Sea level rise is no longer a threat, Antarctica and Greenland GAINING ice.

a reply to: reldra

It means climate change.

Some areas are thinning while others are getting thicker.

I said this a while ago and I still believe it. The world has slightly changed its axis and everything I read leads me to believe this is the reason for warmer and colder spots.

Maybe CO2 has some impact on weather but I don't believe anyone can say for certain how much if any.

What we do know is we are polluting the environment, which is something everyone agrees on and the only thing we need to focus om IMO.

Add - I agree we need global solutions to pollution, but the current solutions are written by corporations.

We need environmental solutions from environmentalists who aren't being paid by corporations.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: JDmOKI

More like we can start worrying about pollution as a local issue again and not some kind of global thing that requires we all give up our national sovereignty and our personal freedom.

It is a global 'thing' though. You recycling or picking up in the local park will not help if X,Y and Z company in 3 countries are releasing horrible things into the atmosphere. If the actions of industry in one country effect others, they have lost that bit of sovereignty, I would hope. I am also wondering how it effects your personal freedom?

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: reldra

It means climate change.

Some areas are thinning while others are getting thicker.

I said this a while ago and I still believe it. The world has slightly changed its access and everything I read leads me to believe this is the reason for warmer and colder spots.

Maybe CO2 has some impact on weather but I don't believe anyone can say for certain how much if any.

What we do know is we are polluting the environment, which is something everyone agrees on and the only thing we need to focus om IMO.

You mean axis. If it did, we can't fix that and I have no idea if that contributes to the problem we face. You are right, it is a problem we all face. CO2 created by industry certainly contributes to extreme climate change.

What I have never fathomed is that conservatives will argue, to their own detriment- even if they don't own something contributing to this global problem- that is is just 'normal earth cycles' and to let companies pollute to their heart's content
. It makes ZERO sense.

a reply to: Isurrender73

We need environmental solutions from environmentalists who aren't being paid by corporations

And we need to ignore the people that oppose those solutions that are being paid by corps.

We already know what pollution we need to stop, that isn't some big secret.

Maybe CO2 has some impact on weather but I don't believe anyone can say for certain how much if any.

Not a big secret either, it does.

The study is saying that there is both greater land ice melting AND snow accumulation which will eventually form ice. This can be used to argue either side depending on your slant.

Also very important proposition to be taken away from the study is that it negates the sea level rise attributed to Antarctica by the IPCC, which means that something/someone IS WRONG. This should be interesting.

-FBB

a reply to: reldra

Yes axis.

I think it's safer and non debatable just to call it a pollution problem without regards to climate change.

It's much easier to sell, and we are destroying echo systems while we sit around and debate.

I don't understand why the debate continues, except it's proven to divide us and somehow divisiveness always finds a way to become the focus.

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: reldra

It means climate change.

Some areas are thinning while others are getting thicker.

I said this a while ago and I still believe it. The world has slightly changed its axis and everything I read leads me to believe this is the reason for warmer and colder spots.

Maybe CO2 has some impact on weather but I don't believe anyone can say for certain how much if any.

What we do know is we are polluting the environment, which is something everyone agrees on and the only thing we need to focus om IMO.

Add - I agree we need global solutions to pollution, but the current solutions are written by corporations.

We need environmental solutions from environmentalists who aren't being paid by corporations.

Absolutely NOT . . .

The ice accumulation is the continuing process from 10,000 years of data. The accumulation of ice at a constant rate cannot be attributed to climate change. The melting ice could be, but not the continuation of a pre-existing trend supported by data.

The other stuff, not my forte.

-FBB

originally posted by: JDmOKI
a reply to: Robotswilltakeover

thats a relief.

So we can start pumping carbon into the atmosphere irresponsibly and without any regrets? I was getting really worried about the profit margins of energy producers but now with this new info, we can breath a sigh of relief. I mean polluting our earth would never cause anything to happen, she's indestructible. I'm sick of all these hippies telling me polluting our Earth is wrong



I'll just close my eyes and ears and let future generations deal with it.

I suppose you mean these hippies?

Drill baby drill, burn baby burn.

originally posted by: infolurker
a reply to: Robotswilltakeover

Pfft,

Cold, Hot, Rain, Snow, True, False, Ice, Steam, whatever....

We Must Have A Carbon Credit Trading Scam for the financial industry and government.


THAT is the goal. Nothing else matters. Doesn't matter what is confirmed, denied, true, false.

All Roads lead to the Carbon Credit Trading Scam.... For Global Warming, Global Cooling, Global anything - Must have Credit Trading Scam of some type.

People will go back and forth all day on "is it true", "no it isn't true", whatever.

Doesn't Matter....

Goal: Carbon Credit Trading Scam

Only Solution For Anything: Credit Trading Scam

I took the time out to watch the video. I had never understood cap & trade, so thank you for that. My first comment was only on your text.

I can see why cap & trade can go horribly wrong, it was not well thought out, or it was well thought out by large corporations knowing it could go right for them.

My question is, how can we deal with climate change in the US government without a plan like this when conservatives gut every plan we make and continuously take power from the EPA and lobby against it's powers?

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: reldra

Yes axis.

I think it's safer and non debatable just to call it a pollution problem without regards to climate change.

It's much easier to sell, and we are destroying echo systems while we sit around and debate.

I don't understand why the debate continues, except it's proven to divide us and somehow divisiveness always finds a way to become the focus.

Why cover it up? Just to sell it? Sea levels rise, weather becomes more extreme causing billions in damages and death. That should sell it fine.

originally posted by: JDmOKI
a reply to: Robotswilltakeover

thats a relief.
I mean polluting our earth would never cause anything to happen, she's indestructible. I'm sick of all these hippies telling me polluting our Earth is wrong
I'll just close my eyes and ears and let future generations deal with it.

The hippies of course are right, polluting the earth is not so good, some countries are dealing with it for health's sake, towns and cities are dealing with it because pollution IS something that can be dealt with. Climate change is not something we can deal with, this is mother universe at work...and that is something that's happening all the time.

I love how all of these threads end up in a pissing match. Most people want less pollution, deforestation, and whatever else destroys natural habitats. One side thinks if you don't believe in man made global warming you are o.k. with all of these things. The others think if you believe it's all man made than you are anti-human. Nobody wants to address the elephant in the room, which is, we all contribute to this mess and push division just for the simple sake of it! Stop with the right/wrong arguments that really doesn't do much for anyone except that sweet, sweet boost to the individuals ego. If people truthfully want to change things for the better we have to unite and find common ground arguing isn't going to change anything.

originally posted by: reldra

You are stealing the "cue the XXXX group in 5...4...3...2.." from many others. It's not even amusing anymore.

Fair enough. We stopped being amused by climate hyperbole over a decade ago.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: reldra

You are stealing the "cue the XXXX group in 5...4...3...2.." from many others. It's not even amusing anymore.

Fair enough. We stopped being amused by climate hyperbole over a decade ago.

It's not supposed to be amusing. And who is 'we'?

originally posted by: ForgottenRebel
I love how all of these threads end up in a pissing match. Most people want less pollution, deforestation, and whatever else destroys natural habitats. One side thinks if you don't believe in man made global warming you are o.k. with all of these things. The others think if you believe it's all man made than you are anti-human. Nobody wants to address the elephant in the room, which is, we all contribute to this mess and push division just for the simple sake of it! Stop with the right/wrong arguments that really doesn't do much for anyone except that sweet, sweet boost to the individuals ego. If people truthfully want to change things for the better we have to unite and find common ground arguing isn't going to change anything.

I don't argue for the sake of arguing. Some seem to be more pro 'leave corporations alone' and I am not. So there will be a division. There are a few people that play devil's advocate for the sake of practicing debate. I am not one of them, unless I am in a particularly fun mood, that is not my thing.

a reply to: reldra

Sea levels have been rising since the last ice age.

Weather has always cycled between extremes. 1870 to 1900 in the USA were particularly bad. Stupid SUV's, huh?

www.nhc.noaa.gov...

Damages and Death? It hasn't really changed. What has changed is population and infrastructure growth on the coasts, combined with a 24/7 media that has an agenda of 'if it bleeds it leads'

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: reldra

You are stealing the "cue the XXXX group in 5...4...3...2.." from many others. It's not even amusing anymore.

Fair enough. We stopped being amused by climate hyperbole over a decade ago.

It's not supposed to be amusing. And who is 'we'?

The majority of America that doesn't even register global warming as a minor concern.

a reply to: reldra

Conservatives are against the Carbon Credit Scam. The Republican and Democrat Establishments (and people who are un-informed) are for The Carbon Credit Scam.

There are solutions that don't involve a Trading Scam and I will list a few here. Problem is, the "scam" is the goal. It not only provides an estimated 3 Trillion a year to the banksters (which is a stealth tax on the people who have to pay higher prices for electricity and fuel) but also for power hungry lawmakers and Governments who are eager to have "more authority" (thus you have to bribe them more) to get permits and "permissions" from them to do a damn thing.

risingtide.org.uk...



But right off the top of my head, the big 3:

1) Geothermal Power: Yes, we can get ALL of our electrical needs from Geothermal. All of it. (If you build it that is). Once built, there is no fuel cost ever.


education.nationalgeographic.com...
www.conserve-energy-future.com...

2) Algae Oil for liquid fuel needs. (Water pipelines from the ocean to the desert Southwest, glass made at location, complete carbon neutral fuel and bi-product can be used as feed.

3) James Lovelock's Solution (whos work on atmospheric chlorofluorocarbons led eventually to a global CFC ban and he is a mega Greenie) Charcoal Sequestration which is then used as a fertilizer.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

But the originator of the Gaia theory, which describes Earth as a self-regulating planet, has a stark view of the future of humanity. He tells Gaia Vince we have one last chance to save ourselves - and it has nothing to do with nuclear power

Your work on atmospheric chlorofluorocarbons led eventually to a global CFC ban that saved us from ozone-layer depletion. Do we have time to do a similar thing with carbon emissions to save ourselves from climate change?

Not a hope in hell. Most of the "green" stuff is verging on a gigantic scam. Carbon trading, with its huge government subsidies, is just what finance and industry wanted. It's not going to do a damn thing about climate change, but it'll make a lot of money for a lot of people and postpone the moment of reckoning.

There is one way we could save ourselves and that is through the massive burial of charcoal. It would mean farmers turning all their agricultural waste - which contains carbon that the plants have spent the summer sequestering - into non-biodegradable charcoal, and burying it in the soil. Then you can start shifting really hefty quantities of carbon out of the system and pull the CO2 down quite fast.

Would it make enough of a difference?

Yes. The biosphere pumps out 550 gigatonnes of carbon yearly; we put in only 30 gigatonnes. Ninety-nine per cent of the carbon that is fixed by plants is released back into the atmosphere within a year or so by consumers like bacteria, nematodes and worms. What we can do is cheat those consumers by getting farmers to burn their crop waste at very low oxygen levels to turn it into charcoal, which the farmer then ploughs into the field. A little CO2 is released but the bulk of it gets converted to carbon. You get a few per cent of biofuel as a by-product of the combustion process, which the farmer can sell. This scheme would need no subsidy: the farmer would make a profit. This is the one thing we can do that will make a difference, but I bet they won't do it.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

Sea levels have been rising since the last ice age.

Your source? This one says different:

Holocene Sea Level
geology.uprm.edu...
books.google.com...

What has changed is population and infrastructure growth on the coasts,

Actually, coastlines have been pretty important to humans for quite a while. But yes, populations have grown a great deal in the past 10,000 years so rising sea levels would have a much more far reaching impact now.