Bundle Up, It's Global Warming

reply to post by MMPI2


That doesn't say man is not involved, just that we are not the primary cause, and no one has ever said we are.

Global what? Oh yeah, were is Al Gore? He has been quite lately. I think the jury is still out on Global Warming, and the evidence seems shaky at best. Moreover, the revelations from about a year ago out of the University East Anglia known as Climategate put a dark cloud over the Global Warming phenomenon. We all remember the fallout about how climatologists at the university may have doctored or twisted research findings? It brought the whole issue into question, and loosened the grip of the Global Warming experts, and opened the door for more objective research among the scientific community.

There is certainly something going on with the weather? From severe storms in California, to abnormally frigid temps in the South, blizzard like conditions in the Midwest and East Coast, and the horrendous winter conditions that has bogged down much of Europe from subzero temperatures in places of rarity and massive amounts of snow. If anything, I am partial to the theory of a mini Ice Age or a full-blown one is taking shape. The winters seem to be getting harsher and harsher. What irks me about the Global Warming debate is why the governments of the world would have such a nonobjective stance on the scenario? Oh wait, there is a worldwide budget crunch, and they are in severe need of another revenue stream. Many governments are facing insolvency, and this is just another excuse to shakedown their citizens for cash. So as far as I am concerned, the politicians and the so called "climate crusaders," should pipe down, because the jury is still out on their calls for more life changing legislation, taxes, and government regulation.

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by MMPI2

 

That doesn't say man is not involved, just that we are not the primary cause, and no one has ever said we are.

I'm sorry, but that is exactly what it says.

The thing that bothers me about this is regardless of whether GW is real, or whether we are causing it, is that the stance you are all taking is that no matter what we do we'll have no effect on our environment.

Wouldn't the corporations love that? This is how they do it. Think about that.

Multinational Corporations Violating China's Environmental Laws and Regulations...

www.worldwatch.org...

They make more money when they don't have to be concerned about our environment, and our health.
They don't abide by laws, as they expect us to abide by laws. Who suffers in the long run, we do.

Originally posted by MMPI2
I'm sorry, but that is exactly what it says.

LOL yes I know what it says. It says we are not the PRIMARY cause.

pri·mar·y (prmr, -m-r)
adj.
1. First or highest in rank, quality, or importance; principal.

www.thefreedictionary.com...

I don't think we're the primary cause either, so now what?

reply to post by ANOK


I am 50 years old and have learned through my training here on Earth that if they say look left, I instinctively look right. They said we were running out of fossil fuel, I went out and bought a second vehicle.
They said man-made Global Warming, I said get out your mittens.

I am not part of any problem for I don't think pollution has ANYTHING to do with Global Warming.

It's natural where, it was bound to happen. Now what's causing it is what will be interesting to find out but.....once again, don't believe them. Do your own research and come up with what feels right to you. I personally think we're about to have a visitor. Another planet that comes around every so many thousands of years which would fit into a lot pre-historic eras. But that's me.

Sorry I didn't read all the posts. Nothing against you so once again, I am sorry if I am missing a point or two

For what it's worth and I also never bought into the GW, not to much anyway. I've been in the Rocky Mtns for 20 yrs and I'm looking at green grass in my yard that usualy has at least a few ft of snow this time of yr, very little snow on the top of the mtns in my valley, we just had a little sprinkle of rain. I've never ever seen it like this. I know the weather patterns this yr have been some what strange, but I'm not sure what to think. I don't think you can draw any conclusions in a yr or even a few yrs, but last yr was mild and this yr it's just not even close to normal. Now that I said that we'll probably get dumped on tonight.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by MMPI2
I'm sorry, but that is exactly what it says.

LOL yes I know what it says. It says we are not the PRIMARY cause.

pri·mar·y (prmr, -m-r)
adj.
1. First or highest in rank, quality, or importance; principal.

www.thefreedictionary.com...

I don't think we're the primary cause either, so now what?

The MMGW people have said many times that man, particularly man in industrialized nations, and more particularly in the United States, are the PRIMARY cause of both methane and carbon dioxide/carbon emissions ("greenhouse gasses") in the atmosphere, and that this elevation in emissions are resulting in the anomalous heating of the atmosphere.

The study i cited shot the ridiculous Al Gore lie full of holes.

Why are you still arguing the point?

I used to be worried about global warming, and the effect our pollution has on this world. That is, until I saw this some years back:



Sit back and enjoy the ride folks because, "the planet is fine, the people are f*#@ed!"

Global warming is happening , we have to know this . Many cities will be submerged because the icebergs are melting , and the people just know to shout slogans but never take actions.

PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, make it cold

Global warming or not, this is friggen torture...

Here is my ultimate stance, and if you argue with it then you have failed to read or understand the body of text below this statement.

Man made Global Warming has not, with anything that can be considered fact, been proven. For every false proof, there is another proof of the exact opposite assumption. The topic is more political than scientific these days and a simple google search into green technology in 2010 will yield very few results worth reading.

Our administrations have paraded ethanol, which has raised the price of food. For every gallon of gas containing ethanol, we pay $1.78 in subsidy. Let's not forget that food prices have skyrocketed due to the increase in corn production. In order to make ethanol production viable to begin with, the heads of its interests want the government to install special pumps to make it sellable to begin with, and when that occurrs, the consequences are worse than those of using gasoline. "You know I said cash for clunkers was the dumbest program ever, but it's a lot smaller than ethanol, so ethanol might be - pound for pound, the dumbest program ever."David Boaz, Cato Institue (Top Ten Political Promises Gone Wrong, 12/26/2010)

This statement from the Cato Institue led me to do a little more research on the discussion.

I was interested to find this news article :

'Green' jobs no longer golden in stimulus

Noticeably absent from President Obama's latest economic-stimulus package are any further attempts to create jobs through "green" energy projects, reflecting a year in which the administration's original, loudly trumpeted efforts proved largely unfruitful.

The long delays typical with environmentally friendly projects - combined with reports of green stimulus funds being used to create jobs in China and other countries, rather than in the U.S. - appear to have killed the administration's appetite for pushing green projects as an economic cure.

After months of hype about the potential for green energy to stimulate job growth and lead the economy out of a recession, the results turned out to be disappointing, if not dismal. About $92 billion - more than 11 percent - of Mr. Obama's original $814 billion of stimulus funds were targeted for renewable energy projects when the measure was pushed through Congress in early 2009.

Even some of the administration's liberal allies have expressed skepticism over the original stimulus package's use of green investments as a way to spur quick employment growth at home.

www.washingtontimes.com...

I sat down and did some research, and this is the only real promise I can come up with:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

From what I can determine, the last oh five years or so, it is not just the climate that is changing it is the planet. I have said this before on threads of this nature before, and by no means am going to say I know absolutely yet it is hard for me to fathom, such a notion human being have the capability to alter the universe by its existence. It is just a group of man, basically utilizing a man mind trying to instigate a plausible explanation to the actions around us we do not understand. It is and has been happenstance since we have learned how to communicate as early as speaking a language. Its just our demise I presume, yet even if we were right about carbon emissions or what have you in the debate it is by no way nor the absolute when it comes to the reason behind our planet changing. We live in a universe where we are reliant on a planet and a sun among other mathematical positions around us, and when you calculate that into your argument it just makes it look so much more less of the right answer and more of a egoistical blanket we try to cover ourselves in to make ourselves more comfortable with not understand well what the hell is going on.

I would say in the pie of everything we maybe if that much contribute to one percent of what occurs around us. Even if we decided to nuke ourselves into oblivion and try to kill our planet.

Originally posted by drwizardphd
But to outright deny that greenhouse gas emissions and ozone depletion are having an affect on the earth's climate... well that would just be foolish.

Bah Humbug! Ozone is oxygen that is converted to ozone when UV light hits it... Its an ever continuing cycle and the holes over the poles exist becusae they get very little direct UV

However... if ya want the TRUTH about climate cycles... just check out the results from the Lake Vostok ice core sample that show 415,000 years of temperature history

So as the OP says BUNDLE UP

BTW pay close attention to how FAST the climate swings... over a few short years

Originally posted by Bicent76
From what I can determine, the last oh five years or so, it is not just the climate that is changing it is the planet.

Actually the whole solar system is experiencing the changes... so unless we are also polluting Martian skies... seems that puts the final nail in the coffin on mad made GW

Originally posted by ANOK

Global warming is causing the cold weather.

The OP article is only an op-ed from one of the leaders of a group that sells environmental "cures" and predictions to those foolish enough to buy them. Even large corporations and government agencies make counter-productive decisions for political and other purposes.

The IBD article includes some noteworthy points that serve to refute the legitimacy of the core tenets of AGW "faithful:"

Karl Popper, the late, great philosopher of science, noted that for something to be called scientific, it must be, as he put it, "falsifiable." That is, for something to be scientifically true, you must be able to test it to see if it's false. That's what scientific experimentation and observation do. That's the essence of the scientific method.
Unfortunately, the prophets of climate doom violate this idea. No matter what happens, it always confirms their basic premise that the world is getting hotter. The weather turns cold and wet? It's global warming, they say. Weather turns hot? Global warming. No change? Global warming. More hurricanes? Global warming. No hurricanes? You guessed it. Nothing can disprove their thesis.

www.investors.com...

Hiding underlying data, and methods of its manipulation, are not consistent with true "science." Despite unsupportable claims to the contrary, there is no "consensus" that man is causing a change in global climate. Even the CRU guru of AGW, Phil Jones, admits this is so.

The AGW hypothesis essentially boils down to, "We don't know what causes climate change, so it must be us."

Pure hubris and nihilism. Man's total biomass is a fraction of that of other species; everywhere we've created local harm (Chernobyl, Love Canal, Bhopal), nature has reclaimed the site and erased our influence.

There is NO evidence that Man has a lasting impact on the global climate.

Warm water in the north causes the ice to melt. This cold fresh water flows into the North Atlantic cooling the ocean and shutting down the Gulf Stream.

Perhaps; but, there is no evidence that the Gulf Stream is "shutting down" or being diverted by cold fresh water. All of the 20+ "models" relied upon by the AGW faithful have utterly failed to predict anything we are witnessing this century, even when they are fed past data instead of tree ring speculation and extrapolations.

Global warming is real and we can see the results happening right before our eyes. Those that refuse to believe GW is real are doing so for political reasons.

The AGW believers have the real political and economic motivations here:

No matter what the weather, it's all due to warming. This isn't science; it's a kind of faith. Scientists go along and even stifle dissent because, frankly, hundreds of millions of dollars in research grants are at stake. But for the believers, global warming is the god that failed.
Why do we continue to listen to warmists when they're so wrong? Maybe it's because their real agenda has nothing to do with climate change at all. Earlier this month, attendees of a global warming summit in Cancun, Mexico, concluded, with virtually no economic or real scientific support, that by 2020 rich nations need to transfer $100 billion a year to poor nations to help them "mitigate" the adverse impacts of warming.
This is what global warming is really about — wealth redistribution by people whose beliefs are basically socialist. It has little or nothing to do with climate.

www.investors.com...

To say we're not having an effect on the climate is ignorant and also politically motivated.

AGW advocates provide NO concrete evidence that we are having an effect, relying instead on an unproven hypothesis.

We fill the atmosphere with pollutants every day. What do you think is causing ozone depletion?

We add a miniscule percentage to naturally-occurring GHGs. The "fact" of "ozone depletion" and its true cause are being debated even now, given new information and observations. The Montreal protocol has yet to be proven to be an effective remedy to the Antarctic depletion; the predicted "Arctic depletion" never materialized. Damage to the ozone layer has been proven an exaggerated threat, and has not matched the lurid predictions of skin cancer epidemics or eco-system destruction. Another expensive "cure" for an imaginary "disease."

There IS a scam going on, to exploit the situation for gain (what don't capitalists exploit for their own gain), but it doesn't mean it's not happening.

The real scam is the redistribution of wealth, and subsidizing of speculative industries and "remedies" that AGW advocates endorse and profit from.

While we've had normal winters the last 2 or 3 years doesn't mean global warming doesn't exist. I'm a fisherman and I do a lot of ice fishing. I've been ice fishing for 30 years. I follow the weather a lot. Of the past 30 years we've we always had ice on the lakes except for the past 10 years. The last 10 years its been fluctuating a lot. Some years we don't get ice or we get warm spells in the middle of winter. I'm not 100% convinced it's global warming or just a cycle. But I know one thing for the past 10 years it has been warmer over the winter. I've seen it first hand.

With 6 billion people on this planet and the anount of pollution we create I have a hard time beliving we aren't having a effect on the weather.

Right wing facsist only deny it because Al Gore did a film about it. And no I don't like Al Gore or ignorant people for that matter.

I love hearing "HA! Global Warming.. It's freezing outside!". Pretty ignorant if you ask me.

Man's participation in the climate could be exaggerated to an extent, but we have at least something to do with it. It's past time for us to do something about our footprint. Growing up all I heard about was "We need to save the rainforest!". You don't hear that anymore, because there's no freaking rain forest left.

If you think Global Warming is a scam, that's fine.. just don't be against things that are put in place to protect and save our only home.

reply to post by jessejamesxx


I dont see why people insist that this "has" to be true. Seems to me its just an idea that has been sevearely hammered into your heads.

What makes you think that mad has an effect of the climate? some sort of statistic.... or intuition based on the number of smoke stacks you see on the horizon, and your approximation of mans complete power over nature?

Something tells me the latter is more common. People like to think that we have such a dramatic impact on the temperature of our planet, but judging by the available evidence and simple reason, it seems logical that our ecological footprint is vitrtually non existent

Seems like the sun, and all manner of other natural processes that you or i could not even begin to explain are firmly in control...

Originally posted by jessejamesxx
I love hearing "HA! Global Warming.. It's freezing outside!". Pretty ignorant if you ask me.

True ignorance is the person stating the above when the discussion is not whether we have G.W. or not, but rather, the absurdity in predicting such things to begin with.

The whole point, if we can even begin to tether ourselves back to it, of the OP was to illuminate the very fact that no scientist has predicted anything that will happen as far as weather is concerned with anything that can be called certainty. The best stance up until this point, more or less, is to agree that man can not change the weather through these means and it is utter hubris and insane to think we could.

The jury is out on whether we caused this, whether we can stop it, and exactly how to do it. No one can argue with that. However, I have offered at least one technology that will avert the whole debate entirely and aim instead to create energy that is cheaper and more efficient than current standards. That is the only way any real change will be seen, and until then expect much of the same as the OP article. A mass hysteria every time someone is proven wrong with not talk of anything resembling right.