View Full Version : Global warming, anyone?
68Charger
01-29-2009, 14:13
http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/38574742.html
who thought just a few renegade money grubbing scientists could cause this much panic?
http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&catid=14:text&id=37:the-manhattan-declaration
http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=63
funkfool
11-05-2010, 14:30
Global warming alarmist unleashes a bot on skeptics
Nigel Leck, an Australian software developer, grew tired of debating climate realists on Twitter so he created a spambot to “wear down” his opponents. The bot, @AI_AGW, scans Twitter every five minutes looking for key phrases commonly used by those who challenge the global warming orthodoxy. It then posts one of hundreds of canned responses hoping to frustrate skeptics. CFACT’s Twitter account @CFACT (follow us!) often receives many of these unsolicited messages each day. Since the bot became active on May 26, 2010, it has sent out over 40,000 tweets, or an average of more than 240 updates per day.
Technology Review gushed that Leck's bot “answers Twitter users who aren't even aware of their own ignorance.” Leck claims that his little bit of trollware is commonly mistaken as a genuine Twitter user leading the unsuspecting to sometimes debate it for days. Eventually it wears people down.
Leck's bot is an innovative, yet appalling new tactic in the ongoing campaign by global warming proponents to stifle debate and end discussion of climate science and policy. Spamming Twitter users is a tactic that is likely to backfire, as have so many of the ploys alarmists have tried in the past. There is nothing internet users find more annoying than trolls using spam to shut down online discussions.
Over the last year we have witnessed the large-scale collapse of public trust in global warming science and policy. The warmist's Climategate emails, relentless propagandizing, refusals to debate, carbon profiteering and lecturing by celebrities who lead lavish lifestyles while preaching austerity for the rest of us, have offended people's intelligence and sense of fair play. Using a spambot to harass climate realists will do nothing to ingratiate the warming argument with anyone with an open mind.
Should climate realists put up a bot of their own? Should we let the two bots debate each other and leave it to the machines? CFACT knows better. When you interact with our @CFACT account on Twitter, you are talking with a live human being. Science demands an open, honest give and take. So does public policy making in a free republic. Harassment and spam is not the answer.
New York Times Tues.,Nov. 9,2010
By John M. Broder
Wash.-With energy legislation shelved in the U.S. and little hope for a global climate change agreement this year, some policy experts are proposing a novel approach to curb global warming: including greenhouse gases under an existing and highly sucessful international treaty ratified more than 20 years ago.
The treaty, the Montreal Protocol, was adopted in 1987 for a completely different purpose, to elimniate aerosols and other chemicals that were blowing a hole in the Earth's protective ozone layer.
But as the signers of the protocol convened the 22nd annual metting in Bangkok on Monday, negotiators are considering a proposed expansion in the ozone treaty to phase out the production and use of the industrial chemicals known as hydroflurocarbons or HFC's. The chemicals have thousands of times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide, the most prevalent greenhouse gas.
HFC's replaced even more dangerous ozone-depleting chemicals known as HCFC's, themselves a substitute for the chloroflurocarbons that were the first big target of the Montreal process.
The U.S. has thrown its support behind the proposal and negotiators said there was a strong current of support for the move on Monday. All the signatories to the Montreal Protocol would have to agree to the expansion, but no further approval from Congress would be needed. So far, there hes been no Congressional or industry opposition to the idea.
But the plan is not expected to be adopted this year. Large developing countries , including China, India and Brazil, object that the timetable is too rapid and that payments for eliminating the refrigerant are not high enough.
Chase723
11-09-2010, 18:00
[ROFL1] International treaties to "combat" climate change are ridiculous and place America at a considerable economic disadvantage to compete with our competitors, and would cost hundreds of billions of dollars to institute and would have IMHO no impact whatsoever. I'm not a believer in Anthropogenic global warming, but regardless of whether one is or is not the smartest thing to do would be to consider the implications of continued use of fossil fuels outside of that argument. We need to seriously acknowledge that 1) fossil fuels are a finite resource 2) While extraction processes are better than they once were, there is still considerable environmental impact that takes place (meaning holes in the earth, spills, etc 3) Our dependence upon fossil fuels makes us and our allies vulnerable to the whims of questionable nations (think Russia), rogue states (Iran), and religious fanatics (think radical Islamists and their influence in the middle east). The best thing to do, independent of cooperation with anyone, would be to embrace nuclear power and develop the technologies to utilize it as we see fit (trains, planes, cars, ships, etc). It's the cleanest, least impactful, most efficient source of energy known to man and we have an estimated 1 trillion years of nuclear fuel (i.e. uranium) in domestic reserves.
On a side note, I'm also not a really a huge fan of humans trying to actively "combat" climate by conducting massive scale temperature lowering experiments in the atmosphere. I'd rather let nature run her course...we have a very long history of screwing stuff up very badly, when initially we thought it was a great idea.
Chase723
11-09-2010, 18:02
On another note, I'm always a fan of not pumping extraneous crap into the atmosphere/environment. Pullution is a way bigger problem than CO2...we exhale CO2 and plants turn it into food.
68Charger
11-09-2010, 19:06
some of you seem to be assuming that these are well-intentioned plans to fix things us humans have broken... with all things global warming, I apply the 1st rule of politics- "follow the money" People like Al Gore have forever made me associate "global warming" with "scam"
on yet another note, I've got to let funkfool know that he freaked me out a bit raising this nearly 2 year old post from the dead... I thought someone hacked my account, and was posting spam with my username...[ROFL1]
And 2 years later global warming is still a scam. algore got rich and the rest of us suffered under this bullshit.
funkfool
11-09-2010, 19:40
Holy thread resurection 68Charger!!
Didn't mean to freak you out man...
I just figure - if there is a thread already generally about what I'm gonna post... might as well keep it together...
Anyway... the lying autonomons have resorted to automation...
This is the same as shouting down your opposition because you cannot win with facts and a logical argument.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/seaice-melt.html
http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs985.snc4/75884_1323796834481_1817674993_640954_3294531_n.jp g
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=more-proof-of-global-warm
http://www.icr.org/article/evidence-for-global-warming/
Sea levels have risen ~10ft this year.
Global warming isn't a myth. Although the Earth does go through periodic warming periods, this particular period is being accelerated by Humans. It's a chain reaction. The snow melts, releases co2, inefficient power plants also produce co2. co2 makes the earth get warmer, thus more snow melts, thus more co2....ect ect ect. Its not a myth, its fact. Not to mention, the worlds tropical rainforest population has dropped, which was a huge absorber of co2. Mix all that together its like drinking a four loko, doing a line of coke, and chugging a 40.
The bolded is the human part of the equation that wasn't around...say...5000 years ago? Its not a scam, there is far more evidence suggesting it happens than evidence suggesting its bullshit. The only excuse people think to come up with its bullshit is because Al Gore's movie....well fuck Al Gore and the "liberal media and scientists"...even without him it would still be a relevant truth that it has happened.
68Charger
11-09-2010, 21:58
Sea levels have risen ~10ft this year.
besides any arguing over who/what is responsible for any possible warming trend (part of a natural cycle, possibly), please back this specific statement up with FACTS
I don't buy that the ocean levels have risen 10 feet just this year. Every other time I've heard about ocean levels rising, the stats say 10 in in 100's of years, not one year.
Aren't all the cities in Florida under 500' in elevation? A 10' increase in sea level would wipe out places like Italy, Louisiana, and Florida.
68Charger
11-09-2010, 22:24
I don't buy that the ocean levels have risen 10 feet just this year. Every other time I've heard about ocean levels rising, the stats say 10 in in 100's of years, not one year.
Aren't all the cities in Florida under 500' in elevation? A 10' increase in sea level would wipe out places like Italy, Louisiana, and Florida.
My main point- he leads with some URL links, that are all based on the SAME FLAWED/SKEWED DATA, then his contribution to the post is lead with a total bullshit statement.. hard to take anyone seriously when they don't take their facts seriously...
lebru, your post is so full of fail I don't know where to begin-
seriously, at least act like you've researched it for longer than it took for you to watch "An Inconvenient Truth"
besides any arguing over who/what is responsible for any possible warming trend (part of a natural cycle, possibly), please back this specific statement up with FACTS
you clearly don't know anything about the process of global warming, let alone the scientific method. Allow me to make it about as easy as a coloring book to understand.
The earth has warming cycles.
We are currently in a warming cycle. There is no doubting that. (It is how nature works, it has happened throughout history as soil tests will show. Most of these are available through academic journals).
Warming cycles produce co2 trapped in permafrost, releasing it into the atmosphere.
Human factor has been proven to accelerate the natural course of the warming by several factors.
1)Massive dirty energy plants(usually in upcoming 3rd world countries, since the US generally has cleaner burning coal.
2)Less rain forest density, meaning less absorption of co2 from the atmosphere.
3) Unregulated burning of fossil fuels, without paying the costs for damaging the environment (you can't drive a car without insurance, why should you be able to burn fuel without paying for the damage its caused)
So, more co2 (from both human and natural causes) + less absorption = more warming of the earth. Hence, sea levels rising, ice shelfs melting at a far accelerated rate.
Its funny because, I don't have to do in-depth research to find evidence of it happening, and yet you can't find any evidence to prove that it isn't happening. It has already been proven, you now have to disprove it.
More evidence that Greenlands density (In case you weren't aware, Greenland is largely permafrost, and contains huge amounts of trapped co2), as well as rising ocean levels
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100323161819.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/07/100713101412.htm
http://www.agu.org/journals/ABS/2010/2010GL042460.shtml
http://www.upi.com/Science_News/Resource-Wars/2010/07/15/Indian-Ocean-levels-rising-study-shows/UPI-28081279213064/
http://climate.nasa.gov/images/newsPage-16.jpg
This image, created with sea surface height data from the Topex/Poseidon and Jason-1 satellites, shows how ocean surface heights have changed from 1993 to now.
Now, Global Warming isn't the kill all for the world. Yes it is happening, but we have already adapted to it and are already reversing the effects. The next step on the course of the earth is a magnetic polar shift, which were are long overdue for. If you actually studied science, it would make sense. But it seems like you have no background at all in Biology, let alone Atmospheric Sciences. Let me guess, you also believe the earth was created ~6000 years ago, in 4004bc, the lunar landings never happened, evolution is false, and that all muslim's are evil?
68Charger
11-09-2010, 23:26
no, it's VERY simple- let me take you back 3 whole posts:
Quote:
Originally Posted by lebru http://www.co-ar15.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.co-ar15.com/forums/showthread.php?p=259013#post259013)
Sea levels have risen ~10ft this year.
besides any arguing over who/what is responsible for any possible warming trend (part of a natural cycle, possibly), please back this specific statement up with FACTS
care to visit this question, or just want to keep trying to baffle with bullshit?
if you don't want to get past the 1st F'ing sentence in your post that was your own, I don't feel like reading past the first sentence of yours- seems fair, doesn't it?
even if you don't agree- answer it anyway... please?
The image you posted shows a MAX of 10mm/year, since 1993- so 170mm... assuming it was the same data every year (a very large assumption), that would be 6.7" in 17 years, a bit shy of your assertion of 10' THIS YEAR...
exaggerations do not even resemble truth...
I don't think you understand what people in this thread are saying about Global Warming lebru. This Global Warming Activism is what people think is bullshit, not the warming itself.
Trying to relate car insurance to paying a tax on using energy is a poor, poor analogy. It is not just weak, but incomparable. Can you come up with something else?
Global warming alarmist unleashes a bot on skeptics
Nigel Leck, an Australian software developer, grew tired of debating climate realists on Twitter so he created a spambot to “wear down” his opponents. The bot, @AI_AGW, scans Twitter every five minutes looking for key phrases commonly used by those who challenge the global warming orthodoxy. It then posts one of hundreds of canned responses hoping to frustrate skeptics. CFACT’s Twitter account @CFACT (follow us!) often receives many of these unsolicited messages each day. Since the bot became active on May 26, 2010, it has sent out over 40,000 tweets, or an average of more than 240 updates per day.
Damn, Stuart can give that damn bot a run for it's money. Possible career path Stuie?[Coffee]
See that big bright thingy in the sky during the daylight hours?
That big bright thingy is call The Sun and it heats the entire Earth as well as everything else within it's range. There's your global warming.
The best thing about people like lebru is that the rest of us are supposed to stop what we're doing. lebru and people like him are part of the elite thinkers delivering the message so they get to continue to use fossil fuels.
funkfool
11-10-2010, 08:39
Ok - follow me for just a moment here...
The earth warms...
the earth cools...
A cycle...
We agree so far... ?
It is as if the earth is 'breathing' so to speak...
You buy this analogy?
Yes?
So -
Trying to control the cycle..
to STOP global warming....
Now..
if we stop global warming...
we stop the cycle....
we prevent the earth from doing something...
it is naturally SUPPOSED TO DO!
If it stops cycling...
What will happen?
Now,
Humans have had an effect on the planet...
The real question is:
How much...
It is my assertation that in the 4+ billion years of earth history...
Mankind is but a blip of a speck in time AND effect.
Mankinds actions affect the atmosphere, geology and chemistry of the earth... but that only effects our furious attemt to exist upon it.
Mankind will NOT be able to stop the cyclic action of the earths' warming and cooling... (and why would we want to?)
No matter WHO gets rich off our backs.
We just don't have that much influence.
The Scientific Method (http://www.scientificmethod.com/)
I agree with funkfool.
Negative human impact is very localized, I mean what percentage of property is Rocky Flats in relation to the rest of Colorado, North America, the earth as a whole?
These are facts the even the environuts agree with.
Fact: The earth has be COOLING for 10 years (they say it's temporary)
Fact: The rain forest put off as much CO2 as it absorbs due to decomposition
Fact: Only thirty years ago the same environuts wanted to put black soot on the ice caps because they thought we were entering a mini ice age.
Fact: Leading global warming scientist altered data to push their cause so they can't be trusted at all.
Fact: Al Gore is a scumbag fear monger using global warming to make a buck.
Fact: They can't even say with certainty whether or not it will rain tomorrow so how the hell do they know what will happen in a 100 years from now?
I seem to recall 30-35 years ago, ( I know, before some of you were born.) These same little CO2 molecules were all going to gather in the atmosphere and, combine into a "sun screen" thus blocking the light and heat from reaching the surface. Thus causing "Global Cooling".
Now, I had a 7th grade science teacher that was a full blown hippie, and as sure as his morning dobie, He was positive that by 1980, There was going to be a layer of ice covering the earth.
As you can see, my confusion on whether to buy sun screen or long johns..
68Charger
11-10-2010, 09:24
you clearly don't know anything about the process of global warming, let alone the scientific method. Allow me to make it about as easy as a coloring book to understand.
I'll give your post a 6/10 as an inflammatory bot response- I found it more amusing than inflammatory... not enough guilt for my lavish western lifestyle- but the personal attacks on intelligence and religion were a nice touch... without those, it would have scored a 4 [Coffee]
funkfool
11-10-2010, 09:39
Fact: They can't even say with certainty whether or not it will rain tomorrow so how the hell do they know what will happen in a 100 years from now?
+1.0E+18
As you can see, my confusion on whether to buy sun screen or long johns..
Be prepared... have both!
[Coffee]
I don't think that lebru is quite the elitist some of you think. There is merit to the idea of Global Warming, I mean Climate Change, or whatever. I think he's just way off on his claim of ocean levels rising. Otherwise, he seems very grounded when he says things like 'Global Warming is not the end of the world.'
If all the ice in the world melted, would it even raise the ocean levels 10'? We already know that any ice that is already in water is taking up more volume than it would if it were to melt. So the only ice melt that could contribute to ocean levels is ice that is 100% on land. With the Earth being 2/3 ocean and only 1/3 land, and MOST of that 1/3 land NOT AT ALL covered in ice; I find it very hard to worry about the ocean level if all the ice were to melt.
It'd still likely be catastrophic (and a shame) if all the ice were to melt, but the ocean level would be the least of our worries.
....but the ocean level would be the least of our worries.
I know... where would I find twinkies?!
68Charger
11-10-2010, 10:12
I don't think that lebru is quite the elitist some of you think. >snip< Otherwise, he seems very grounded when he says things like 'Global Warming is not the end of the world.'
Sorry, I quit reading his posts after I got to the alarmist "10' this year" bovine scatology
I'm with funkfool, too- I think man has a history of being arrogant and exaggerating their influence... the world went through warming and cooling cycles long before the industrial age, so the environment is capable of "climate change" with or without our influence... but where's the profit in that?
68Charger
11-10-2010, 10:14
I know... where would I find twinkies?!
On a new diet, Bear?
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html
Now I have heard, That sea levels rise once every 24 hours (+or-)
http://burncoathead.com/images/main_image.jpg
Be prepared... have both!
[Coffee]
Yeah but, would I need to put the sunscreen on the long johns?
68Charger
11-10-2010, 10:27
Now I have heard, That sea levels rise almost twice every 24 hours (+or-)
Fixed it for ya... but good one... 10' would be a mild tide, some ports are 15-30' in Alaska
What do I know about tides, I grew up here.. [Tooth]
The picture is of Burncoat Head Park, in Nova Scotia The place of the greatest average tides in the world..
http://burncoathead.com/tides.shtml
Circuits
11-10-2010, 10:37
10mm sea level rise in the past few years? possible.
10 feet? Utter bullshit.
funkfool
11-10-2010, 12:32
SPF Long sleeved shooting shirt (http://www.filson.com/products/spf-shooting-long-sleeve-shirt.12060.html?fromCat=true&fvalsProduct=activity/shooting&fmetaProduct=aa13)
Now, if it were just impregnated with anti-zombie antidote....
SPF Long sleeved shooting shirt (http://www.filson.com/products/spf-shooting-long-sleeve-shirt.12060.html?fromCat=true&fvalsProduct=activity/shooting&fmetaProduct=aa13)
Now, if it were just impregnated with anti-zombie antidote....
Mmmmmmkay,,,,.. So, if I just rolled the sleeves down on the old flannels, It wouldn't do the same thing?
funkfool
11-10-2010, 12:56
Mmmmmmkay,,,,.. So, if I just rolled the sleeves down on the old flannels, It wouldn't do the same thing?
Don't over think it...
[ROFL2]
Oh, I didn't. As soon as the brain started to hurt, I moved on... [Tooth]
ChunkyMonkey
11-10-2010, 14:15
Wow it annoys me when someone belittle another just because their opinions are not aligned. The arrogance!
Some of you Global Warming denyer's sound like a bunch of land lubber's that don't give a hoot about rising sea level's due to climate change.
Thank God, that you are in the minority!
In a survey, which was financed by a grant to Stanford from the National Science Foundation, 1000 randomly selected adults were interviewed by phone between June 1, 2010, and June 7. When respondents were ask if they thought that the Earth's temperature probably had been heating up over the last 100 years, 74% answered affirmatively. And 75% of respondents said that human behavior was substantially responsible for any warming that has occured.
Fully 86% of our respondents said that they wanted the federal government to limit the amount of air pollution that businesses edmit, and 76% favored government limiting business's emissions of greenhouse gases in particular. Not a majority of 55 or 60 percent- but 76 percent.
Large majorities opposed taxes on electricity {78%} and gasoline {72%} to reduce consumption. But 84% favored the federal government offering tax breaks to encourage utilities to make electricity from water, wind and solar power.
Do any of you want to have our future generations looking back at our generation, and have them look back and say: Why oh why didn't they do something about climate change, before the point of no return?
The fact is that ice melting from the glaciers won't be the major cause in sea-level rise. It will be the rising temperatures that heat up the molecule's in seawater that expands the seawater, that will cause a significant rise in height of our ocean's here on Earth.
And Obama was elected President by average Americans. What does that prove?
68Charger
11-10-2010, 17:19
And Obama was elected President by average Americans. What does that prove?
+1, Do you get ALL your scientific evidence by polling "randomly selected adults"?
Come to think of it, I'm not sure that ERNO isn't one of the aforementioned 'bots
http://xkcd.com/810/
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/constructive.png
And Obama was elected President by average Americans. What does that prove?
It proves that they don't have to believe that Rush Limbaugh news garbage that he spews out every weekday, which I am forced too listen to every lunchtime at work!
I would find it easier to believe in GW if the organization promoting it wasn't more corrupt than a Chicago democrat..
Yes, I do have a problem with manipultion of documents to further an agenda of higher taxes.
Erno, the answer to influence on Earth, is certainly NOT more human influence on Earth. That is the problem people have with constantly being told that they have to "do something" about global warming. I can't think of anything more wrong, than to try and freeze frame things the way that we like them. That goes for the environment and the economy both.
ChunkyMonkey
11-10-2010, 21:59
It proves that they don't have to believe that Rush Limbaugh news garbage that he spews out every weekday, which I am forced too listen to every lunchtime at work!
Awww.. you are a victim once more. You will always have the choice not to listen, to quit your job, and so on so on so on.
/end of trolling.
Erno, the answer to influence on Earth, is certainly NOT more human influence on Earth. That is the problem people have with constantly being told that they have to "do something" about global warming. I can't think of anything more wrong, than to try and freeze frame things the way that we like them. That goes for the environment and the economy both.
Stuart, how about the influence of the effluent coming out of Rush Limbaugh's mouth. Rush has to be on the board at Exxon Mobil. Or, how much under the table money is he getting from Exxon? So he can spew his lies and half-truths about Global Warming, from a man I consider to be more dangerous to the world's population than Osama Bin Liden!
http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/5793/trolltollk.jpg
I honestly do not listen to Rush, and don't know what he says. We've been over that topic on here before though. I don't understand the link to oil companies though. What about logging companies? Why is oil the only industry that should have an opinion about "Global Warming?" Shouldn't most manufacturers and even large corporations be in on the scandal as well?
Awww.. you are a victim once more. You will always have the choice not to listen, to quit your job, and so on so on so on.
/end of trolling.
Yes, well, I force myself too listen to Rush Limbaugh, too know what the enemy of the people is doing, like him, Murdock, and Koch: Like brainwashing the American public!
funkfool
11-11-2010, 16:36
Like brainwashing the American public!
Hmmm...
....
Hmmmm...
Nahhh...
Pointing out the obvious is just to easy...
I honestly do not listen to Rush, and don't know what he says. We've been over that topic on here before though. I don't understand the link to oil companies though. What about logging companies? Why is oil the only industry that should have an opinion about "Global Warming?" Shouldn't most manufacturers and even large corporations be in on the scandal as well?
Well, thank-you for mentioning a few more Stuart, but I'm not blaming everybody. But the oil industry is a carbon-based industry, and the world is a carbon based economy. A lot of people just throw up there hands and say there is no cure for global warming, so why do anything about it?
The answer is yes: we can cure global warming and cheaply as well;
by harnessing the power of the stars which is fusion power.
You were right about me on your post a couple of month's ago. Yes indeed, that foofighter I saw that night was a UFO. And since that night that foofighter, which had a fusion plasma shield surrounding the starship{approx. 1,000 feet in diameter} has given me faith that a fusion based economy is indeed possible with an unlimited energy source such as seawater.
If the space aliens have that kind of fusion power, I have the faith and confidence that the human race here on Earth will eventually have it here as well. So now you know: I'm not the type of person who throws up his hands and say's "it can't be done," because I KNOW it can be done!
http://www.rodserling.com/JMarshall/images/moorpark_coffee.jpg
Yes, well, I force myself too listen to Rush Limbaugh, too know what the enemy of the people is doing, like him, Murdock, and Koch: Like brainwashing the American public!
Whaaaaat?
68Charger
11-11-2010, 17:37
Well, thank-you for mentioning a few more Stuart, but I'm not blaming everybody. But the oil industry is a carbon-based industry, and the world is a carbon based economy. A lot of people just throw up there hands and say there is no cure for global warming, so why do anything about it?
The answer is yes: we can cure global warming and cheaply as well;
by harnessing the power of the stars which is fusion power.
You were right about me on your post a couple of month's ago. Yes indeed, that foofighter I saw that night was a UFO. And since that night that foofighter, which had a fusion plasma shield surrounding the starship{approx. 1,000 feet in diameter} has given me faith that a fusion based economy is indeed possible with an unlimited energy source such as seawater.
If the space aliens have that kind of fusion power, I have the faith and confidence that the human race here on Earth will eventually have it here as well. So now you know: I'm not the type of person who throws up his hands and say's "it can't be done," because I KNOW it can be done!
Keep in mind that we are all carbon-based life forms... our whole ecosystems are based on carbon- are they evil, too?
Do all people that believe in Global warming also believe they've seen Alien spacecraft?
I'm curious if there's some kind of correlation there... were you abducted?
how did you learn so much about their technology?
I know a brain sucker that is starving to death.[ROFL1]
What if its actually the aliens causing global warming to adapt our environment to suit their needs? Bum bum bummmm.
Global warming is a scam, always has been, always will be. Throwing money at a problem doesn't solve anything. Just as many scientists believe climate change is bullshit. Just as others have said, we are all carbon based life forms. You want to solve a problem and reduce carbon emissions because you believe that is the problem, kill yourself. Until the alarmists can come up with un-arguable facts, global warming is one of the biggest lies of modern history.
Don't worry, Obamoa will save us and turn this once free nation into the socialist utopia the all the dumbass libturds have wanted for so long. You won't have to worry about anything. Not where you work, where you live, how many kids you have or how much government cheese the elite think you should have. Que the U.S.S.R. anthem comrade. But you will have to wait until myself and others like me are gone
68Charger
11-11-2010, 17:53
Throwing money at a problem doesn't solve anything.
it solves many of YOUR problems if you can somehow manage to be the one who is the recipient of the money being thrown... [ROFL1]
Well, thank-you for mentioning a few more Stuart, but I'm not blaming everybody. But the oil industry is a carbon-based industry, and the world is a carbon based economy. A lot of people just throw up there hands and say there is no cure for global warming, so why do anything about it?
The answer is yes: we can cure global warming and cheaply as well;
by harnessing the power of the stars which is fusion power.
You were right about me on your post a couple of month's ago. Yes indeed, that foofighter I saw that night was a UFO. And since that night that foofighter, which had a fusion plasma shield surrounding the starship{approx. 1,000 feet in diameter} has given me faith that a fusion based economy is indeed possible with an unlimited energy source such as seawater.
If the space aliens have that kind of fusion power, I have the faith and confidence that the human race here on Earth will eventually have it here as well. So now you know: I'm not the type of person who throws up his hands and say's "it can't be done," because I KNOW it can be done!
Yo ERNO, you're using a computer, it is made from plastic which comes from, oh my gawd!!!, OIL.
You ERNO need to go first, when you start living in a mud hut, walking around barefoot, away from civilization, then you'll have leg to stand on. Until then you're just another hypocrite in a long line of hypocrites. Oh and stop drinking the bong water, the aliens need it for their fusion plasma shield.
This is why talking to people is a way better idea than just shooing them away. This thread struck gold today!
it solves many of YOUR problems if you can somehow manage to be the one who is the recipient of the money being thrown... [ROFL1]
Most notably...algore.
In a survey, which was financed by a grant to Stanford from the National Science Foundation, 1000 randomly selected adults were interviewed by phone
Just remember that statistically, 50% of those polled were below average in intelligence(FACT!).
The opinions of "randomly selected adults" are NOT fact. They are NOT science.
Statistics don't lie, but liars can use statistics to prove almost anything through backwards logic.
http://www.venganza.org/images/PiratesVsTemp.png
funkfool
11-11-2010, 20:48
Man... We need more pirates..
68Charger
11-11-2010, 21:00
Quote:
Originally Posted by 68Charger http://www.co-ar15.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.co-ar15.com/forums/showthread.php?p=259918#post259918)
it solves many of YOUR problems if you can somehow manage to be the one who is the recipient of the money being thrown... [ROFL1]
Most notably...algore.Most notably...algore.
Thus... The Lear Jet! [ROFL1]
"Researchers have recently been startled to see big changes unfold in both Greenland and Anarctica.
As a result of recent calculations that take the changes into account, many scientists now say that the sea level is likely to rise perhaps three feet by 2100-an increase that should it come to pass, would pose a threat to coastal regions the world over.
A large majority of climate scientists argue that heat trapping gases are almost certainly playing a role in what is happening to the worlds land ice. They add that the lack of polices to limit omissions raising the risk that the ice will go into irreversible decline before this century is out, a development that would make a three-foot rise in the sea look trival.
Melting ice is by no means the only sign that the earth is warming. Therometers on land, in the sea and aboard satellites show warming. Heat waves, flash floods and other extreme weather events are increasing. Plants are blooming earlier, coral reefs are dying and many changes are afoot that most climate scientists attribute to global warming.
Satellite and other measurements suggest that thru the 1990's, Greenland was gaining about as much ice through snowfall as it lost to the sea every year. But since then, the warmer water has invaded the fjords, and air temperatures in Greeland have increased markedly. The overall loss of ice seems to be accelerating, an ominous sign given that the island contains enough ice to raise global sea levels by more than 20 feet.
But at all times in the past, when the shoreline migrated, humans either not evolved yet or consisted of primitive bands of hunter-gatherers who could readily move. By the middle of this century, a projected nine billion people will inhabit the planet, with many millions of them living within a few feet of sea level.
To a majority of climate scientists, the question is not whether the earth's land ice will melt in response to the greenhouse gases those people are generating, but whether it will happen to fast for society to adjust.
Recent research suggests that the volume of the ocean may have stable for thousands of years as human civilization has developed. But it began to rise in the 19th century, around the same time that advanced countries began to burn large amounts of coal and oil.
The sea has risen about 8 inches since then, on average. That sounds small, but on a gently sloping shoreline, such an increase is enough to cause substantal eroision unless people intervene. Goverments have spent billions in recent decades pumping sand onto disapearing beaches and trying to stave off the loss of coastal wetlands.
Satellite evidence suggests that the rise of the sea accelerated late in the 20th century, so that the level is now increasing a little over an inch a decade, on average-about a foot per century. Another is that most of the extra heat being trapped by human greenhouse emissions is going to not to warm the atmosphere but to warm the ocean, and as it warms, the water expands.
Calculations about the effect of a three-foot increase suggest that it would cause shorline erosion to accelerate markedly. In places that once flooded only in a large hurricane, the higher sea would mean that a routine storm could do the trick. In the United States, an estimated 5,000 square miles of dryland and 15,000 square miles of wetlands would be at risk of permanent inundation, though the actual effect would depend on on how much money was spent protecting the shoreline.
The worst effects, however, would probably occur in areas where land is sinking even as the sea rises. Some of the worlds major cities, especially those built on soft sediments at the mouths of great rivers, are in that situation.
Storm surges battering the world's coastlines every few years would almost certainly force people to flee inland. but it is hard to see where the displaced will go, especially in Asia, where hudge cities- and even entire countries, notably Bangladesh-are at risk.
Figuring out whether Antarctica is losing ice over all is essential, because that ice sheet contains enough water to raise global sea level by nearly 200 feet. The parts that appear to be destabilizing contain water sufficient to raise it 10 feet.
Climate scientists note that while the science of studying ice may be progressing slowly, the world's emissions of heat trapping gases are not. They worry that the way things are going, extensive melting of land ice may become inevitable before political leaders find a way to limit the gases, and before scientists even realize such a point of no return has been passed."
"The past clearly shows that sea-level rise is getting faster and faster the warmer it gets," Dr. Rahmstorf said. "Why should that process stop? If it gets warmer, ice will melt faster."
NYT INTERNATIONAL Sunday, November 14, 2010
What about the continental rift in the middle of the Atlantic that is growing Iceland by 1 inch each year. That is a force that is constantly displacing water with land. What should we do about it? Develop policies to slow the convection of the Earth perhaps?
ronaldrwl
11-26-2010, 13:58
"Global warming, anyone?"
Yes, please
And the NYT has been right about so many issues[ROFL1]. Seriously, there is nothing we can do about it. And I'll be dead and gone by the time the sea levels supposedly rise that amount. Nature has found a way to adapt to the environment, and it always will.
"Researchers have recently been startled to see big changes unfold in both Greenland and Anarctica.
As a result of recent calculations that take the changes into account, many scientists now say that the sea level is likely to rise perhaps three feet by 2100-an increase that should it come to pass, would pose a threat to coastal regions the world over.
So the previous calculations were obviously wrong. Who's to say these calculations are right this time?
A large majority of climate scientists argue that heat trapping gases are almost certainly playing a role in what is happening to the worlds land ice.
This too, has also bean PROVEN to be inaccurate. The large majority of climatological scientist signed a paper saying there is no scientific evidence to back up climate warming claims.
They add that the lack of polices to limit omissions raising the risk that the ice will go into irreversible decline before this century is out, a development that would make a three-foot rise in the sea look trival.
You ever notice how all these limits will be achieved by taxing Americans and giving the proceeds to green companies who's products have again been proven to be ineffeicent, more expensive and in some cases create more pollution than they remove? If there is a viable solution to lowering emissions, the government won't have to fund it.
Melting ice is by no means the only sign that the earth is warming. Therometers on land, in the sea and aboard satellites show warming. Heat waves, flash floods and other extreme weather events are increasing. Plants are blooming earlier, coral reefs are dying and many changes are afoot that most climate scientists attribute to global warming.
It has been proven that thermometers data has been manipulated time and time again. It has also been proven that we have been in a cooling trend for over ten years with no end in sight. The global warmers say "that will probably change". Sorry, Probably doesn't cut it when it comes to science.
Satellite and other measurements suggest that thru the 1990's, Greenland was gaining about as much ice through snowfall as it lost to the sea every year. But since then, the warmer water has invaded the fjords, and air temperatures in Greeland have increased markedly. The overall loss of ice seems to be accelerating, an ominous sign given that the island contains enough ice to raise global sea levels by more than 20 feet.
Suggest? About? Seems? Not very scientific words. Seems like speculation at best. The last sentence purposely infers typical fear mongering fake information. There is absolutely no data that even suggest that all the ice on that country is going to melt.
But at all times in the past, when the shoreline migrated, humans either not evolved yet or consisted of primitive bands of hunter-gatherers who could readily move. By the middle of this century, a projected nine billion people will inhabit the planet, with many millions of them living within a few feet of sea level.
Again, more fear mongering with absolutely no straight forward point at all. Just a general statement without any scientific data attached.
To a majority of climate scientists, the question is not whether the earth's land ice will melt in response to the greenhouse gases those people are generating, but whether it will happen to fast for society to adjust.
Recent research suggests that the volume of the ocean may have stable for thousands of years as human civilization has developed. But it began to rise in the 19th century, around the same time that advanced countries began to burn large amounts of coal and oil.
Now here it says not if but when it will happen. Again not what MOST scientist think. It also says that the oceans have been stable though out history. If my third grade science was correct, we have already been through an ice age and most of that ice melted off. If the ocean was stable then, it will remain stable now.
The sea has risen about 8 inches since then, on average. That sounds small, but on a gently sloping shoreline, such an increase is enough to cause substantal eroision unless people intervene. Goverments have spent billions in recent decades pumping sand onto disapearing beaches and trying to stave off the loss of coastal wetlands.
Really? Yes we have spent billions to prevent erosion. Beaches erode from rising and lowering tides, waves and wind. This has nothing to do with global warming. According to this paragraph, the ocean has already risen 24 inches overall. If that were true, major parts of Florida and many other places would already be in the ocean.
Satellite evidence suggests that the rise of the sea accelerated late in the 20th century, so that the level is now increasing a little over an inch a decade, on average-about a foot per century. Another is that most of the extra heat being trapped by human greenhouse emissions is going to not to warm the atmosphere but to warm the ocean, and as it warms, the water expands.
Are you fucking kidding me? We're supposed to be worried about water expanding. I did an experiment of my own. I took a cup of water that was 62 degrees F. I heated it to 200 degrees. It took up the same amount of space. I know things expand when they get hot, but this theory is utter bullshit.
Calculations about the effect of a three-foot increase suggest that it would cause shorline erosion to accelerate markedly. In places that once flooded only in a large hurricane, the higher sea would mean that a routine storm could do the trick. In the United States, an estimated 5,000 square miles of dryland and 15,000 square miles of wetlands would be at risk of permanent inundation, though the actual effect would depend on on how much money was spent protecting the shoreline.
Even if they were correct, (they're not) this would take 300 years. We could easily manage this type of erosion over that period of time.
The worst effects, however, would probably occur in areas where land is sinking even as the sea rises. Some of the worlds major cities, especially those built on soft sediments at the mouths of great rivers, are in that situation.
Again with the probables.
Storm surges battering the world's coastlines every few years would almost certainly force people to flee inland. but it is hard to see where the displaced will go, especially in Asia, where hudge cities- and even entire countries, notably Bangladesh-are at risk.
Storm surges have battered the coast line since the beginning of time. Duh! Again this has nothing to do with global warming. It's called weather. It happens. Another thing. I don't give a fuck what the asians do. Not my problem. Most of the coastal dwellers live in house boats or on stilt houses. Why? because they know the tides rise.
Figuring out whether Antarctica is losing ice over all is essential, because that ice sheet contains enough water to raise global sea level by nearly 200 feet. The parts that appear to be destabilizing contain water sufficient to raise it 10 feet.
Here they finally admit they don't know. Mmmmmm.
Climate scientists note that while the science of studying ice may be progressing slowly, the world's emissions of heat trapping gases are not. They worry that the way things are going, extensive melting of land ice may become inevitable before political leaders find a way to limit the gases, and before scientists even realize such a point of no return has been passed."
"The past clearly shows that sea-level rise is getting faster and faster the warmer it gets," Dr. Rahmstorf said. "Why should that process stop? If it gets warmer, ice will melt faster."
If, may, are worried. Thats a lot conjecture. Not a lot of fact, scientific or not.
NYT INTERNATIONAL Sunday, November 14, 2010
"NYT" That explains a lot right there.
Fri.,Nov. 26, 2010, NYT
Tough Decisions Ahead for Norfolk, Va.
By Leslie Kaufman
Norfolk, Va.-- In this section of the Larchmont neighborhood, built in a sharp "u" around a bay of the Lafayette River, residents pay close attention to the luner calendar, much as other suburbanites might attend to the daily flow of commuter traffic.
If the moon is going to be full the night before Hazel Peck needs her car, for example, she parks it on a parallel block, away from the river. The next morning, she walks thru a neighbor's backyard to avoid the two-to-three-foot-deep puddle that rountinely accumulates on her street after high tides.
For Ms. Peck and her neighbors, it is the only way to live with the encroaching sea.
As sea levels rise, the tidal flooding is increasingly disrupting life here and all along the East Coast, a development many climate scientists link to global warming.
But Norfolk is worse off. Situated just west of the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay, it is bordered on three sides by water, including several rivers, like the Lafayette, that are actually long tidal streams that feed into the bay and eventually the ocean.
Like many other cities, Norfolk was built on filled-in marsh. Now that fill is settling and compacting. In addition, the city is in an area where significant natural sinking of land is occuring. The result is that Norfolk has experienced the highest relative increase in sea-level on the East Coast-- 14.5 inches since 1930, according to readings by the Sewells Point navel station here.
The residents of coastal neighborhoods are interested in the real time consequences of a rise in sea level.
When Ms Peck, now 75 moved here 40 years ago, tidal flooding was an occasional hazard.
"Last month," she said recently, "there were eight or nine days the tide was so doggone high it was difficult to drive."
With expensive land reclamation projects due to rising sea levels, experts say , "At this pace of spending, there is no way taxpayers will recoup their investment.
"If sea level is a constant, your coastal infrastructure is your most valuable real estate, and it makes sense to invest in it, "Mr. Stiles {executive director of Wetlands Watch} "but with sea levels rising, it becomes a money pit."
Many Norfolkians hope their problems will serve as a warning,
"We are the front lines of climate change," said Jim Shultz, a science and technology writer who lives on Richmond Cresent near Ms. Peck. "No one who has a house here is a skeptic."
That statement is also true for the city of Norfolk, where officals are overlooking state politics and tackling the sea-rise problem head on.
Oh come on... again with the NYT propaganda! Get a life!
On another note, I'm always a fan of not pumping extraneous crap into the atmosphere/environment. Pullution is a way bigger problem than CO2...we exhale CO2 and plants turn it into food.
this is true. check out the research done recently on the sediment that comes from countries (mostly china, go figure) that covers the ice caps and what it does to them
By Paul Krugman, NYT, SEPT., 28, 2009
"Every once in a while I feel despair over the fate of the planet. If you've been following climate science, you know what I mean: the sense that we're hurtling toward catastrophe but nobody wants to hear about it or do anything about it.
And here's the thing: I'm not engaging in hyperbole. These days, dire warnings aren't the delusional ravings of cranks. They're what come out of the climate models, devised by the leading reasearchers. The prognosis for the planet has gotten much, much worse in just the last few years.
What's driving this new pessimism? Partly it's the fact that some predicted changes, like a decline in Artic Sea ice, are happening much faster then expected. Partly it's growing evidence that feedback loops amplifying the effects of man-made greenhouse gas emissions are stronger than previously realized. For example, it has long been understood that global warming will cause the tundra to thaw, releasing carbon dioxide, which will cause even more warming, but new reasearch shows far more carbon dioxide locked in the permafrost than previously thought, which means a much bigger feedback effect.
The result of all this is that climate scientists have, en-masse, become Cassandras-- gifted with the ability to prophesy furture disasters, but cursed with the inability to get anyone to believe them.
And we're not just talking about disasters in the distant future, either. The really big rise in global temperature probably won't take place until the second half of this century, but there will be plenty of damage before then.
For example, one 2007 paper in the journal Science is titled "Model Projections of an Imminent Transition to a More Arid Climate in Southwestern North America"-- yes, "imminent"-- and reports " a broad consensus among climate models" that a permanent Dust Bowl-type conditions, "will become the new climatology of the American Southwest within a time frame of years to decades.
So if you live in, say, Los Angeles, and liked those pictures of red skies and choking dust in Sydney, Australia, last week, no need to travel. They'll be coming your way in the not-to-distant future.
Now, at this point I have to make the obligatory disclaimer that no individual weather event can be attributed to global warming. The point, however, is that climate change will make events like that Australian dust storm much more common.
But the larger reason we're ignoring climate change is that Al Gore was right: This truth is just to inconvenient. Responding to climate change with the vigor that the threat deserves would not contrary to legend, be devastating for the economy as a hole. But it would shuffle the economic deck, hurting some powerful vested interests even as it created new economic opportunities. And the industries of the past have armies of lobbyists in place right now; the industries of the future don't.
Nor is it just a matter of vested interests. It's also a matter of vested ideas. For three decades the dominant political ideology in America has extolled private enterprise and denigrated government, but climate change is a problem that can only be addressed through government action. And rather than concede the limits of their philosophy, many on the right have chosen to deny that the problem exists.
And as I pointed out in my last column, we can afford to do this. Even as climate modelers have been reaching consensus on the view that the threat is worse than we realized, economic modelers have been reaching consensus on the view that the costs of emission control are lower than many feared.
So the time for action is now. O.K., strickly speaking it's long past. But better late than never.
Krugman?!? Really? LMAO!! [ROFL1][ROFL2][ROFL3]
jerrymrc
11-28-2010, 16:28
I am going to make a suggestion. A brief outline and a link to an article is fine. A complete cut and paste may come back to bite ya in the butt one day. Besides, the act of doing nothing but cut and paste shows a lack of original thought on the subject. ;)
Do people really put weight into anything NYT says? Really?
Is this the only source of warming evidence you have? I understand the so called leading global climate scientist had all been discredited and disgraced recently for manipulating data and conspirering to cover it up, so I understand your lack of qualifying evidence. But you have to come up with something better than a NYT article.
Do people really put weight into anything NYT says? Really?
unfortunately, they do.
the NYT is fighting tooth and nail to hold on to what little is left of the influence they had fifty years ago.
newspapers are on the downward slide to obsolescence.
NYT, sun., Nov. 28, 2010
by Jack Hedin--who is a farmer
Rushford, Minn.
"The news from this Midwestern farm is not good. The past 4 years of heavy rains and flash flooding here in southern Minnesota have left me worried about the future of agriculture in America's grain belt. For some time computer model's of climate change have been predicting just these kinds of weather patterns, but seeing them unfold on our farm has been harrowing nonetheless.
My family and I produce vegetables, hay and grain on 250 acres in one of the richest agricultural areas in the world. While our farm is not large by modern standards, its roots are deep in this region; my greatgrandfather homesteaded about 80 miles from here in the late 1800's.
He passed on a keen sensitivity to climate. His memoirs, self-published in the wake of the Dust Bowl of the 1930's, desribe tornadoes, droughts and other extreme weather. But even he would be the erratic weather we have experienced in the last decade.
In Aug. 2007, a series of storms produced a breathtaking 23 inches of rain in 36 hours. The flooding that followed essentially erased our farm from the map. Fields were swamped under churning waters, which in places left a foot or more of debris and silt in their wake. Cornstalks were wrapped around bridge railings 10 feet above normal stream levels. We found butternut squashes from our farm two miles downstream, stranded in sapling branches five feet above the ground. A hillside of mature trees collapsed and slid hundreds of feet into a field below.
The machine shop on our farm was inundated with two feet of filthy runoff. When the water was finally gone, every tool, machine and surface was bathed in a toxic mix of used moter oil and rancid mud.
Our farm was able to stay in business only after receiving grants and low interest private and government loans. Having experienced lesser floods in 2004 and 2005, my family and I decided the only prudent action would be to use the money to move over the winter to better, drier ground eight miles away.
This move prescient: in June 2008 torrential rains and flash flooding returned. The federal government declared the second natural disaster in less than a year for the region. Hundreds of acres of our neighbors cornfields were again underwater and had to be replanted. Earthmovers spent days regrading a 280-acre field just across the road from our new home. Had we remained at the old place, we would have lost a season's worth of crops before they were a quarter grown.
The 2010 season has again been extraordinarily wet. The more than 20 inches of rain that I measured in my rain guage in June and July disrupted nearly evrry operation on our farm. We managed to do a bare minimum of field preparation, planting and cultivating through midsummer, thanks only to the well drained soils beneath our new home.
But in two weeks in July, moisture-fueled disease swept thru a three-acre onion field, reducing tens of thousands of pounds of healthy onions to mush. With rain falling several times a week and our tractors sitting idle, weeds took over a 7-acre field of carrots, requiring many times the normal amount of hand laborto control. Crop losses topped $100,000 by mid-August.
The most recent onslaught was a pair of heavy storms in late September that dropped 8.2 inches of rain. Representatives from FEMA again toured the area, and another fed. disaster was narrowly averted. But evidence of the loss was everywhere: debris piled up in unharvested cornfields, large washouts in fields recently stripped of pumpkins or soybeans, harvesting equipment sitting idle.
My great-grandfather recognized thet weather is never perfect for agriculture for an entire season; a full chapter of his memoir is dedicated to this observation. In his 60 years of farming he wrote that only one season, his final crop of 1937, had close to ideal weather. Like all of other farmers of his time and ours, he learned to cope with significant, ill-timed fluctuations in temperature and precipitation.
But at least here in the Midwest, weather fluctuations have been more significant during my time than in his, the Dust Bowl notwithstanding. The weather in our area has become demonstrably more hostile to agriculture, and all signs are that this trend will continue. Minnesota's state climatologist, Jim Zandlo, has concluded that no fewer than three "thousand-year rains" have occured in the past seven years in our part of the state. And a University of Minn. meteorologist , Mark Seeley, has found that summer storms in the region over the past two decades have been more intense and more geographically focused tan at anytime on record.
No two farms have the same experience with the weather, and some people will contend that ours is an anomaly, that many corn and bean farms in our area have done well over the same period. But heavy summer weather causes harm to farm fields that is not easily seen or quantified, like nutrient leeching, organic-matter depletion and erosion. As climate change accelerates these trends, losses will likely mount proportionately, and across the board. How long can we continue to borrow from the "topsoil bank," as torrential rains force us to make ever more frequent "withdrawals?"
Climate change, I believe, may eventually pose an existential threat to my way of life. A family farm like ours may simply not be able to adjust quickly enough to such unendingly volatile weather. We can't charge enough for our crops in good years to cover losses in the ever-more frequent bad ones. We can't continue to move to better, drier ground. No new field drainage scheme will help us as atmospheric carbon concentrations edge up to 400 parts per million; hardware and technology alone can't solve problems of this magnitude.
To make things worse, I see fewer acres in our area now planted with erosion-preventing techniques, like perennial contour strips, than there were a decade ago. I believe that federal agriculture policy is largely responsible, because it rewards the quantity of acres planted rather than the quality of practices employed.
But blaming the goverement isn't sufficient. All farmers have an interest in adopting better farming techniques. I believe that we also have an obligation to do so, for the sake of future generations. If global climate changes a product of human use of fossil fuels-and I believe it is-then our farm is a big part of the problem. We burn thousands of gallons of diesel fuel a year in our 10 tractors, undermining the very foundation of our subsistence every time we cultivate a field or put up a bale of hay.
I accept my responsibility for my complicity in this, but I also stand ready to accept the challenge of the future, to make serious changes in how I conduct business to produce less carbon. I don't see that I have a choice, if I am to hope that the farm will be around for my own great-grandchildren.
But my farm, and my neighbor's farms, can contribute only so much. Americans need to see our experience as a call for national action. The country must get serious about cliomate-change legislation and making real changes in our daily lives to reduce carbon emissions.
The future of our nation's food supply hang's in the balance."
He's a farmer not a scientist. But still better than NYT.
Ocean water temperature increase's are likely, and will exceed natural variability. The ocean also absorbs Carbon Dioxide from the atmosphere, which forms carbonic acid in the water and is making seas corrosive to certain species.
Cancun- Some low-lying island nations face the "End of History" due to rising sea levels unless the world takes stronger action to slow Global Warming, a spokesperson said at UN climate talks on Monday.
On November 15, 1969, Science News quoted meteorologist Dr. J. Murray Mitchell Jr. "How long the current cooling trend continues is one of the most important problems of our civilizations." Where have we heard that before? Mitchell continued: "If the cooling continues for another 200 to 300 years the earth could be plunged into an ice age." On January 11, 1970, the Washington Post ran the headline "Colder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age," The story read "Better get a good grip on your long johns cold weather haters, the worst may be yet to come." Fortune magazine reported in February of 1974 "It is the root cause of a lot of that unpleasant weather around the world and they warn that it carries the potential for human disasters of unprecedented magnitude." Sound familiar? In its June 24, 1970 edition Time magazine wrote "Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age." Newsweek, on April 28, 1975, wrote that "The Earth's climate seems to be cooling down."
Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/opinion/Earth+warming+cooling+wait/3793291/story.html#ixzz16tj4jR00
jerrymrc
12-01-2010, 17:35
Last I knew ERNO isn't even in Colorado. And I doubt he owns any firearms.
He is in Baltimore. ;)
foxtrot "...endless copypasta from the internet (with no validity and no accreditation)...The best response is...
This message is hidden because ERNO is on your ignore list.
"Excuse me, while I wipe the sweat off my brow. Cause I'm gonna jump and shout, tell the world what's it all about"---- Jimi Hendrix
68Charger
12-02-2010, 16:05
This message is hidden because ERNO is on your ignore list.
Winner! I wonder if it bothers him the we don't even see his drivel anymore... for about 2 seconds, then I smile. [LOL]
funkfool
12-02-2010, 17:28
Winner! I wonder if it bothers him the we don't even see his drivel anymore... for about 2 seconds, then I smile. [LOL]
I just start doing the Maxwell piggy "Whee" routine from the Geico commercial!
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.