


> "Climate change" is DEFINED to be *man-made* global warming.
> 
> *Only by people who prefer building Straw Man arguments over honest discussion.*
> 
> ...


As others keep pointing out, making up your own definitions for words and phrases means you will spend all of your time defending your own personal definitions and no time actually discussing the subject. Of course, if that is your goal, have fun. Some other people prefer to actually discuss the subject instead of spending all their time discussing your little world and its definitions.


----------



## palani (Jun 12, 2005)

FourDeuce said:


> As others keep pointing out, making up your own definitions for words and phrases means you will spend all of your time defending your own personal definitions and no time actually discussing the subject. Of course, if that is your goal, have fun.


If you choose to hide your head in the ground that is your choice. Word constructions are little known by the general population yet you can find volumes on them in law libraries. I try to indicate these word constructions by linking them between quotations. Other don't because they choose to deceive. 

No one has answered my question "If you believe in 'climate change' do you want to commit genocide upon MAN?"



FourDeuce said:


> Some other people prefer to actually discuss the subject instead of spending all their time discussing your little world and its definitions.


 Other people are deceived.

Here are some random examples of word constructions and their case cites:



> Well and truly execules the duties of his office. 1 Pet. R. 69.
> Well and truly to administer. 9 Mass. 114, 119, 370; 13 John. 441; 1 Bay, 328.
> Well and truly to administer according to law. 1 Litt. R. 93, 100.
> What I may die possessed of. 8 Ves. 604; 3 Call, 225.
> ...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Originally Posted by Bearfootfarm
> Junk science is falsified data reports and inaccurate satellite readings
> 
> 
> ...


Here you go>
Pick one you like since there are lots to choose from:

[ame]http://www.google.com/search?complete=1&hl=en&source=hp&q=global+warming+data+falsified&aq=f&aqi=g10&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=C10oVX5PqTNGdA4T-zQSep6TSDgAAAKoEBU_Qmhse[/ame]


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You keep repeating that even though you've been shown LOTS of other causes for climate change.
> 
> Denying them all doesn't make them go away


You know, I get a kick out of your attitude towards this. Conservatives are always the first to commit the "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" (after it, therefore because of it) logical fallacy.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HL_vHDjG5Wk[/ame]

******
_The "post hoc ergo propter hoc" (after this therefore because of this) fallacy is based upon the mistaken notion that simply because one thing happens after another, the first event was a cause of the second event. Post hoc reasoning is the basis for many superstitions and erroneous beliefs.

Many events follow sequential patterns without being causally related._
http://www.skepdic.com/posthoc.html
******

For example, we did not have a major domestic terror attack after the invasion of Iraq, so conservatives maintain that the Iraqi invasion must have prevented attacks. They say that in spite of the fact that they know that terrorist groups are not resource intensive, our borders were still wide open, and we did not have a terror attack after fighting in Iraq ended. So against all logic, and in the face of strong evidence to the contrary, you still believe it. After all, liberals can't prove that the Iraqi conflict DIDN'T prevent domestic terror attacks.

How do you explain your difference in standards? Could it be that no evidence could possibly be strong enough for things you don't believe in, but even a logical fallacy is acceptable evidence for things you do believe in.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> You know, I get a kick out of your attitude towards this. Conservatives are always the first to commit the "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" (after it, therefore because of it) logical fallacy.


So you're going to totally ignore the fact that what I said about the ozone layer was TRUE, and segue this into your boring same old anti conservative anti war rhetoric.

I've heard it all before, so no need to listen now.

I'm done


----------



## tgmr05 (Aug 27, 2007)

One thing to remember -- in the past, scientists warned that one would catastrophically fall off the edge of the earth, if they went too far out. Consensus was, the earth was flat. Anyone who thought otherwise was considered a -denier- of the truth. There was no way the earth could be round, the evidence all pointed to the contrary. 

Slowly, their -evidence- was found to be false. But, only as the technology of man caught up with those who understood why the earth was round to start with.

Sounds like the global warming crowd. Sure, they have evidence, but it appears some is false, some is made up to back their theories, and some point to something totally different than what they postulate.

See these articles:

http://politics.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2009/11/30/global-warming-e-mails-scandal-show-scientists-may-have-cooked-the-facts

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html

or this google search

www.google.com/#hl=en&expIds=25657,26474,27342,27692,27743&sugexp=ldymls&xhr=t&q=falsified+global+warming+data&cp=10&pf=p&sclient=psy&aq=0&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=240c6721121f4cc3


In a similar way, we do not have the technology to prove without a doubt what is going on. But we do know that there are huge holes in the global warming or climate change alarmist theories. The earth has such complex systems for dealing with so many different variables, we will not understand how it deals with change for many more years. We do know, though, that the planet has not died, nor killed off humans, yet, even with catastrophic type changes to the climate that no one can truly explain with specificity, at this point in our history.

When the global warming alarmists actually find themselves with just a 75 to 80 percent track record of predicting correctly with specificity what will happen, then folks should probably take them seriously. But for now, they have FAILED to do so, and are simply alarmists......

First, global cooling - oops, then global warming, - ooops, then because of climate change we should have the worst hurricane season on record after Katrina - ooops, yet again.....

For now, their theories are slowly unraveling, similar to the flat earthers. While man does impact the environment, it does not appear to be anywhere near the catastrophic impact presented by climate change alarmists. Otherwise, we should either be living on glaciers, or in little islands scattered throughout the ocean, as there is not much more land due to all the melting.....


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> So you're going to totally ignore the fact that what I said about the ozone layer was TRUE


The scientific community disagrees, and you have no proof to discredit their theories with.

But you didn't answer my question.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm
"A common skeptic argument is that climate has changed naturally in the past, long before SUVs and coal-fired power plants, so therefore humans cannot be causing global warming now. Interestingly, the peer-reviewed research into past climate change comes to the opposite conclusion. To understand this, first you have to ask why climate has changed in the past. It doesn't happen by magic. Climate changes when it&#8217;s forced to change. When our planet suffers an energy imbalance and gains or loses heat, global temperature changes.

There are a number of different forces which can influence the Earth&#8217;s climate. When the sun gets brighter, the planet receives more energy and warms. When volcanoes erupt, they emit particles into the atmosphere which reflect sunlight, and the planet cools. When there are more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the planet warms. These effects are referred to as external forcings because by changing the planet's energy balance, they force climate to change.

It is obviously true that past climate change was caused by natural forcings. However, to argue that this means we can&#8217;t cause climate change is like arguing that humans can&#8217;t start bushfires because in the past they&#8217;ve happened naturally. Greenhouse gas increases have caused climate change many times in Earth&#8217;s history, and we are now adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere at a increasingly rapid rate.

Looking at the past gives us insight into how our climate responds to external forcings. Using ice cores, for instance, we can work out the degree of past temperature change, the level of solar activity, and the amount of greenhouse gases and volcanic dust in the atmosphere. From this, we can determine how temperature has changed due to past energy imbalances. What we have found, looking at many different periods and timescales in Earth's history, is that when the Earth gains heat, positive feedbacks amplify the warming. This is why we've experienced such dramatic changes in temperature in the past. Our climate is highly sensitive to changes in heat. We can even quantify this: when you include positive feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 causes a warming of around 3Â°C.

What does that mean for today? Rising greenhouse gas levels are an external forcing, which has caused climate changes many times in Earth's history. They're causing an energy imbalance and the planet is building up heat. From Earth's history, we know that positive feedbacks will amplify the greenhouse warming. So past climate change doesn't tell us that humans can't influence climate; on the contrary, it tells us that climate is highly sensitive to the greenhouse warming we're now causing."


http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling.htm
"When looking for evidence of global warming, there are many different indicators that we should look for. Whilst it's natural to start with air temperatures, a more thorough examination should be as inclusive as possible; snow cover, ice melt, air temperatures over land and sea, even the sea temperatures themselves. A 2010 study included 10 key indicators, and as shown below, every one of them is moving in the direction expected of a warming globe.








The question of global warming stopping is often raised in the light of a recent weather event - a big snowfall or drought breaking rain. Global warming is entirely compatible with these events; after all they are just weather. For climate change, it is the long term trends that are important; measured over decades or more, and those long term trends show that the globe is still, unfortunately, warming."


http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm
Science achieves a consensus when scientists stop arguing. When a question is first asked &#8211; like &#8216;what would happen if we put a load more CO2 in the atmosphere?&#8217; &#8211; there may be many hypotheses about cause and effect. Over a period of time, each idea is tested and retested &#8211; the processes of the scientific method &#8211; because all scientists know that reputation and kudos go to those who find the right answer (and everyone else becomes an irrelevant footnote in the history of science). Nearly all hypotheses will fall by the wayside during this testing period, because only one is going to answer the question properly, without leaving all kinds of odd dangling bits that don&#8217;t quite add up. Bad theories are usually rather untidy.

But the testing period must come to an end. Gradually, the focus of investigation narrows down to those avenues that continue to make sense, that still add up, and quite often a good theory will reveal additional answers, or make powerful predictions, that add substance to the theory. When Russian scientist Dmitri Mendeleev constructed his periodic table of elements, not only did he fit all known elements successfully, he predicted that elements we didn&#8217;t even know about would turn up later on &#8211; and they did!

So a consensus in science is different from a political one. There is no vote. Scientists just give up arguing because the sheer weight of consistent evidence is too compelling, the tide too strong to swim against any longer. Scientists change their minds on the basis of the evidence, and a consensus emerges over time. Not only do scientists stop arguing, they also start relying on each other's work. All science depends on that which precedes it, and when one scientist builds on the work of another, he acknowledges the work of others through citations. The work that forms the foundation of climate change science is cited with great frequency by many other scientists, demonstrating that the theory is widely accepted - and relied upon.

In the scientific field of climate studies &#8211; which is informed by many different disciplines &#8211; the consensus is demonstrated by the number of scientists who have stopped arguing about what is causing climate change &#8211; and that&#8217;s nearly all of them. Several studies confirm that &#8220;...the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes&#8221;. (Doran 2009). In other words, more than 95% of scientists working in the disciplines contributing to studies of our climate, accept that climate change is almost certainly being caused by human activities.

We should also consider official scientific bodies and what they think about climate change. There are no national or major scientific institutions anywhere in the world that dispute the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Not one.

*In the field of climate science, the consensus is unequivocal: human activities are causing climate change.*"

http://www.skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements-basic.htm
"Surveys of weather stations in the USA have indicated that some of them are not sited as well as they could be. This calls into question the quality of their readings.

However, when processing their data, the organisations which collect the readings take into account any local heating or cooling effects, such as might be caused by a weather station being located near buildings or large areas of tarmac. This is done, for instance, by weighting (adjusting) readings after comparing them against those from more rural weather stations nearby.

More importantly, for the purpose of establishing a temperature trend, the relative level of single readings is less important than whether the pattern of all readings from all stations taken together is increasing, decreasing or staying the same from year to year. Furthermore, since this question was first raised, research has established that any error that can be attributed to poor siting of weather stations is not enough to produce a significant variation in the overall warming trend being observed.

It's also vital to realise that warnings of a warming trend -- and hence Climate Change -- are not based simply on ground level temperature records. Other completely independent temperature data compiled from weather balloons, satellite measurements, and from sea and ocean temperature records, also tell a remarkably similar warming story.

Confidence in climate science depends on the correlation of many sets of these data from many different sources in order to produce conclusive evidence of a global trend."


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

tgmr05 said:


> One thing to remember -- in the past, scientists warned that one would catastrophically fall off the edge of the earth, if they went too far out.


No, I'm pretty sure that was when science wasn't too big, and the respected people were religious ignorant ninnies.:yawn:


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Heritagefarm said:


> No, I'm pretty sure that was when science wasn't too big


I'm pretty sure that wasn't scientists at all.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

So lets see,

20 years ago where were the thermometers that kept the records for temperatures?

Where are they now?

Answer; They were at the airports, but then moved to the Cities.. So there is obviously a difference in temps between the 2 locations, with the cities being warmer with their little microcosms..

I asked before in a different thread about Greenland, should I bother asking again? 

You sit here and call us deniers, yet we are the ones who have everything to lose since we are the ones with gardens and crops in the ground.. 

Yet you and the man-made global warming crowd only suggest taxing us more.. I heard it being reported at a global warming conference that it was about economics not global warming..

So since you apparently have all the answers, tell us what we are to do..But first show us by example that you don't use any fossil fuels or waste any paper.. 
Those of us that don't believe the agenda scientists have shown their lies and their "doctoring" of the data..Yet we are called deniers and told that we are stupid.. 

All I can say is; So be it!


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

beowoulf90 said:


> Those of us that don't believe the agenda scientists have shown their lies and their "doctoring" of the data..Yet we are called deniers and told that we are stupid..
> 
> All I can say is; So be it!


You know what's missing here? 



A track record of conservitives being correct.
Accountability.
Is this going to be like 9/11?

"We didn't know that bin Laden was planning anything, but we were wrong. So what?"

Or like Iraq?

"We thought there were WMDs, but we were wrong. So what?"

Or like the economy?

We thought the real estate bubble was genuine prosperity, but we were wrong. So what?"

I'm guessing that if global warming results in devastating consequences that you'll just say that you didn't know. I'm sorry, but ignorance is not an excuse.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> The scientific community disagrees, and you have no proof to discredit their theories with.


I already showed you that 2 of the 3 possible causes are NATURAL, and that WAS from the "scientific community"



> But you didn't answer my question


I've answered all the ON TOPIC questions.
I'm not answering your fantasy assumptions


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Science achieves a consensus when scientists stop arguing.


Then there is NO consensus.

YOu've shot yourself in the foot again



> *Confidence *in climate science depends on the correlation of many sets of these data from many different sources in order to produce conclusive evidence of a global trend."


There's none of that either


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> We thought the real estate bubble was genuine prosperity, but we were wrong. So what?"


It was.

Many people made a LOT of money during that time.

But that's another thread.....


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

*Nevada*

You know there's only thing I find to disagree with you in your last post. The problem I have is the so call 'liberals' went along with all of that - with only some token resistance. They shuffled up to the microphone after and told of being 'duped' - 'duped - they said'.

As for the housing bubble, EVERYONE knew it was going to pop, it was no secret and no surprise - for anyone with 2 cells sparking. All the money people, and the politicians, both so called sides, thought they could get out before it did. The greedy people who wanted something for nothing, loans they couldn't afford, thought they'd get theirs before the trough got empty.

Does anyone really think those of 'the other party', that's whichever 'other party', didn't benefit greatly from this travesty??? Of course, they did. If not, they would have blown the whistle.

No matter what side of the so called party one believes in, when they make excuses for their side and blame all the chaos and problems on the 'other side', I always wonder about that attitude.

If you were a congressperson, or even just a person with some clout, what would you have done had you known, felt, or wondered - and cared - that we were headed into a war based on lies? Would you have gone along and meekly declared you were just unable to do anything else? I would hope I wouldn't.

I would have gone on as many talk shows as would allow me - 

I would have written tons of letters to my constituents - 

I would have written op-ed pieces -

I would have spoken on the floor -

I would have had town hall meetings - 

I would have stood on the street corner - 

I would have stirred things up, even if it cost me my job -

Before I would have allowed this country to attack another nation for no reason, killing thousands of our own people and tens of thousands of theirs, and putting our grandchildren and great grandchildren in debt.

There is no such thing as a helpless 'other side' - no matter which side.

When we make excuses for either side, we are giving a pass to the entire sordid mess in Washington - which is exactly what they want.

Think about it, if one side is helpless while the other side is in the majority, why are they still up there, drawing pay and enjoying the perks and benefits?


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

Okay, Nevada thinks there is a scientific consensus, Heritage Farm is an ardent believer and one poster is worried her farm is going to be flooded. On top of that Al Gore admitted in a press release today that he over hyped Ethanol which he now admits was to help his presidential campaign and was a policy mistake because of the impact on world food prices, the IPCC report has had more holes shot in it than a block of swiss cheese and today the head of the IPCC states there was sloppy vetting of many of the conclusions in the report but that that will do better, and Schwarteneggar says that climate gate seriously set back the AGW debate because of so many revelations of shoddy science and ...money. 

That was all just in todays news but put that aside....Nevada and Heritage Farm or anyone else....what do you propose be done about it and do you honestly think this or any other country will actually stick to whatever resolutions they come up with?


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

Heritagefarm said:


> *I did NOT say that.*


Well, someone is posting under your name then (and from your computer).

Post #176...

*Originally Posted by texican View Post
Still no Answer? from HeritageFarm...

not surprised... I presented an inconvenient truth... to which AGW'ers cannot or will not answer.

Btw... do you have any science background?

Back when I was in school, it was frowned upon to reach conclusions and then go out and 'find' data that proved your point. Even worse was when you 'fudged' your data when it was inconveniently absent. As I was in geology, we called it geofudge.*

[your response to my arriving at conclusions from the get go...]
I have background science. And... _I did indeed reach a conclusion first._ The conclusion was, most scientists are concerned about climate change, and textbooks, particularly biological sciences, express concern about climate change, for it is a genuine concern. Now, I cannot be held amiss for reaching a conclusion before researching. Rather, I researched my original conclusion, and have not found data that negates man-made climate change. If it were a false conclusion, I would quickly change my opinion. It is, after all, hard to skew data that plainly shows that with the advent of industrialization, global temperature went up. It doesn't matter what methods were used, you can cherry-pick the graphs all you want, scientists have nothing to gain from climate change. We all have a lot to lose, in fact. It would be much more convenient for CO2 to not be a GHG, or if climate change isn't happening. Unfortunately, it is, and the temperature is going up. And the evidence is starting to show, but of course it's easy to just sluff off a drought here and there, and use an icestorm here and there as "proof" the climate is not changing. Well, the climate is changing; tough cookies. But, it is much easier for people to say, arrogantly, "Oh, the billions of people and millions of tons of air pollution, that doesn't make any difference." Never mind that fact that atmospheric CO2 has almost doubled, higher than it ever has been before, from what we know with certainty for the past couple centuries, and with relative certainty the past couple millennia.

..............................................

You've got to remember what you've posted... you can't go back and edit a post after a period of time...

still waiting for a ruling on the hypocritical holding of diametrically opposed views... probably wait until the Antarctic melts...


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Apparently I'm not allowed to make human errors. Originally, I was a denier. I have not found any reason to reject man-made climate change.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> Apparently I'm not allowed to make human errors. Originally, I was a denier. I have not found any reason to reject man-made climate change.


I used to belive! Now I don't. Looked at the money trail. Since you believe man is a significant cause, what are YOU doing to stop it? What are YOU doing about exess methane production?


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

JeffreyD said:


> I used to belive! Now I don't. Looked at the money trail. Since you believe man is a significant cause, what are YOU doing to stop it? What are YOU doing about exess methane production?


Unfortunately, our finances prevent us from doing much. We don't use the tractor much, and we try to combine trips into town in our truck. The cattle methane can be considered carbon neutral, since the grass absorbs more carbon than the cow uses. 
Now... Show me the money trail.


----------



## palani (Jun 12, 2005)

Cow methane indeed!!!!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101122/ap_on_re_eu/eu_climate_siberian_meltdown

Leaking Siberian ice raises a tricky climate issue



> Gas locked inside Siberia's frozen soil and under its lakes has been seeping out since the end of the last ice age 10,000 years ago. But in the past few decades, as the Earth has warmed, the icy ground has begun thawing more rapidly, accelerating the release of methane â a greenhouse gas 23 times more powerful than carbon dioxide â at a perilous rate.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

JeffreyD said:


> I used to belive! Now I don't. Looked at the money trail.


Of course you did. But then you've already admitted in previous posts that your money and your personal convenience are the things that motivate you to not believe. You claim to be a "denier" simply for the sake of personal greed, not because of evidence you see with your own eyes. Therefore, your arguements don't count because they aren't based in reality.

.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Gas locked inside Siberia's frozen soil and under its lakes has been seeping out since the end of the last ice age 10,000 years ago. But in the past few decades, as the Earth has warmed, the icy ground has begun thawing more rapidly, accelerating the release of methane &#8212; a greenhouse gas 23 times more powerful than carbon dioxide &#8212; at a perilous rate.


But but but but ... that's *NATURAL*

It's ONLY the "man made" stuff we have to worry about.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

naturelover said:


> Of course you did. But then you've already admitted in previous posts that your money and your personal convenience are the things that motivate you to not believe. You claim to be a "denier" simply for the sake of personal greed, not because of evidence you see with your own eyes. Therefore, your arguements don't count because they aren't based in reality.
> 
> .


Please point out where I said that money and personal convenience are the reasons that motivate my non-belief.

I really don't see any change in anything where I live, really! After decades, the weather is no different! And this is my reality! Not so much money as comfort. I won't deny that i've worked hard all my life to provide a nice comfortable life for my self and family. I just don't want to be forced to live a lifestyle that I don't want to live. Would you deny my right to live my own life? Who would set the limits?


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Looks like fun. 

[YOUTUBE]VE1LiftbMeE[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]NVpQnpWS2wU[/YOUTUBE]

.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> But but but but ... that's *NATURAL*
> 
> It's ONLY the "man made" stuff we have to worry about.


If the methane can have catastrophic consequences, then why shouldn't we be concerned about it? Why would you not be interested in lessening the impact of the devastation it might cause?


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

"That was all just in todays news but put that aside....Nevada and Heritage Farm or anyone else....what do you propose be done about it and do you honestly think this or any other country will actually stick to whatever resolutions they come up with?"

Oh, there's nothing to worry about. If we just keep ignoring any potential problems they'll go away. If not, we will all be dead eventually anyway and we won't have to worry about them any more. :hrm:


----------



## palani (Jun 12, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's ONLY the "man made" stuff we have to worry about.


More accurately it is only the man-made stuff that is INTENDED to be controlled. Why would anyone bring up a problem if the solution has not already been decided?


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

JeffreyD said:


> Please point out where I said that money and personal convenience are the reasons that motivate my non-belief.


Selective amnesia.


http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/showpost.php?p=4731383&postcount=75
"What would your solution be? And make sure it won't cost me anything in terms of money and convenience. "


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> Selective amnesia.
> 
> 
> http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/showpost.php?p=4731383&postcount=75
> "What would your solution be? And make sure it won't cost me anything in terms of money and convenience. "


Nice try! Your wrong though. Try reading what i said, and not what you want it to say! Context again! The above statement has nothing to do with my beliefs!

Again:

Please point out where I said that money and personal convenience *are the reasons that motivate my non-belief.*


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

palani said:


> More accurately it is only the man-made stuff that is INTENDED to be controlled. Why would anyone bring up a problem if the solution has not already been decided?


Really? We control rivers with dams, yet rivers aren't man-made.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

JeffreyD said:


> Nice try! Your wrong though. Try reading what i said, and not what you want it to say! Context again! The above statement has nothing to do with my beliefs!
> 
> Again:
> 
> Please point out where I said that money and personal convenience *are the reasons that motivate my non-belief.*


This isn't about "beliefs", which is what you think. This is a scientific discussion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science


----------



## chickenslayer (Apr 20, 2010)

Forget this climate change BS, the sun will burn out in a few billion years so we should be spending trillions of dollars to figure out how to refuel the sun.


----------



## palani (Jun 12, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Really? We control rivers with dams, yet rivers aren't man-made.


I have never seen a river that can not ultimately defeat any man-made controls.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

chickenslayer said:


> Forget this climate change BS, the sun will burn out in a few billion years so we should be spending trillions of dollars to figure out how to refuel the sun.


The answer to the sun burning out is not to refuel, but to relocate. But I understand that you were just being facetious.

Humans tend to take the issue of preservation of life seriously. That's why we have rescue workers, hospitals, and even why we fight the war on terror. Those things all cost trillions, yet we do it. Recognizing that, if life on earth as we know it may end through mismanagement of our environment, I can't see why spending trillions to fix it should be out of place.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> If the methane can have catastrophic consequences, then why shouldn't we be concerned about it? Why would you not be interested in lessening the impact of the devastation it might cause?


Because there is NOTHING that can be done about it
It's 100% NATURAL and has been happening for 1000's of years


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Humans tend to take the issue of preservation of life seriously.


LOL There you go with that ploy again, when there is no "life threatening" problem.

If it gets warmer, people will adapt, not die

You're a year overdue with your last "humanitarian crisis"


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

chickenslayer said:


> Forget this climate change BS, the sun will burn out in a few billion years so we should be spending trillions of dollars to figure out how to refuel the sun.


:bouncy::bouncy:


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Because there is NOTHING that can be done about it
> It's 100% NATURAL and has been happening for 1000's of years


Nothing can be done about it? Why do you say that?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> LOL There you go with that ploy again, when there is no "life threatening" problem.


Tell that to the people in Bangladesh and Haiti, not to mention the 1500 people who died in New Orleans as the result of Katrina.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Nothing can be done about it? Why do you say that?


Because it's true



> Tell that to the people in Bangladesh and Haiti, not to mention the 1500 people who died in New Orleans as the result of Katrina


What do any of those things have to do with "man made *climate change*"?

Or is it you just don't HAVE any real examples of deaths due to "climate change"?


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Climate changes are already causing the deaths of an estimated 150,000 people annually in low income nations and that estimate is going back to 2002, reported by the World Health Organization. That's actually not such a very high number of deaths by comparison with the total world population but the annual count is probably more than that now in 2010. 

Air pollution alone kills 2 million people annually but I guess some people wouldn't count air pollution as contributing to or causing climate change. If you really want to find out more about it just google "deaths caused by climate change", you'll get lots of information.

.


----------



## JuliaAnn (Dec 7, 2004)

Climate change didn't cause New Orleans to be constructed well below sea level.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

JuliaAnn said:


> Climate change didn't cause New Orleans to be constructed well below sea level.


No, nor any other place constructed below sea level. That was short-sightedness on the part of the constructors. The Dutch haven't done so badly with their forethought in constructions though.

.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> What do any of those things have to do with "man made *climate change*"?
> 
> Or is it you just don't HAVE any real examples of deaths due to "climate change"?


Each of those events have gotten worse, as scientists predicted. How can you say for sure that the severity of Katrina wasn't due to man's poor stewardship of the environment?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

JuliaAnn said:


> Climate change didn't cause New Orleans to be constructed well below sea level.


The fact that New Orleans had that particular vulnerability is only the reason that event became an icon, but it was not the cause. The cause was an unusually severe storm.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> If you really want to find out more about it just google "deaths caused by climate change", you'll get *lots of information*.


Getting "lots of information" doesn't mean it's true.

There's "lots of information" just in this thread, but at least half of it is *useless imaginary hype*

Here's a GREAT example:



> *Each of those events have gotten worse*, as scientists predicted. How can you say for sure that the severity of Katrina wasn't *due to man's poor stewardship of the environment*?


If that's the best you can come up with, there's not much point in continuing.
At least PRETEND to be realistic



> The cause was an* unusually severe *storm.


There's nothing "unusual" about a Cat 3 hurricane

Don't try to be such a Drama Queen


----------



## Jena (Aug 13, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> They don't really KNOW why the ozone layer gets depleted, and it's only been in the last 30 or so years they even KNEW it happened
> 
> For all we know, it could have been fluctuating for millions of years, since there was no way to measure it[/QUOTE
> 
> ...


----------



## Jena (Aug 13, 2003)

Heritagefarm said:


> If you think that is what man-made climate change is based on, please provide a *link*. This is an internet debate. Anyone can post whatever malarkey they want; please use *citations*.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citation



Using wikipedia as a citation for "citation" is about as ironic as you can get. Very funny.


----------



## Bigkat80 (Jan 16, 2007)

Nevada said:


> Each of those events have gotten worse, as scientists predicted. How can you say for sure that the severity of Katrina wasn't due to man's poor stewardship of the environment?


Becasue it wasnt it was a fraking Hurricane and not all that powerful of one...it just hit NOLA and the levees caused a bigger mess than the Hurricane did...you lack of knowledge on this is astounding.....Katrina made land fall as a hurricane Cat 3 camille and betsy were comparatively much stronger....the real cause of the KaTRINA WAS THE LEVEE FAILURES DUE TO POOR CONSTRUCTION AND WORSE MAINTENANCE...Dont use katrina for your whacked out global warming theories...since Katrina the seasons are actually much less active than the prognosticators predict and that is because you cant predict what nature is gonna do...but you can guess all you want...nature and climate change at their own design nothing man can do or has done.....




> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Katrina
> 
> 
> The storm weakened before making its second landfall as a Category 3 storm on the morning of Monday, August 29 in southeast Louisiana.





> Hurricane Betsy was a Category 4 hurricane of the 1965 Atlantic hurricane season which caused enormous damage in the Bahamas, Florida, and Louisiana. Betsy made its most intense landfall near the mouth of the Mississippi River, causing significant flooding of the waters of Lake Pontchartrain into New Orleans. As it is was mistakenly known as the first hurricane to cause over a billion dollars in damage (1965 dollars, not adjusted for inflation), it earned the nickname "Billion-Dollar Betsy".
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Betsy
> 
> Hurricane Camille was the third and strongest tropical cyclone and second hurricane during the 1969 Atlantic hurricane season. The second of three catastrophic Category 5 hurricanes to make landfall in the United States during the 20th century (the others being 1935's Labor Day hurricane and 1992's Hurricane Andrew), which it did near the mouth of the Mississippi River on the night of August 17,
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Camille


So Scientifically you can say hurricane activity is significantly weakened since the 60's except for andrew


----------



## Jena (Aug 13, 2003)

Heritagefarm said:


> http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm
> Science achieves a consensus when scientists stop arguing. When a question is first asked â like âwhat would happen if we put a load more CO2 in the atmosphere?â â there may be many hypotheses about cause and effect. Over a period of time, each idea is tested and retested â the processes of the scientific method â because all scientists know that reputation and kudos go to those who find the right answer (and everyone else becomes an irrelevant footnote in the history of science). Nearly all hypotheses will fall by the wayside during this testing period, because only one is going to answer the question properly, without leaving all kinds of odd dangling bits that donât quite add up. Bad theories are usually rather untidy.
> 
> But the testing period must come to an end. Gradually, the focus of investigation narrows down to those avenues that continue to make sense, that still add up, and quite often a good theory will reveal additional answers, or make powerful predictions, that add substance to the theory. When Russian scientist Dmitri Mendeleev constructed his periodic table of elements, not only did he fit all known elements successfully, he predicted that elements we didnât even know about would turn up later on â and they did!
> ...


This is really funny if you have read the climategate materials. These jerks purposely acted to block publication of papers that did not agree with their view of things. No one has given up, they just can't get through the good old boy network to get their stuff published.

Observational data have been so manipulated that I do not consider it to be reliable. The newest trend, making weather data homogenous, is ridiculous. Weather is not homogenous, but homogenous data works better in computer models, so they alter the data to fit the model? Really?

These guys are not worthy of the title "scientist" in my opinion. A scientist ought to be open to differing opinions. A scientist knows that they don't know it all and welcomes new perspectives, additional data, etc. Not these guys. 

Go read climateaudit.org.


----------



## Jena (Aug 13, 2003)

Heritagefarm said:


> This isn't about "beliefs", which is what you think. This is a scientific discussion.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science


Epic fail. If this is a scientific discussion,then please use appropriate sources. Wikipedia is NOT a scientific source and not even a reliable one for non-science stuff.


----------



## Jena (Aug 13, 2003)

Nevada said:


> Each of those events have gotten worse, as scientists predicted. How can you say for sure that the severity of Katrina wasn't due to man's poor stewardship of the environment?


How can you say it was? It had been noted for years that a direct hurricane hit on New Orleans would be devastating...and it was. No big shocker there.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Jena said:


> Using wikipedia as a citation for "citation" is about as ironic as you can get. Very funny.





Jena said:


> Epic fail. If this is a scientific discussion,then please use appropriate sources. Wikipedia is NOT a scientific source and not even a reliable one for non-science stuff.


Ok, first of all, please remember what you've already posted. Now Wikipedia is commonly attacked, but what most people don't realize is that Wikipedia has groups of respected editors who regularly "patrol" articles, and it is peer-reviewed. Wikipedia is not as unreliable as you think; it's your opinion. Also, you cannot expect me to take these two posts seriously when you use a _BLOG_ as your "citation" in your other post; that is an "epic fail."


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bigkat80 said:


> So Scientifically you can say hurricane activity is significantly weakened since the 60's except for andrew


Statistics can be manipulated any way you want, but scientists still say that it will get warmer, the oceans will rise, and storms will get stronger. I believe that's what we can expect.


----------



## Jena (Aug 13, 2003)

Heritagefarm said:


> Ok, first of all, please remember what you've already posted. Now Wikipedia is commonly attacked, but what most people don't realize is that Wikipedia has groups of respected editors who regularly "patrol" articles, and it is peer-reviewed. Wikipedia is not as unreliable as you think; it's your opinion. Also, you cannot expect me to take these two posts seriously when you use a _BLOG_ as your "citation" in your other post; that is an "epic fail."


Climateaudit.org wasn't offered as a citation, it was offered as additional reading on the subject.

A good source would not need anyone patrolling it. The fact that editors constantly have to watch the content is reason enough to consider it unreliable. Wikipedia is not acceptable as a source for a college paper, much less scientific research.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Statistics can be manipulated any way you want, but scientists still say that it will get warmer, the oceans will rise, and storms will get stronger. I believe that's what we can expect.


Your being disingenuios. Not ALL scientists say its getting warmer due to man made influences! Not by a long shot.


----------



## Jena (Aug 13, 2003)

Nevada said:


> Statistics can be manipulated any way you want, but scientists still say that it will get warmer, the oceans will rise, and storms will get stronger. I believe that's what we can expect.


Try looking at how they have manipulated the observational data. They can say it's getting warmer because they make the data say so.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/temperature-monitoring.html

That is just the overview of the data manipulations. Pick a data set, then search for "corrections" for it and you'll get more.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> Your being disingenuios. Not ALL scientists say its getting warmer due to man made influences! Not by a long shot.


This is not a matter of opinion. We aren't both going to be correct. Either the weather will get more severe or it won't.

The problem with conservatives is that they always seem to sidestep accountability. What we can expect is that if conservatives get their way and nothing is done to lessen the impact of global warming, conservatives will just say that they thought they were right but were mistaken. They'll probably get away with it too. I don't know why they'll get away with it, but they always do.

Conservatives got away with being wrong about WMDs in Iraq, then after $1 trillion, 4,400 American troops lost, and countless Iraqis dead, you just shrug your shoulders and say you believed there were WMDs in Iraq but that you were mistaken. Why is there no accountability, not even political accountability, for such an enormous blunder?

And don't try to say that the WMD issue was the only blunder conservatives got away with using the "we didn't know" excuse. The economic crisis was entirely preventable, yet conservatives failed to recognize the signs of a dangerous bubble. They failed to read the intel about 9/11. They failed to recognize how big of a disaster Katrina was. They failed to anticipate the insurgency in Iraq. They failed to anticipate the cost of Iraq. Each and every time it was the same "we didn't know" excuse, and they got away with it.

With such a poor track record of being correct, and the failure of conservatives to accept accountability, saying "we didn't know" just isn't good enough for the projected devastation of global warming.

So what happens if we're right and you're wrong, and then we suddenly realize that it's too late to do anything about it?


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Conservatives got away with being wrong about WMDs in Iraq, then after $1 trillion, 4,400 American troops lost, and countless Iraqis dead, you just shrug your shoulders and say you believed there were WMDs in Iraq but that you were mistaken. Why is there no accountability, not even political accountability, for such an enormous blunder?


But you keep forgetting. There were WMDs found in Iraq. It was on the news. I was sure you would remember. What about all of those secret documents that were exposed a while back. There was so much talk about them. Right up to the time it said they were WMDs in Iraq. People suddenly forgot about them.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

> So what happens if we're right and you're wrong, and then we suddenly realize that it's too late to do anything about it?


Then that would be EPIC fail. If it's too late to do anything about it then it will also be too late to worry about it. What will happen is those who were right will most likely have prepared to the best of their abilities and stand a greater chance of surviving better .... and those who were wrong ..... :shrug:


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

pancho said:


> But you keep forgetting. There were WMDs found in Iraq. It was on the news. I was sure you would remember. What about all of those secret documents that were exposed a while back. There was so much talk about them. Right up to the time it said they were WMDs in Iraq. People suddenly forgot about them.


We heard 3 reasons for invading Iraq.



Saddam possessed WMDs.
Saddam was sponsoring the same terrorists who attacked us on 9/11.
Saddam was seeking nuclear weapons.
I've seen no evidence of any of those.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Jena said:


> Bearfootfarm said:
> 
> 
> > They don't really KNOW why the ozone layer gets depleted, and it's only been in the last 30 or so years they even KNEW it happened
> ...


A bit of over-simplification and not entirely correct. The sun is a constant, the sun doesn't ever "not shine".

It is *intense UV solar radiation* that splits the chlorine molecules off CFC's. 

The cause of ozone depletion is the increase in the level of free radicals such as hydroxyl radicals, nitric oxide radicals and atomic chlorine and bromine. The most important compound, which accounts for almost 80% of the total depletion of ozone in the stratosphere are chlorofluorocarbons (CFC). These compounds are very stable in the lower atmosphere of the Earth, but in the stratosphere, they break down to release a free chlorine atom *due to ultraviolet radiation*. A free chlorine atom reacts with an ozone molecule (O3) and forms chlorine monoxide (ClO) and a molecule of oxygen. Chlorine monoxide reacts with an ozone molecule to form a chlorine atom and two molecules of oxygen. The free chlorine molecule again reacts with ozone to form chlorine monoxide. The process continues and the result is the reduction or depletion of ozone in the stratosphere.


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

Nevada said:


> We heard 3 reasons for invading Iraq.
> 
> *That might have been all you HEARD, but I saw a list of 17 reasons*.
> 
> ...


What you've SEEN doesn't necessarily mean all that exists. Some people won't see things even if they are right in front of them, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Nevada said:


> We heard 3 reasons for invading Iraq.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No, those are the things you decided we went to war for.
None of the three were the reason, even though two were true.
We went to war because Saddam broke the treaty he signed. He was given plenty of warnings what would happen if he continued to ignore the agreement.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> The problem with conservatives


There you go reverting to the rhetoric which simply PROVES you've been *defeated* by logic and need an out.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> We heard 3 reasons for invading Iraq.
> 
> 
> Saddam possessed WMDs.
> ...


Yes you have since we've shown you *many times*

You're funny when you're desperate


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

pancho said:


> No, those are the things you decided we went to war for.
> None of the three were the reason, even though two were true.
> We went to war because Saddam broke the treaty he signed.


That's not what the president was telling us, and it's not what Powell told the UN.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> There you go reverting to the rhetoric which simply PROVES you've been *defeated* by logic and need an out.


I noticed that you fell short of accepting accountability.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I noticed that you fell short of accepting accountability


I noticed you've fallen short of proving any of your claims.

I can only be accountable for what I do.

I gaurantee you cause more polution than me


----------



## Stephen in SOKY (Jun 6, 2006)

What in the world does Iraq have to do with "The natuaral cause of climate change"? Yet I see you've succeeeded, at least 2 other posters have followed you off on your merry diversion.


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

naturelover said:


> No, nor any other place constructed below sea level. That was short-sightedness on the part of the constructors. The Dutch haven't done so badly with their forethought in constructions though.
> 
> .


Yes, but the Dutch are industrious. They work. They reclaim land. They keep the sea at bay.

The folks of NOLA were not industrious. They don't work. They don't reclaim anything (except for beer cans maybe). They do nothing to keep the sea at bay.

Ants vs. Grasshoppers.

Btw... anyone changed their minds? :bored: Didn't think so.


----------



## Bigkat80 (Jan 16, 2007)

Nevada said:


> Statistics can be manipulated any way you want, but scientists still say that it will get warmer, the oceans will rise, and storms will get stronger. I believe that's what we can expect.


Perhaps perhaps not but that is not what happened in Katrina...and to try to imply that is ridiculously lame on your part...katrina as an act of nature did suprisingly low damage the levees as a manmade structure did incredible damage to the city of New Orleans.Katrina was a weak storm and would have gotten little coverage outside normal for landfall hurricanes were it not for NOLA levee's failing....Rita was actually more powerful but less coverage cause it happened in a not so populate area and no levees failed flooding a major metropolitan area...

at anyrate looking over history I see not obvious trend in change in the hurricane intensities or frequencies....that dog has yet to hunt or wont hunt ever....



> http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/10/24/1000-days-without-hurricane-landfall/
> 
> It has now been more than 750 days since any hurricane has made landfall in the US. This is one of the longest periods on record. Assuming that none do the rest of the current season, the quiesced period will almost certainly continue for at least 1,000 days.
> The only three year period without hurricanes in US history was around the time of the Civil War.
> It has also been 18 years since a category 5 hurricane struck the US.


----------



## Jena (Aug 13, 2003)

Paumon said:


> A bit of over-simplification and not entirely correct. The sun is a constant, the sun doesn't ever "not shine".
> 
> It is *intense UV solar radiation* that splits the chlorine molecules off CFC's.
> 
> The cause of ozone depletion is the increase in the level of free radicals such as hydroxyl radicals, nitric oxide radicals and atomic chlorine and bromine. The most important compound, which accounts for almost 80% of the total depletion of ozone in the stratosphere are chlorofluorocarbons (CFC). These compounds are very stable in the lower atmosphere of the Earth, but in the stratosphere, they break down to release a free chlorine atom *due to ultraviolet radiation*. A free chlorine atom reacts with an ozone molecule (O3) and forms chlorine monoxide (ClO) and a molecule of oxygen. Chlorine monoxide reacts with an ozone molecule to form a chlorine atom and two molecules of oxygen. The free chlorine molecule again reacts with ozone to form chlorine monoxide. The process continues and the result is the reduction or depletion of ozone in the stratosphere.


I was talking about the ozone hole which is over the south pole during the winter when the sun does not shine at all for months and what I said is correct. I was also trying to keep it simple because I figure most people haven't had chemistry lately.


----------



## Jena (Aug 13, 2003)

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAlMomLvu_4[/ame]


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Jena said:


> Try looking at how they have manipulated the observational data. They can say it's getting warmer because they make the data say so.
> 
> http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/temperature-monitoring.html
> 
> That is just the overview of the data manipulations. Pick a data set, then search for "corrections" for it and you'll get more.


Conspiracy theories again. You call Wikipedia a bad cite, but use the common red herring of a conspiracy theory, based on nothing but illogical fallacies!


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

Heritagefarm said:


> Conspiracy theories again. You call Wikipedia a bad cite, but use the common red herring of a conspiracy theory, based on nothing but illogical fallacies!


Jena, your dealing with True Believers. They can't remember the positions they had the day before, but they know what they've said last is what they really meant. Already posted a boo boo, where someone said they never said that, and showed that they did...

True Believers can't be swayed...


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

I also dislike posts that are deliberately antagonistic.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> I also dislike posts that are deliberately antagonistic.


Double post


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> I also dislike posts that are deliberately antagonistic.



Do as I say, not as I do! :hysterical:


----------



## Jena (Aug 13, 2003)

Yeah, this is pointless. 

AGW has truly become a religion and I suspect there is more than one troll in operation here.


----------

