all that because I believe in God ?? and why the negitive thoughts and predictions of children you don't know ? and ...serious question..who here on the train is part of the solution ? because I or some other don't tend to share the ideas of others we are not part of the solution ?...what solution and whos idea is the right one ? maybe I misunderstood your post and I apoligize if this is the case.
Godfather.
uhhh ... again, i am only speculating ... but it has NOTHING to do with your belief in god ... your question is "if i am wrong, what have i lost?" indicates that your only concern is yourself ... that is what he is highlighting in terms of a conservative viewpoint ... it's in line with how conservatives prefer less taxes and less social programs because they think of themselves more than the collective ...
and my comment about the children isn't specific to yours ... it's all future generations ... if we continue to abuse the planet now unnecessarily, we are leaving it worse off than when we got it ...
the primary part of being part of a solution is to actually acknowledge it exists ... it's possible that you are the greenest person on this board ... but i will go out on a limb and say probably not ...
o.k, but the post "what have I lost" was not in any way one of self only concern I would like to know that we will go to heaven one day and be with God but most of you do not believe and there is nothing I can say to change your minds. and Byrnzies quest to be right on with every subject with out comprimise tells me he is guilty of what I am being accused of.
o.k, but the post "what have I lost" was not in any way one of self only concern I would like to know that we will go to heaven one day and be with God but most of you do not believe and there is nothing I can say to change your minds. and Byrnzies quest to be right on with every subject with out comprimise tells me he is guilty of what I am being accused of.
Godfather.
of the same
i'm not sure how god has anything to do with this thread ...
o.k, but the post "what have I lost" was not in any way one of self only concern I would like to know that we will go to heaven one day and be with God but most of you do not believe and there is nothing I can say to change your minds. and Byrnzies quest to be right on with every subject with out comprimise tells me he is guilty of what I am being accused of.
Godfather.
of the same
i'm not sure how god has anything to do with this thread ...
because the post "what have I lost"was taken from a post I made about my belief in God...what do I have to lose by Believing in God .
I think this is an unfair statement...I for one am not totally convinced...but myself I have energy efficient appliances, energy efficient furnace, A/C, hardly ever run the A/C, energy efficient light bulbs, only drive when necessary, drive a fuel efficient car, maintain my vehicles, don't buy bottled water, buy energy star products and much more.
Now I don't have a problem with plastic bags, there is process that allows these bags to be biodegradable...because I believe at 1 time they were made here...now those reusable bags are shipped from china.
I agree everybody has to be part of the solution...everybody has to do their bit...
it also starts with education...I work in a school...you know who the best recyclers are, the ones who always turn off their lights...the older teachers...the worst is the younger teachers...the kids have grown up with recycling...the bins are everywhere...yet the amount of plastic and paper that ends up in the garbage is amazing.
well ... i said not likely part of the solution ... i would say that you are not the norm in this regard ...
how much of your motivation to do the things you do is planet and how much is related to saving money?
plastic bags don't biodegrade in landfills ... most things don't in landfills ...
Actually it's both...I can still be skeptical without causing unnecessary waste. Then then ban plastic bottles, plastic bags, then give companies a time frame in which to come up with a better solution for packaging their products...whether your a skeptic or believer you can sill do your part...trying to leave the planet cleaner hurts no one...and motivation should matter little.
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
Actually it's both...I can still be skeptical without causing unnecessary waste. Then then ban plastic bottles, plastic bags, then give companies a time frame in which to come up with a better solution for packaging their products...whether your a skeptic or believer you can sill do your part...trying to leave the planet cleaner hurts no one...and motivation should matter little.
for sure ... but like i said ... i said not likely part of the solution ... and i don't think i'm off to think someone who doesn't believe in global warming is probably not trying to fix it either ...
A Nutshell History of Climate-Change Hysteria
By Anthony J. Sadar
At a time when the push is on to subject humanity to more crazy, shortsighted progressive environmental programs (read carbon regulations) to "save the earth" from its human population, a brief look at progressive airy predictions of the past is in order.
Enlightenment from the campus teach-ins of the 1960s and early 1970s slowly invaded conventional college classrooms so that the hippie-generation mentality of the time eventually became the hip academic norm. But, excitement over such topics as the planet's imminent collapse from too many people and too much ice quickly waned when population increases yielded no global food fights and Mother Earth began to melt her once-advancing ice caps.
Up until at least the mid-1970s, the frenzy to rescue the planet from industrial chemicals, especially pesticides like DDT, was fueled by Rachel Carson's alluring book Silent Spring. This work, published in 1962, sparked the modern environmental movement, providing activists with both a laudable goal (cleaning up the planet) and reprehensible ones (portraying industry and modern society as enemies). Silent Spring made it rather obvious to some that the modern industrial society needed to be disarmed of its "weapons" (synthetic chemicals). Regardless of the fact that it is the careless practices of industry and the wasteful excesses of society that should have been precisely targeted, not modernity per se, the battle to save the planet was on.
One battleground that soon became the main theater of the war was society's culpability to climate change. But, early on, the conflict was quite different from what it is today. In the 1970s, besides Vietnam, society was sensitized to a worldwide cooling trend. In addition to cover stories in Time, Newsweek, and other popular magazines of the era, the cover of books like The Cooling by Lowell Ponte teased, "Has the next ice age already begun? Can we survive it?" Inside the book, Mr. Ponte notes, "A handful of scientists denied evidence that Earth's climate was cooling until the 1970s, when bizarre weather throughout the world forced them to reconsider their views."
The cover of Our Changing Weather: Forecast of Disaster? by Claude Rose pondered "Will our fuel run out? Will our food be destroyed? Will we freeze?" The back cover claimed: "Northern hemisphere temperatures have been falling steadily since the 1940s. Glaciers are advancing once again. Scientists no longer debate the coming of a new ice age: the question now is when?" ("Scientists no longer debate..." sound familiar?)
Kids were prepped for the coming catastrophe with a brief book by Henry Gilfond called The New Ice Age, which boldly displayed on its dust jacket large thermometers with ominously dropping temperature levels.
In addition, society was informed at the time from another sector, but with a more hopeful approach. A Christian tract by Walter Lang and Vic Lockman proclaimed: Need We Fear Another Ice Age?
And, of course, students were being properly taught to face the inevitable. For instance, some learned that polar bears might roam New York City (which proved true, but luckily they've been captured in the Central Park Zoo). Even future atmospheric scientists discovered the scientific foundations for the advancing ice in meteorology lectures at The Pennsylvania State University.
Well, as we all now know, the frights of the past were unfounded. We were encouraged to be scared of the wrong things. We have come to realize that it wasn't a "human volcano" of particles from an industrial society that would be chilling thermometers into the future, rather human-produced gases, primarily carbon dioxide, that would send the mercury soaring.
The current hype was officially kicked off with a proclamation by Dr. James Hansen of NASA in his testimony before Congress on June 23, 1988. Dr. Hansen announced that "the greenhouse effect is here and is affecting our climate now." With that statement, bolstered by a room purposefully made very warm and humid for the hearing and an unusually hot and dry summer in the eastern part of the U.S. that year, hothouse-earth hysteria was off and running.
In the late 90s, to support the new storyline, actual temperature measurements after 1900 were appended to proxy temperature data (e.g., using tree-ring analysis) from prior to 1900 to produce the infamous "hockey stick" graph. This graph replaced the traditional temperature trend graph in the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change official global climate report for 2001. The supplanted traditional graph had clearly, but inconveniently, displayed a "medieval warm period" from about the 10th to 13th centuries AD and "little ice age" generally from the 17th century until the mid-1800s. Furthermore, the hockey-stick graph was featured in Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth and unfortuately has replaced the traditional graph in a popular climatology textbook used to instruct a new generation of Penn State students.
The rising temperature trend experienced most recently (a trend currently leveling off) began in the mid- to late 1970s. This trend was first referred to in the 1980s as the "greenhouse effect" (which is a generic descriptor of roughly -- very roughly -- how warming of the planet occurs), the popular term became "global warming" in the 1990s, and finally conveniently morphed into "climate change," just in time to hedge against weather variability (that continues to alert an increasingly incredulous public).
As it turns out, though, "all's well that ends well." Fortunately for Mother Earth and her people, academic scientists have been laden with plenty of government funds to thoroughly research the atmosphere to arrive at confident conclusions. These scientists are now finally able to assure us that climate calamity caused by industry and callous working-class culprits -- and definitely not, for instance, the sun -- can be declared with absolute total academic certainty, theoretically. And, fortunately with enough dollars (billions upon billions of them) redistributed in the right way to correct our errant ways, the global village may yet experience its climate nirvana.
"The really important thing is not to live, but to live well. And to live well meant, along with more enjoyable things in life, to live according to your principles."
— Socrates
your denial of some inconvenient history about the subject, shows that i lack the ability to think independently, well you go on with you bad self you knowledgable free thinker you.
"The really important thing is not to live, but to live well. And to live well meant, along with more enjoyable things in life, to live according to your principles."
— Socrates
your denial of some inconvenient history about the subject, shows that i lack the ability to think independently, well you go on with you bad self you knowledgable free thinker you.
dude ... your repost of these op-ed pieces has been addressed everywhere including here over and over again ...
show me you understand the topic and let's have an honest discussion ... re-posting links of people who say the things you want to hear does not count ... the thing with many of the links you post is that if you think critically, you will see that they hold no substance to them ...
i'll continue to ignorantly and indiscriminately add some balance to discussions here, read it, attempt to understand if you want if not dont.
"the only thing I know is that I know nothing"- socrates
"The really important thing is not to live, but to live well. And to live well meant, along with more enjoyable things in life, to live according to your principles."
— Socrates
Actually it's both...I can still be skeptical without causing unnecessary waste. Then then ban plastic bottles, plastic bags, then give companies a time frame in which to come up with a better solution for packaging their products...whether your a skeptic or believer you can sill do your part...trying to leave the planet cleaner hurts no one...and motivation should matter little.
for sure ... but like i said ... i said not likely part of the solution ... and i don't think i'm off to think someone who doesn't believe in global warming is probably not trying to fix it either ...
Well probably not much more I can do to be part of the solution...I have no more say over what the government environmental policy is, anymore than the next person...but I do try to do my part...
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,435
the biggest difference tho is that you are not likely to be part of the solution ...
...the kids have grown up with recycling...the bins are everywhere...yet the amount of plastic and paper that ends up in the garbage is amazing.
I'm going to stick my neck out a bit on this and say that recycling as a concept is great but as an action, does not do a great deal to alleviate the environmental problems we face-- and I say this as a fanatical recycler. The hidden problem with recycling is that it gives the illusion of it being ok to continue to consume on a huge scale. Resources that are recycled are better than material in a landfill, but enregy is consumed and pollution is produced when products are recycled. So the obvious solution is to just use less stuff in the first place. Do you recyle the plastic clams your lunch came in? Fine. But a better solution- if you get take out, ask for it on a real plate and return the plate. I've done this several times- no kidding-- and no trash. Best solution- make your own meals from scratch. Do you combine trips in your car? Great! But a better idea is to ride share at the same time. The best solution is to walk.
I could bore us all with endless examples of what I'm saying, but the idea is to think and and act in terms of using less.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
yes. however increased incidents of cancer doesnt mean we brought it into being. people were dying from cancer since before it was given that name. weve just accelerated it through foolhardy actions, thats all. dont forget even the life giving sun gives us cancer. our existence is a double edged sword that we as a species seem not to have learnt to wield without our actions having some detrimental effect on us and the planet. whether it will end up killing us all is open for discussion.
no one is saying flooding or droughts only existed because of global warming ... all we have done is increased it's likelihood of happening similar to my analogy with cancer ... like you said "accelerated it through foolhardy actions" ...
nor did i say they did. oh and i think we just agreed.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Actually it's both...I can still be skeptical without causing unnecessary waste. Then then ban plastic bottles, plastic bags, then give companies a time frame in which to come up with a better solution for packaging their products...whether your a skeptic or believer you can sill do your part...trying to leave the planet cleaner hurts no one...and motivation should matter little.
my favourite thing in the supermarket is recycled toilet paper wrapped in plastic.
im assuming by recycled toilet paper they mean toilet paper made from recycled paper.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Actually it's both...I can still be skeptical without causing unnecessary waste. Then then ban plastic bottles, plastic bags, then give companies a time frame in which to come up with a better solution for packaging their products...whether your a skeptic or believer you can sill do your part...trying to leave the planet cleaner hurts no one...and motivation should matter little.
my favourite thing in the supermarket is recycled toilet paper wrapped in plastic.
im assuming by recycled toilet paper they mean toilet paper made from recycled paper.
My favorite product at the market is the toilet paper that has no core. The commercials for this product emphasizes that it's environmentally aware, (because there's no cardboard core) yet the toilet paper is made from virgin fibers (freshly cut down trees). What idiots that thought up that one.
Actually it's both...I can still be skeptical without causing unnecessary waste. Then then ban plastic bottles, plastic bags, then give companies a time frame in which to come up with a better solution for packaging their products...whether your a skeptic or believer you can sill do your part...trying to leave the planet cleaner hurts no one...and motivation should matter little.
my favourite thing in the supermarket is recycled toilet paper wrapped in plastic.
im assuming by recycled toilet paper they mean toilet paper made from recycled paper.
My favorite product at the market is the toilet paper that has no core. The commercials for this product emphasizes that it's environmentally aware, (because there's no cardboard core) yet the toilet paper is made from virgin fibers (freshly cut down trees). What idiots that thought up that one.
probably one of those idiots from the fortune 500. J/K Jen
Experts warn epic weather ravaging US could worsen
Epic floods, massive wildfires, drought and the deadliest tornado season in 60 years are ravaging the United States, with scientists warning that climate change will bring even more extreme weather.
The human and economic toll over just the past few months has been staggering: hundreds of people have died, and thousands of homes and millions of acres have been lost at a cost estimated at more than $20 billion.
And the United States has not even entered peak hurricane season.
"This spring was one of the most extreme springs that we've seen in the last century since we've had good records," said Deke Arndt, chief of climate monitoring for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
While it's not possible to tie a specific weather event or pattern to climate change, Arndt said this spring's extreme weather is in line with what is forecast for the future.
"In general, but not everywhere, it is expected that the wetter places will get wetter and the drier places will tend to see more prolonged dry periods," he told AFP.
"We are seeing an increase in the amount (of rain and snow) that comes at once, and the ramifications are that it's a lot more water to deal with at a time, so you see things like flooding."
More than 6.8 million acres in the central United States have been swamped after record spring rainfall overwhelmed rivers already swollen from the melting of a heavy winter snow pack.
Some levees burst under the pressure as the mighty Mississippi River swelled to more than three miles (nearly five kilometers) in width. Others were intentionally breached in order to ease pressure and protect cities downstream.
The latest flooding along the Missouri River has forced mass evacuations and threatened to inundate two nuclear power plants in Nebraska.
Meanwhile, the southern United States is dealing with one of the most extreme droughts since the dust bowl of the 1930s, and the dry conditions have led to massive and uncontrollable wildfires.
More than 4.7 million acres have been burned in some 32,000 separate fires so far this year, which is more than twice the annual average over the past decade, according to the National Interagency Fire Center.
Texas, Arizona and New Mexico have lost the most land, and one fire even spread to the grounds of the top US nuclear research lab on Monday.
As with the plants in Nebraska, officials said the nuclear material stored inside is safe and that no contaminants have been released.
While most people have been able to escape the slow-moving floodwaters and wildfires unharmed, the spring's violent storms have unleashed scenes of apocalyptic destruction.
Tornadoes have killed 542 people so far this year, making 2011 the deadliest tornado season since 1936 and the fourth worst on record, according to the National Weather Service.
Two bad days accounted for nearly all the deaths: an outbreak of dozens of tornadoes that killed 314 people in five southern states on April 27, and a nearly mile-wide twister that cut a six-mile (nearly 10 kilometer) swath of destruction through Joplin, Missouri on May 22, killing 146 people.
Climate change could bring less tornadoes, because while a warmer atmosphere will absorb more precipitation, causing more storms, it could also reduce the wind shear that builds storm intensity when cold and warm fronts collide.
However, the intensity of future droughts, heat waves, storms and floods is expected to rise drastically if greenhouse gas emissions don't stabilize soon, said Michael Mann, a scientist at Penn State University.
"Even a couple degree warming can make a 100-year event a three-year event," Mann, the head of the university's earth systems science center, told AFP.
"It has to do with the tail of the bell curve. When you move the bell curve, that area changes dramatically."
More extreme weather is expected in the coming months, said Jon Gottschalck, head of forecast operations at NOAA's climate prediction center.
"We're expecting warmer than normal conditions to continue across much of the south. The drought is probably going to continue in many areas," he said.
"We also expect wetter than normal conditions to continue for the next season or two in the northern Rockies...and an active hurricane season."
Experts warn epic weather ravaging US could worsen
Epic floods, massive wildfires, drought and the deadliest tornado season in 60 years are ravaging the United States, with scientists warning that climate change will bring even more extreme weather.
The human and economic toll over just the past few months has been staggering: hundreds of people have died, and thousands of homes and millions of acres have been lost at a cost estimated at more than $20 billion.
And the United States has not even entered peak hurricane season.
"This spring was one of the most extreme springs that we've seen in the last century since we've had good records," said Deke Arndt, chief of climate monitoring for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
While it's not possible to tie a specific weather event or pattern to climate change, Arndt said this spring's extreme weather is in line with what is forecast for the future.
"In general, but not everywhere, it is expected that the wetter places will get wetter and the drier places will tend to see more prolonged dry periods," he told AFP.
"We are seeing an increase in the amount (of rain and snow) that comes at once, and the ramifications are that it's a lot more water to deal with at a time, so you see things like flooding."
More than 6.8 million acres in the central United States have been swamped after record spring rainfall overwhelmed rivers already swollen from the melting of a heavy winter snow pack.
Some levees burst under the pressure as the mighty Mississippi River swelled to more than three miles (nearly five kilometers) in width. Others were intentionally breached in order to ease pressure and protect cities downstream.
The latest flooding along the Missouri River has forced mass evacuations and threatened to inundate two nuclear power plants in Nebraska.
Meanwhile, the southern United States is dealing with one of the most extreme droughts since the dust bowl of the 1930s, and the dry conditions have led to massive and uncontrollable wildfires.
More than 4.7 million acres have been burned in some 32,000 separate fires so far this year, which is more than twice the annual average over the past decade, according to the National Interagency Fire Center.
Texas, Arizona and New Mexico have lost the most land, and one fire even spread to the grounds of the top US nuclear research lab on Monday.
As with the plants in Nebraska, officials said the nuclear material stored inside is safe and that no contaminants have been released.
While most people have been able to escape the slow-moving floodwaters and wildfires unharmed, the spring's violent storms have unleashed scenes of apocalyptic destruction.
Tornadoes have killed 542 people so far this year, making 2011 the deadliest tornado season since 1936 and the fourth worst on record, according to the National Weather Service.
Two bad days accounted for nearly all the deaths: an outbreak of dozens of tornadoes that killed 314 people in five southern states on April 27, and a nearly mile-wide twister that cut a six-mile (nearly 10 kilometer) swath of destruction through Joplin, Missouri on May 22, killing 146 people.
Climate change could bring less tornadoes, because while a warmer atmosphere will absorb more precipitation, causing more storms, it could also reduce the wind shear that builds storm intensity when cold and warm fronts collide.
However, the intensity of future droughts, heat waves, storms and floods is expected to rise drastically if greenhouse gas emissions don't stabilize soon, said Michael Mann, a scientist at Penn State University.
"Even a couple degree warming can make a 100-year event a three-year event," Mann, the head of the university's earth systems science center, told AFP.
"It has to do with the tail of the bell curve. When you move the bell curve, that area changes dramatically."
More extreme weather is expected in the coming months, said Jon Gottschalck, head of forecast operations at NOAA's climate prediction center.
"We're expecting warmer than normal conditions to continue across much of the south. The drought is probably going to continue in many areas," he said.
"We also expect wetter than normal conditions to continue for the next season or two in the northern Rockies...and an active hurricane season."
the deadliest season in 60 years. wow that long huh?.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
the deadliest season in 60 years. wow that long huh?.
:? :(
i find it sad that you continue to post these statements ... embrace your skepticism and join the ranks of the GOP and blockhead and godfather and our conservative brethren here ... because it is clear that like those folks, you choose to ignore the science ... and choose to not spend the time it takes to form a more compelling case ...
meanwhile ... we will continue to see significant suffering because of these events ...
the deadliest season in 60 years. wow that long huh?.
:? :(
i find it sad that you continue to post these statements ... embrace your skepticism and join the ranks of the GOP and blockhead and godfather and our conservative brethren here ... because it is clear that like those folks, you choose to ignore the science ... and choose to not spend the time it takes to form a more compelling case ...
meanwhile ... we will continue to see significant suffering because of these events ...
i doubt youd ever meet a less conservative person than me polaris. what i am not is an hysterical treehugger who runs around screaming the sky is falling. the only thing that could make my carbon footprint any smaller is if i went total solar power instead of just hot water solar.but to me thats neother here nor there. so long as governments allow industry to chug along the way theyve always done, i will always be sceptical of any policy they vomit up... but then again thats got nothing to do with whats actually going on, has it? to me 60 years is miniscule in the lifetime of the earth and if someone is gonna use it as a time measure of ' impending catastrophe' and climate change, then i am gonna have to laugh at them.
i do not choose to ignore the science.. i choose to question it. thats all.. question it. science is about questions. and its about proving theories.. and doing more so than empirically. i want to look at a greater history of the worlds climate patterns than is being thrown up as gospel when it comes to this subject... to establish that mankind is in fact so royally screwing up the planet that she wont recover.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
i doubt youd ever meet a less conservative person than me polaris. what i am not is an hysterical treehugger who runs around screaming the sky is falling. the only thing that could make my carbon footprint any smaller is if i went total solar power instead of just hot water solar.but to me thats neother here nor there. so long as governments allow industry to chug along the way theyve always done, i will always be sceptical of any policy they vomit up... but then again thats got nothing to do with whats actually going on, has it? to me 60 years is miniscule in the lifetime of the earth and if someone is gonna use it as a time measure of ' impending catastrophe' and climate change, then i am gonna have to laugh at them.
i do not choose to ignore the science.. i choose to question it. thats all.. question it. science is about questions. and its about proving theories.. and doing more so than empirically. i want to look at a greater history of the worlds climate patterns than is being thrown up as gospel when it comes to this subject... to establish that mankind is in fact so royally screwing up the planet that she wont recover.
i'm not calling you a conservative ... i am just saying you are siding with the conservatives on this one ... folks like the one i mentioned ... i think your comment about hysterical treehugger is indicative of your lack of understanding on this subject ... i work for a big corporation and i can pretty much guarantee you they big wigs vote conservative but even they understand global warming is real ... why? ... because they understand the science ...
i tried to show you earlier your 60 year time frame is absurd with the cancer analogy ... if 60 years is not enough for you ... what is? ... the earth is 4.5 billion years old ... you want a thousand years? ... in the mean time we will continue to see the effects of global warming while you wait ...
saying 60 years is miniscule is not questioning the science ... like i say to every one on here ... read up on the greenhouse effect and question that ... prove to me the greenhouse effect is false, prove to me that temperature isn't a key factor in altering weather, tell me the earth is in fact not warming, tell me air cannot hold more moisture as temperature increases ... tell me anything to prove the fundamental science is wrong - until then, continuing to cast doubt simply because you think there is not enough empirical data (something that has been addressed in the science) does not further our understanding but distracts us from what needs to happen ...
i tried to show you earlier your 60 year time frame is absurd with the cancer analogy ... if 60 years is not enough for you ... what is? ... the earth is 4.5 billion years old ... you want a thousand years? ... in the mean time we will continue to see the effects of global warming while you wait ...
this is the thing polaris... i cant wait.. we as a species cant wait. but we need more than a 60 years time frame. in the lifetime of our planet, that is nothing. in fact in the scheme of thing, mankinds life existence is nothing. however... what mankind has done in that life existence is not to be scoffed at.. and i dont. i know what weve done.. but i also know that within the lifespan of the earth we are like a punch in the face... it friggin hurts but in the end the planet will recover.
does that mean we dont take action to minimise our impact?? NO it does not. do i believe the planet is warming? YES i do. ive stated that before. do i belive the climate of the earth is being changed by the actions of humans??? honestly my jury is still out on that. we definitely have an impact on the environment and ive never said otherwise. but what i question is whether or n ot these changes in climate have/not happened before. do we ride so high on our ego horse that we see a correlation unquestioned between this climate change and our own existence?
im sorry if it offends you that im asking for more evidence over a greater timeframe but thats just the way i am. .. but i will continue to live the way i have and to continue to attempt to lower my footprint, not for any other reason but i think its the right thing to do. if you(generally speaking) want, amongst other things, to continue to drive your gas guzzling vehicle then tha is your concern, not mine.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
does that mean we dont take action to minimise our impact?? NO it does not. do i believe the planet is warming? YES i do. ive stated that before. do i belive the climate of the earth is being changed by the actions of humans??? honestly my jury is still out on that. we definitely have an impact on the environment and ive never said otherwise. but what i question is whether or n ot these changes in climate have/not happened before. do we ride so high on our ego horse that we see a correlation unquestioned between this climate change and our own existence?
im sorry if it offends you that im asking for more evidence over a greater timeframe but thats just the way i am. .. but i will continue to live the way i have and to continue to attempt to lower my footprint, not for any other reason but i think its the right thing to do. if you(generally speaking) want, amongst other things, to continue to drive your gas guzzling vehicle then tha is your concern, not mine.
the problem is that everything you say has been addressed in the science ... hence my assertion that you are ignoring it ... it has nothing to do with egos or hysterical treehuggers ... it has everything to do with science ... you should always question science as like everything else we are told ... but asking for more time is absolutely absurd - when time is not a foundation of the science ... we did not need 100 years to link lung cancer to smoking ...
the problem is that everything you say has been addressed in the science ... hence my assertion that you are ignoring it ... it has nothing to do with egos or hysterical treehuggers ... it has everything to do with science ... you should always question science as like everything else we are told ... but asking for more time is absolutely absurd - when time is not a foundation of the science... we did not need 100 years to link skin cancer to smoking...
absurd???? i dont think so. i want to see that the cycle the earth is going through now hasnt happened before. and that seems reasonable to me.
we are on the same side polaris.. im sure you realise that. i am not ignoring the science, i am questioning it.. and i will continue to question it til someone shows me that what we are currently experiencing isnt a repeated pattern. i do not think that is unreasonable. but until someone does i will continue to live as my conscious dictates by stepping lightly and leaving as minimal footprint as i can.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
absurd???? i dont think so. i want to see that the cycle the earth is going through now hasnt happened before. and that seems reasonable to me.
we are on the same side polaris.. im sure you realise that. i am not ignoring the science, i am questioning it.. and i will continue to question it til someone shows me that what we are currently experiencing isnt a repeated pattern. i do not think that is unreasonable. but until someone does i will continue to live as my conscious dictates by stepping lightly and leaving as minimal footprint as i can.
listen ... i commend you on the way you live your life but these threads have never been about personal judgement ... you can have a huge footprint and it still doesn't change the context of our discussion ... you are missing my point when you say you are not ignoring it but questioning it ... again, your issues with cyclical patterns and the amount of empirical data has been addressed in the science ... i say you ignore it because you keep saying the same things that have been addressed over and over again ...
manipulation of observational data in order to promote a particular point of view seems to be the norm with the IPCC, seems to be the norm for AGW warmists in general for that matter
Quote:
The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report of 2007 (AR4) contained various errors, including the well publicised overestimate of the speed at which Himalayan glaciers would melt. However, the IPCC’s defenders point out that such errors were inadvertent and inconsequential: they did not undermine the scientific basis of AR4. Here I demonstrate an error in the core scientific report (WGI) that came about through the IPCC’s alteration of a peer-reviewed result. This error is highly consequential, since it involves the only instrumental evidence that is climate-model independent cited by the IPCC as to the probability distribution of climate sensitivity, and it substantially increases the apparent risk of high warming from increases in CO2 concentration.
Comments
o.k, but the post "what have I lost" was not in any way one of self only concern I would like to know that we will go to heaven one day and be with God but most of you do not believe and there is nothing I can say to change your minds. and Byrnzies quest to be right on with every subject with out comprimise tells me he is guilty of what I am being accused of.
Godfather.
i'm not sure how god has anything to do with this thread ...
because the post "what have I lost"was taken from a post I made about my belief in God...what do I have to lose by Believing in God .
Godfather.
ahhh ... i only saw the quote byrnzie posted ...
cool.
Godfather.
Actually it's both...I can still be skeptical without causing unnecessary waste. Then then ban plastic bottles, plastic bags, then give companies a time frame in which to come up with a better solution for packaging their products...whether your a skeptic or believer you can sill do your part...trying to leave the planet cleaner hurts no one...and motivation should matter little.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
for sure ... but like i said ... i said not likely part of the solution ... and i don't think i'm off to think someone who doesn't believe in global warming is probably not trying to fix it either ...
A Nutshell History of Climate-Change Hysteria
By Anthony J. Sadar
At a time when the push is on to subject humanity to more crazy, shortsighted progressive environmental programs (read carbon regulations) to "save the earth" from its human population, a brief look at progressive airy predictions of the past is in order.
Enlightenment from the campus teach-ins of the 1960s and early 1970s slowly invaded conventional college classrooms so that the hippie-generation mentality of the time eventually became the hip academic norm. But, excitement over such topics as the planet's imminent collapse from too many people and too much ice quickly waned when population increases yielded no global food fights and Mother Earth began to melt her once-advancing ice caps.
Up until at least the mid-1970s, the frenzy to rescue the planet from industrial chemicals, especially pesticides like DDT, was fueled by Rachel Carson's alluring book Silent Spring. This work, published in 1962, sparked the modern environmental movement, providing activists with both a laudable goal (cleaning up the planet) and reprehensible ones (portraying industry and modern society as enemies). Silent Spring made it rather obvious to some that the modern industrial society needed to be disarmed of its "weapons" (synthetic chemicals). Regardless of the fact that it is the careless practices of industry and the wasteful excesses of society that should have been precisely targeted, not modernity per se, the battle to save the planet was on.
One battleground that soon became the main theater of the war was society's culpability to climate change. But, early on, the conflict was quite different from what it is today. In the 1970s, besides Vietnam, society was sensitized to a worldwide cooling trend. In addition to cover stories in Time, Newsweek, and other popular magazines of the era, the cover of books like The Cooling by Lowell Ponte teased, "Has the next ice age already begun? Can we survive it?" Inside the book, Mr. Ponte notes, "A handful of scientists denied evidence that Earth's climate was cooling until the 1970s, when bizarre weather throughout the world forced them to reconsider their views."
The cover of Our Changing Weather: Forecast of Disaster? by Claude Rose pondered "Will our fuel run out? Will our food be destroyed? Will we freeze?" The back cover claimed: "Northern hemisphere temperatures have been falling steadily since the 1940s. Glaciers are advancing once again. Scientists no longer debate the coming of a new ice age: the question now is when?" ("Scientists no longer debate..." sound familiar?)
Kids were prepped for the coming catastrophe with a brief book by Henry Gilfond called The New Ice Age, which boldly displayed on its dust jacket large thermometers with ominously dropping temperature levels.
In addition, society was informed at the time from another sector, but with a more hopeful approach. A Christian tract by Walter Lang and Vic Lockman proclaimed: Need We Fear Another Ice Age?
And, of course, students were being properly taught to face the inevitable. For instance, some learned that polar bears might roam New York City (which proved true, but luckily they've been captured in the Central Park Zoo). Even future atmospheric scientists discovered the scientific foundations for the advancing ice in meteorology lectures at The Pennsylvania State University.
Well, as we all now know, the frights of the past were unfounded. We were encouraged to be scared of the wrong things. We have come to realize that it wasn't a "human volcano" of particles from an industrial society that would be chilling thermometers into the future, rather human-produced gases, primarily carbon dioxide, that would send the mercury soaring.
The current hype was officially kicked off with a proclamation by Dr. James Hansen of NASA in his testimony before Congress on June 23, 1988. Dr. Hansen announced that "the greenhouse effect is here and is affecting our climate now." With that statement, bolstered by a room purposefully made very warm and humid for the hearing and an unusually hot and dry summer in the eastern part of the U.S. that year, hothouse-earth hysteria was off and running.
In the late 90s, to support the new storyline, actual temperature measurements after 1900 were appended to proxy temperature data (e.g., using tree-ring analysis) from prior to 1900 to produce the infamous "hockey stick" graph. This graph replaced the traditional temperature trend graph in the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change official global climate report for 2001. The supplanted traditional graph had clearly, but inconveniently, displayed a "medieval warm period" from about the 10th to 13th centuries AD and "little ice age" generally from the 17th century until the mid-1800s. Furthermore, the hockey-stick graph was featured in Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth and unfortuately has replaced the traditional graph in a popular climatology textbook used to instruct a new generation of Penn State students.
The rising temperature trend experienced most recently (a trend currently leveling off) began in the mid- to late 1970s. This trend was first referred to in the 1980s as the "greenhouse effect" (which is a generic descriptor of roughly -- very roughly -- how warming of the planet occurs), the popular term became "global warming" in the 1990s, and finally conveniently morphed into "climate change," just in time to hedge against weather variability (that continues to alert an increasingly incredulous public).
As it turns out, though, "all's well that ends well." Fortunately for Mother Earth and her people, academic scientists have been laden with plenty of government funds to thoroughly research the atmosphere to arrive at confident conclusions. These scientists are now finally able to assure us that climate calamity caused by industry and callous working-class culprits -- and definitely not, for instance, the sun -- can be declared with absolute total academic certainty, theoretically. And, fortunately with enough dollars (billions upon billions of them) redistributed in the right way to correct our errant ways, the global village may yet experience its climate nirvana.
— Socrates
another article that regurgitates the same talking points ... i.e. global cooling, scientists doing for funding, etc ...
so sad ... please feel free to read up on the greenhouse effect and come back when you have an independent thought ...
— Socrates
dude ... your repost of these op-ed pieces has been addressed everywhere including here over and over again ...
show me you understand the topic and let's have an honest discussion ... re-posting links of people who say the things you want to hear does not count ... the thing with many of the links you post is that if you think critically, you will see that they hold no substance to them ...
i'll continue to ignorantly and indiscriminately add some balance to discussions here, read it, attempt to understand if you want if not dont.
"the only thing I know is that I know nothing"- socrates
— Socrates
i'm not surprised as none of your other skeptic colleagues have taken it up either ...
Well probably not much more I can do to be part of the solution...I have no more say over what the government environmental policy is, anymore than the next person...but I do try to do my part...
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
I'm going to stick my neck out a bit on this and say that recycling as a concept is great but as an action, does not do a great deal to alleviate the environmental problems we face-- and I say this as a fanatical recycler. The hidden problem with recycling is that it gives the illusion of it being ok to continue to consume on a huge scale. Resources that are recycled are better than material in a landfill, but enregy is consumed and pollution is produced when products are recycled. So the obvious solution is to just use less stuff in the first place. Do you recyle the plastic clams your lunch came in? Fine. But a better solution- if you get take out, ask for it on a real plate and return the plate. I've done this several times- no kidding-- and no trash. Best solution- make your own meals from scratch. Do you combine trips in your car? Great! But a better idea is to ride share at the same time. The best solution is to walk.
I could bore us all with endless examples of what I'm saying, but the idea is to think and and act in terms of using less.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
nor did i say they did. oh and i think we just agreed.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
my favourite thing in the supermarket is recycled toilet paper wrapped in plastic.
im assuming by recycled toilet paper they mean toilet paper made from recycled paper.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
im not a sceptic, just cautiously questioning... like i do with everything.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
My favorite product at the market is the toilet paper that has no core. The commercials for this product emphasizes that it's environmentally aware, (because there's no cardboard core) yet the toilet paper is made from virgin fibers (freshly cut down trees). What idiots that thought up that one.
probably one of those idiots from the fortune 500.
Godfather.
Experts warn epic weather ravaging US could worsen
Epic floods, massive wildfires, drought and the deadliest tornado season in 60 years are ravaging the United States, with scientists warning that climate change will bring even more extreme weather.
The human and economic toll over just the past few months has been staggering: hundreds of people have died, and thousands of homes and millions of acres have been lost at a cost estimated at more than $20 billion.
And the United States has not even entered peak hurricane season.
"This spring was one of the most extreme springs that we've seen in the last century since we've had good records," said Deke Arndt, chief of climate monitoring for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
While it's not possible to tie a specific weather event or pattern to climate change, Arndt said this spring's extreme weather is in line with what is forecast for the future.
"In general, but not everywhere, it is expected that the wetter places will get wetter and the drier places will tend to see more prolonged dry periods," he told AFP.
"We are seeing an increase in the amount (of rain and snow) that comes at once, and the ramifications are that it's a lot more water to deal with at a time, so you see things like flooding."
More than 6.8 million acres in the central United States have been swamped after record spring rainfall overwhelmed rivers already swollen from the melting of a heavy winter snow pack.
Some levees burst under the pressure as the mighty Mississippi River swelled to more than three miles (nearly five kilometers) in width. Others were intentionally breached in order to ease pressure and protect cities downstream.
The latest flooding along the Missouri River has forced mass evacuations and threatened to inundate two nuclear power plants in Nebraska.
Meanwhile, the southern United States is dealing with one of the most extreme droughts since the dust bowl of the 1930s, and the dry conditions have led to massive and uncontrollable wildfires.
More than 4.7 million acres have been burned in some 32,000 separate fires so far this year, which is more than twice the annual average over the past decade, according to the National Interagency Fire Center.
Texas, Arizona and New Mexico have lost the most land, and one fire even spread to the grounds of the top US nuclear research lab on Monday.
As with the plants in Nebraska, officials said the nuclear material stored inside is safe and that no contaminants have been released.
While most people have been able to escape the slow-moving floodwaters and wildfires unharmed, the spring's violent storms have unleashed scenes of apocalyptic destruction.
Tornadoes have killed 542 people so far this year, making 2011 the deadliest tornado season since 1936 and the fourth worst on record, according to the National Weather Service.
Two bad days accounted for nearly all the deaths: an outbreak of dozens of tornadoes that killed 314 people in five southern states on April 27, and a nearly mile-wide twister that cut a six-mile (nearly 10 kilometer) swath of destruction through Joplin, Missouri on May 22, killing 146 people.
Climate change could bring less tornadoes, because while a warmer atmosphere will absorb more precipitation, causing more storms, it could also reduce the wind shear that builds storm intensity when cold and warm fronts collide.
However, the intensity of future droughts, heat waves, storms and floods is expected to rise drastically if greenhouse gas emissions don't stabilize soon, said Michael Mann, a scientist at Penn State University.
"Even a couple degree warming can make a 100-year event a three-year event," Mann, the head of the university's earth systems science center, told AFP.
"It has to do with the tail of the bell curve. When you move the bell curve, that area changes dramatically."
More extreme weather is expected in the coming months, said Jon Gottschalck, head of forecast operations at NOAA's climate prediction center.
"We're expecting warmer than normal conditions to continue across much of the south. The drought is probably going to continue in many areas," he said.
"We also expect wetter than normal conditions to continue for the next season or two in the northern Rockies...and an active hurricane season."
the deadliest season in 60 years. wow that long huh?.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
:? :(
i find it sad that you continue to post these statements ... embrace your skepticism and join the ranks of the GOP and blockhead and godfather and our conservative brethren here ... because it is clear that like those folks, you choose to ignore the science ... and choose to not spend the time it takes to form a more compelling case ...
meanwhile ... we will continue to see significant suffering because of these events ...
i doubt youd ever meet a less conservative person than me polaris. what i am not is an hysterical treehugger who runs around screaming the sky is falling. the only thing that could make my carbon footprint any smaller is if i went total solar power instead of just hot water solar.but to me thats neother here nor there. so long as governments allow industry to chug along the way theyve always done, i will always be sceptical of any policy they vomit up... but then again thats got nothing to do with whats actually going on, has it? to me 60 years is miniscule in the lifetime of the earth and if someone is gonna use it as a time measure of ' impending catastrophe' and climate change, then i am gonna have to laugh at them.
i do not choose to ignore the science.. i choose to question it. thats all.. question it. science is about questions. and its about proving theories.. and doing more so than empirically. i want to look at a greater history of the worlds climate patterns than is being thrown up as gospel when it comes to this subject... to establish that mankind is in fact so royally screwing up the planet that she wont recover.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
i'm not calling you a conservative ... i am just saying you are siding with the conservatives on this one ... folks like the one i mentioned ... i think your comment about hysterical treehugger is indicative of your lack of understanding on this subject ... i work for a big corporation and i can pretty much guarantee you they big wigs vote conservative but even they understand global warming is real ... why? ... because they understand the science ...
i tried to show you earlier your 60 year time frame is absurd with the cancer analogy ... if 60 years is not enough for you ... what is? ... the earth is 4.5 billion years old ... you want a thousand years? ... in the mean time we will continue to see the effects of global warming while you wait ...
saying 60 years is miniscule is not questioning the science ... like i say to every one on here ... read up on the greenhouse effect and question that ... prove to me the greenhouse effect is false, prove to me that temperature isn't a key factor in altering weather, tell me the earth is in fact not warming, tell me air cannot hold more moisture as temperature increases ... tell me anything to prove the fundamental science is wrong - until then, continuing to cast doubt simply because you think there is not enough empirical data (something that has been addressed in the science) does not further our understanding but distracts us from what needs to happen ...
this is the thing polaris... i cant wait.. we as a species cant wait. but we need more than a 60 years time frame. in the lifetime of our planet, that is nothing. in fact in the scheme of thing, mankinds life existence is nothing. however... what mankind has done in that life existence is not to be scoffed at.. and i dont. i know what weve done.. but i also know that within the lifespan of the earth we are like a punch in the face... it friggin hurts but in the end the planet will recover.
does that mean we dont take action to minimise our impact?? NO it does not. do i believe the planet is warming? YES i do. ive stated that before. do i belive the climate of the earth is being changed by the actions of humans??? honestly my jury is still out on that. we definitely have an impact on the environment and ive never said otherwise. but what i question is whether or n ot these changes in climate have/not happened before. do we ride so high on our ego horse that we see a correlation unquestioned between this climate change and our own existence?
im sorry if it offends you that im asking for more evidence over a greater timeframe but thats just the way i am. .. but i will continue to live the way i have and to continue to attempt to lower my footprint, not for any other reason but i think its the right thing to do. if you(generally speaking) want, amongst other things, to continue to drive your gas guzzling vehicle then tha is your concern, not mine.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
the problem is that everything you say has been addressed in the science ... hence my assertion that you are ignoring it ... it has nothing to do with egos or hysterical treehuggers ... it has everything to do with science ... you should always question science as like everything else we are told ... but asking for more time is absolutely absurd - when time is not a foundation of the science ... we did not need 100 years to link lung cancer to smoking ...
...and yet we still allow people access to cigarettes.
absurd???? i dont think so. i want to see that the cycle the earth is going through now hasnt happened before. and that seems reasonable to me.
we are on the same side polaris.. im sure you realise that. i am not ignoring the science, i am questioning it.. and i will continue to question it til someone shows me that what we are currently experiencing isnt a repeated pattern. i do not think that is unreasonable. but until someone does i will continue to live as my conscious dictates by stepping lightly and leaving as minimal footprint as i can.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
but we aren't debating the fact it can cause cancer
listen ... i commend you on the way you live your life but these threads have never been about personal judgement ... you can have a huge footprint and it still doesn't change the context of our discussion ... you are missing my point when you say you are not ignoring it but questioning it ... again, your issues with cyclical patterns and the amount of empirical data has been addressed in the science ... i say you ignore it because you keep saying the same things that have been addressed over and over again ...
Quote:
The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report of 2007 (AR4) contained various errors, including the well publicised overestimate of the speed at which Himalayan glaciers would melt. However, the IPCC’s defenders point out that such errors were inadvertent and inconsequential: they did not undermine the scientific basis of AR4. Here I demonstrate an error in the core scientific report (WGI) that came about through the IPCC’s alteration of a peer-reviewed result. This error is highly consequential, since it involves the only instrumental evidence that is climate-model independent cited by the IPCC as to the probability distribution of climate sensitivity, and it substantially increases the apparent risk of high warming from increases in CO2 concentration.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/07/05/th...ivity-results/
lets see how long it takes the apologists to come into this thread and start making excuses