The Myth of Man-Made Global Warming

Nope - that's me mis-reading a post.  My bad.

B

So, now we are trying to say that the climate doesn't ever change, no matter what?

I don't think so - that would mean chucking out millions of years of history, and, we'd have to find some other reason why the mammoths froze to death.

B

 Mrs Oroblanco, I think I understand your argument which is that people are contributing to a global warming trend by dispensing a massive amount of pollutants on the earth. I agree that people play a part in the climate changes of our planet but what is the use of arguing about it if we cannot change the trend. the planet is a self correcting system and has done fine long before humans showed up on the scene. I don't think that anyone can argue that peoples pollutants have NOT made a slight impact on a warming trend but we have in no way caused global warming to occur. If humans ruin the world for our future existence than that would be due to the earths defenses identifying and correcting a pest living on it's surface and would be beneficial to the planet in the long run. In this perspective, people are the problem and will be handled accordingly but to think that we could defeat mother nature just shows how self important we have become. we don't even know how to take care of ourselves, yet we think we have the conceit to think we can save the planet?

The problem with that is simple..............

It makes people like us either say "its a farce" or "the sky is falling" - and we don't really have the "unbought and unpaidfor" information.

The information we have is what politicians want us to know.

It wouldn't do to have definite information - if they solved the question - however would people keep making money on it.

Also, you get a little of that >>>>>hey>>look over there>>don't look here -  in other words, it keeps us peasants busy.

B

Beth, its real easy to get the straight dope. Every time you hear a claim made by any group citing this or that source, go look it up, read it, and judge for yourself if their conclusions are sound. But make sure their source isn't biased. Of course, almost all are, but there are a few to look into. NOAA is a good one, so is NASA, etc. etc..... try and stick to scientific groups that are less likely to be biased, as they have a responsibility to report factual data and not necessarily their conclusions.

 Conclusions are the killer. What one group reads in such a report can be vastly different from what another group reads, depending on their leanings.

 Also, here's another little spin...... the folks who "don't believe" in MMGW aren't really non-believers, exactly. For instance most of your older, more learned scientists who haven't leapt onto the GW bandwagon are cast as skeptics, crackpots, non-believers, etc. when the plain truth is they are being analytical. For them, the science isn't confirmed yet, so they hold out. For everyone else who has had this garbage shoved down their throats for 30+years, we now have a new generation who "knows" that GW is a fact, because thats what they've been taught their entire lives. Remember my comparison to Hitler? How does one man kill 6 million? He doesn't, he raises an entire nation through "education" that his beliefs are sound. And the non-believers are kept quite quiet for obvious reasons.

 The vocal minority is a scary thing 

Hey, some folks have brought up the scare factor. I believe in this- there is always something out there we need to fix or we'll all die, lol!

 Some you may have forgot about-

 Nuclear bomb drills in school where you crawled under your desks? Like that'll help anything, lol!

 Fallout shelters? All the rage in the 50's. Some folks made a ton of cash with that scare...

 How about McCarthyism? The Red Scare? Commies in Hollywood?

 The hole in the Ozone? We MUST'VE solved that one by banning CFC's, cause it's no longer on the front page, eh? NOT-

 Clubbing baby seals? Whaling? Endangered species? Surely there's no more of those things now that we've thrown tons of money at it, correct? 

 DDT. Banned, in part because it supposedly was thinning the eggshells of the California Condor, an endangered species. Turns out they were wrong, and the science has proven that DDT wasn't to blame. I wonder how many people died in third world countries from the spread of malaria from mosquitos that could've been prevented? Millions?  Probably the same ones you see fat butt Sally Struthers on TV trying to get money to feed them. Ironic?   

 And now we have it down to a science. Mass advertising convinces people that carseats will save their babies and no carseat means they will suredly die. So buy one. No, as a matter of fact, we'll make it a law so you have to. And Helmets too. Buy lots of those cause they'll save you. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but if you drive a flimsy POS tin can car and get rammed by a Freightliner, that carseat or helmet you bought ain't gonna do much to protect you. As a matter of fact, there is a very small window where either of these items will help you survive. Not enough force, you'll live with or without one. Too much force, you dead sucker, with or without one. Just the right amount somewhere in the middle and it could go either way? Well maybe. Roll the dice because there are absolutely no guarantees, lol! But we think there are because thats what we've been told, right?

 Crap there is so much to be scared of, and so much money to make off off fear it makes you numb after awhile. 

 I guess you could say I just stopped being scared?  No real reason to worry anyways, when my time comes, it comes. And my child's. And his child's, etc. At some point the human race will simply disappear, having been here for no more than the blink of an eye in the Earth's timeline. That is the natural way, there is nothing we can do to prevent it.

 

Quote from Jeffro
"Also, here's another little spin...... the folks who "don't believe" in MMGW aren't really non-believers, exactly. For instance most of your older, more learned scientists who haven't leapt onto the GW bandwagon are cast as skeptics, crackpots, non-believers, etc. "

The nom-de-jour for us non-believers is "Deniers" (As in holocaust)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090403/ap_on_sc/sci_sea_ice

The liberals here know the truth, that there is no man made global warming. With them it is all about the argument and their agenda, not the truth.

Conservatives are about the truth.   I know, short but simple and true.

That said, I too despise pollution in most forms. Plastic bags need to go Bye Bye.

One more time, there is no such thing as man made global warming and the crook Al Gore knows it to.

To help reduce global warming US christians are urged to reduce "socializing"(is that what they call it now)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/.../04/05/2535330.htm?section=features

politics has nothing to do with the changes i see in the climate.

people who refuse to admit they and their kind upset any enviroment they live in are a bit twisted...

Gee ….I am enjoying the climate change we are having. It seems to be a re-run of the weather in the late 60’s and early 70’s. …Art

politics has nothing to do with the changes i see in the climate.

people who refuse to admit they and their kind upset any enviroment they live in are a bit twisted...

people who can't think for themselves and drink the coolaid of mass hysteria are what then?
normal?

please elaborate on the changes you personally see in the climate.  No websites links or
quotes from others,  lets hear about the changes you personally see with your own eyes.

Pronghorn,

I've done that number before.

Back - quite awhile I was mentioning that, when I was a kid, growing up in Pennsylvania, we would miss sometimes 4-5 weeks of school because of massive snow storms.  I'd sit in my bedroom window and watch the ground disappear under the snow.

They would be so bad, that they would bury bulldozers trying to plow us out.

30+ years later, the winters are warmer, you can plant veggies that didn't used to grow there (longer growing season), and there hasn't been a winter storm (no matter how bad they get) that has matched the ones we used to have on a regular basis.
(we used to water the snow drifts and then cover them with gravel and sand, and drive OVER them).

I was told, in no uncertain terms, that I couldn't possibly see those changes - which of course is wrong - its just a fact of life. (but then, I spent alot of time outside, too).  Now, you can hunt deer without a stitch of thermals on (exact same seasons), furs are getting prime later, and grass is coming up sooner, so winter milk is no longer so much of a premium, and hay can be harvested 3 times instead of 2.

But - again - none of that is scientific - but very, very true.

B

And thirty years from now it could be right back to how you remember it. No one can say with any amount of certainty. 

Pronghorn,

I've done that number before.

Back - quite awhile I was mentioning that, when I was a kid, growing up in Pennsylvania, we would miss sometimes 4-5 weeks of school because of massive snow storms.  I'd sit in my bedroom window and watch the ground disappear under the snow.

They would be so bad, that they would bury bulldozers trying to plow us out.

30+ years later, the winters are warmer, you can plant veggies that didn't used to grow there (longer growing season), and there hasn't been a winter storm (no matter how bad they get) that has matched the ones we used to have on a regular basis.
(we used to water the snow drifts and then cover them with gravel and sand, and drive OVER them).

I was told, in no uncertain terms, that I couldn't possibly see those changes - which of course is wrong - its just a fact of life. (but then, I spent alot of time outside, too).  Now, you can hunt deer without a stitch of thermals on (exact same seasons), furs are getting prime later, and grass is coming up sooner, so winter milk is no longer so much of a premium, and hay can be harvested 3 times instead of 2.

But - again - none of that is scientific - but very, very true.

B

My comments were directed at pip specifically.  I don't want to get on your bad side Mrs. O.
Oro has been one of the nicest folks to me here and I want to keep it that way.
I think I am close to your age, and I remember open water fishing here in March many times.
It is April and the ice on the lake is still two feet thick, so what should I make of that?

Jeffro is right,    no one can say what next year will be like let alone 10 years or 30 years or a 100 years from now.   Computer models are what the whole global warming hoax is built on, and as a novice computer programmer I can tell you it is possible to get any result you want,  bad data in = bad data out.

So pp,  tell us the horror stories of the climate change you personally have witnessed, please.

I may not be no scientist, but I sure am getting tired of shoveling this global warming out of my driveway. 

I may not be no scientist, but I sure am getting tired of shoveling this global warming out of my driveway. 

that settles that then...there is snow in your driveway so earth's climate change is irrelevant.
have a difficult time seeing past the end of your nose eh?

 

 

No - I think he is having trouble seeing the end of his driveway!!!

 

Of course, we all know that it only takes one or two singular events (like one cold year, or one hot year, or one rainy year) to completely disintegrate the results of any scentific studies, right?   


B

The Northwest Passage above Canada has been frozen for over two hundred years. Last time it was open, wooden sail ships used it... I wonder what men did to affect the climate back then to thaw it out??? DUH...

the northwest passage was a mythical route until the advent of nuclear propulsion...

but then...nothing would convince some people.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30014339/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30036283/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precession_(astronomy)

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

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

but then...nothing will convince some people.

but then...nothing will convince some people.

If man has absolutely no effect, what-so-ever - how do you explain the HAARP?

B

 

By HAARP, are you referring to the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program?

Or are you referring to that conspiracy theory tesla coil garbage?

No, the program - the one that is dumping lots of BTU's of heat into the troposphere.

B

Yeah....

Haarp fires ultra low frequency radio waves into the ionosphere, heating a small area with the 3.6 megawatts it is capable of producing. This has absolutely no effect on the troposphere, by the way.  They are shooting radio waves into space. It happens every day all over the world. The frequencies that HAARP uses are not absorbed by the troposphere or stratosphere at all. Not even a little.

That 3.6 megawatts isn't even a fraction of what is constantly bombarding the ionosphere from the sun. Any tiny changes made in an area of the ionosphere are swept away in seconds. Meanwhile, the atmosphere is completely untouched.

Other than what enviro-nazi conspiracy theorists post on websites, you have absolutely no proof to back up the statement that the HAARP project would dump heat into the troposphere. Here is a bit of advice. If the article you are reading is located directly next to thrilling articles about new world orders, crop circles, and top secret super weapons, you should probably not consider it to be fact.

I  have not read any articles, one way or another,  but I am still trying to find the 20 lb cricket I saw yesterday on the weekly world news cover in the supermarket.(I am also filled with trepidation every time I go into the woods now because of the headline "I was Bigfoot's love slave" seen on the same mag a year ago.). Regardless, if HAARP has so little effect what is it's purpose?? Just wondering.

3.6 megawatts = 3.6 million watts.

That's all directed at our troposphere - its been around since 1990.

Yes - there are some "conspiracy" theories.  Some seem to be possibilities, some seem a little "out there".

http://www.bariumblues.com/

http://www.haarp.net/

Again - an attitude that we can do whatever we feel like it, with no consequences. 

B

Whitepaw, to contradict my statement you reference MSNBC???

That's like referencing Hitler on WW11 or even worse Al Gore on global warming and carbon credits. There are many a Fairy Tale Book with more truth and honesty.

Honesty and Truth, my my, what a concept. 

What did I say? Stay off the conspiracy theory websites. Did you listen? Obviously not.

Here. Read this. Maybe you will learn something. Do yourself a favor and scroll down to the question that reads: "Is HAARP capable of affecting the weather?"

http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/haarp/faq.html

so you are one of those urban dwellers whos experience with the enviroment is setting the thermostat, or walking out to the car.

your inane postings and insults are typical of the self righteous...

Snap - I forgot - we only listen to the conservative's conspiracy theories.

In truth, you cannot conceive of a scientific experiment, of any kind, where we would WANT to be able to control some of the weather?  We've been trying for years - why would it be something new?  Why would it be a conspiracy at all?

Splitting the atom - was it meant for good of evil???

We've been bombing fault lines, seeding clouds and the like for years.

It's not a very far stretch to think that maybe someone wants to stop hurricanes, or tornadoes, or whatever.  But, with knowledge, of any kind, ALWAYS comes power and the possibility of using good things for evil causes.

Like drugs - meant for good - but can destroy - and kill the very people they are meant to help. (even when taken properly).

Weather modification is nothing different.

Speaking of conspiracies - I'm assuming you heard FOX news the other morning (yesterday or the day before) - who have some information that makes them think that the Chinese and the Russians have (and are continuing) to map all of our electrical grids (since they are now computerized), so that, just in case, they can turn off all our essential services.

Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me.

B

so you are one of those urban dwellers whos experience with the enviroment is setting the thermostat, or walking out to the car.

your inane postings and insults are typical of the self righteous...

The funny thing is that I have never lived in or near a large city. Ever. The nearest small town is 20 miles from here. Otherwise, there is a whole lot of nothing.

Quite typically, you have posted without knowing what the hell you are talking about. And you say that I am the self righteous one. HAH.

And lets say Man-Made Global Warming were real. What are you going to do about it? Cry some more? Maybe your tears will save us all.

so you are one of those urban dwellers whos experience with the enviroment is setting the thermostat, or walking out to the car.

your inane postings and insults are typical of the self righteous...

Still waiting for you to
please elaborate on the changes you personally see in the climate.  No websites links or
quotes from others,  no childish attempts at profound one sentence earth stopping  put downs
at the end of your posts,    lets hear about the changes you personally see with your own eyes.

politics has nothing to do with the changes i see in the climate.

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=324081052281380

Sorry, But The Science Is Never 'Settled' - President Obama has said that the science of global warming is "beyond dispute," and therefore settled.

This is the justification for the imposition of a carbon cap-and-trade system that will cost $2 trillion.

But Obama does not understand science.

"Settled science" is an oxymoron, and anyone who characterizes science as "settled" or "indisputable" is --deleted-- not only of science, but also history and philosophy.

Aristotle, who lived and wrote in the fourth century B.C., was one of the greatest geniuses the world has ever known.

He invented the discipline of logic, and founded the sciences of ecology and biology.

Aristotle's physics were accepted as correct for nearly two thousand years. In 1534, faculty at the University of Paris officially asserted that the works of Aristotle were "the standard and basis of all philosophic enquiry." (David Deming, IBD)

http://www.columbiatribune.com/news...-jury-is-still-out-on-warming/?news

The jury is still out on warming - I have noticed an interesting and consistent media phenomenon: Virtually no airtime or other coverage is given to the idea that maybe, just maybe, global warming is not occurring. Or if it is occurring, it is not mankind’s fault but rather is the result of natural phenomena. It is always presented as accepted fact, axiomatic really, that it is true, it is bad and mankind is largely responsible. Me? I’m not sure.

The global warming issue is complex, but I believe the key questions can be boiled down to these four:

1. Do we live in an era of global warming?

2. If so, is it mostly man-made?

3. If so, should such a moderate temperature increase bother us more than other pressing problems?

4. If we want to change the climate, can it be done? And would our efforts be the best allocation of our always scarce resources? (Bob Roper, Columbia daily Tribune)

Obama will be the downfall of America. All he has done at this point has hurt us. This global warming joke is just an excuse to take more controll. He needs to go back and bow down to his muslim king again.. I will bow down to the Good Lord and pray for the United States.

Too bad that some people think that one single person can take down this country -

Shows what they REALLY think of our country.

B

uhhhh....duh...greycloud...only one god...different prophets...

president obama did not invent global warming, climate change, or the national debt.

 :icon_study

and since it appears none of the science persuades some of the urban dwellers that the climate is in serious disunity...
allow me to give you an example.
i took a short hike out west of town...12 miles maybe...was walking around in t shirt and jeans...i now have a sunburn...
the weather people are calling for snow tomorrow and sunday....in arizona...in april...
last week, after another week of above 50...at 7,000ft...sitting on the porch...bright, sunny, listening to the  thunderstorm, while the snow falls in big fat clumps. ...figure that out.
it is a disruption of cycles..this is not a normal cycle of warming...or cooling or whateverever the heck it turns into...
buzz word bingo is a distraction.
remember, people like you sat around in the dust bowl and said we didn't have nothin to do with it...

now, from the comfort of your climate controlled vista...

IF ANY OPENMINDED CONSERVATIVE WANT TO DISCUSS THIS TOPIC, I WILL BE GLAD TO RESPOND.

WILL NOT WASTE MY TIME TO ARGUE OR GIVE FACTS TO LIBERALS.

THE TRUTH IS NOT WHAT THEY SEEK.

THE TRUTH DOES NOT FIT THERE AGENDA.

THIS HAS BEEN PROVED MANY TIMES OVER.

FROM TIME TO TIME I WILL THROW IN MY OPINION OR SOME FACTS TO A SUBJECT. I DO THIS BECAUSE I WANT TO SHARE WITH OTHERS, NOT TO ARGUE OR PASS INSULTS WITH LIBERALS. 

Calm down. Don't take anything personally. It is just a web forum. And everyone has an opinion.

I, personally, strongly believe that the changes in weather which pippinwhitepaws has described are all a part of the anomalistic precession of Earth's orbital path. A naturally occurring cycle that changes the duration of certain seasons. But that is just me. Sorry if I don't act like a lemming and think what I'm told to think.

On a side note, I actually like some of the changes that Obama has made. He may turn out to be a pretty good president. Although I may not agree with the billion dollar corporate bailouts, some of his other acts have been great ideas.

Some people don't want an "open-minded conservative" to discuss things with - they want someone who "parrots and mimics" their own ideas.

B

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28938512/wid/18298287/?GT1=34129

 

That was pretty interesting. I also liked the interactive rising seas one.

But how does that help your arguement for man-made global warming?

It does not help the argument allen. It is not even science. It totally Ignores current data that shows sea levels receding and Ice on our poles starting to build. It is a political hit job. Data seen on that site can be refuted easily and should be. Pippin should say that the site lies also, but more than likely you will just encounter defensiveness and excuses. Possibly you will get a lecture on how you don't care for the environment and pollution. Maybe a defense of how this site was put up by msnbc and you should believe it because of that. You will most likely hear everything but an admission that the information presented on the site is flawed. It is not in human nature to admit it when wrong. Sorry to break it to you allen.

Scientists are not saying the poles are getting bigger.  In fact, it seems to be another paradox between scientists.

The general consensus (subject to change at the next symposium ) is that the polar ices are 'spreading' but are not as thick as they used to be. (why they are melting during the warmer months).

Of course - again - that's why WE cannot really make an intelligent decision - THEY don't (the scientists) don't agree. 

B

Beth- that screaming, eyeless rabbit gives me the willies! 

Jeffro - 

Ok - HAPPY EASTER - time to change it.   

B

I have a question for the believers.  We have been recording temps for around a 100 or so years.  The Earth is billions of years old.  So these records represent a fraction of time.  Question, Why is this 100 year span the guide for Earths correct temperature?  Sure we can look at glaciers formations, rock formations and get an idea what the climate was like millions of years ago.  But these changes that are seen took centuries to complete.  What we are talking about today is 50-100 years.  There is no way to look at a glacier that is 100000 years old an say 50000 years ago the temperature changed 1 degree over a 100 year time frame.  Are we that conceded to think we can stop nature from doing what it has done for billions of years?

Like I've said before - not any more conceited than to think that 6 billion people that weren't here before does not have an impact on the earth. (or any of our surroundings).

There is a middle ground.

B

Like I've said before - not any more conceited than to think that 6 billion people that weren't here before does not have an impact on the earth. (or any of our surroundings).

There is a middle ground.

B

Please respond to my questions and comments and do not attempt to change the subject.  Thanks...

Are we that conceded to think we can stop nature from doing what it has done for billions of years?

Is that not one of your questions?

B

Like I've said before - not any more conceited than to think that 6 billion people that weren't here before does not have an impact on the earth. (or any of our surroundings).

There is a middle ground.

B

Population in 1900 =  1,625,000,000  Population in 2000 = 6,000,000,000.  Temperature increase less than 1 degree Celsius.  Sure seems to me that an increase of 3,500,000,000 people would cause a larger increase.  These are just human population increases.  Imagine the amount of animals and livestock that have increased in this time frame.  Now with all of the people and livestock ex hailing CO2 and methane you would think a larger increase would be taking place.  I may not be a climate scientist, but it sure looks like the Earth is handling these numbers pretty good.

The site you posted is the same one I posted on the other global warming thread.

Here's a quote, by the way: (from the site quoted)

To achieve that degree of linearity, the transmitters operate at an efficiency of only about 45 %. For every 100 Watts of input power 45 Watts of Radio Frequency power is generated and the rest is lost in the transmitter cabinet as heat. (As an analogy, a 75 Watt light bulb gets quite hot while it's producing the light you actually see.)

(times 19 years).

There is also a section on using the sun to increase the effects.

The whole point being - man is doing things that can - and do - affect things, period.  If you don't affect your surroundings, you aren't alive.


B

The site you posted is the same one I posted on the other global warming thread.

Here's a quote, by the way: (from the site quoted)

To achieve that degree of linearity, the transmitters operate at an efficiency of only about 45 %. For every 100 Watts of input power 45 Watts of Radio Frequency power is generated and the rest is lost in the transmitter cabinet as heat. (As an analogy, a 75 Watt light bulb gets quite hot while it's producing the light you actually see.)

(times 19 years).

There is also a section on using the sun to increase the effects.

The whole point being - man is doing things that can - and do - affect things, period.  If you don't affect your surroundings, you aren't alive.


B

Sorry, but I am not posting from a site.  I did do a population timeline search and that was the only thing I used.  Since these are common knowledge, I did not feel the need to cite sources.  Anyway,  I never did say you are not affecting your surroundings.  I just responded to your point on population increase.  I think a less than 1 degree increase with the increased population is a example of the population NOT causing any problems.  Now if you want to discuse pollution of land and water, I would agree with you on these.  The Earth is handling this population increase very well.  Now can you try to answer some of my other points and questions. 

I have to get to bed in short order, here, but, let me hit a couple of points, anyway.

First - the temperatures recorded are just temperatures recorded for 100 years.  Scientists have much more information than GROUND temperatures for the last 100 years.  Ground temperature is only an end result of other events - and, not an accurate verification of warming or cooling.

The body of information - the drillings through hundreds of feet of ice, of hundreds of feet of sand, and dirt, and old mud, and rivers etc., are also a part - but only a part.

On a mathematical level - your temperatures can go up without causing a shift in averages - the same with going down - or increased rainfall, or snowfall, or whatever.  When something goes out of the bell-shaped curve, there is a reason.  When the bell-shaped curve shifts - which it has, by the way, there is a reason.

The main - emphasis - main - indicator, is the trosposphere - what's happening up there - where all the pollution goes, where all the elements are that help stop our uv and ub rays, and other rays - their absorbing properties - this is the main topic of what happens with the cycle (and I agree, we do cycle).

But, it is also what makes oceans warmer, which can cause melting and all those other things we are talking about.  Not my backyard, or my last snowfall, or my last winter, summer, spring or fall, but the things that happen that we just don't see, and cannot see.

You cannot talk about pollution (which is man-made) and then say it's not a factor.  You cannot talk about co2 and say, its the only factor - you cannot talk about water vapor, and say it is the only factor.

To address JUST population - its not the person on the earth, its the person on the earth who is working in the factories, that are spewing out vapor, that are cutting down trees, and setting forest fires, etc., and multiply it times 6 billion that is the issue.

I don't think we are going to stop the climate from changing - I do think we don't have to speed it up.  We have septic systems, clean water, we make our children wash their hands, we don't throw garbage into the streets, we don't dump dangerous chemicals into the ground - why?  Because we have some control over our surroundings - we need to control man-made things.  The closer we live to one another, the higher the population, the more important sanitation, etc., becomes, and anything that can make us sick can make the environment sick.

It's like smoking - you keep smoking, and, unseen to you, eventually, parts of your body that you don't see start becoming stained, and eventually, cease to work properly - nature does that - in our bodies, in our environments, in our homes, in our world.

Again, I'm not advocating living in a bubble - just that there are common sense ways to mitigate our damages.  But, if you don't get that you are a product of how you live, and your world is a product of how we ALL live,  you cannot do that.

B

there must be global warmimg or "AL GORE'S" company he founded to SELL OFF --carbon tax credits --  well go bust -- you see it works like this they take stuff that pollutes and tax it  via "carbon credits" -- the money is SUPPOSED to be used to develop non or less  polluting ways to make energy / do stuff --now who takes the money made from selling off those dirty carbon credits and directs it to do the "good work"?  (we are talking millions upon millions of dollars here)--why none other than "AL GORE'S OWN COMPANY" -- and if "AL GORE INC" wants to pollute all he wants he simply pays himself to do it -- thus recycling the cash RIGHT BACK TO HIMSELF ----- of course --- the adverage person will be "taxed" via higher manufactoring and energy cost from companies having to buy carbon credits to make stuff / make energy ---while BIG AL  cleans up . ---ah its good to be the king.

That's not how its supposed to work.

They tax carbon (and only carbon - they don't worry about sulphur dioxide, or nitrogen oxide, and mercury) on an input basis.

The general idea was supposed to be - and I emphasize WAS - that companies would STOP using the dirtier stuff, and find ways to make it a cleaner fuel (make it more expensive to use dirtier fuels).

Then, the revenue from that tax was supposed to be used for environmental friendly projects. (or re-invested specifically for
energy efficiency programs, environmental cleanup programs, pollution remediation efforts, investment in green technologies and, in the elimination or reduction of existing inefficient tax burdens such as various payroll and consumption taxes.

In reality, big companies just keep going, spewing particulates above the acceptable levels, and then give a "donation" equal to what a fine might be, and then write it off on their taxes. (after charging their customers for the 'extra costs').

It's another racket.

B

bottom line --we the common man class will pay for the increased cost imposed on the companies --who will still spew forth pollution --and pay the "carbon tax" in liu of fines ---the pork barrel politicans who will control where the funds from the carbon tax goes to (green invention companies and other companies they own or have stock in most likely ) since they control what "companies" get the millions upon millions of dollars --- its a scam --fleecing the public , while the mega companies still spew their poison and they make us pay for trying to clean it all up -- maybe some tiny bit of improvement might be made if they don't steal all the money that they rake off the back of the working class folks .

Two points have to be made here-

 1- Carbon is the most abundant element on Earth..... Good Ol' Al made a good choice there to profit from it-


 2- If every human being on the planet was assigned 1/4 acre to live on, it would take up all of Australia, and a little bit of the US. The rest of the earth would be uninhabited. Can't recall where I heard this- maybe someone who "cares" can do a google search or something, lol! 

No Mrs O, temptress cannot go up or down without "changing the average". By virtue of an average being the sum of a set of numbers divided  by the number of sets, you cannot let one of the numbers in a set change without changing the average. Possibly you are speaking of the Range. Also what is the bell shaped curve you speak of ? I have not heard of the environment being described as so. What is the median and mean of this bell shaped curve and what do they represent please. A bell shaped curve or any other statical data is meaningless if you do not say what data is being interrupted.

No Mrs O, temptress cannot go up or down without "changing the average". By virtue of an average being the sum of a set of numbers divided  by the number of sets, you cannot let one of the numbers in a set change without changing the average. Possibly you are speaking of the Range. Also what is the bell shaped curve you speak of ? I have not heard of the environment being described as so. What is the median and mean of this bell shaped curve and what do they represent please. A bell shaped curve or any other statical data is meaningless if you do not say what data is being interrupted.

lets see...hummmm...it snowed saturday here...today we a 50%chance of snow, have 40mph wind and a red flag warning.
red flag mens extreme fire danger...how's that fit in to the anti-thesis?

lets see...hummmm...it snowed saturday here...today we a 50%chance of snow, have 40mph wind and a red flag warning.
red flag mens extreme fire danger...how's that fit in to the anti-thesis?

I dunno- it snowed here today too, and we have zero fire danger. How's that fit into your anti-thesis?

Two points have to be made here-

 1- Carbon is the most abundant element on Earth..... Good Ol' Al made a good choice there to profit from it-


 2- If every human being on the planet was assigned 1/4 acre to live on, it would take up all of Australia, and a little bit of the US. The rest of the earth would be uninhabited. Can't recall where I heard this- maybe someone who "cares" can do a google search or something, lol! 

I just posted this previously - in another topic... I care.

The world population is the total number of living humans on Earth at a given time. As of April 2009, the earth's population is estimated to be about 6.77 billion.   Another SCAM is how we are ruining the earth! Though world population growth has been a global concern, it is technically quite the opposite of a threat, based on current growth trend. Given the proportion of people to land mass, with the world's population being just around 6.7 billion people, Australia could be alloted into 1/4 acre portions, along with a portion of the USA. The remainder of the world's land mass would be uninhabited. Considering Alaska, being the largest US state, it is merely 1% of the world's land mass. The earth is estimated to have the capacity to withstand the weight of around 24 billion people. With the current trend in population growth, by the year 2050 the earth will have only reached 9.2 billion. Even with current population growth all humans could live with 1/4 acre areas in Australia, so over population is a scam.

but then who wants to live in a lifeless 1/4 acre area desert "outback" aussie area ? with no water or food? and high heat / cold temps  --one must take into account the fact that folks want to live in lush green areas with lots of food and water --and good temps and few bugs year round --and that really cuts down the "living areas" way down in a hurry . -- but I agrree if we only went back to simple living --how much land does one actually need to grow enought food for a person to live on per year?

If you go vegetarian, you could probably survive by living and growing your own crops on a couple of acres. But who would want to do that? Like the saying goes: "Where's the beef?"

I think the big problem when debating about overcrowding is the ratio between land used for housing and land used for farming. Then there was the short-lived bio-fuel trend which got people worrying about the price of food and the need for more farm land.

However, this problem is easily fixed. I'm sure some of you have heard of the proposed "vertical" farms. That is multi-level hydroponic farms which churn out wonderfully grown fruits and vegetables year-round and take up much less space than a traditional farm. And the fact that they could be built in every major city would dramatically reduce costs.

But as it stands now, with 6.7 billion people on the planet, there is no problem with overcrowding. There is no food shortage. There is no need for more farmland or housing. These are problems for the distant future if ever.

Even housing problems could be cured with structures such as the proposed Skycity-1000. As much as I would hate living in such a populated area, the idea of an enclosed skyscraper where you could live, work and play without ever having to leave intrigues me.

Then again, if we humans would finally take that first step in colonizing space, we definately wouldn't have to worry about crowding issues. Think about it. It's called SPACE for a reason. And think of the vast amount of resources available. Helium-3, hydrogen, iron, titanium, gold, silver, platinum, nickel, diamonds. All to be found in abundance in space. No more need for gasoline and oil. No more need for strip mines.

but then who wants to live in a lifeless 1/4 acre area desert "outback" aussie area ? with no water or food? and high heat / cold temps  --one must take into account the fact that folks want to live in lush green areas with lots of food and water --and good temps and few bugs year round --and that really cuts down the "living areas" way down in a hurry . -- but I agrree if we only went back to simple living --how much land does one actually need to grow enought food for a person to live on per year?

The point wasn't about living in Oz, is was about how many people actually cover how much space and what their impact actually is, which is minuscule.

One person vs. the earth or 6 billion... it's almost... nothing.

almost nothing until you give the monkeys dioxin an MX missiles.
clearly the person who wants everyone to live on 1/4 acre has no clue what it takes to survive on the land.

which supports my point that arguing with urban dwellers about the climate is like arguing with a little brown rock.

My lord!!!!! How out of context are you guys going to take this!!!!!! IF ! IF! IF!!!!!!! If every one in the world was given 1/4 acre. No one advocated we should all live on a 1/4 acre. Who is saying it has to be Australia?? Let's make it Europe, or the entire North American Continent. Not happy with that? Lets try Central and South America. What , too much jungle and everyone would get Malaria? Wake up !!! It's fantasy!!! This would be laughable if I did not realize pippin and ivan were serious. Get a grip.

get a grip? oh...ignore all the science, facts, personel observations and accept as god's word what you post?
got it...

how is that pretending to be a civil war trooper going for you?

Two points have to be made here-

 1- Carbon is the most abundant element on Earth..... Good Ol' Al made a good choice there to profit from it-


 2- If every human being on the planet was assigned 1/4 acre to live on, it would take up all of Australia, and a little bit of the US. The rest of the earth would be uninhabited. Can't recall where I heard this- maybe someone who "cares" can do a google search or something, lol! 

I just posted this previously - in another topic... I care.

The world population is the total number of living humans on Earth at a given time. As of April 2009, the earth's population is estimated to be about 6.77 billion.   Another SCAM is how we are ruining the earth! Though world population growth has been a global concern, it is technically quite the opposite of a threat, based on current growth trend. Given the proportion of people to land mass, with the world's population being just around 6.7 billion people, Australia could be alloted into 1/4 acre portions, along with a portion of the USA. The remainder of the world's land mass would be uninhabited. Considering Alaska, being the largest US state, it is merely 1% of the world's land mass. The earth is estimated to have the capacity to withstand the weight of around 24 billion people. With the current trend in population growth, by the year 2050 the earth will have only reached 9.2 billion. Even with current population growth all humans could live with 1/4 acre areas in Australia, so over population is a scam.

Science? fact? Are we having two different discussions or are you ignoring what is being said on purpose? Allen's comment on Australia is what I am talking about. The use of 1/4 of an acre and the Continent of Australia is a analogy. He could have put that 1/4 acre anywhere on earth, it does not matter where. The area where he put the 1/4 acre is entirely analog us. He never ever said he wanted people to live on 1/4 an acre. Where are you getting this from?? Who is suggesting this? Please, solve the mystery.

James Madison McNatt. Sgt 21st Tennessee Calvary. Enlisted at Jackson Tennessee January 1862, Nathan Bedford Forrest indpendent command, along with his two brothers Issiac and J.D. Mcnatt after the family horse farm in Sardis TN was burned and their father, William Soloman McNatt was taken prisoner and sent to Camp Douglas Chicago. Their father died there in Jan 1866 at age 58. You may check it at any geneology site. I may be pretending to be Calvary, but my family was not.

get a grip? oh...ignore all the science, facts, personel observations and accept as god's word what you post?
got it...

how is that pretending to be a civil war trooper going for you?

In its broadest sense, science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") refers to any systematic knowledge or practice. In its more usual restricted sense, science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on scientific method, as well as to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research.[1][2] This article focuses on the more restricted use of the word. Science as discussed in this article is sometimes termed experimental science to differentiate it from applied science, which is the application of scientific research to specific human needs, though the two are often interconnected.
Science is the effort to discover and increase human understanding of how reality works. Its purview is the portion of reality which is independent of religious, political, cultural, or philosophical outlook. Using controlled methods, scientists collect data in the form of observations, record observable physical evidence of natural phenomena, and analyze this information to construct theoretical explanations of how things work. Knowledge in science is gained through research. The methods of scientific research include the generation of hypotheses about how phenomena work, and experimentation that tests these hypotheses under controlled conditions. The outcome or product of this empirical scientific process is the formulation of theory that describes human understanding of physical processes and facilitates

A fact is a pragmatic truth, a statement that can, at least in theory, be checked and either confirmed or denied. Facts are often contrasted with opinions and beliefs, statements which are held to be true, but are not amenable to pragmatic confirmation or denial.[1

James Madison McNatt. Sgt 21st Tennessee Calvary. Enlisted at Jackson Tennessee January 1862, Nathan Bedford Forrest indpendent command, along with his two brothers Issiac and J.D. Mcnatt after the family horse farm in Sardis TN was burned and their father, William Soloman McNatt was taken prisoner and sent to Camp Douglas Chicago. Their father died there in Jan 1866 at age 58. You may check it at any geneology site. I may be pretending to be Calvary, but my family was not.

 

well, my family sent your family to a POW camp.
but that aside, whats the topic? mythology?

oh, forgot... my grannie was a member of the DAR...we helped trade beads for long island...left when the english showed up...founded pennsylvania

Momtana Jim, they know what you meant, but it does not fit their agenda. They take what you say or print out of context and then respond to you  in a negative way... Same old game.

i don't disagree with jim...he is correct...humans are nothing on this earth...until dioxin...ddt...splitting the atom...

just an example:

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/Vyqm-aQqUjw" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/Vyqm-aQqUjw</a>

I don't disagree that humans aren't treacherous to each other and sometimes ruin a lake or river till it returns... but to effect global climate?      Even the stuff we screw up returns to normal or adjusts in just a short time - relatively anyway.

Consider the fireweed. 

i don't mind being wrong...it is a step in education...lets hope you are right jim...


update...no worries on the global warming:

http://news.aol.com/article/asteroid-apophis/426922?icid=main|main|dl1|link2|http%3A%2F%2Fnews.aol.com%2Farticle%2Fasteroid-apophis%2F426922

Trying to think.
Well we couldn't have gas.
Nor oil for long.
= no cars or any other running machine's.

No candles because we wouldn't have bees nor wax.

Mexico is are only answer which i like the idea.

I'm not giving up my coin collection.

Sorry about some spelling it couldn't find the answers.

Fireweed?  You mean the plants that need a fire to grow?  I don't understand your comparison.

Yea - we are capable of nuking the entire world, but, we aren't capable of affecting anything. 

Talk about the ultimate "MYTH". 

B

Fireweed?  You mean the plants that need a fire to grow?  I don't understand your comparison.

Yea - we are capable of nuking the entire world, but, we aren't capable of affecting anything. 

Talk about the ultimate "MYTH". 

B

The comparison is that even tremendous forest fires quickly recover (in a short amount of time - considering the age of the earth). 

Mrs. O... Your comparison of "nuking the planet" has no bearing on the claim that cows farting and driving SUVs is ruining the planet!  I'm under NO illusion that we could kill all the people on earth with nukes, but the EARTH would recover from even THAT in short order - considering.  Nobody has dropped nukes, thats not even in the equasion... it COULD be, but it's not.  When it IS, I'll agree that we might be nuking the climate into changing.

People should keep on recycling and riding bikes if it helps them sleep at night... but, I'm driving my truck. 

I'm searching my history - I think we dropped 2, and practiced with dozens more - let's see, how many people died of cancers out in the deserts of the USA? (Remember the movie "The Conquerer"?  Every person on that set died of cancer).

We test things every single week - we don't find out about it until theirs an issue - like 3-mile island, or Chernobyl, and don't we still have a "nowhere train" hauling nuclear waste?

This is our capabilities.  I'm not that interested in SUV's (have one), or trucks, (have 2) - or what I consider the smaller things.
But, someone IS watching out for your (and mine) truck emissions, and gas usage.  (not to mention who we are supporting when we buy gas - and don't tell me Canada - because Canada gets it from the Arabs and Venezuela).

Man has the capability to change this landscape in 5 minutes.  And, even worse - there are idiots (like North Korea) who don't even care.  I don't think I've ever even mentioned cow farts - I am well aware of the fact that, in the environmental scheme of things, WE are part of the environment.

The issue that bothers me is that there is a general attitude of "all or nothing" - and to risk repeating myself for the fifth or sixth time - there is a moderate approach.

B

[The Myth of Man Made Global Warming]

I'm reacting and responding to the title of this post "The Myth of Man Made Global Warming"

Not the actual possibility that Man Made Nuclear Weapons are potentially Disastorous ot that MAN CANNOT change the landscape of the Earth OR hurt other humans... I agree we can and do.

I'm asserting MAN is NOT the cause of, and disagree with the notion that man is responsible for Global Warming, nor do I believe that it even exists.

At what point did you get board with arguing with everyone else and decide it was my turn?   

I usually don't ever know if I do or DONT disagree with you Mrs. O - you're all over the board - and NO, it's NOT because you're a women - get over yourself.

I posted my views and you are more than welcome to disagree - I disagree with you often enough, I just don't have an overwhelming need to say so constantly.

I'm going to bed... goodnight.   I need to get up early and clean the snow off my vehicles again.    All this warmth is killing me.

Goodnight 

B

the weather people are calling for snow tomorrow and sunday....in arizona...in april...
last week, after another week of above 50...at 7,000ft...sitting on the porch...bright, sunny, listening to the  thunderstorm, while the snow falls in big fat clumps. ...figure that out.

figure that out,  well certainly if it is snowing in Az. in April, Global Warming is the only conclusion one who worships MSNBC's unbiased reporting could come to.   Them big fat clumps you speak of are called flakes,  a term you no doubt are used to.

hey twisted horn...until i met you and some of your buddies, i didn't really understand the term flake...thanks for the education.

I'm searching my history - I think we dropped 2, and practiced with dozens more - let's see, how many people died of cancers out in the deserts of the USA? (Remember the movie "The Conquerer"?  Every person on that set died of cancer).

We test things every single week - we don't find out about it until theirs an issue - like 3-mile island, or Chernobyl, and don't we still have a "nowhere train" hauling nuclear waste?

This is our capabilities.  I'm not that interested in SUV's (have one), or trucks, (have 2) - or what I consider the smaller things.
But, someone IS watching out for your (and mine) truck emissions, and gas usage.  (not to mention who we are supporting when we buy gas - and don't tell me Canada - because Canada gets it from the Arabs and Venezuela).

Man has the capability to change this landscape in 5 minutes.  And, even worse - there are idiots (like North Korea) who don't even care.  I don't think I've ever even mentioned cow farts - I am well aware of the fact that, in the environmental scheme of things, WE are part of the environment.

The issue that bothers me is that there is a general attitude of "all or nothing" - and to risk repeating myself for the fifth or sixth time - there is a moderate approach.

B

In "The Conqueror", less than half of the cast and crew developed cancer over the following 2 decades. 91 out of 220. Out of that 91, half eventually died of cancer. What were you expecting? It was a nuclear test site for christ sake.

North Korea, contrary to popular belief, does care. There is no chance in hell that they would nuke South Korea or Japan. They are smart enough to know that if they lauch, others will launch back. And why shouldn't they be allowed to have nuclear energy or communications satellites like the rest of the planet? If not nukes, they could always just use the stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons they already have. Right now they could kill the entire free world. Why don't they? Because they aren't idiots.

I also wanted to talk a little bit about temperature.

Did you know that prior to the 1600's, northern Europe has vast crops of vineyards. However, when the little ice age hit, these crops were destroyed. Afterward, such crops were only able to grow in the southern regions. Yet, as the temperature changes, they are now able to grow vineyards further and further north, just like they used to.


Did you know that there was an unexplained worldwide atmospheric phenomena in 1761 which resulted in global cooling? This is believed to have been caused by an increase in volcanic activity.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience...e1761atmosphericphenomenonexplained


The point is temperature change is completely natural. It has always changed. It will always change. You could theoretically shut down all of Earth's technology. No power plants, no cars, no pollutants, nothing. And nothing would change. The global temperature would continue it's current course with or without us.

[They didn't take it seriously.]

You're right.  It was a testing site.

Are you comfortable with us NOT testing our weapons? (I'm sure not - if we have to push the "button", I want the darn things to work, I don't want a Kim Jon Iil -ooops thing to happen).


By the way - while your info from "The Straight Dope" is correct - others died from complications that could (emphasis on could) be from side affects, and a few died from other things and autopsies discovered they had cancer - they just didn't die from it) - the point I was making - also from "The Straight Dope", is that John Wayne actually carried a Geiger counter around, but - and here is the big "but":

They didn't take it seriously.

Information available at the time, thought - eh, maybe. (like the military personell that watched one of the blasts), but we didn't have all the facts.  We certainly didn't think that 3 generations after Hiroshima and Nagasaki that there would still be a higher than normal number of birth defects - we thought, maybe the first - possibly a few from the second generation - but certainly not the third.

The major point being - we really don't know and it is a mistake to "assume" and just let the chips fall where they may.

Just like we are always talking about being prepared in our homes for a catastrophic event - we should also have all the information we can get on our weather - our planet - space - and anything we can discover that might affect our existence.

I think I've made my basic point - even if someone chooses to ignore it.

B

wow....
i guess some people never heard of the down winder fund...compensation for anyone who can prove they lived downwind of las vegas...or more accurately, the test site outside las vegas...all you need to collect 50,000 bucks is the water bill from the early 60's.

i have several friends/friends family members dead from radiation poisoning...or cancers directly related to testing...

so i guess some people are firm believers in not in my back yard...and since you have no physical experience to draw upon, what anyone else says is lies, or furthering an agenda.

the Biosphere project proved beyond a doubt the interrelations between humans and a sealed environment.

I've never heard of "the straight dope". What is that, exactly?

The united states still continues to test nuclear weapons. That never stopped. The difference is that today all the testing is done underground.

I have been to Nagasaki. I lived in the area for a little over 3 years. And I have never seen nor heard anything about the amount of birth defects being above normal.

What I fail to understand, however, is how nuclear fallout and cancer has anything to do with man-made global warming. Please clarify that for me.

"The Straight Dope" is a paper (now an online version).

Their Ad is:

"The Straight Dope" - Fighting ignorance since 1973 (It's taking longer than we thought).

B

Awwww allen, it doesent. It is just hijacking the thread again to relate every environmental issue in the world to the lie that is Global Warming. Same o, same o. Just smile and ignore it .

http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~dbunny/

Rebuttal from Professor Emeritus Don Easterbrook: We seem to be slipping back into the Dark Ages of science--this has got to be one of the dumbest papers I've ever seen. Why Nature would even publish such nonsense is amazing. Consider for example:

1. There is no way to date 120,000 year old corals with an accuracy of 20-50 years. The best you could do would be with a ± of tens of thousands of years.

2. The average temp in Antarctica is about -55 degrees F below zero. In order to melt any ice at all you would have to raise the temperature 55 + 32 = 87 degrees just to get to the melting point of ice. To do this in 10-50 years is absurd! You would need to raise the temp many degrees above the freezing point at a rate of about 10 degrees per year every year!

3. The volume of ice in Antarctica is estimated to be about 30 million m3 To melt all of this ice in 10 years you would have to melt 3 million m3 per year in a land whose average temp is -55 degrees!

4. At the last glaciation maximum at (~20,000 yrs B.P.), glaciers covered huge areas in mid-latitude North America, northern Europe, and Russian. At the end of glacial maximum, temperatures rose abruptly and the continental glaciers melted at a maximum rate. That produced a sea level rise of about 10 mm per year or 1.0 m per century. Today, these glaciers are all gone and only two ice caps, Antarctica and Greenland, remain, so glacial melting cannot be anywhere near as drastic today as during the end of the maximum deglaciation. Therefore, the value of 10 mm per year (1.0 m in a century) may be used as an absolute maximum possible value for future sea level rise.

Don

http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,209754.0.html


check that thermostat urban dweller

I'd like to change the subject just a little and talk about the effect of volcanic eruptions on global temperature. This data comes compliments of the United States Geological Survey.

In 1761, there was an unexplained phenomena which has recently been attributed to a major volcanic eruption in which there was a significant global temperature drop and a haze filled the sky for a year. The anomalystic atmosphere phenomena is thought to be exactly like the phenomena created by the 1883 Krakatoa eruption in Indonesia.

In 1783, the Laki volcano in Iceland erupted, causing yet another drop in temperature. This eruption was the biggest recorded eruption at the time. Benjamin Franklin was the first to conclude that this was because sulfuric gas and debris were able to reduce the amount of solar energy reaching the Earth's surface.

In 1815, the powerful eruption of the Tambora Volcano in Indonesia created what was known as the "year without summer". It was recorded that in the summer of 1816 there was still frost on the ground in New England. London experienced snow in August. The eruption caused a global drop in temperature of 0.7 degrees C which lasted 2-3 years.
 
In 1991, the Mount Pinatubo eruption in the Philippines created a drop in global temperature averaging 0.5 Degrees C.

I could go on and on but I'm pretty sure you've got the idea. The reason that I bring any of this up is because it is a good, historically proven example of natural climate change. Zero involvement from humans.

http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,209754.0.html


check that thermostat urban dweller

A post about a button you found?  And we're the flakes     MSNBC is rotting something.

wow..this is sure an interesting thread...some people are willing to post anything to avoid the true issue...humans are pigs, and like pigs, we not only get the flu, we wallow in our own filth...unlike pigs...we insult everyone who points out the obvious...we are pigs, polluting the earth...

so ya'll keep it up...this would be funny if not for the impending payback by the cosmos.

Sad. So very, very sad.

Don't point, children. It's not polite.

Tommy! Stop poking him with a stick!