teatree Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 (edited) Interesting info on the ice core data at 13:00 in the video, certainly puts some perspective on the current climate conditions compared to paleoclimate conditions. The guy's main work (research indicating that civilisations existed much earleir than the current estimate) is open to question but the raw data of the ice core samples is widely accepted as being the most accurate record we have. Edited February 4, 2015 by teatree 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boomerangutang Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 Deniers won't want to see this: http://www.npr.org/2015/02/07/384447404/climate-change-puts-alaskas-dog-sled-races-on-thin-ice 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckamuck Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 Deniers won't want to see this: http://www.npr.org/2015/02/07/384447404/climate-change-puts-alaskas-dog-sled-races-on-thin-ice How terrible! Alaska and northern Canada is experiencing a mild winter. I bet all the inhabitants and animals just hate that. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boomerangutang Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 Deniers won't want to see this: http://www.npr.org/2015/02/07/384447404/climate-change-puts-alaskas-dog-sled-races-on-thin-ice How terrible! Alaska and northern Canada is experiencing a mild winter. I bet all the inhabitants and animals just hate that. Warmer winters is a trend, not just this year. And, you're right, many inhabitants and animals don't like it. It's tougher for Inuits to maintain their hunter lifestyle, and tougher for polar bears (more open seas) and other animals. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Credo Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 I don't wish to weigh in on the debate to any extent, but I lived in a far northern region and when I was growing up, I remember many winters in which the temperatures were very, very cold, including one in which it stayed around -30oC for most of the month of January. The one good thing about these extremely cold temperatures was that there was very little snowfall during that time it was usually bitterly cold with little wind. The same area now seems to be considerably warmer, but it experiences a great deal of snowfall and a lot of blizzards. I seldom see the temperatures in that area reaching the extremely cold temperatures I grew up with. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckamuck Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 (edited) Deniers won't want to see this: http://www.npr.org/2015/02/07/384447404/climate-change-puts-alaskas-dog-sled-races-on-thin-ice How terrible! Alaska and northern Canada is experiencing a mild winter. I bet all the inhabitants and animals just hate that. Warmer winters is a trend, not just this year. And, you're right, many inhabitants and animals don't like it. It's tougher for Inuits to maintain their hunter lifestyle, and tougher for polar bears (more open seas) and other animals. You and I have discussed this point more than once. The fact that it is warmer today is not evidence of any causation and it would be unreasonable to expect the temperature to not go up or down based on well documented historical temperatures. Why do you continue to use this as a foundation of you argument? Anyone can go to the temperature record and see that the 20th century had about .7 degrees of warming. and also that the 21'st century has had none. Isn't just looking at the statistics more accurate than trying to work out the same thing by observing open patches on Yukon river ice? Edited February 8, 2015 by canuckamuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckamuck Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 Interesting info on the ice core data at 13:00 in the video, certainly puts some perspective on the current climate conditions compared to paleoclimate conditions. The guy's main work (research indicating that civilisations existed much earleir than the current estimate) is open to question but the raw data of the ice core samples is widely accepted as being the most accurate record we have. Wow Tea tree that was really good. I never watched 3 hours of anything on You tube before. Anyone who still thinks human industry is the main driver behind last centuries warming really owes it to themselves to watch the first part. Probably the first hour relates mostly to the temperature record and evidence of tremendous changes. In the no so distant geological past we have experienced warmings of about 18 degrees in a matter of decades. But since the industrial revolution we have barely seen a rise of a single degree. And we are still a couple of degrees away from the climatic optimum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckd Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 Just ran across this little gem. Why doesn't it surprise me? -------------------------------------------------------------------------- The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever New data shows that the “vanishing” of polar ice is not the result of runaway global warming By Christopher Booker 10:15PM GMT 07 Feb 2015 When future generations look back on the global-warming scare of the past 30 years, nothing will shock them more than the extent to which the official temperature records – on which the entire panic ultimately rested – were systematically “adjusted” to show the Earth as having warmed much more than the actual data justified. Two weeks ago, under the headline “How we are being tricked by flawed data on global warming”, I wrote about Paul Homewood, who, on his Notalotofpeopleknowthat blog, had checked the published temperature graphs for three weather stations in Paraguay against the temperatures that had originally been recorded. In each instance, the actual trend of 60 years of data had been dramatically reversed, so that a cooling trend was changed to one that showed a marked warming. This was only the latest of many examples of a practice long recognised by expert observers around the world – one that raises an ever larger question mark over the entire official surface-temperature record. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaibeachlovers Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 Well, I don't know about the northern hemisphere, but down in New Zealand, I'd welcome a little "warming". It's far colder where I live now, than it was 4 years ago, or even 1 year ago at this time. December was certainly unusually colder than normal. However, that's just me, and what do I know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boomerangutang Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 (edited) Just ran across this little gem. Why doesn't it surprise me? -------------------------------------------------------------------------- The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever New data shows that the vanishing of polar ice is not the result of runaway global warming By Christopher Booker 10:15PM GMT 07 Feb 2015 When future generations look back on the global-warming scare of the past 30 years, nothing will shock them more than the extent to which the official temperature records on which the entire panic ultimately rested were systematically adjusted to show the Earth as having warmed much more than the actual data justified. Two weeks ago, under the headline How we are being tricked by flawed data on global warming, I wrote about Paul Homewood, who, on his Notalotofpeopleknowthat blog, had checked the published temperature graphs for three weather stations in Paraguay against the temperatures that had originally been recorded. In each instance, the actual trend of 60 years of data had been dramatically reversed, so that a cooling trend was changed to one that showed a marked warming. This was only the latest of many examples of a practice long recognised by expert observers around the world one that raises an ever larger question mark over the entire official surface-temperature record. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html You can call me a denier on the other side of the debate, but frankly the mentions above seem indicative of GW deniers taking pot shots from their dugouts. All the major weather-gathering organizations, including NCDC, NOAA, assert that there's a warming trend on this planet, and it's most evident in the Arctic and Greenland. It may be possible that one or more outposts of weather-data-gathering (perhaps in some country like Paraguay) fudged some numbers. Even if true, it can't turn reality on its head, when compared to overwhelming evidence from US and European data crunchers. Edited February 16, 2015 by boomerangutang 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaibeachlovers Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 Just ran across this little gem. Why doesn't it surprise me? -------------------------------------------------------------------------- The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever New data shows that the vanishing of polar ice is not the result of runaway global warming By Christopher Booker 10:15PM GMT 07 Feb 2015 When future generations look back on the global-warming scare of the past 30 years, nothing will shock them more than the extent to which the official temperature records on which the entire panic ultimately rested were systematically adjusted to show the Earth as having warmed much more than the actual data justified. Two weeks ago, under the headline How we are being tricked by flawed data on global warming, I wrote about Paul Homewood, who, on his Notalotofpeopleknowthat blog, had checked the published temperature graphs for three weather stations in Paraguay against the temperatures that had originally been recorded. In each instance, the actual trend of 60 years of data had been dramatically reversed, so that a cooling trend was changed to one that showed a marked warming. This was only the latest of many examples of a practice long recognised by expert observers around the world one that raises an ever larger question mark over the entire official surface-temperature record. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html You can call me a denier on the other side of the debate, but frankly the mentions above seem indicative of GW deniers taking pot shots from their dugouts. All the major weather-gathering organizations, including NCDC, NOAA, assert that there's a warming trend on this planet, and it's most evident in the Arctic and Greenland. It may be possible that one or more outposts of weather-data-gathering (perhaps in some country like Paraguay) fudged some numbers. Even if true, it can't turn reality on its head, when compared to overwhelming evidence from US and European data crunchers. Once again, no one is saying that the polar ice caps are not being affected by climate change, but nothing has been put forward to prove decisively that it because of man's influence that it is happening. Furthermore, for the umpteenth time, NOTHING that is actually effective is being done to change anything. In fact, with Japan and Germany getting off the nuclear power grid and onto the oil fuelled power station grid things are going backwards for the GW crowd. However, expect many more plane loads of bureaucrats flying all over the world as they produce a lot of hot air and little action. I wonder if anyone has calculated just how much carbon they are responsible for adding to the skies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckd Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 Earth has had climate change for millions of years. The climate where I live changes four times each and every year and has done for eons. What is wildly speculative is the ruse that it is now caused by man. Follow the money 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boomerangutang Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 Earth has had climate change for millions of years. The climate where I live changes four times each and every year and has done for eons. What is wildly speculative is the ruse that it is now caused by man. Follow the money Of course climate changes immensely over time. No one doubts that. Yet here's the situation in the early 21st century: >>> our one species has taken over the planet, to the detriment of nearly every other species. >>> people have built giant cities on property which sits at, or just above sea level (New Orleans excepted, which is below sea level). Those cities will be become flooded year-round with just a little rise in sea level. Already, some of those cities (Buenas Aires and Miami for example) are having big problems getting non-salty water for their millions of people. >>> The warming trend is happening quite fast, with 'warmest-ever-recorded' claims declared year by year, nearly every year since the 1980's. >>> Our one species is responsible for gargantuan releases of CO2. It was an average of 1 ton/person/year, now it's higher. One estimate on NPR.org mentioned 50 billion tons/yr. >>> too much CO2 doesn't only affect situations on land and in the atmosphere, but also in the seas. Increasing regions of sea/coral/wildlife are getting hit hard by too much CO2, but few people are aware of that, other than some fishermen, divers and environmentalists. No one is saying climate change is completely caused by the effects of people. Climate change is probably not even mostly affected by people overpopulation, burning fossil fuels, and trashing oceans. Yet, whether it's 5% of 15% or whatever % effect, people are exacerbating the effects. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaibeachlovers Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 Earth has had climate change for millions of years. The climate where I live changes four times each and every year and has done for eons. What is wildly speculative is the ruse that it is now caused by man. Follow the money Of course climate changes immensely over time. No one doubts that. Yet here's the situation in the early 21st century: >>> our one species has taken over the planet, to the detriment of nearly every other species. >>> people have built giant cities on property which sits at, or just above sea level (New Orleans excepted, which is below sea level). Those cities will be become flooded year-round with just a little rise in sea level. Already, some of those cities (Buenas Aires and Miami for example) are having big problems getting non-salty water for their millions of people. >>> The warming trend is happening quite fast, with 'warmest-ever-recorded' claims declared year by year, nearly every year since the 1980's. >>> Our one species is responsible for gargantuan releases of CO2. It was an average of 1 ton/person/year, now it's higher. One estimate on NPR.org mentioned 50 billion tons/yr. >>> too much CO2 doesn't only affect situations on land and in the atmosphere, but also in the seas. Increasing regions of sea/coral/wildlife are getting hit hard by too much CO2, but few people are aware of that, other than some fishermen, divers and environmentalists. No one is saying climate change is completely caused by the effects of people. Climate change is probably not even mostly affected by people overpopulation, burning fossil fuels, and trashing oceans. Yet, whether it's 5% of 15% or whatever % effect, people are exacerbating the effects. Given what you write, it's a good case for letting humans die out, given that we appear to be an incredibly stupid organism, and in a survival of the fittest situation we should be extinct. It's only our ability to defy nature that has kept us going, but how long can that be kept up? I saw a heartrending doco on the plight of the Orangutan with clearfelling of the jungle to plant oil palm. No one that saw that film could say humans deserve to survive. I can just imaginer God saying that this experiment didn't work out so well, time to wipe it out and start over. Already, some of those cities (Buenas Aires and Miami for example) are having big problems getting non-salty water for their millions of people. Seems like Gaia is beginning to strike back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boomerangutang Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 Given what you write, it's a good case for letting humans die out, given that we appear to be an incredibly stupid organism, and in a survival of the fittest situation we should be extinct.Some truth to that, but it's a big topic, so there are many different angles. Scorpions may not be smarter than us, but they've lasted hundreds of millions of years, and will outlast our species. In some ways, humans are smart. In other ways, they're more stupid than mud guppies. Guppies make their homes on tidal flats because they're well adapted to life in or out of the water. People do it, and then get wiped out by the next storm surge. A sea turtle will make a long journey through the ocean because it's well adapted to surviving in that environment. People will pile, overcrowded, into a flimsy boat with few provisions and try to make a long voyage across the sea, and die. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pinot Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 Fox News loves to point at the bad weather and cold temperatures and ask, global warming? The lemmings eat this up because they want to believe it. It's a conspiracy, man. Obama wants to take our guns. Anyone, at this point, who still denies global warming is an ideologue. Informed, rational, scientific minded, people who think for themselves and believe what the overwhelming number of scientists tell them, all know this stuff. I wonder how many climate change deniers also believe in intelligent design? All of them? It takes the same demented reasoning to get to both positions, throw in religion and...yea, all of them. Global warming is about climate change. This pattern continues with this being the warmest year in recorded history (that's a fact). It's created drought and devastating weather/climate changes throughout the world. The fact that it's cold in Missoula is irrelevant and a pathetic argument against global warming. Glaciers are melting and the seas are rising. California and Thailand are facing droughts. Australia battles record heat waves. There is no snow in the Rockies. Hurricanes increase in the Gulf. This happens as a result of climate change. Global warming is causing climate changes, lemmings. It's sad reading this thread. So much tin foil hat nonsense out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckd Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 (edited) ...and not one single link to support his ridiculous hypotheses. But let me ask one little quickie question. If it started out being called "global warming", why was the name changed to "climate change"? If global warming actually existed as you insist there would have been no need to change the name, unless of course global warming wasn't really a reality. Edit in: No snow in the Rockies? Horrible!! Did you tell Michelle Obama and the girls? They are in Aspen as we speak, spending some of that unlimited expense account money on the slopes. Edited February 17, 2015 by chuckd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neurath Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 <script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script> ...and not one single link to support his ridiculous hypotheses. But let me ask one little quickie question. If it started out being called "global warming", why was the name changed to "climate change"? If global warming actually existed as you insist there would have been no need to change the name, unless of course global warming wasn't really a reality. Edit in: No snow in the Rockies? Horrible!! Did you tell Michelle Obama and the girls? They are in Aspen as we speak, spending some of that unlimited expense account money on the slopes. Answer: Frank Luntz decided that the term global warming was nasty suggesting even nastier connotations so, under direction, came up with a nicer term suggesting the annual movement of the seasons. Frank I. Luntz (born February 23, 1962) is an American political consultant,[2] pollster, and "public opinion guru"[3] best known for developing talking points and other messaging for various Republican causes. His work has included assistance with messaging for Newt Gingrich's Contract with America, promotion of the terms death tax instead of estate tax and climate change instead of global warming, and public relations support for pro-Israel policies in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post thaibeachlovers Posted February 17, 2015 Popular Post Share Posted February 17, 2015 Fox News loves to point at the bad weather and cold temperatures and ask, global warming? The lemmings eat this up because they want to believe it. It's a conspiracy, man. Obama wants to take our guns. Anyone, at this point, who still denies global warming is an ideologue. Informed, rational, scientific minded, people who think for themselves and believe what the overwhelming number of scientists tell them, all know this stuff. I wonder how many climate change deniers also believe in intelligent design? All of them? It takes the same demented reasoning to get to both positions, throw in religion and...yea, all of them. Global warming is about climate change. This pattern continues with this being the warmest year in recorded history (that's a fact). It's created drought and devastating weather/climate changes throughout the world. The fact that it's cold in Missoula is irrelevant and a pathetic argument against global warming. Glaciers are melting and the seas are rising. California and Thailand are facing droughts. Australia battles record heat waves. There is no snow in the Rockies. Hurricanes increase in the Gulf. This happens as a result of climate change. Global warming is causing climate changes, lemmings. It's sad reading this thread. So much tin foil hat nonsense out there. Who you talkin' about then? No one on here denies that climate change is happening, but we don't believe that it is actually caused by people using electricity and driving cars- perhaps you do, so are you going to stop using the computer ( uses electricity ) and travelling in carbon powered transportation? No- I didn't think so. Anyway, despite all that you say, no government is going to actually do anything different, so what are YOU gonna' do about it? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RickBradford Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 Pinot's fact-free drivel reads like a compendium of whiny Green/Left agit-prop. All the usual suspects trotted out - Fox News as the root of all evil, along with religion. Everyone who disagrees is stupid, brainwashed or evil, except for those hardcore "deniers" who are stupid, brainwashed and evil. And they all wear tinfoil hats of course, unlike the noble climate alarm nitwits, who claim that rational thought is the reason they rush around screaming 'Thermageddon' every time there's hot weather in Australia or a snowstorm in New York. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neurath Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 <script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script> <script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script> ...and not one single link to support his ridiculous hypotheses. But let me ask one little quickie question. If it started out being called "global warming", why was the name changed to "climate change"? If global warming actually existed as you insist there would have been no need to change the name, unless of course global warming wasn't really a reality. Edit in: No snow in the Rockies? Horrible!! Did you tell Michelle Obama and the girls? They are in Aspen as we speak, spending some of that unlimited expense account money on the slopes. Answer: Frank Luntz decided that the term global warming was nasty suggesting even nastier connotations so, under direction, came up with a nicer term suggesting the annual movement of the seasons. Frank I. Luntz (born February 23, 1962) is an American political consultant,[2] pollster, and "public opinion guru"[3] best known for developing talking points and other messaging for various Republican causes. His work has included assistance with messaging for Newt Gingrich's Contract with America, promotion of the terms death tax instead of estate tax and climate change instead of global warming, and public relations support for pro-Israel policies in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz 12 long years ago Frank wrote a memo for President Bush with regard to climate change and the appropriate language strategies to use in discussing it. Here's what Frank said: "In a 2002 memo to President George W. Bush titled "The Environment: A Cleaner, Safer, Healthier America", obtained by the Environmental Working Group, Luntz wrote: "The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science.... Voters believe that there is noconsensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate, and defer to scientists and other experts in the field."[20]"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz But that was 13 long years ago and the window of opportunity has closed so much that there's hardly any wiggle room left at all. Still, any port in a storm. In 5-10 years time there will be no real debate about humans causing climate change through C02 and other greenhouse gas emissions - there will still be some outliers of course, just like there still is with the notion that HIV causes aids. But in 5-10 year's time the left and the right will have taken up other perches from which to squawk at each other. One side will be ramping up the notion that we should use climate modification technologies in all their glory to counter global warming (whilst continuing to burn carbon as we damn well please) while the other side will be screaming for an immediate and drastic reductions in carbon use. That will be as much fun and as productive as this debate. Can't wait. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RickBradford Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 In 5-10 years time there will be no real debate about humans causing climate change through C02 and other greenhouse gas emissions Excuse me, but to anyone following the debate at more than a superficial level, that point has never been in question, trivial as it is. Of course humans can affect the climate by their activities; deforestation, urban building, wind farms, SO2/NO2/CO2 emissions all have a part to play in our global climate. We all know that. The questions that need answering are: 1 ) Is human well-being threatened by our current activities? 2 ) What, if anything should we be doing about it? The answer to 1 ) seems to be an overwhelming No. The agit-prop from silly organisations like 350.org, who say that any CO2 concentration above 350ppm = catastrophe have been widely discredited on both scientific and economic grounds. There has been a gentle warming since 1850 or so, but the world doesn't seem to be any worse off for it. So the answer to 2 ) has to be Do Nothing. The dupes who fell for the catastrophic rhetoric are looking pretty stupid. For example, Australia swallowed hook, line, sinker, and copy of Fishing News, the notion put forward that eastern Australia will never see good rainfall again. This was the pronouncement by a prominent Green activist called Tim Flannery. They therefore spent several billions of dollars on desalination plants in the east of the country, just in advance of devastating floods which killed dozens and overloaded the dams.The rains continue to fall in most places. Imagine a merchant banker who had willfully p*ssed away several billion dollars of taxpayers' money. He'd be getting 150 years in the clink, like Bernie Madoff. Not only is Flannery still at liberty, but he's still parading his smug and arrogant climate agit-prop, though this time, fortunately, not on the public dollar. The real danger to the well-being of mankind is not climate change, but climate change activism driven by the vanity projects of the prominent members of the Green/Left. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boomerangutang Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 The questions that need answering are: 1 ) Is human well-being threatened by our current activities? 2 ) What, if anything should we be doing about it? The answer to 1 ) seems to be an overwhelming No. Even aside from the GW debate, the answer to #1 is an overwhelming 'YES' If you had framed your Q to ask 'is human survival threatened...', then the answer would be unclear, because humans can find ways to survive nearly any extremes. There were some people walking around Hiroshima, the day after the bomb dropped. There are people with families who live right upon smoking city dumps in some cities. However, peoples' 'well-being' is certainly threatened by current activities (by people). The list is as long as my right arm in #8 font, single spaced. As we speak, Buenas Aires (Brazil's most populous city) is cutting off water to poorer neighborhoods for 4 out of each 5 days. That's just one of hundreds of thousands of items which are despoiling well-being. China isn't even half done with building their first tranche of 8 gigantic dams on the Mekong, just inside their border, and already there are dire problems on that river. There's a Mongolia-sized sludge of plastic goop, 3 meters deep, hovering in the upper Pacific Ocean - which affects all organisms in the food chain - on up to the top: people. Shall I go on? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boomerangutang Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 The real danger to the well-being of mankind is not climate change, but climate change activism driven by the vanity projects of the prominent members of the Green/Left. Silliness quote of the day. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kieran2698 Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 Fox News loves to point at the bad weather and cold temperatures and ask, global warming? The lemmings eat this up because they want to believe it. It's a conspiracy, man. Obama wants to take our guns. Anyone, at this point, who still denies global warming is an ideologue. Informed, rational, scientific minded, people who think for themselves and believe what the overwhelming number of scientists tell them, all know this stuff. I wonder how many climate change deniers also believe in intelligent design? All of them? It takes the same demented reasoning to get to both positions, throw in religion and...yea, all of them. Global warming is about climate change. This pattern continues with this being the warmest year in recorded history (that's a fact). It's created drought and devastating weather/climate changes throughout the world. The fact that it's cold in Missoula is irrelevant and a pathetic argument against global warming. Glaciers are melting and the seas are rising. California and Thailand are facing droughts. Australia battles record heat waves. There is no snow in the Rockies. Hurricanes increase in the Gulf. This happens as a result of climate change. Global warming is causing climate changes, lemmings. It's sad reading this thread. So much tin foil hat nonsense out there. Who you talkin' about then? No one on here denies that climate change is happening, but we don't believe that it is actually caused by people using electricity and driving cars- perhaps you do, so are you going to stop using the computer ( uses electricity ) and travelling in carbon powered transportation? No- I didn't think so. Anyway, despite all that you say, no government is going to actually do anything different, so what are YOU gonna' do about it? No government is going to do anything different or YOUR government is not going to? Take a look at the renewable energy efforts and successes Germany has made recently before stating such nonsense. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neurath Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 In 5-10 years time there will be no real debate about humans causing climate change through C02 and other greenhouse gas emissions Excuse me, but to anyone following the debate at more than a superficial level, that point has never been in question, trivial as it is. You're more correct than you could ever know 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neurath Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 Quadrennial Defense Review: US Department of Defense http://www.defense.gov/home/features/2014/0314_sdr/qdr.aspx "Climate change poses another significant challenge for the United States and the world at large. As greenhouse gas emissions increase, sea levels are rising, average global temperatures are increasing, and severe weather patterns are accelerating. These changes, coupled with other global dynamics, including growing, urbanizing, more affluent populations, and substantial economic growth in India, China, Brazil, and other nations, will devastate homes, land, and infrastructure. Climate change may exacerbate water scarcity and lead to sharp increases in food costs. The pressures caused by climate change will influence resource competition while placing additional burdens on economies, societies, and governance institutions around the world. These effects are threat multipliers that will aggravate stressors abroad such as poverty, environmental degradation, political instability, and social tensions – conditions that can enable terrorist activity and other forms of violence." p.30. http://www.defense.gov/pubs/2014_Quadrennial_Defense_Review.pdf Is human well being threatened by our current activities? Would seem that the US Department of Defense has answered with a resounding "Yes". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gulfsailor Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 "Is human well being threatened by our current activities? Would seem that the US Department of Defense has answered with a resounding "Yes"." The DoD clearly gives the another answer to your question. From your post: "These changes, coupled with other global dynamics, including growing, urbanizing, more affluent populations, and substantial economic growth in India, China, Brazil, and other nations" So your question should be "Is US's (and the rich West's) wellbeing being threatened by our current activities?". Then the answer may be yes. Then you may also understand why it's mainly the rich West pushing for hard measures to combat this 'climate change threat', as it is these nations that will lose if current 'poor' countries will further develop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaibeachlovers Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 Quadrennial Defense Review: US Department of Defense http://www.defense.gov/home/features/2014/0314_sdr/qdr.aspx "Climate change poses another significant challenge for the United States and the world at large. As greenhouse gas emissions increase, sea levels are rising, average global temperatures are increasing, and severe weather patterns are accelerating. These changes, coupled with other global dynamics, including growing, urbanizing, more affluent populations, and substantial economic growth in India, China, Brazil, and other nations, will devastate homes, land, and infrastructure. Climate change may exacerbate water scarcity and lead to sharp increases in food costs. The pressures caused by climate change will influence resource competition while placing additional burdens on economies, societies, and governance institutions around the world. These effects are threat multipliers that will aggravate stressors abroad such as poverty, environmental degradation, political instability, and social tensions – conditions that can enable terrorist activity and other forms of violence." p.30. http://www.defense.gov/pubs/2014_Quadrennial_Defense_Review.pdf Is human well being threatened by our current activities? Would seem that the US Department of Defense has answered with a resounding "Yes". Would seem that the US Department of Defense has answered with a resounding "Yes". Ah yes, the people that paid $600 for a toilet seat and $7,000 for a coffee pot. Not the best source to believe about anything . Nothing that you say has proven that mankind has caused the problem, and you make no suggestions as to how to "fix" it. NB you are contributing to the problem by using electricity, and I hope you don't drive a petrol driven car! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaibeachlovers Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 Fox News loves to point at the bad weather and cold temperatures and ask, global warming? The lemmings eat this up because they want to believe it. It's a conspiracy, man. Obama wants to take our guns. Anyone, at this point, who still denies global warming is an ideologue. Informed, rational, scientific minded, people who think for themselves and believe what the overwhelming number of scientists tell them, all know this stuff. I wonder how many climate change deniers also believe in intelligent design? All of them? It takes the same demented reasoning to get to both positions, throw in religion and...yea, all of them. Global warming is about climate change. This pattern continues with this being the warmest year in recorded history (that's a fact). It's created drought and devastating weather/climate changes throughout the world. The fact that it's cold in Missoula is irrelevant and a pathetic argument against global warming. Glaciers are melting and the seas are rising. California and Thailand are facing droughts. Australia battles record heat waves. There is no snow in the Rockies. Hurricanes increase in the Gulf. This happens as a result of climate change. Global warming is causing climate changes, lemmings. It's sad reading this thread. So much tin foil hat nonsense out there. Who you talkin' about then? No one on here denies that climate change is happening, but we don't believe that it is actually caused by people using electricity and driving cars- perhaps you do, so are you going to stop using the computer ( uses electricity ) and travelling in carbon powered transportation? No- I didn't think so. Anyway, despite all that you say, no government is going to actually do anything different, so what are YOU gonna' do about it? No government is going to do anything different or YOUR government is not going to? Take a look at the renewable energy efforts and successes Germany has made recently before stating such nonsense. You don't give any examples- perhaps because they have covered the country with windmills and still only produce 30% of power needs. Short of a non polluting thermal system, what more can they do? And, that is one of the richest countries in the world- how can poor countries hope to achieve anything like a similar result? As you read this, the Chinese and Indians have bred enough people to negate any positive result in Germany anyway. I'm lovin' the temperatures in the States at the moment- so much for GW- no wonder they had to change it to CC (Climate Change ) . We're doomed anyway, so stop worrying and learn to love the warmth ( not that it's warm where I am- unusually cold for this time of year ). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now