polaris_x check this out I don't know that it's much but some cool stuff non the less.
Godfather.
Just found (Dec 09) CIA cooling report: "The western world's leadlng climatologists have confirmed reports of a detrimental global climatic change [cooling]. The stability of most nations is based upon a dependable source of food, but this stability will not be possible under the new cllmatic era. A forecast by the University of Wisconsin projects that the Earth's climate is returning to that of the neo·boreal era (1600-1850) - an era of drought, famine, and political unrest in the western world." (1974)
polaris_x check this out I don't know that it's much but some cool stuff non the less.
Godfather.
Just found (Dec 09) CIA cooling report: "The western world's leadlng climatologists have confirmed reports of a detrimental global climatic change [cooling]. The stability of most nations is based upon a dependable source of food, but this stability will not be possible under the new cllmatic era. A forecast by the University of Wisconsin projects that the Earth's climate is returning to that of the neo·boreal era (1600-1850) - an era of drought, famine, and political unrest in the western world." (1974)
If you search for parts of this quote online you find skeptics posting on message boards all over the place who in turn call people retarded and sheep if they don't believe it and instead choose to believe in WAY more scientifically-backed global warming theories. You know, because a single theorizing article from 1974 clearly proves a lot:
If you search for parts of this quote online you find skeptics posting on message boards all over the place who in turn call people retarded and sheep if they don't believe it and instead choose to believe in WAY more scientifically-backed global warming theories. You know, because a single theorizing article from 1974 clearly proves a lot:
godfather ... if you google "global warming is a myth" or anything like that - you will find a ton of crap out there ...
this is why i beg people to take 15 mins to understand the science of global warming ... not to necessarily believe in it or its multitude of consequences ... but at least understand the base science ... then make up your mind on your own ... instead of relying on others to tell you what to think ...
it will, at the very least, give you the foundation by which to debate against it ...
we all know what you are doing now ... googling for anything that might dispel the science and then posting a ... "this is kind of interesting ..." ... it's doing no one any good especially yourself ...
take the politics out of this ... forget that fox and the republicans typically don't believe in global warming ... and forget that al gore talks about it ...
if your kid got sick with some disease ... would you not research it and learn about it? ... or would you just rely on a bias sourced for your information?
If you search for parts of this quote online you find skeptics posting on message boards all over the place who in turn call people retarded and sheep if they don't believe it and instead choose to believe in WAY more scientifically-backed global warming theories. You know, because a single theorizing article from 1974 clearly proves a lot:
godfather ... if you google "global warming is a myth" or anything like that - you will find a ton of crap out there ...
this is why i beg people to take 15 mins to understand the science of global warming ... not to necessarily believe in it or its multitude of consequences ... but at least understand the base science ... then make up your mind on your own ... instead of relying on others to tell you what to think ...
it will, at the very least, give you the foundation by which to debate against it ...
we all know what you are doing now ... googling for anything that might dispel the science and then posting a ... "this is kind of interesting ..." ... it's doing no one any good especially yourself ...
take the politics out of this ... forget that fox and the republicans typically don't believe in global warming ... and forget that al gore talks about it ...
if your kid got sick with some disease ... would you not research it and learn about it? ... or would you just rely on a bias sourced for your information?
So true. Using Google to research anything can be helpful but you can also find Google sites that will deny anything or make just about any kind of off-the-wall statement you can think of- that the world is flat, that the government is keeping and training super-human Giants in hidden Grand Canyon side canyons (I actually know someone who believes this), that the Chinese have found a way to miniaturize themselves to the point where they can cause a plague by being inhaled... oh wait, that one IS true- I read about it in a Kurt Vonnegut's book, Slapstick.
There's no substitute for good, serious research from a number of credible sources. A quick Google search does not provide a solid education.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
A peer-reviewed climate change study released Wednesday by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change finds the threat of man-made global warming to be not only greatly exaggerated but so small as to be “embedded within the background variability of the natural climate system” and not dangerous.
Armed with the new findings, Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee grilled administration environmental policy officials about the economic consequences of its aggressive regulatory crackdown on the fossil fuel industry.
The 1,000 page study was the work of 47 scientists and scholars examining many of the same journals and studies that the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change (UNIPCC) examined, producing entirely different conclusions.
A U.K. tabloid newspaper claimed to have a leaked, final copy of the a U.N. climate change report, saying it revealed the panel was rolling back “exaggerated” claims of global warming. But a scientist is not only refuting the claims but also the alleged “leak” of the report as well.
“…a leak is actually not the most appropriate term here, because just about anyone could sign up and receive the early draft” of the report, John Cook, with the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland, told Radio Australia.
“So these leaks aren’t done necessarily by the climate fighters who are writing the reports. They’re most likely done just by anyone online, on the internet, who signed up to be a commentator. So it’s not like a whistleblower, finding something sensational,” Cook, the creator of skepticalscience.com, continued.
The International Panel of Climate Change is set to publish its final assessment report next week but the Sunday Mail Online claimed to have obtained a copy that reportedly scales back earlier predictions.
A peer-reviewed climate change study released Wednesday by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change finds the threat of man-made global warming to be not only greatly exaggerated but so small as to be “embedded within the background variability of the natural climate system” and not dangerous.
Armed with the new findings, Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee grilled administration environmental policy officials about the economic consequences of its aggressive regulatory crackdown on the fossil fuel industry.
The 1,000 page study was the work of 47 scientists and scholars examining many of the same journals and studies that the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change (UNIPCC) examined, producing entirely different conclusions.
A peer-reviewed climate change study released Wednesday by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change finds the threat of man-made global warming to be not only greatly exaggerated but so small as to be “embedded within the background variability of the natural climate system” and not dangerous.
Armed with the new findings, Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee grilled administration environmental policy officials about the economic consequences of its aggressive regulatory crackdown on the fossil fuel industry.
The 1,000 page study was the work of 47 scientists and scholars examining many of the same journals and studies that the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change (UNIPCC) examined, producing entirely different conclusions.
these guys also tell you second hand smoke won't do you any harm ...
:fp:
meanwhile flooding in colorado has killed a bunch of people ... landslides in mexico also resulting in death ... typhoon in japan causing death ...
godfather - you're not showing a different side to the debate ... you are pimping propaganda ... you are feeding your bias ... seriously, 15 mins ... it's not rocket science here to understand how man is causing global warming ... once you learn that - everything is much easier to understand ...
I'm pretty sure Godfather is playing Devil's Advocate in this argument while knowing full well what his own common sense tells him.
Even without science... if one was to stand on a tall building in a big city, look out and observe human activity for that one city alone... they could come to some pretty quick conclusions that: sustaining our current lifestyle is impossible; and our activities are having an impact on our earth.
If things don't change... one generation is going to have a really, really rough time of it.
In my lifetime as a football fan I cannot remember many NFL games delayed due to extreme weather. Through the first two weeks of the 2013 season there have been three such delays. Call it whatever you want but something is changing around us.
the other day the resort town of Acapulco was hit by a tropical storm wiping out a lot of the main roads into the town ... there was some looting and crime but mostly it was vacationers stranded ... all just wanting to get home ...
at some point during the trying event ... armed escorts took a bunch of wealthy people safely away via helicopters or private jets ...
this is what everyone needs to ultimately know about global warming ... regardless of its specific consequence ... the ability to adapt will be specific to your economic standing in the world ... it is a large reason why there really has been no action on this ... the global elite who dictate policy will survive global warming quite nicely as they continue to redistribute wealth in their favour ... the less well to do and poor will be the ones to suffer the greatest consequences ...
the other day the resort town of Acapulco was hit by a tropical storm wiping out a lot of the main roads into the town ... there was some looting and crime but mostly it was vacationers stranded ... all just wanting to get home ...
at some point during the trying event ... armed escorts took a bunch of wealthy people safely away via helicopters or private jets ...
this is what everyone needs to ultimately know about global warming ... regardless of its specific consequence ... the ability to adapt will be specific to your economic standing in the world ... it is a large reason why there really has been no action on this ... the global elite who dictate policy will survive global warming quite nicely as they continue to redistribute wealth in their favour ... the less well to do and poor will be the ones to suffer the greatest consequences ...
Short term thinking on the part of those that pull the strings. Greed and indifference reign supreme. People get it... but are limited in their capacity to do anything about it.
It doesn't help when portions of the masses refuse to 'buy in' and deny the mounting epidemic- allowing fat cats to continue their harmful practices so their bank accounts might grow.
I'm pretty sure Godfather is playing Devil's Advocate in this argument while knowing full well what his own common sense tells him.
Even without science... if one was to stand on a tall building in a big city, look out and observe human activity for that one city alone... they could come to some pretty quick conclusions that: sustaining our current lifestyle is impossible; and our activities are having an impact on our earth.
If things don't change... one generation is going to have a really, really rough time of it.
Short term thinking on the part of those that pull the strings. Greed and indifference reign supreme. People get it... but are limited in their capacity to do anything about it.
It doesn't help when portions of the masses refuse to 'buy in' and deny the mounting epidemic- allowing fat cats to continue their harmful practices so their bank accounts might grow.
i don't know if people really get it ... because the fix is in front of us ... it wouldn't really cost us much ... all the fix really does is stop certain interests from making more money than they already are ...
use less energy ... that's a no brainer for all of us ... win/win ... stop pollution/global warming and save money ... if we really got it - we wouldn't need our gov'ts who are just lackeys for corporations now anyways to do anything because we can make that change ourselves ...
and don't get me wrong ... i know a lot of people are making the small changes whether they believe in this or not ... because ultimately, like i said - it's a win/win ... but this transcends all we do ... there is no reason why we shouldn't be mostly driving electric vehicles ...
I'm pretty sure Godfather is playing Devil's Advocate in this argument while knowing full well what his own common sense tells him.
Even without science... if one was to stand on a tall building in a big city, look out and observe human activity for that one city alone... they could come to some pretty quick conclusions that: sustaining our current lifestyle is impossible; and our activities are having an impact on our earth.
If things don't change... one generation is going to have a really, really rough time of it.
you are right about the devils advocate thing,I understand what you all are saying about human activity and air so thick you can slice it with a knife but as I've said before I don't know if really has as great a impact on climet change as many say so when I post thiese things I'm just showing the other side of the argument because there are some folks out there that don't either know as I don't or just don't believe it with their own scince and news stories.
I'm not asking anyone on the AMT to believe anything I'm just showing what other people have to say about.
there is no reason why we shouldn't be mostly driving electric vehicles ...
My reason for not driving one is they do not have a large enough range nor enough power.
Now you can argue that those who could be developing that technology have been hampered or prevented in some way or by some conspiracy, but those reasons (plus cost) are why I don't drive one.
If they were competitively priced, could travel several hundred miles without a charge and have significant towing power, I wouldn't think twice about purchasing one.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
there is no reason why we shouldn't be mostly driving electric vehicles ...
My reason for not driving one is they do not have a large enough range nor enough power.
Now you can argue that those who could be developing that technology have been hampered or prevented in some way or by some conspiracy, but those reasons (plus cost) are why I don't drive one.
If they were competitively priced, could travel several hundred miles without a charge and have significant towing power, I wouldn't think twice about purchasing one.
there is no reason why we shouldn't be mostly driving electric vehicles ...
My reason for not driving one is they do not have a large enough range nor enough power.
Now you can argue that those who could be developing that technology have been hampered or prevented in some way or by some conspiracy, but those reasons (plus cost) are why I don't drive one.
If they were competitively priced, could travel several hundred miles without a charge and have significant towing power, I wouldn't think twice about purchasing one.
for sure if you need that range and or power or whatever ... but the reality is the vast majority of us drive very short commutes without the necessities you may have ...
there is no reason why we shouldn't be mostly driving electric vehicles ...
My reason for not driving one is they do not have a large enough range nor enough power.
Now you can argue that those who could be developing that technology have been hampered or prevented in some way or by some conspiracy, but those reasons (plus cost) are why I don't drive one.
If they were competitively priced, could travel several hundred miles without a charge and have significant towing power, I wouldn't think twice about purchasing one.
for sure if you need that range and or power or whatever ... but the reality is the vast majority of us drive very short commutes without the necessities you may have ...
My commute is about 40 miles round trip, but just considering your daily commute is a bit short sighted. For example, I'm going to see Pearl Jam in about a month on consecutive days where I'm driving 6 hours, 4 hours and then 6 hours. Also, I have family members that I visit that are an hour and a half away that I visit regularly. I occasionally have to drive up to 6 hours one way for my job, too. What would I do if I just had an electric vehicle?
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
My commute is about 40 miles round trip, but just considering your daily commute is a bit short sighted. For example, I'm going to see Pearl Jam in about a month on consecutive days where I'm driving 6 hours, 4 hours and then 6 hours. Also, I have family members that I visit that are an hour and a half away that I visit regularly. I occasionally have to drive up to 6 hours one way for my job, too. What would I do if I just had an electric vehicle?
c'mon ... we already know there is an infrastructure gap ... but that doesn't make it not viable ... once EVs become more prevalent - there will be charging stations everywhere ...
the tesla has a range of like 250 miles ... so, that would satisfy pretty much all your requirements ... giving me examples of occasional uses is absurd ... i could list a dozen on regular cars ... i need to move a boat, i need to drive through a river, etc... you buy the car that best suits your every day needs ... that's what people do ...
i repeat ... the vast majority of people who drive now ... drive by themselves and for distances current generation EVs can easily handle ... plus, when you park the car ... you can charge it as long as there is a plug handy ... not the biggest obstacle in the world ...
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Earth could continue to host life for at least another 1.75 billion years, as long as nuclear holocaust, an errant asteroid or some other disaster doesn't intervene, a new study calculates.
But even without such dramatic doomsday scenarios, astronomical forces will eventually render the planet uninhabitable. Somewhere between 1.75 billion and 3.25 billion years from now, Earth will travel out of the solar system's habitable zone and into the "hot zone," new research indicates.
Are we still referring to Fox News as a credible news source?
Sorry Godfather, but really?
just read the info and if you like cross referance it with your own source.
I'm still not asking you to be a fox news fan,I just posted an interesting story not a fox debate.
Comments
i need a link or a source ...
Link to the article from 1974:
http://www.hsdl.org/?abstract&did=72543 ... d=advanced
If you search for parts of this quote online you find skeptics posting on message boards all over the place who in turn call people retarded and sheep if they don't believe it and instead choose to believe in WAY more scientifically-backed global warming theories. You know, because a single theorizing article from 1974 clearly proves a lot:
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22retu ... e&ie=UTF-8
Oh, and you also get a link to www.climatecooling.com. How rich.
Typo Man: "Thanks kidz, but remembir, stay in skool!"
ohhh ... this crap again ...
godfather ... if you google "global warming is a myth" or anything like that - you will find a ton of crap out there ...
this is why i beg people to take 15 mins to understand the science of global warming ... not to necessarily believe in it or its multitude of consequences ... but at least understand the base science ... then make up your mind on your own ... instead of relying on others to tell you what to think ...
it will, at the very least, give you the foundation by which to debate against it ...
we all know what you are doing now ... googling for anything that might dispel the science and then posting a ... "this is kind of interesting ..." ... it's doing no one any good especially yourself ...
take the politics out of this ... forget that fox and the republicans typically don't believe in global warming ... and forget that al gore talks about it ...
if your kid got sick with some disease ... would you not research it and learn about it? ... or would you just rely on a bias sourced for your information?
You can also raise awareness and put pressure on your local elected officials to support larger initiatives.
So true. Using Google to research anything can be helpful but you can also find Google sites that will deny anything or make just about any kind of off-the-wall statement you can think of- that the world is flat, that the government is keeping and training super-human Giants in hidden Grand Canyon side canyons (I actually know someone who believes this), that the Chinese have found a way to miniaturize themselves to the point where they can cause a plague by being inhaled... oh wait, that one IS true- I read about it in a Kurt Vonnegut's book, Slapstick.
There's no substitute for good, serious research from a number of credible sources. A quick Google search does not provide a solid education.
Armed with the new findings, Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee grilled administration environmental policy officials about the economic consequences of its aggressive regulatory crackdown on the fossil fuel industry.
The 1,000 page study was the work of 47 scientists and scholars examining many of the same journals and studies that the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change (UNIPCC) examined, producing entirely different conclusions.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09 ... z2fL2ktI33
just another side of the argument...or debate.
Godfather.
“…a leak is actually not the most appropriate term here, because just about anyone could sign up and receive the early draft” of the report, John Cook, with the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland, told Radio Australia.
“So these leaks aren’t done necessarily by the climate fighters who are writing the reports. They’re most likely done just by anyone online, on the internet, who signed up to be a commentator. So it’s not like a whistleblower, finding something sensational,” Cook, the creator of skepticalscience.com, continued.
The International Panel of Climate Change is set to publish its final assessment report next week but the Sunday Mail Online claimed to have obtained a copy that reportedly scales back earlier predictions.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/09 ... ing-back/#
I've never heard of the "Blaze" but I also found this.
Godfather.
Fox News is not going to give an objective perspective on anything really, but especially anything to do with the environment.
Backseatlover12
the heartland institute!? ... really? ... http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?ti ... _Institute
these guys also tell you second hand smoke won't do you any harm ...
:fp:
meanwhile flooding in colorado has killed a bunch of people ... landslides in mexico also resulting in death ... typhoon in japan causing death ...
godfather - you're not showing a different side to the debate ... you are pimping propaganda ... you are feeding your bias ... seriously, 15 mins ... it's not rocket science here to understand how man is causing global warming ... once you learn that - everything is much easier to understand ...
Even without science... if one was to stand on a tall building in a big city, look out and observe human activity for that one city alone... they could come to some pretty quick conclusions that: sustaining our current lifestyle is impossible; and our activities are having an impact on our earth.
If things don't change... one generation is going to have a really, really rough time of it.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
at some point during the trying event ... armed escorts took a bunch of wealthy people safely away via helicopters or private jets ...
this is what everyone needs to ultimately know about global warming ... regardless of its specific consequence ... the ability to adapt will be specific to your economic standing in the world ... it is a large reason why there really has been no action on this ... the global elite who dictate policy will survive global warming quite nicely as they continue to redistribute wealth in their favour ... the less well to do and poor will be the ones to suffer the greatest consequences ...
Short term thinking on the part of those that pull the strings. Greed and indifference reign supreme. People get it... but are limited in their capacity to do anything about it.
It doesn't help when portions of the masses refuse to 'buy in' and deny the mounting epidemic- allowing fat cats to continue their harmful practices so their bank accounts might grow.
Yeah, the last one.
There's actually quite a lot of science in fucking, if you think about it. :P
i don't know if people really get it ... because the fix is in front of us ... it wouldn't really cost us much ... all the fix really does is stop certain interests from making more money than they already are ...
use less energy ... that's a no brainer for all of us ... win/win ... stop pollution/global warming and save money ... if we really got it - we wouldn't need our gov'ts who are just lackeys for corporations now anyways to do anything because we can make that change ourselves ...
and don't get me wrong ... i know a lot of people are making the small changes whether they believe in this or not ... because ultimately, like i said - it's a win/win ... but this transcends all we do ... there is no reason why we shouldn't be mostly driving electric vehicles ...
you are right about the devils advocate thing,I understand what you all are saying about human activity and air so thick you can slice it with a knife but as I've said before I don't know if really has as great a impact on climet change as many say so when I post thiese things I'm just showing the other side of the argument because there are some folks out there that don't either know as I don't or just don't believe it with their own scince and news stories.
I'm not asking anyone on the AMT to believe anything I'm just showing what other people have to say about.
Godfather.
My reason for not driving one is they do not have a large enough range nor enough power.
Now you can argue that those who could be developing that technology have been hampered or prevented in some way or by some conspiracy, but those reasons (plus cost) are why I don't drive one.
If they were competitively priced, could travel several hundred miles without a charge and have significant towing power, I wouldn't think twice about purchasing one.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
I agree - but things will change. I just saw this, this morning:
http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/bulleti ... TRE4eb29b5
for sure if you need that range and or power or whatever ... but the reality is the vast majority of us drive very short commutes without the necessities you may have ...
My commute is about 40 miles round trip, but just considering your daily commute is a bit short sighted. For example, I'm going to see Pearl Jam in about a month on consecutive days where I'm driving 6 hours, 4 hours and then 6 hours. Also, I have family members that I visit that are an hour and a half away that I visit regularly. I occasionally have to drive up to 6 hours one way for my job, too. What would I do if I just had an electric vehicle?
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
c'mon ... we already know there is an infrastructure gap ... but that doesn't make it not viable ... once EVs become more prevalent - there will be charging stations everywhere ...
the tesla has a range of like 250 miles ... so, that would satisfy pretty much all your requirements ... giving me examples of occasional uses is absurd ... i could list a dozen on regular cars ... i need to move a boat, i need to drive through a river, etc... you buy the car that best suits your every day needs ... that's what people do ...
i repeat ... the vast majority of people who drive now ... drive by themselves and for distances current generation EVs can easily handle ... plus, when you park the car ... you can charge it as long as there is a plug handy ... not the biggest obstacle in the world ...
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
no to mention the most over used
Godfather.
Ah, but only because tea leaves are older than ouija boards and the ever popular crystal ball!
Ok, the bones say that their environment at KFC has in fact gotten hotter in the fyrers over the last sevral years.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
But even without such dramatic doomsday scenarios, astronomical forces will eventually render the planet uninhabitable. Somewhere between 1.75 billion and 3.25 billion years from now, Earth will travel out of the solar system's habitable zone and into the "hot zone," new research indicates.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/09/ ... z2fQvCqU4p
something interesting somewhat on/off topic.
Godfather.
Sorry Godfather, but really?
just read the info and if you like cross referance it with your own source.
I'm still not asking you to be a fox news fan,I just posted an interesting story not a fox debate.
Godfather.