Skip to main content

54 replies

Ice Age or Global Warming?

ferrelljferrelljOld Faithful
quote:
The sight of confused and angry travelers stuck in airports across Europe because of an arctic freeze that has settled across the continent isn't funny. Sadly, they've been told for more than a decade now that such a thing was an impossibility — that global warming was inevitable, and couldn't be reversed.


http://www.investors.com/NewsA...-Of-Warm-ongers.aspx

Of course it's no longer called global warming, now it's called climate change. Their solution to "solve" climate change is to tax richer nations and give it to poorer nations. Sort of a global initiative taken from Obama's re-distribute the wealth.

Run Sarah Run

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

rexkwondo72rexkwondo72Hall of Famer
quote:
Originally posted by Jennifer:
quote:
Originally posted by LE89:
Fear not, I am purchasing some more carbon credits from Al Gore, just in time. Maybe I purchased too many, dang.
I'm selling aftermarket carbon credits. They're just as good but half the price of old Al's.


Never used and only dropped once Big Grin Good one Jennifer.
C CaduceusEverybody Knows My Name
Nope, not like weather gets more extreme as global warming persists, which is a viewpoint which is supported by most scientists. Longer, hotter summers with short cold winters. This is expected. Might I add that "Climate change" was pushed by George Bush's administration due to the fact that it doesn't sound as urgent as global warming. Which is what it is. Global warming.
seeweedseeweedOld Faithful
quote:
Originally posted by Caduceus:
Nope, not like weather gets more extreme as global warming persists, which is a viewpoint which is supported by most scientists. Longer, hotter summers with short cold winters. This is expected. Might I add that "Climate change" was pushed by George Bush's administration due to the fact that it doesn't sound as urgent as global warming. Which is what it is. Global warming.


It takes some time , but if you investigate the "scientist" that disagree with the global warming hypothesis are mostly working for one or another company controlled by the Koch brothers.
Among their other "projects" is they are the ones who financed the Tea Party, and their favorite lobbyist Dick Armey.
elinterventor01elinterventor01Post Master
quote:
Originally posted by seeweed:
quote:
Originally posted by Caduceus:
Nope, not like weather gets more extreme as global warming persists, which is a viewpoint which is supported by most scientists. Longer, hotter summers with short cold winters. This is expected. Might I add that "Climate change" was pushed by George Bush's administration due to the fact that it doesn't sound as urgent as global warming. Which is what it is. Global warming.


It takes some time , but if you investigate the "scientist" that disagree with the global warming hypothesis are mostly working for one or another company controlled by the Koch brothers.
Among their other "projects" is they are the ones who financed the Tea Party, and their favorite lobbyist Dick Armey.


If, you checked the time line of the tea party development, you'd realize they existed before Armey's financing. Armey saw a good thing and joined it. Rather like joining a parade in the front and pretending you're the grand marshal.
seeweedseeweedOld Faithful
quote:
Originally posted by b50m:
All thses guys paid off by the Koch brothers, seeweed?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...nt_of_global_warming


Seems most of those you point out agree the earth is getting warmer, just whether it is man made , natural, or a combination.
We do know that during the past, 150 million years or so ago, the earth was much warmer than it is now, and at that time from ice samples , there was more CO2 in the atmosphere (? why).
Now, was the CO2 responsible, or other causes.
We may never know for sure, but one thing IS for sure. If you and the Koch brothers are wrong, we humans are in for a tough future and BUT there is something we can do to mitigate the eventual outcome. If y'all are right, we humans are in for a tough future and there is NOTHING we can do to mitigate it.
My personal preference is to believe that we humans CAN have an affect on the future. That is the best of the two given scenarios.
If that is the case, we should do whatever we can to start today, as to wait until it is too late would be tragic.
For the life of me, I cannot understand why some of you are so happy to accept anyone that hints that global warming is false, or that it is not man made.
The earth is warming, fact. In fact, I can tell a difference, a big difference in my relatively short life-time. Is my life-time long enough to make a judgement in the overall scheme of things ? Probably not, but to me it is a lifetime.
So, here are the options:
> Believe the whole thing is bologna and the majority of scientist in the world are crazy- do nothing but continue to pour millions of dollars into the fossil fuel business until it is completely depleted or in the case of coal, "the land was forsaken" as John Prine wrote.
>Believe the majority of scientist in the world are correct in that the earth is warming, but believe they are wrong that carbon is the problem. Do nothing, hope for the best.
> Believe the majority of scientist in the world community are correct both in the earth warming and in their assumption that carbon is the problem. Do whatever we can to limit the ammount of carbon WE are responsible for putting in the air (as I mentioned earlier). Support political policies that promote carbon-free energy supplies.
Coincidently, the third approach is what China is doing now . They realize the consequences of continuing to pump carbon into the atmosphere, but I have to admit it is easier for them to do because they don't have Republicans who are bought and paid for by the Koch brothers, and other carbon-based energy companies to contend with. Maybe you should tune into Radio China on occasion, they have an English broadcast, and from time to time they talk about their attempt to move as quickly as possible to a green economy even though they are having to build coal fired power plants in the interim.

We've let the rest of the world get ahead of us on a lot of things, getting a handle on this sort of thing ie: green energy, could be a very good thing for our economy. Lets face it, the days of a middle class manufacturing stuff in this country is about gone. Robots can do almost all of it. We gotta do something else.
b50mb50mOld Faithful
Being frugal with fossil fuels just makes sense, whether they contribute to warming or not.
Green fuels are too expensive for now to use exclusively.

The earth has warming and cooling cycles. It has gone on for millions of years. The dinosaurs were living in lush tropics, was that man made?
We can alter the atmosphere only slightly, one volcanic eruption can lower the global temp by a full degree.

Man can never achieve the level of change from natural causes.

We cleaned up pollution in the 70's and guess what, the earth got warmer due to the atmosphere allowing in more light.

We have had more snow in the south in the last two years than I remember. Yet the AGW fanatics now claim that more snow OR less snow are both due to GW. Yeah, right. Anything is now due to AGW; snow, rain, drought, high temps, low temps, rising tides, receding tides, more arctic ice, less ice,................

It's all a scam.
seeweedseeweedOld Faithful
I'm not sure who would benefit if it (global warming) is a scam, but if it is not, I can see a lot of very rich and powerful who would be big loosers if we ever decide to do something about it.

You b50 are quite young, because I remember as a child on quite a few occasions going across the road from where I was raised to my great grandfather's land (he owned about 3000 acres at the time) to cut a Christmas tree and dragging it home in the snow on a sled. In fact , I actually had a sled my dad made for me that I used every year for a long time. And I also remember many many times , during the winter when we would have several days in a row with nights that got 5 to 10 degres below 0. I didn't live up North either, just a small town close enough to the "Tri Cities" to use it for our major shopping center.
In 1976 I was living in Memphis and it snowed along the first week of Nov, and we had snow on the ground until March, it would melt off but still be under bushes and around fences where the sun didn't get to, but then it would snow again.
This past little spell of cold in December was a sample of what we had when I was a kid for most of Nov, Dec, Jan, and Feb.

From what I understand from listening or reading actual scientist (not the pseudo-scientist on Fox), a warmer earth means more energy in the atmosphere, and more moisture . While some parts of a continent may be in prolonged drought, other parts may be wetter . If it is summer, that means more rain, if it is cold, that means show or ice.
Like I said , I know the climate has changed during my lifetime- at one time I thought it had to do with the 12 year cycle of sunspots, and while I have noticed there to be some correlation, we still do not get as cold as we used to- at least not around here. It may revert back, may not. Frankly I hate cold weather, and much prefer it to be the way it is now, but I suspect that as we continue on (you know in your heart that there is too much money involved in our politics to change very much) the grain basket will move farther north, into Canada, and the Southern Planes will continue in worse and worse drought. Here, we can expect overall wetter and warmer. It'll cycle some, but in 30 years , when I'm dead and gone, and you are closer to my age, I hope you reflect on this.
C CaduceusEverybody Knows My Name
quote:
Originally posted by b50m:
Being frugal with fossil fuels just makes sense, whether they contribute to warming or not.
Green fuels are too expensive for now to use exclusively.

The earth has warming and cooling cycles. It has gone on for millions of years. The dinosaurs were living in lush tropics, was that man made?
We can alter the atmosphere only slightly, one volcanic eruption can lower the global temp by a full degree.

Man can never achieve the level of change from natural causes.

We cleaned up pollution in the 70's and guess what, the earth got warmer due to the atmosphere allowing in more light.

We have had more snow in the south in the last two years than I remember. Yet the AGW fanatics now claim that more snow OR less snow are both due to GW. Yeah, right. Anything is now due to AGW; snow, rain, drought, high temps, low temps, rising tides, receding tides, more arctic ice, less ice,................

It's all a scam.


The reason a volcano can cool the earth is because of the tons of ash and soot released into the upper atmosphere blocking sunlight. You are underestimating the amount of CO2 that we put into the atmosphere each year. For comparison, Volcanoes release about 145-255 million tons of CO2 each year, Humans account for 27 Billion tonnes (2.97624054 x 10^10 tons)
NashBamaNashBamaOld Faithful
I'm still amazed at why we're discussing "global warming" in the middle of a deep freeze.

Al Gore and many others made a ton of money selling carbon offsets or carbon credits or whatever they are. Politicians use the scam to scare constituents into going along with legislation like cap and trade.

Meanwhile, I've seen more snow in the past two years than I have in a long time. Winters have been brutal and summers have been mild. Predictions made 10 and 20 years ago about how our planet will be in dire straights due to increased temperature have turned out to be wrong.

There is no global warming.
seeweedseeweedOld Faithful
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
I'm still amazed at why we're discussing "global warming" in the middle of a deep freeze.

Al Gore and many others made a ton of money selling carbon offsets or carbon credits or whatever they are. Politicians use the scam to scare constituents into going along with legislation like cap and trade.

Meanwhile, I've seen more snow in the past two years than I have in a long time. Winters have been brutal and summers have been mild. Predictions made 10 and 20 years ago about how our planet will be in dire straights due to increased temperature have turned out to be wrong.

There is no global warming.

Deep freeze---- have you even checked a thermometer ? I don't know about Nashville, it's up almost in Yankeland, but down here in the Shoals it has barely been below freezing ! Temp yesterday AM when I woke up was 30. Went up to 34 for most of the day, and it's 36 today. I don't tthink it got below freezing at all last night- at least not here in the city.

You may call Scam because your hated Gore was involved, but I call Scam because the other view is pushed by the Koch brothers who are making billions by their "false" propaganda.
Did you make that trip to Paradise yet ? The town is hard to find. (Mr Peabody's Coal Train Has Hauled it Away), but for sure around the power plant "The Land if Forsaken".
elinterventor01elinterventor01Post Master
If you read that the global warming studies are "peer reviewed," you know you are reading a lie.

All the original data was destroyed, supposed to save data space. The entire data package took up about three reels of tape. Back in the day, reel libraries were in the hundreds of reels.

There are too many research rice bowls dependent upon the existence of global warming as a man made phenomenon.
NashBamaNashBamaOld Faithful
quote:
Originally posted by seeweed:
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
I'm still amazed at why we're discussing "global warming" in the middle of a deep freeze.

Al Gore and many others made a ton of money selling carbon offsets or carbon credits or whatever they are. Politicians use the scam to scare constituents into going along with legislation like cap and trade.

Meanwhile, I've seen more snow in the past two years than I have in a long time. Winters have been brutal and summers have been mild. Predictions made 10 and 20 years ago about how our planet will be in dire straights due to increased temperature have turned out to be wrong.

There is no global warming.

Deep freeze---- have you even checked a thermometer ? I don't know about Nashville, it's up almost in Yankeland, but down here in the Shoals it has barely been below freezing ! Temp yesterday AM when I woke up was 30. Went up to 34 for most of the day, and it's 36 today. I don't tthink it got below freezing at all last night- at least not here in the city.

You may call Scam because your hated Gore was involved, but I call Scam because the other view is pushed by the Koch brothers who are making billions by their "false" propaganda.
Did you make that trip to Paradise yet ? The town is hard to find. (Mr Peabody's Coal Train Has Hauled it Away), but for sure around the power plant "The Land if Forsaken".


Nashville is only a couple of hours from Florence, no where near "Yankeeland".

I've seen the Facebook pictures, the Shoals got about twice as much snow as Middle Tennessee.

I've been trying to plan a camping trip, but the night time lows have to be above freezing due to gear. I keep having to push it back, I've been doing that for over a month.

The average global temperature was supposed to rise by 2 degrees. It hasn't. There were lots of things that were supposed to happen that hasn't.

There is no global warming. The scam is falling apart.
Mr. HooberbloobMr. HooberbloobOld Faithful
In 2006 alone, China brought over 70,000 megawatts of coal fired generation online. That's over two TVA's. That's on top of the 20 million tons of underground coal fires burning uncontrollably on an annual basis. The last estimate I saw was that China will have over 400,000 megawatts of coal fired generation by 2030. India won't be far behind China in fossil power production.

Anyone that thinks America can make a difference in the so called man made global warming debate does not know or understand the facts of the matter. Anyone that thinks China or India will mothball multi trillion dollar investments in fossil fuels is living in a fantasy world. We can spend more money we don't have to get that green warm and fuzzy, but it's just going to amount to a trillion dollar spitball.
C CaduceusEverybody Knows My Name
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Hooberbloob:
In 2006 alone, China brought over 70,000 megawatts of coal fired generation online. That's over two TVA's. That's on top of the 20 million tons of underground coal fires burning uncontrollably on an annual basis. The last estimate I saw was that China will have over 400,000 megawatts of coal fired generation by 2030. India won't be far behind China in fossil power production.

Anyone that thinks America can make a difference in the so called man made global warming debate does not know or understand the facts of the matter. Anyone that thinks China or India will mothball multi trillion dollar investments in fossil fuels is living in a fantasy world. We can spend more money we don't have to get that green warm and fuzzy, but it's just going to amount to a trillion dollar spitball.


The idea that the US has no impact on the amount of CO2 put into the atmosphere is a little silly. It's not like it accounts for 1/5th of all CO2 emissions in the world, more than the entire European Union and second only to china, who consists of 22.3% of all emissions. I would say that's a pretty major factor. It's not all of it, but it is a lot.
b50mb50mOld Faithful
http://trendsupdates.com/fores...20-of-co2-emissions/

Forest fires that cause deforestation and habitat loss are also responsible for 20% of carbon dioxide emissions. It is a phenomenon that feeds global warming. Fire and climate are a tandem that goes back at least 400 million years, since plants began to colonize the Earth.

It used to be that forest fires resulted from natural phenomena such as lightning or volcano eruption. Now, almost 100 percent of such fires are caused by human activity, concludes a research at the University of Tasmania in Hobart (Australia) which has recently been published in the journal Science.

The scientific researchers state that, during the past decade, there have been major uncontrolled fires across all vegetated continents, regardless of national capacity to combat or control these fires. The researchers add that, together with their high economic costs, forest fires also effect human health. The study authors also assessed how fires affect the Earth in terms of ecosystems, biodiversity, carbon stocks, and climate. They warn that the current capacity to control fires may diminish in the future as climate change alters the patterns of fire.

According to the researchers, the phenomenon of forest fires is difficult to assess because fires are still poorly represented in global models which until now have not had a large consideration. This is in spite of the fact that 12 years have passed since the signing of the Kyoto Protocol which also globally attempts to control forest fires because they have shown high contribution to CO2 emissions which, in fact, is more than the combined emissions of all transport systems on earth (vehicles, ships, and aircraft).


Maybe we should plant more trees.
Mr. HooberbloobMr. HooberbloobOld Faithful
quote:
Originally posted by Caduceus:
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Hooberbloob:
In 2006 alone, China brought over 70,000 megawatts of coal fired generation online. That's over two TVA's. That's on top of the 20 million tons of underground coal fires burning uncontrollably on an annual basis. The last estimate I saw was that China will have over 400,000 megawatts of coal fired generation by 2030. India won't be far behind China in fossil power production.

Anyone that thinks America can make a difference in the so called man made global warming debate does not know or understand the facts of the matter. Anyone that thinks China or India will mothball multi trillion dollar investments in fossil fuels is living in a fantasy world. We can spend more money we don't have to get that green warm and fuzzy, but it's just going to amount to a trillion dollar spitball.


The idea that the US has no impact on the amount of CO2 put into the atmosphere is a little silly. It's not like it accounts for 1/5th of all CO2 emissions in the world, more than the entire European Union and second only to china, who consists of 22.3% of all emissions. I would say that's a pretty major factor. It's not all of it, but it is a lot.


You completely missed the point. First, I never said the US has no impact on the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. I did say that reducing our "CO2 foot print" will be the equivalent of shooting a spit ball at the problem. I stand by that statement. Secondly, China's not done. Neither is India. While their economies grow and ours shrinks, they will be relying more and more on fossil fuels. China adding an additional 300,000 megawatts of fossil power by 2030 will dwarf anything we could hope to put out and will be a huge chunk of overall manmade CO2 emmisions.

You say we are now 20% of CO2 emmissions. There is no way we can whittle that number anywhere below 10% without shutting down most of our industrial/commercial/production facilities. China's underground coal fires by themselves account for about 1% of CO2 emmissions. Our puny 10% reduction is not going to do anything, no matter what you think.
NashBamaNashBamaOld Faithful
CO2 is Carbon Dioxide. It's a natural element. Plants need it to survive and produce oxygen.

There is less than half of 1% of CO2 in the atmosphere. That's 0.05%. Besides, CO2 doesn't rise up into the atmosphere. Blow a balloon up and let it go, does it float up or drop down?

On the news this morning, they said that right now 70% of the country has snow on the ground. Every state in the union right now has snow, except Florida.

Now let's consider what Dr. David Viner, a leading "climate change" researcher predicted just 10 years ago.

"Within a few years "children just aren't going to know what snow is." Snowfall will be "a very rare and exciting event."

There is no global warming. It's a scam, a lie. It doesn't take much to see right through it.
Last edited by NashBama
ferrelljferrelljOld Faithful
quote:
Originally posted by b50m:
http://trendsupdates.com/fores...20-of-co2-emissions/

Forest fires that cause deforestation and habitat loss are also responsible for 20% of carbon dioxide emissions. It is a phenomenon that feeds global warming. Fire and climate are a tandem that goes back at least 400 million years, since plants began to colonize the Earth.

It used to be that forest fires resulted from natural phenomena such as lightning or volcano eruption. Now, almost 100 percent of such fires are caused by human activity, concludes a research at the University of Tasmania in Hobart (Australia) which has recently been published in the journal Science.

The scientific researchers state that, during the past decade, there have been major uncontrolled fires across all vegetated continents, regardless of national capacity to combat or control these fires. The researchers add that, together with their high economic costs, forest fires also effect human health. The study authors also assessed how fires affect the Earth in terms of ecosystems, biodiversity, carbon stocks, and climate. They warn that the current capacity to control fires may diminish in the future as climate change alters the patterns of fire.

According to the researchers, the phenomenon of forest fires is difficult to assess because fires are still poorly represented in global models which until now have not had a large consideration. This is in spite of the fact that 12 years have passed since the signing of the Kyoto Protocol which also globally attempts to control forest fires because they have shown high contribution to CO2 emissions which, in fact, is more than the combined emissions of all transport systems on earth (vehicles, ships, and aircraft).


Maybe we should plant more trees.


I was thinking we should cut down all the trees so they wouldn't keep catching on fire.
elinterventor01elinterventor01Post Master
I've pointed out that the idea of man made global warming is too important to too many scientists for them to give up the idea. They desire the funds from grants and other funding. Too many believe scientists are above such scams -- sorry, NO!

A good example is the supposed link between autism and vaccines, or at least, mercury in the vaccines.

However, the truth appears, that there is no link, but a scam.

"Researcher Behind Debunked Autism-Vaccine Study Stood To Make Millions
By MICHELLE DIAMENT

A week after calling research that first suggested a link between autism and vaccines an “elaborate fraud” a follow-up article in the British Medical Journal now says the researcher behind the study planned to make upwards of $43 million annually selling replacement vaccines and diagnostic products.

In the report published Tuesday, journalist Brian Deer reveals that Andrew Wakefield held a patent for “a ‘safer’ single measles shot.”
Meanwhile, Deer reports that Wakefield was in talks with investors to develop a business that “was to be launched off the back of the vaccine scare, diagnosing a purported — and still unsubstantiated — ‘new syndrome.’” A business plan for the venture indicates that by year three, diagnostic kits alone were anticipated to garner $43 million per year.

More at:

http://www.disabilityscoop.com...make-millions/11910/

Scientists are humans, with all the flaws and greatness.
Next

Add Reply

Post
affilated websites:
Times Daily | Decatur Daily | Courier Journal | The Hartselle Enquirer | Moulton Advertiser | The Redstone Rocket | The Madison Record | The Franklin County Times | Reach256 | TNValleyStuff.com TNValleyHomefinder.com | TNValleyWheels.com

Terms of Service | Private Policy | California Privacy Policy/Private Policy

Untitled Document

Membership Required

We're sorry. You must be signed in to continue. Sign In or Register
×
Are you sure you want to remove from your Block List?
×
Loading...
×
When you block a person, they can no longer invite you to a private message or post to your profile wall. Replies and comments they make will be collapsed/hidden by default. Finally, you'll never receive email notifications about content they create or likes they designate for your content.
Note: if you proceed, you will no longer be following .
×
Advanced Search
Advanced Search
Link copied to your clipboard.
×