Do you believe in Global Warming?
- Thread starter JOERM
- Start date
I voted "yes". I also believe in global cooling, and that the earth had had cycles of temperature fluctuations up and down for billions of years. Long before man kind was cutting the grass or driving a car.
The current push for "green everything" and other hookie B.S. is nothing more than people making money off of other people.
I believe in keeping the earth and our air and water clean, thats just common sense, but all of these other scams are attempts to take more money from US tax payers.
Now the "green" and "energy" radicals are using global politics to change our western culture.
The current push for "green everything" and other hookie B.S. is nothing more than people making money off of other people.
I believe in keeping the earth and our air and water clean, thats just common sense, but all of these other scams are attempts to take more money from US tax payers.
Now the "green" and "energy" radicals are using global politics to change our western culture.
feralmerril
Absent Comrade
How in hell can somebody tell what the tempeture was a billion years ago, a million or a thousand or 200, convert that all and say we are something like 3 1/2 degrees hotter than say, 10,000 years ago! I aint that trusting of tech and eggheads!
I believe that the Earth is in a warming trend. Do I believe that man, with his cars, planes and other internal combustion engines, his pollutants, his destruction of the rain forests, and urban sprawl are a contributing factor? Of course, no question. Do I think that hybrid cars, fluorescent light bulbs, and strangling government meddling will make a difference? Hell no! The problem really is same thing as all man's problems. TMDP. That's Too Many D*mn People. Birth control? Hah! What a joke. There are three ways to solve this, and they are Famine, Disease, and War. But, like was said above. The Earth can just fart, and make all this go away.
Pisgah
Member
Here's my take -- there is some evidence that the earth is warming. If so, it is no big deal. It has happened many times in the past, and the most prosperous times for humanity have always been during warm periods. It's the Ice Ages that kill us off like flies. So I say, if it's warming, bring it on!
There is absolutely no evidence to support the idea that MANKIND is causing global warming. Those who believe such are simply deluded. Granted, it is a mass delusion, but that makes it no more real than an individual delusion.
There is absolutely no evidence to support the idea that MANKIND is causing global warming. Those who believe such are simply deluded. Granted, it is a mass delusion, but that makes it no more real than an individual delusion.
USAF385
US Veteran
speak for yourself......
We as a whole.
I'm actually probably one of the "greener" members on this forum. I even use reusable hippie bags.
NCTexan
US Veteran
This is a great explanation of the argument used by the Man-made Climate Change zealots. They rely on modeling to prove their unprovable point.
The article gives a very simple response to a very complex argument.
The zealots use an immutable fact (that a computer is 100% accurate with the math of its calculations) but fail to mention that the end result is dependent on assumptions that it must calculate against (factors or guesses supplied by men who sometimes have preconceived ideas).
They are basically doing a calculation like this: X (known) TIMES Y (known) TIMES Z (wild guess) = Proven Scientific Model.
This is a very informative read, and gives some great examples on how these calculations have failed miserably within just the last year. Well worth the couple of minutes to read and understand.
if-you-cant-explain-it-you-cant-model-it
Here's an example of the true computer program that would be necessary to compute a 100% accurate climate model.
The article gives a very simple response to a very complex argument.
The zealots use an immutable fact (that a computer is 100% accurate with the math of its calculations) but fail to mention that the end result is dependent on assumptions that it must calculate against (factors or guesses supplied by men who sometimes have preconceived ideas).
They are basically doing a calculation like this: X (known) TIMES Y (known) TIMES Z (wild guess) = Proven Scientific Model.
This is a very informative read, and gives some great examples on how these calculations have failed miserably within just the last year. Well worth the couple of minutes to read and understand.
if-you-cant-explain-it-you-cant-model-it
Here's an example of the true computer program that would be necessary to compute a 100% accurate climate model.
ChadW
US Veteran
anyone who says flat out "no" is as quilty of drinking kool aid as most Dems!.. just a different kool aid.
Even over the recent past years when we can measure temperatures and ocean temps, there is proof that the earth is indeed getting warmer.
Caused be humans... THAT is the real question.
Even over the recent past years when we can measure temperatures and ocean temps, there is proof that the earth is indeed getting warmer.
Caused be humans... THAT is the real question.
MrJT
US Veteran
+1
anyone outright denying it is most likely doing so because for whatever reason they wish to not believe it.
I agree that if its caused or even helped along by humas any is the question.
pete-driver
Member
I say it is a natural cycle warm and then cool, Just not caused by man. John
wbraswell has the right idea. way to many people. look at africa, parts of asia, even south of the border. too many mouths to feed and not enough food. one more thing, i do believe in global warming. when the sun's out it's warm and when it's not it's cooler.
godlessgael
Member
scarier to me is the corporate agriculture (Monsanto).
as the right has a monopoly on most of this country's hunters and anglers, I would guess that in reality, we also are the strongest "environmental" advocates. reactionary anti-"green" attitudes don't get us anywhere (although it is a lot of fun to piss off hippies).
as the right has a monopoly on most of this country's hunters and anglers, I would guess that in reality, we also are the strongest "environmental" advocates. reactionary anti-"green" attitudes don't get us anywhere (although it is a lot of fun to piss off hippies).
Last edited:
ingmansinc
US Veteran
To not believe in science pretty much leaves you sleeping naked in the mud. Man never went to the moon, we don't communicate on the internet, prehistoric animals never existed, and the ice ages never happened. Things will evolve, change will occur, with or without the present of man. Don't worry, be happy.
Bear Country 88
Member
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 27
- Reaction score
- 0
Letter to the Editor of a local newspaper
Found this in a local paper - names removed to protect the innocent:
Global Warming Is Misunderstood
I'm an out-of-town visitor to your fine city. I've always enjoyed [your city's] historic sites and your city's uniquely Southern nightlife. However, I was more than a little dismayed to read [another writers] deeply prejudiced article on [a local energy company].
Now I don't know much about [a local energy company], but I know a great deal about science and the physics of global warming or climate change or whatever the political-science spin doctors are calling it this week. Let me ask a common-sense question with the help from a little elementary school earth science:
What is more likely to drive global warming or climate change: 1) small variations in our sun, which provides 100 percent of our planet's energy budget, or 2) large variations in carbon dioxide, an infinitesimally small trace gas in our atmosphere essential to photosynthesis? Many might say the debate is over now that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has covered all the relevant science. I would then ask, Have you read the IPCC technical reports? I would be very surprised to find anyone who has read any of them in-depth.
What readers will find are a number of interesting facts and obvious omissions, one of which is a clear statement that the IPCC does not begin to understand all of the factors affecting our climate, including solar dynamics and cloud cover. The IPCC notes that the global-warming potential of carbon dioxide is insignificant compared with many other atmospheric trace gases, including water vapor.
Some facts they don't publish are: 1) Doubling carbon dioxide concentrations increases plant growth by 33 percent, good news for farmers and foresters, 2) warming stimulates plant growth and on balance is good for the economy and society, and 3) humans are only responsible for 3 percent of all carbon dioxide escaping into the atmosphere. Therefore carbon cap-and-trade fees and carbon-offset taxes would have to be enormous and draconian to have any significant impact on the planet's carbon dioxide.
When all is said and done, the underlying reality is that nothing has done more to make our planet green over the past several decades than moderate sun-driven warming together with elevated levels of carbon dioxide, regardless of the source.
The most disturbing question is: Why is our government spending so much national treasure to convince us that 1) warming is bad when it is not, 2) carbon dioxide is largely responsible for warming when it is not, and 3) people are largely responsible for carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere when they are not?
[author removed for privacy]
Found this in a local paper - names removed to protect the innocent:
Global Warming Is Misunderstood
I'm an out-of-town visitor to your fine city. I've always enjoyed [your city's] historic sites and your city's uniquely Southern nightlife. However, I was more than a little dismayed to read [another writers] deeply prejudiced article on [a local energy company].
Now I don't know much about [a local energy company], but I know a great deal about science and the physics of global warming or climate change or whatever the political-science spin doctors are calling it this week. Let me ask a common-sense question with the help from a little elementary school earth science:
What is more likely to drive global warming or climate change: 1) small variations in our sun, which provides 100 percent of our planet's energy budget, or 2) large variations in carbon dioxide, an infinitesimally small trace gas in our atmosphere essential to photosynthesis? Many might say the debate is over now that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has covered all the relevant science. I would then ask, Have you read the IPCC technical reports? I would be very surprised to find anyone who has read any of them in-depth.
What readers will find are a number of interesting facts and obvious omissions, one of which is a clear statement that the IPCC does not begin to understand all of the factors affecting our climate, including solar dynamics and cloud cover. The IPCC notes that the global-warming potential of carbon dioxide is insignificant compared with many other atmospheric trace gases, including water vapor.
Some facts they don't publish are: 1) Doubling carbon dioxide concentrations increases plant growth by 33 percent, good news for farmers and foresters, 2) warming stimulates plant growth and on balance is good for the economy and society, and 3) humans are only responsible for 3 percent of all carbon dioxide escaping into the atmosphere. Therefore carbon cap-and-trade fees and carbon-offset taxes would have to be enormous and draconian to have any significant impact on the planet's carbon dioxide.
When all is said and done, the underlying reality is that nothing has done more to make our planet green over the past several decades than moderate sun-driven warming together with elevated levels of carbon dioxide, regardless of the source.
The most disturbing question is: Why is our government spending so much national treasure to convince us that 1) warming is bad when it is not, 2) carbon dioxide is largely responsible for warming when it is not, and 3) people are largely responsible for carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere when they are not?
[author removed for privacy]
Last edited:
godlessgael
Member
Where did the "acid rain" go anyway?It really was a big deal back then and then it just drifted away one day.
It's still a big deal in many parts of the world. Countries such as Greece wage a constant battle protecting and preserving their ancient treasures that are slowly being eaten away by acid rain.
Of course, in Attention Deficit Disorder America, can you expect us to be able to concentrate on.... oh look a bird.....
m1gunner
US Veteran
It is about finding new opportunities to raise taxes. Just look who is pushing this agenda.
The phrase, "Tax and Spend" refers to which political party?
m1gunner
US Veteran
Where did the "acid rain" go anyway?
Joe
How about the ozone hole?
+1 What's the figure? .1 of a degree rise for the last 40 years or so? Yeah, that's "proof" enough for me.
Similar threads
