ATS Poll: How concerned are you about "Global Warming"?

originally posted by: symptomoftheuniverse
Since when did weather become freddy cruugar?

Katrina

originally posted by: DerbyGawker

originally posted by: symptomoftheuniverse
Since when did weather become freddy cruugar?

Katrina

was that the first huricane?

I hate those polls.

The results make me ANGRY.

Seriously : )

originally posted by: DerbyGawker
a reply to: burdman30ott6



I guess Henry Ford was an ecowarrior conspirator just trying to make a buck, not save the environment or anything. Theodore Roosevelt either. They didn't care about the environment and ecosystems at all...



Green policies are designed to enslave you, not clean up pollution!

Can we stay on the original goddamned topic which was global warming without running clear over to the extreme and making the ridiculous assumption that you either believe in AGW or you're completely anti-environment? I'm an outdoorsman. A lot of my food is killed by me either hunting it or fishing for it in a subsistance fashion. Do you really believe that I don't think polution is an issue which needs a solution? My dissent here is whether or not CO2 is a pollutant. CO2 in the atmosphere breaks down into carbon (the building block of life) and H2o or water vapor. That is the point at which the argument veers from polutants and polution and delves into the ridiculousness of "Man is changing the weather."

Radiation, antibiotics and drugs, agricultural polutants, GMO, water unsoluble carbon fuels, plastic trash, etc is polution... and since I freaking love salmon, halibut, moose, and bear meats I'm all for doing everything possible to keep that crap out of my environment. I simply draw the line at this ever changing AGW concept (which if you want to talk history, in the 1970s the same climatologists were storming DC with dire news that we were about to cause an ice age.)

This is part of the problem, my man. There is a common sense middle ground between paving the Earth and placing spikes in trees... I'll tell you this, however, follow the money trail and you'll almost always see that it stays well clear of the middle ground.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

in the 1970s the same climatologists were storming DC with dire news that we were about to cause an ice age.)

That part is not true. There were a very small handful of scientists that theorized that. That theory never caught on in the scientific community. Not like with Global Warming today with 97% on board.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
CO2 in the atmosphere breaks down into carbon (the building block of life) and H2o or water vapor.

Too bad we're destroying all the trees that sequester said carbon, allowing CO2 to turn into a runaway GHG. Then add up all the methane released, and how much will be released as warming trends continue.

originally posted by: amazing
That theory never caught on in the scientific community. Not like with Global Warming today with 97% on board.

Not as much money to be made, huh? Or was it just the inconvenience of the 20 year warming cycle naturally beginning in the late 70s?

Again, follow the money.

scienceandpublicpolicy.org...

Your 97% is from a survey of "actively publishing" climate scientists. Hmm... what were the parameters determining the where in regards to being published? Oh yes, government agencies like NOAA and the Climate Institute which is an NOAA and UN partner organization! Well, those publications certainly look unbiased and likely to make opinions independently of funding! What about the thousands of climatologists who have come forward and cited being blackballed because they didn't get on board with the plan? Oh yeah that's right, the final step in any propaganda war... if you can't twist them off their position, neutralize their dissent by blacklisting and silencing them.

FOLLOW THE MONEY.

originally posted by: DerbyGawker

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

CO2 in the atmosphere breaks down into carbon (the building block of life) and H2o or water vapor.

Too bad we're destroying all the trees that sequester said carbon, allowing CO2 to turn into a runaway GHG. Then add up all the methane released, and how much will be released as warming trends continue.

Wait, "warming trends?" How confusing! I thought that the warming ideology had been replaced with the "change" ideology because the actual cooling we've recently seen was too inconvenient to explain to the average person freezing their ass off in the midwest last winter?

*facepalm*

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: amazing
That theory never caught on in the scientific community. Not like with Global Warming today with 97% on board.

Not as much money to be made, huh? Or was it just the inconvenience of the 20 year warming cycle naturally beginning in the late 70s?

Again, follow the money.

scienceandpublicpolicy.org...

Your 97% is from a survey of "actively publishing" climate scientists. Hmm... what were the parameters determining the where in regards to being published? Oh yes, government agencies like NOAA and the Climate Institute which is an NOAA and UN partner organization! Well, those publications certainly look unbiased and likely to make opinions independently of funding! What about the thousands of climatologists who have come forward and cited being blackballed because they didn't get on board with the plan? Oh yeah that's right, the final step in any propaganda war... if you can't twist them off their position, neutralize their dissent by blacklisting and silencing them.

FOLLOW THE MONEY.

"If we ask 100 people to look for lizards in the jungle, would anyone be surprised if no one sees the elephant on the plain?"

The lizard is "science, how does it work?" and the elephant is reduced glaciers...

"We don't really know how warming works!" shout the uneducated, while glaciers get smaller ever year. Then they shout "warming isn't real". Then it's "a cycle". Deniers always have tangential straw-men because they are too functionally impaired to weigh the merit of all global interactions and are always looking for some redneck, simplified version shouted at them by their pastor.

I was on the fence about climate change at first. Then I watched a documentary (not about climate change/global warming) about a few native families that live up in the northern regions where it's frozen almost year-round (isolated and away from society and it's technologies) and how they manage to live off of the wildlife, etc. (I forgot the location names and name of the documentary. It was such a long time ago...)
The natives mentioned the changing of where the sun now rose and set and how they've had to adjust to the changing weather conditions that their ancestors never faced before.

Anyhow, that pretty much convinced me it was real. Worried about it? Not really. Way I see it, things are always changing for better or for worse.

originally posted by: Robohamster
The natives mentioned the changing of where the sun now rose and set and how they've had to adjust to the changing weather conditions that their ancestors never faced before.

Emphasis mine. How in the world would anything man was doing on Earth impact the location of the sun's rising and setting? Doesn't that native anecdote just scream "natural cyclic change?"

I voted "not too worried". Anything has a lottery sized chance of happening.

The only certainty about global warming is the growing of governmental heat.

Climate change as fuel for governmental action is right out of The Report from Iron Mountain

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

FYI:

wattsupwiththat.com...

PEW POLL: BELIEF IN GLOBAL WARMING AS A SERIOUIS PROBLEM CONTINUES TO DECLINE [2010]

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Ocean acidification is a much bigger problem than global warming. CO2 in the ocean can and will dissolve coral reefs and otherwise shock local ecosystems.

Global warming is a proven phenomenon in that if you pump enough CO2 in the atmosphere heat will eventually be trapped. But I don't think there is a model out there that can tell you even a remotely accurate result of any specific CO2 level.

Is the earth warming? Well it is easy to see that it is unless your blind.

Most rational people have moved on to the question of if it is driven by humans tampering.

co2 isn't a poison per say but too much of it is detrimental to the environment as it cannot absorb it.(vegetation and land takes into account volcanos) As you can see te earths natural mechanisms cannot keep up with the output of co2 and if that isn't bad enough when you add in permafrost melt and methane release from that greenhouse gas emissions will simply spiral out of control.

So there really isn't anything to debate about if the earth is warming that is evident and measured. The debate should be what can be done about it however many are not ready to have that talk yet. There are solutions and they do not involve tax. The tax debate has done nothing but hurt the issue.

When people are ready to talk about the solutions I think they will find themselves at some point wondering why they waited so long because many of those solutions will have the effect of lowering their bills and creating stability for the country and their lives.

Until they are ready ....well its a waste of energy.

Mass stupidity will do us in long before global warming even has a chance.

The writing is on the wall.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Great video.

There could be global warming, maybe even the end of the complete Ice Age cycle.

The great lakes froze over completely this year

Why doesn't google have a video showing the antarctic? I have read that the Antarctic ice is growing.



Japanese Meteorological Agency

The graph shows

The Arctic losing 750,000 tons of ice per square kilometer
(1250 - 1125) x 10000 tons/km^2
The Antarctic gaining 1,200,000 tons of ice per square kilometer
(1310 - 1190) x 10000 tons/km^2

for a net gain of ice world wide of 45,000 tons of ice per polar kilometer.




Arctic but no antarctic on google implies a conspiracy to promote as truth something that is not know to be true. By the highest levels of society.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

You would have to talk to NASA and ask why they don't have satellite imaging of that area to know the answer.

As far as sea ice growth both the north and south poles have experienced the same.

If you watch the video again you will see during winter months a larger area freezes creating more surface ice, but that ice doesn't last throughout the warmer months. So when you read there is more ice that is true. It is thinner and covers a wider area, but that does nothing to displace water. The thickness of the ice is diminishing in the video the color codes depict older ice versus newer ice. I am sure I don't need to tell you we need older ice as that depicts actual sustained growth.

I am not sure how recent this news clip is but they seem to report a thinning Antarctic ice sheet.

Climate change is more appropriate.

I'm not so much as worried about it, as I have accepted it and see it more of a change. A change that will force us to change our ways on which we treat our planet.
I'm well aware of it, and the consequences that are to come, but feel that it is necessary. It will be an eye opener for many.

We are here to coexists, not control and destroy. It's unfortunate that we will be slapped in the face with this reality, but I guess that is how it must be done.