Shocker: 'Global warming' simply no longer happening

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen
reply to post by amazed

 

There is a system of pollution credits. Unfortunately, pollution credits can be traded, which doesn't do much to help pollution. A company can simply pollute above the limit, and then purchase credits with the excess profits. Having the most credits would probably be more important than meeting some milestone.

I know about "pollution credits", and I think its "stupid"(could get into that more, but I think that sums it up pretty well).

Peace

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen

Originally posted by Mason mike
reply to post by amazed

 

I have always thought GW was a crock, but there is NO doubt we are screwing up are planet daily. I remember reading about how during the hot part of the Iraq war, they shut down Baghdad for an afternoon for some religious thing, and everyone commented on how clean the air was. If you could stop traffic in a city for a day and have noticably cleaner air, think about if cars ran on thomething that didn't polute. Hydrogen.

Hydrogen is (in)flammable

I'm sure you heard of Hindenberg

I am not the one who posted the above, they were replying to something I had said. So I am not sure why/how you made this to be something I wrote.

Hydrogen is very flammable.

Peace

reply to post by Annee


Well then maybe global warming is a good thing...
If we're approaching an Ice Age, what better way to slow its effects than global warming?
Wouldn't it be ironic if that was the next movement?
Everyone must drive their cars for at least an hour a day, or you just aren't patriotic anymore .

Originally posted by Essan

Well that statement alone tells you how reliable this news story is. Given that even half the USA had above average temps this winter, plus the record breaking high temps elsewhere in places like India and Hong Kong .......

It might be a case that were it not for AGW this winter would have been colder. The fact that it was not expecially cold in much of the world, and rather warm in a good part of it, tells the true story.

As for a new ice age - that's so 1974

What true story?

The Earth's magnetic field is weaker now than it has been for a long time. Recently we had two large breaches of Earth's magnetic field, which baffled scientists.

The Sun's activity is at such a low that even NASA had a meeting about the implications of Climate Change due to this low activity of the Sun on the overall.

Meanwhile some places have been warmer, several places around the world have been colder.

Florida have has several cold snaps not seen in a long time, and right now I am typing to you with you from the Northwest U.S. and outside there is about 2 feet of snow, and more than that over my truck.

Is this the result of "warming" from Global Warming?.....

The climate of Earth is a complex system controlled by several natural factors.

The oceans are slowly releasing the extra heat stored during the times when we had solar maximun, and the activity of the Sun was at it's greatest for over 1,000 years.

Now, things are going the other way, and unless the Sun's activity starts to pick up, we will have to face a LIA or worse, depending on what the Sun, and in fact the entire Universe does.



[edit on 24-3-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

Originally posted by TruthParadox
If we're approaching an Ice Age, what better way to slow its effects than global warming?

From what I've always heard, global warming would be the cause of an ice age, not a solution.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
BTW, is any of you awared that according to NASA satellites the forests, and even the oceans in the northern hemisphere have been getting bigger and greener, even bigger, and greener than during the 1800s?

The problem in developing nations is illegal deforestation, which in great part is happening because certain governments want to develop, and it is also happening because there are greedy people who use illegal deforestation to get rich.

In fact the United States, in 2008 passed the US Lacey Act, which is the first country to ban illegal woods imports.

www.eia-global.org...

However the United States does not impose this act in other countries, it does so just in the U.S.

Here is what Europe, alongside China are doing.

Wood Products Prices in The UK & Holland

1-15th February 2009

Report from Europe, the UK and Russia


EC establishes bilateral mechanism on FLEG
On Friday 30 January 2009 the Chinese government and
European Commission established an EU-China bilateral
coordination mechanism on Forest Law Enforcement and
Governance (FLEG). The agreement was signed by Mr.
Zhu Lieke, Vice-Minister of the Chinese State Forest
Administration and Commissioner Dimas of the EC in the
presence of EC President Manuel Barroso and Chinese
Prime Minister Wen Jiabao.

The mechanism will provide a framework for policy
dialogue and joint activities on issues such as timber
legality verification, supply chain transparency and public
and private procurement policies for timber and timber
products. It also foresees the possibility of trilateral
cooperation with third countries. It is expected that the
mechanism will encourage the development of shared
approaches to timber legality verification, in which it is
likely that the systems established by countries negotiating
FLEGT Voluntary Partnership Agreements with the EU
will feature prominently.

www.globalwood.org...

all they are doing is opening up dialogs, and joined activities, but neither one is passing a law as far, as I know, such as the U.S. Lacey Act.

NO, NO, GOD NO... are you telling me that illegal logging isn't ruining the Amazon??? The forests are just sprouting back in five or ten years???

and you quote NASA of all organisations??? Here's me thinking NASA wasn't exactly the most credible or believable of institutions...or is that only when it suits?????

I've been to the Amazon. I've seen the airfield-sized MAN MADE clearances in the middle of absolutely nowhere. Don't patronise me by telling me "the forests are growing back" because we haven't allowed that to happen.

reply to post by bingmat


First of all, I was talking about the northern hemisphere.

Second of all, the data has been available throughout the years, and several scientific groups have said the same thing. That is, except the environmentalists who want to claim it is the fault of the people in developed nations, which is not true.

Don't patronize me by claiming that because you saw an airfield of clear cut forest in the Amazon, that the forests in the northern hemisphere, alongside the green biomass of the oceans, is not increasing when there is evidence of the contrary.

See, I can respond tic, with tac.



[edit on 24-3-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

Originally posted by BorgHoffen

Originally posted by Annee
"1500 years ago, everybody "knew" that the earth was the center of the universe. 500 years ago, everybody "knew" that the earth was flat. And 15 minutes ago, you "knew" that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll "know" tomorrow."
Science? You mean interpretations based on current knowledge.

You're a word twister lady.
I am not going to argue with word twisters.
When did I say humans were alone on this planet?
500 years ago, did we have microprocessors or advanced quantum physics?
The science behind ice core analysis, and fossil dating, is not an interpretation.

Actually that quote came from the movie Men in Black.. It too was fiction.
Just saying
..Ex

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by EnlightenUp

I do not and I do not believe he is the cause of anyone paying attention.

I am anyone.

A "dog" just got run over by a car. Let's discuss whether it makes a difference if its a Cadillac or a Toyota.

If it was an ugly dog, then obviously it got ranned over by a pretty car!

Opposites attract ... and then attack!

LOL You just made my day.

It was probly a green car - - ya know once ya go green - you never go back

the earth is something like a billion years old, it has many cycles, just because the scientists have been able to analyze it for a coupleof centuries they all think they know it all

Most of us knew all along global warming was a scam just like Y2K was and this credit crisis is now.

Man-made Global Warming = total BS.
Man-made pollution = bad.
2 entirely different things.
We have ice-core samples going back over 800,000 years, and they show exactly what the climate was like during that period.
We are currently in an inter-ice age, but it is by no means the hottest we've had. Going by the ice-cores, wether we are here or not, the Earth will be heating up, just like Mars and Venus and Jupiter and Saturn are heating up; and theres no one on them!
What IS significant about the inter-glacial we are currently in, is how stable it is compared to all the rest. We have been very lucky, and that stability may well have contributed to mans colonizing the globe, but all the other periods have been way more unstable in fluctuating temperatures and wild weather.
Global warming is a scam perpetuated by people who make their living from people believing in global warming. The rest of the people are parrots who believe what they are told by the media because they're gullible, or because it is trendy and hip to have environmental conversations, and they have to have a point of view, or feel the need to belong, regardless of the solid evidence that science has accumulated on the subject.
Don't forget - sensationalism sells newspapers and keeps viewers watching. The resultant fear/panick can line your pockets well if you jump on thebandwagon early enough.


[edit on 24-3-2009 by cruzion]

Originally posted by cruzion

What IS significant about the inter-glacial we are currently in, is how stable it is compared to all the rest. We have been very lucky, and that stability may well have contributed to mans colonizing the globe, but all the other periods have been way more unstable in fluctuating temperatures and wild weather.

What caused the unstability?

What caused the stability?

reply to post by amazed

I don't want to return to the stone age either, I don't think it is necessary.

It is necessary only if we wish to discontinue the use of energy. That's basically what you appear to be arguing for. Let's look at this in a little context, OK?

You don't want us using oil. OK, fine, what would be the results of that action? What would happen if we shut down all the oil wells tomorrow? Firstly, there would be no more gasoline. That includes E80, since E80 uses 20% gasoline. There would be no more diesel fuel. That includes the 'BXX' grades of diesel biofuel, since the fuel is 70-90% oil-derived diesel.

So we would have to either use pure ethanol or some sort of organic replacement for diesel. The first result would be a complete and total stoppage in transportation. No more cars on the highway, no more trucks hauling freight, no more trains, no more planes. Maybe a couple Prius buzzing down a deserted highway carrying those who could afford to buy one and who still have electricity to charge them.

Eventually, a replacement would be offered as a substitute for gasoline, probably some form of ethanol. But in order to burn pure ethanol (alcohol) a typical gasoline engine must be adjusted to handle a fuel that burns slower, yet hotter than gasoline, and which has a much lower energy output. That means an improved cooling system (bigger radiator), a change in timing, and lower RPMs. Trucks would find new fuels to burn as well, since a diesel is very forgiving as to what it can burn. But then again, you can forget about that 15 ppm sulfur content in U'___'; they'll have to burn whatever is available, regardless of chemical makeup. Ironically, the older, dirtier engines would be the ones that could continue operating on alternate diesel substitutes easier than the newer cleaner motors.

So after a short period, we recover. Of course, by now everyone is starving, since there is only enough food for less than a week in most major metropolitan areas, and remember you can no longer hop in a car and go to somewhere else. I hope if this happens you have that community garden producing (and protected from looters).

Electricity would be the next thing to suffer. The lights won't go out everywhere, mainly due to hydroelectric power, but you could safely bet on continuous rolling blackouts. Get used to 3 or 4 hours of electricity per day. That's all the hydro plants and the windmills can produce. That's no electric lights, no computers, no TV, no electric stoves, no washing machines, no microwaves, no charging the Prius during the remainder of the day. Even portable devices like cell phones need batteries and tower access, so forget about them as well. Ditto for the land lines, since they require power as well from the telephone company to operate. Of course, since no one can get to work without cars, it wouldn't really matter once machinery started breaking down with no one around to keep it running.

That's what I recall a return to the stone age, and that is exactly what would have to happen should we suddenly shut off all oil. Find another energy source? Great idea! Stop using oil until we do? STUPID!

We have many different directions we could go, one you mentioned, another is better technology in the realm of batteries. I am sure that humanity is intelligent enough that we can figure this out.

As my daddy used to say, "and if frogs could fly, they wouldn't bust their butts every time they tried to move."

Your desires and beliefs have no impact on physics. It is so disingenuous to just say "Well, we could if we really wanted to." It simply doesn't work that way! If it did, someone would have simply turned on a time machine by now. Or visited another planet in a homemade spaceship.

You are dreaming until you have at least proven that a concept works that can perform what you claim is so easy. You haven't made even an attempt at providing such proof. Go out to your garage or your basement or wherever you can go and start building something that will provide energy. Until you do that, you are just spewing hot air on this issue. Understand that you do not control physics. I know we can do some awesome things with modern technology, but that does not mean we can simply decide tomorrow to get a new energy source and it will materialize.

Here is an example of how removing oil/gas from the earth can cause pollution. Kudos to my cousin for showing me this.

The Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission determined the gas is coming from a leak in one of eight active gas wells within a ½ mile radius of the Elllsworth's home.

Source: www.kdvr.com...

That is coming from a gas leak, not as a function of removing the natural gas. As such, it is more akin to the problem of an oil spill than to directly removing the oil from the earth, a situation I am sure everyone here would agree is a potential danger to the local ecology of an area (and another drawback to the continued use of 'fossil fuels').

Ok, CO2, CO. I apologize, I did "jump the gun" a bit here in not explaining the difference between the two, but both are/can be very very dangerous. As well as I did not expect someone to try and divert the conversation from the subject at hand.

Divert from the subject at hand?

OK, I'll bite. Exactly what is the subject at hand in your eyes? I thought it was about the fallacies of Anthropogenic Global Warming. As such, it is about the single most mentioned human contribution to AGW, the man-made production of CO2 (why do I worry about being able to breathe tax-free every time I say that?). No one has even suggested a link between garbage disposal and AGW. No one has suggested a link between water cleanliness and AGW. It's all about CO2!

A few clarifications: CO2 is slightly soluble in water at atmospheric pressure/room temperature, although it is much more soluble than CO. It is only soluble in large amounts under extreme pressure (the phenomenon which is responsible for the 'fizz' when you open a soft drink; that's carbonic acid (dissolved CO2) separating from the water when pressure is relieved). Under atmospheric pressures and room temperatures, carbonic acid is a very weak acid due to this difficulty of CO2 solubility.

CO is not a poison technically; it is an asphyxiate. The CO molecule displaces O2 (oxygen) in the bloodstream due to the similarity between it and oxygen.; CO however, does not release from the blood stream as readily as oxygen, and therefore forms an oxygen barrier between the lungs and the body, causing asphyxiation.

CO2 is no more of an asphyxiate than water. ANY gas or liquid (notably including water) that is heavier than air will displace air. So yes, technically you could 'drown' in CO2 just like you could drown in water or methane or any other material that did not contain free oxygen. In order to concentrate that amount of CO2, however, you would have to take extreme measures. Did you read my link on CO2 toxicity? The average concentration now is 387 ppmv. In order to promote drowsiness, one would have to increase that concentration to around 10,000 ppm, which can be approached in an unventilated auditorium full of people given enough time. To achieve true toxicity, you would have to go 8 times that amount even, to around 80,000 ppmv (200+ times the normal CO2 concentration). Even then, most people would survive if the exposure time was less than ten minutes, and since nausea typically occurs at a much lower concentration, I doubt anyone would be taken by surprise and simply pass out without knowing something was wrong. That's not a real serious threat IMHO. Nothing akin to CO 'poisoning', where one can be totally unaware of the lethality of the concentrations until they pass out.

Yes, they do have carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide detectors for the home. They call them "multi gas detectors/monitors/meter".

I'll take your word for that. another testament to the marketable value of fear. See above for the truth on how deadly this heinous life-giving gas really is.

I can understand the concept of why you choose to reuse your plastic bags. Interestingly enough, plastic, which even I love what all it can do, can also be created from the plant that I was discussing above. Again, removing the need for oil/gas drilling, production etc. and being far more environmentally friendly.

The point is that I have found a way to be ecologically 'friendly' without going the same route that you did. We both act on our passions to the same end, but using different methods that both work. That is progress. Cap & Trade is not progress, but a way to maintain the status quo and stop progress.

Just because you state you want something, it will not necessarily follow that your actions must align to that something. You can claim to be all for forest preservation, but if you spend all day every day clearing trees, your words mean nothing. That's why I initially had concerns about AGW; Al Gore and his ilk are stating we should be more ecologically friendly and fuel efficient, all the while burning more energy than a small village just for themselves.

You may ask where I live all you want, but it does not mean I will post it online to people I don't know.

That is, of course, your prerogative. But please understand, it means I have no idea of the veracity or causes behind the ecological changes you mentioned.

It's a bit like me posting "There's a place in the world where gravity works backward" without stating where it is. Sure, nice headline, but no substance.

TheRedneck


[edit on 3/24/2009 by TheRedneck]

Cooling? I dunno.. this winter in Denver is the warmest I ever remember. Days in winter at 72 degrees? I've never seen that, ever. Maybe 3 pitiful snowstorms, none of them dropping more than 3" on the city.

If this was a massively cool winter, it must have avoided Denver completely.

Global warming is man made but not by us little people.

Chemicals and all sort of unnatural things have been done to the clouds and the atmosphere to control the weather.

So my gut feeling tells me that this global warming scam is man made but is because of idiots trying to play God.

Its now gone awry.

Let those responsible pay the piper. Cause I sure won't.





[edit on 25-3-2009 by Flighty]

Originally posted by cruzion
Man-made Global Warming = total BS.
Man-made pollution = bad.
2 entirely different things.
We have ice-core samples going back over 800,000 years, and they show exactly what the climate was like during that period.
We are currently in an inter-ice age, but it is by no means the hottest we've had. Going by the ice-cores, wether we are here or not, the Earth will be heating up, just like Mars and Venus and Jupiter and Saturn are heating up; and theres no one on them!
What IS significant about the inter-glacial we are currently in, is how stable it is compared to all the rest. We have been very lucky, and that stability may well have contributed to mans colonizing the globe, but all the other periods have been way more unstable in fluctuating temperatures and wild weather.
Global warming is a scam perpetuated by people who make their living from people believing in global warming. The rest of the people are parrots who believe what they are told by the media because they're gullible, or because it is trendy and hip to have environmental conversations, and they have to have a point of view, or feel the need to belong, regardless of the solid evidence that science has accumulated on the subject.
Don't forget - sensationalism sells newspapers and keeps viewers watching. The resultant fear/panick can line your pockets well if you jump on thebandwagon early enough.

Global warming is theoretically exacerbated by mans rapid contribution of carbon into the atmosphere. The theory is that the recent and continuing spike in CO2 emissions is going to trigger a spiking trend in temperatures and change sea levels and weather patterns that human society has developed around. The Sun also has a role in providing heat to the planets and that heat fluctuates. If there is some peer reviewed literature regarding the planets in our solar system heating up on account of increased solar output I would be interested and welcome a U@U with the source.
I have never met a scientist that wanted to fudge the numbers in order to get more money. Any scientist that was not convinced of a human role in the changing climate could get grant and research money to test hypotheses that would prove the opposite. In fact, scientists who adhere to one view will be swayed to reconsider and perhaps adopt a different view as the evidence presents itself. Being wrong is part of science. Being wrong shows us that our theory did not work and additional investigation is necessary to fill in a hole in our knowledge base. Science is about finding out the truth and discarding theories that do not prove to be true. Science is not about maintaining the status quo. People talk about scientists as if they are immoral hourly employees trying to milk the clock and get overtime.
We don't get issued shares in carbon offset credit schemes when we graduate and we don't want to hobble our fellow man with taxes. We want to find out what is going on and gather evidence that allows us to make new and updated hypotheses about what is going to happen in the future so that we as a species can plan for it and perhaps reduce our risk of catastrophic change and if not our studies will guide us in adapting to it.

Fact: glaciers are melting at unprecedented rates all over the globe. NOT ALL are but the majority are.

Fact: the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased dramatically over recent decades and it continues to go up.

can we at least agree on those two points?

[edit on 3/25/09 by stikkinikki]

You know, it's odd. I'm not the oldest one here, but I'm no spring chicken either.

You know what's strange? I remember when winters were COLD, FREEZING! I remember snow on Christmas and I remember anyone with a pool was your best friend in summer here in Chicago.

The past 6-7 years, winters have been extremely mild, meaning we had 60 degree days in December.. in Chicago! We used to have a lot of rain too, which is thankfully coming back as well.

I remember when spring and fall were seasons, not what seemed like a transition week between it being hot and freezing.

Ever wonder if we've done enough an dwhile we really started to screw thing sup with the beginning of the industrial revolution, that nature is starting to 'correct' itself now that we have backed off?

Of course, this correction has been happening the past few with the odd storms, hurricanes, and such, but it seems like the same kind of correction our economy is experiencing.

Basically, seems like weather the past 2 years has been more in line with the norm here than it has been fo rthe past 10.

so, tell me about this global warming nonsense again.

Obama Years Ago Helped Fund Carbon Program He Is Now Pushing Through Congress
While on the board of a Chicago-based charity, Barack Obama helped fund a carbon trading exchange that will likely play a critical role in the cap-and-trade carbon reduction program he is now trying to push through Congress as president.

In 2000 and 2001, while Barack Obama served as a board member for a Chicago-based charitable foundation, he helped to fund a pioneering carbon trading exchange that is likely to fill a critical role in the controversial cap-and-trade carbon reduction scheme that President Obama is now trying to push rapidly through Congress.

During those two years, the Joyce Foundation gave nearly $1.1 million in two separate grants that were instrumental in developing and launching the privately-owned Chicago Climate Exchange, which now calls itself "North America's only cap and trade system for all six greenhouse gases, with global affiliates and projects worldwide."

www.foxnews.com...

In 2000, according to Joyce Foundations records, it allocated $347,600 to the J.L. Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University "to design a mid-western pilot program for the voluntary trading of carbon dioxide and other emissions that cause climate change, with the goal of answering methodological questions and resolving operational issues."

OH!

Kellogg and secret societies, remember this.
Some say. Wilfred Kellogg channeled The Urantia Book and Dr. William S. Sadler edited and revised it.

It is all connected.

[edit on 083131p://bWednesday2009 by Stormdancer777]

I wander what will happen to the US budget if the whole "global warming" issue will be finally exposed as a fraud?

look here:

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama's budget accounts for revenues from an emissions trading system in 2012, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said on Tuesday.

"That's true," Gibbs said when asked whether a cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gases would be in place in time for revenues to be generated by 2012.

The president, a Democrat, has said he wants the United States to take the lead in fighting climate change.

During his presidential campaign Obama laid out plans for a trading system that would set limits on greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and allow factories to trade permits to pollute more."

more here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...