1) Hemp needs to be exploited, as well as sugar cane. The embargos and tarrifs and shit are a fucking travesty. The dems have lost all credibility since touting fucking ethanol. Funny how we haven't heard about it since the Iowa primary. ROFL. This is the MOST infuriating thing about them. Ethanol is garbage.
2) Stopping federal funding and R&D money for everything. We shouldn't put any federal tax money into alternative fuels initiatives either. Let the states compete for it if they want.
He's wrong on adding a carbon tax. Fuck taxes. Fuck bailouts and fuck the Fed while I'm at it.
simply because you post articles with different opinions doesnt mean its refuted. it means there are 2 sides to the story and plenty of facts on both sides. get off your high horse already,
1) Hemp needs to be exploited, as well as sugar cane. The embargos and tarrifs and shit are a fucking travesty. The dems have lost all credibility since touting fucking ethanol. Funny how we haven't heard about it since the Iowa primary. ROFL. This is the MOST infuriating thing about them. Ethanol is garbage.
2) Stopping federal funding and R&D money for everything. We shouldn't put any federal tax money into alternative fuels initiatives either. Let the states compete for it if they want.
He's wrong on adding a carbon tax. Fuck taxes. Fuck bailouts and fuck the Fed while I'm at it.
I'm not a 'fuck taxes' type person, myself but I have heard some good arguments against them.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
We shouldn't put any federal tax money into alternative fuels initiatives either.
eek, I apologize for making fun of your thread title. you seem informed on this subject and care deeply about it. I respect that. but can you tell me why you feel the way you in regards to the statement I quoted
eek, I apologize for making fun of your thread title. you seem informed on this subject and care deeply about it. I respect that. but can you tell me why you feel the way you in regards to the statement I quoted
It would be hypocritical to start supporting alternative fuels. We currently give federal funds for nuclear program, as well as ethanol (corn-based) alternative. Ethanol has been shown to be a net-loss as far as energy gain is concerned, and there are much better alternatives in my opinion.
In my opinion the best alternative is 100% electric vehicles (at least as far as automobiles are concerned), as long as that energy is fueled by clean coal and/or hydro/thermo engery.
Now... that's just my opinion. I could be wrong. I GUARANTEE the politicians will be wrong about whatever the flavor of the month alternative fuel is. They are in the pocket of whatever special interest is giving to their PAC or campaign. Just look at the corn-based ethanol travesty.
I say, let the market decide. I hold the possibly naive belief that information will crush the corporation... eventually.
A few months ago - or was it longer ... I'll have to search for it again later - a guy wrote an anti-global warming article with charts etc. that was completely fabricated and it was embraced by the usual suspects. I heard that Rush was even talking about it on his radio program. The guy later revealed that he just made it up to prove a point.
Probably the point being that any shmo can write a blog entry filled with technical jargon and pretty charts and claim that he knows what he is talking about, and people with the same political view will eat it up, even some major media entities.
If there were any peer reviewed papers that stood up to scientific scrutiny, I'm sure people would take the deniers a little more seriously.
You could probably spend the next decade bouncing these contradicting reports and articles of each other and never reach agreement. The fact of the matter is that science doesn't often produce concrete answers, especially when the context of the system under investigation is both large and chaotic, as the earth's climate is.
Instead, a situation such as this relies on weight of evidence, which is why citing individual cases from either side of the argument is a pointless exercise. A broken ice shelf in anarctica means as little to the science of this discussion as does a short term reduction in global temperatures.
Trends, such as a global reduction in glaciation over many years are a more valuable form of scientific evidence then individual cases, but still do not allow concrete conclusions to be drawn.
Personally, accumulated evidence that I have read indicate to me that the higher probability is the global warming is occuring and that anthropogenic factors are primarily to blame. The majority of the world's leading scientists also take this position. A few oppose it for reasons of inconclusive evidence and a few on both side take a definite position.
In my mind this is an ideal situation to apply the precautionary principle. Although, for those of you that need something more definite, the problem of ocean acidification (increased CO2 absorbtion in the oceans = reduced ocean pH = probable massive reduction in coral reefs) is backed by more conclusive science and has some very serious environmental and economic concerns.
Either way, we need to drastically reduce our CO2 outputs...
Steve
Robots need to refute that link somehow... with science. I haven't seen any science to tell me the icecaps are NOT melting.
Oh they will bring up shit like sun temperature, or the temperature of one town in some location on earth, ignoring the average temperature of entire continents all together.
Go for it. Find something credible to refute it. Try. I'll send you money via Paypal if you do.
We at least contribute to global warming, if we aren't the primary cause of it.
Going green is good.
No one can refute that things are melting...what is up for debate is what is causing it and what impact we, as humans, have on global warming. I am not sure anyone was around a million years ago when this very thing could have happened before...signalling more dire circumstances to come...it is almost 2010 afterall...
You could probably spend the next decade bouncing these contradicting reports and articles of each other and never reach agreement. The fact of the matter is that science doesn't often produce concrete answers, especially when the context of the system under investigation is both large and chaotic, as the earth's climate is.
Really good post Climber, I personally appreciate it. I'll add a bit to it. There are two ways to prove beyond scientific doubt that there is a cause-effect relationship in science, and neither has been achieved in AGW (anthropogenic or human caused GW.) The first one is an indisputable derivation of the relationship from well-known physical laws, which makes accurate predictions of the observed correlation, and which indicates the causality. The second is experimental. Perhaps in another 30 or 40 years after we 'change our ways' or cut down drastically on our CO2 we will have that. It is true that scientifically, there are INDICATIONS, like the prediction of SOME models, and the observed correlation of CO2 and warming. But none of this is yet at the stage where the relationship has been scientifically proved without any reasonable doubt, like it is, for instance, concerning the prediction of the next solar eclipse, or the prediction of the current that will flow in a given resistor when exposed to a certain voltage or anything of that kind. There are a lot of computer model that need 'phenomenology' like cloud formation, soil response, vegetation response and all that, and on these things there's so much uncertainty that you can 'warm' or 'cool' as you like. This is not to say that this is not a good approach, just that the problem (science) is simply VERY complicated. So, in other words, the INDICATIONS point toward AGW. It would be reckless for us to continue on like we are.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Recycling is a part of a larger theme of stuff white people like: saving the earth without having to do that much.
Recycling is fantastic! You can still buy all the stuff you like (bottled water, beer, wine, organic iced tea, and cans of all varieties) and then when you’re done you just put it in a DIFFERENT bin than where you would throw your other garbage. And boom! Environment saved! Everyone feels great, it’s so easy!
This is important because all white feel guilty about producing waste. It doesn’t stop them from doing it, but they feel guilty about it. Deep down, they believe they should be like the Native Americans and use every part of the product or beast they have consumed. Though for many white people, this simply means putting plastic bags into a special drawer where they will accumulate until they are eventually used to carry some gym clothes or bathing suit. Ultimately this drawer will get full and only be emptied when the person moves to a new house. Advanced white recyclers will uses these grocery bags as garbage bags.
If you are in a situation where a white person produces an empty bottle, watch their actions. They will first say “where’s the recycling?” If you say “we don’t recycle,” prepare for some awkwardness. They will make a move to throw the bottle away, they will hesitate, and then ultimately throw the bottle away. But after they return look in their eyes. All they can see is the bottle lasting forever in a landfill, trapping small animals. It will eat at them for days, at this point you should say “I’m just kidding, the recycling is under the sink. Can you fish out that bottle?” And they will do it 100% of the time!
The best advice is that if you plan to deal with white people on regular basis either start recycling or purchase a large blue bin so that they can believe they are recycling.
no its not a fact that its largely caused by man. there are facts refuting it. both sides have evidence. didn't we talk about this open mind thing? you aren't doing very well.
how are you showing an open mind by being equally stubborn? ... really - look in the mirror before you go back to ole reliable ...
again ... no peer-reviewed scientific articles support your claim ... the only ones supporting your assertation are oil/coal industry funded geologists writing op-ed pieces ...
feel free to google "climate change not happening" and post links all day - but if you really want to show an "open mind" go read the basic science behind it ... it's not complicated ...
this article is the funniest ... it's like you have a fever and one day it's down a tenth of a degree - now, everything is ok ... the point is you are still running a fever! ...
a big chunk of the wilkins ice shelf the other day ... we are seeing more extreme weather conditions throughout the world ... it is upon us ...
do you naysayers really think the world is gonna get together every year to try and find a solution on some hocus pocus iffy science?
I have one question for Global Warming proponents:
What's the temperature supposed to be?
temperature where?
really - if people truly care about this issue then read up on it ... as complex as the climate is - the issue is really quite simple ...
temperature is the single biggest factor contributing to weather - assuming one does not dispute the science behind the "greenhouse effect" - put it together and what do you get when you increase greenhouse gases - you are artificially affecting temperature thus directly affecting weather patterns on a global scale ...
really - if people truly care about this issue then read up on it ... as complex as the climate is - the issue is really quite simple ...
temperature is the single biggest factor contributing to weather - assuming one does not dispute the science behind the "greenhouse effect" - put it together and what do you get when you increase greenhouse gases - you are artificially affecting temperature thus directly affecting weather patterns on a global scale ...
I can't believe you would post a far left wing organization as proof...yada yada yada.
(see how annoying that is? that is your typical response)
feel free to read the UN reports from the IPCC ... or any source from people who have studied this and have had their studies scrutinized by others in the field ... better yet - give me some reasons why most every country in this world is wrong on this subject ...
There's no disputing climate change, if we're responsible or if it's a natural cycle is debatable. For me it's simple, we pump our waters and atmosphere full with poison, cut down forests to grow crops, fish our oceans empty and can't act surprised if that causes climate change and drives species extinct. Sure I (and likely most of us) see nice pieces of green when I leave the city, sure it's been snowing here too last week, but it's a bigger picture, we're completely dependent on the resources provided by the world. Extreme shifts like droughts or floods will have a bigger impact on our society than e.g. a stock market collapsing. Recycle.
You could probably spend the next decade bouncing these contradicting reports and articles of each other and never reach agreement. The fact of the matter is that science doesn't often produce concrete answers, especially when the context of the system under investigation is both large and chaotic, as the earth's climate is.
Instead, a situation such as this relies on weight of evidence, which is why citing individual cases from either side of the argument is a pointless exercise. A broken ice shelf in anarctica means as little to the science of this discussion as does a short term reduction in global temperatures.
Trends, such as a global reduction in glaciation over many years are a more valuable form of scientific evidence then individual cases, but still do not allow concrete conclusions to be drawn.
Personally, accumulated evidence that I have read indicate to me that the higher probability is the global warming is occuring and that anthropogenic factors are primarily to blame. The majority of the world's leading scientists also take this position. A few oppose it for reasons of inconclusive evidence and a few on both side take a definite position.
In my mind this is an ideal situation to apply the precautionary principle. Although, for those of you that need something more definite, the problem of ocean acidification (increased CO2 absorbtion in the oceans = reduced ocean pH = probable massive reduction in coral reefs) is backed by more conclusive science and has some very serious environmental and economic concerns.
Either way, we need to drastically reduce our CO2 outputs...
Steve
Really good post Climber, I personally appreciate it. I'll add a bit to it. There are two ways to prove beyond scientific doubt that there is a cause-effect relationship in science, and neither has been achieved in AGW (anthropogenic or human caused GW.) The first one is an indisputable derivation of the relationship from well-known physical laws, which makes accurate predictions of the observed correlation, and which indicates the causality. The second is experimental. Perhaps in another 30 or 40 years after we 'change our ways' or cut down drastically on our CO2 we will have that. It is true that scientifically, there are INDICATIONS, like the prediction of SOME models, and the observed correlation of CO2 and warming. But none of this is yet at the stage where the relationship has been scientifically proved without any reasonable doubt, like it is, for instance, concerning the prediction of the next solar eclipse, or the prediction of the current that will flow in a given resistor when exposed to a certain voltage or anything of that kind. There are a lot of computer model that need 'phenomenology' like cloud formation, soil response, vegetation response and all that, and on these things there's so much uncertainty that you can 'warm' or 'cool' as you like. This is not to say that this is not a good approach, just that the problem (science) is simply VERY complicated. So, in other words, the INDICATIONS point toward AGW. It would be reckless for us to continue on like we are.
Thank you both for these informative posts.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Hi fanch homeboy! I saw your post after I posted mine.. Luckily for me "I don't see race" nor feel guilt about my waste. If we'd all simply recycle we could reduce the natural resources needed now (yeah I'm no phun on this topic). Peace out (and recycle!)
There is a reason it is no longer referred to as "Global Warming" by experts. It is now referred to as "Global Climate Change."
It is irrefutable that the world is warming. It is irrefutable that plankton deposits are shrinking (this is the world's REAL concern...because that is what would truly screw us). It is irrefutable that ice caps are shrinking.
Fact...it has been proven that the average atmospheric temperature cycles +/-3.6C every 136 years. That means from peak to peak the is a 7.2C change. This was discovered by researching polar core samples. We are about 80% into the upward cycle right now.
Fact...why is Greenland called Greenland...from the ice? No...because it was once a fertile vineyard area. Thats right...the land used to have the climate to make premier wines.
The climate changes in cycles. Ethiopia was once a grain growing capitol.
I am not saying that how we live does not hurt the environment, and probably does speed up the cycle...but in the long run...mother nature IS out of our hands.
The only thing I enjoy is having no feelings....being numb rocks!
And I won't make the same mistakes
(Because I know)
Because I know how much time that wastes
(And function)
Function is the key
OH, and by the way...in this years nuclear summit pretty much all of those 'models' were TOTALLY discredited due to the fact that they are purely based on measurable, anticipatable factors such currents, temperature, gamma, etc. The do not account for things such as solar winds or flares, entire layers of the greenhouse that little to nothing is known about, the effects of natural disasters (remember the years of aftermath caused be Mt St Helen's eruption), etc
The only thing I enjoy is having no feelings....being numb rocks!
And I won't make the same mistakes
(Because I know)
Because I know how much time that wastes
(And function)
Function is the key
Fact...why is Greenland called Greenland...from the ice? No...because it was once a fertile vineyard area. Thats right...the land used to have the climate to make premier wines.
Hmmm... I have always read, been lectured, etc etc... that Greenland is named as such because vikings were tricking rival clans/groups/etc into thinking Greenland was green and Iceland was mostly ice, which in fact it is just the opposite. This was done to confuse invading tribes in regards to their location.
And I certainly haven't ever heard of grapes being grown in Greenland. Weird.
Although I have seen on the History channel that vikings did inhabit Greenland in places that are now uninhabitable... but they certainly weren't "fertile vineyard areas" either.
Just sayin'...
On a different subject, what in the world is your (not replying to depopulationINC here) agenda if you are trying to disprove global warming or man's causation of global warming? Does it really matter if it really is our fault? Shouldn't we be protecting this beautiful earth which we cannot exploit to its end because we have nowhere else to fucking go? Shouldn't we conserve natural resources, keep the earth clean, and BE GOOD STEWARDS OF OUR LAND? Please tell me why we SHOULDN'T!!!
Even if it is a "left winger radical conspiracy," don't the means justify the end? Isn't it a good thing if we wean ourselves off of Saudi Arabia's giant oil titty? The only people who believe oil is a renewable resource are the stupid Rush Limbaugh cronies. So shouldn't we get started transitioning to clean energy (renewables, solar, wind, hydro, nuclear, even natural gas)??? If not because it has to be done sooner or later, because it just might mean a cleaner, safer earth that is livable?
Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
this article is the funniest ... it's like you have a fever and one day it's down a tenth of a degree - now, everything is ok ... the point is you are still running a fever! ...
a big chunk of the wilkins ice shelf the other day ... we are seeing more extreme weather conditions throughout the world ... it is upon us ...
do you naysayers really think the world is gonna get together every year to try and find a solution on some hocus pocus iffy science?
this article is the funniest ... it's like you have a fever and one day it's down a tenth of a degree - now, everything is ok ... the point is you are still running a fever! ...
a big chunk of the wilkins ice shelf the other day ... we are seeing more extreme weather conditions throughout the world ... it is upon us ...
do you naysayers really think the world is gonna get together every year to try and find a solution on some hocus pocus iffy science?
There is more ICe today in Antarctica than in 1980.
Comments
He's right on two things.
1) Hemp needs to be exploited, as well as sugar cane. The embargos and tarrifs and shit are a fucking travesty. The dems have lost all credibility since touting fucking ethanol. Funny how we haven't heard about it since the Iowa primary. ROFL. This is the MOST infuriating thing about them. Ethanol is garbage.
2) Stopping federal funding and R&D money for everything. We shouldn't put any federal tax money into alternative fuels initiatives either. Let the states compete for it if they want.
He's wrong on adding a carbon tax. Fuck taxes. Fuck bailouts and fuck the Fed while I'm at it.
simply because you post articles with different opinions doesnt mean its refuted. it means there are 2 sides to the story and plenty of facts on both sides. get off your high horse already,
I'm not a 'fuck taxes' type person, myself but I have heard some good arguments against them.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
eek, I apologize for making fun of your thread title. you seem informed on this subject and care deeply about it. I respect that. but can you tell me why you feel the way you in regards to the statement I quoted
It would be hypocritical to start supporting alternative fuels. We currently give federal funds for nuclear program, as well as ethanol (corn-based) alternative. Ethanol has been shown to be a net-loss as far as energy gain is concerned, and there are much better alternatives in my opinion.
In my opinion the best alternative is 100% electric vehicles (at least as far as automobiles are concerned), as long as that energy is fueled by clean coal and/or hydro/thermo engery.
Now... that's just my opinion. I could be wrong. I GUARANTEE the politicians will be wrong about whatever the flavor of the month alternative fuel is. They are in the pocket of whatever special interest is giving to their PAC or campaign. Just look at the corn-based ethanol travesty.
I say, let the market decide. I hold the possibly naive belief that information will crush the corporation... eventually.
Probably the point being that any shmo can write a blog entry filled with technical jargon and pretty charts and claim that he knows what he is talking about, and people with the same political view will eat it up, even some major media entities.
If there were any peer reviewed papers that stood up to scientific scrutiny, I'm sure people would take the deniers a little more seriously.
This link does not work. What stats are being cherry picked, please explain?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/miller/miller21.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
Instead, a situation such as this relies on weight of evidence, which is why citing individual cases from either side of the argument is a pointless exercise. A broken ice shelf in anarctica means as little to the science of this discussion as does a short term reduction in global temperatures.
Trends, such as a global reduction in glaciation over many years are a more valuable form of scientific evidence then individual cases, but still do not allow concrete conclusions to be drawn.
Personally, accumulated evidence that I have read indicate to me that the higher probability is the global warming is occuring and that anthropogenic factors are primarily to blame. The majority of the world's leading scientists also take this position. A few oppose it for reasons of inconclusive evidence and a few on both side take a definite position.
In my mind this is an ideal situation to apply the precautionary principle. Although, for those of you that need something more definite, the problem of ocean acidification (increased CO2 absorbtion in the oceans = reduced ocean pH = probable massive reduction in coral reefs) is backed by more conclusive science and has some very serious environmental and economic concerns.
Either way, we need to drastically reduce our CO2 outputs...
Steve
No one can refute that things are melting...what is up for debate is what is causing it and what impact we, as humans, have on global warming. I am not sure anyone was around a million years ago when this very thing could have happened before...signalling more dire circumstances to come...it is almost 2010 afterall...
from my window to yours
Really good post Climber, I personally appreciate it. I'll add a bit to it. There are two ways to prove beyond scientific doubt that there is a cause-effect relationship in science, and neither has been achieved in AGW (anthropogenic or human caused GW.) The first one is an indisputable derivation of the relationship from well-known physical laws, which makes accurate predictions of the observed correlation, and which indicates the causality. The second is experimental. Perhaps in another 30 or 40 years after we 'change our ways' or cut down drastically on our CO2 we will have that. It is true that scientifically, there are INDICATIONS, like the prediction of SOME models, and the observed correlation of CO2 and warming. But none of this is yet at the stage where the relationship has been scientifically proved without any reasonable doubt, like it is, for instance, concerning the prediction of the next solar eclipse, or the prediction of the current that will flow in a given resistor when exposed to a certain voltage or anything of that kind. There are a lot of computer model that need 'phenomenology' like cloud formation, soil response, vegetation response and all that, and on these things there's so much uncertainty that you can 'warm' or 'cool' as you like. This is not to say that this is not a good approach, just that the problem (science) is simply VERY complicated. So, in other words, the INDICATIONS point toward AGW. It would be reckless for us to continue on like we are.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.wordpress.com/2008/02/14/66-recycling/
"Stuff White People Like"
#64 Recycling
February 14, 2008 by clander
Recycling is a part of a larger theme of stuff white people like: saving the earth without having to do that much.
Recycling is fantastic! You can still buy all the stuff you like (bottled water, beer, wine, organic iced tea, and cans of all varieties) and then when you’re done you just put it in a DIFFERENT bin than where you would throw your other garbage. And boom! Environment saved! Everyone feels great, it’s so easy!
This is important because all white feel guilty about producing waste. It doesn’t stop them from doing it, but they feel guilty about it. Deep down, they believe they should be like the Native Americans and use every part of the product or beast they have consumed. Though for many white people, this simply means putting plastic bags into a special drawer where they will accumulate until they are eventually used to carry some gym clothes or bathing suit. Ultimately this drawer will get full and only be emptied when the person moves to a new house. Advanced white recyclers will uses these grocery bags as garbage bags.
If you are in a situation where a white person produces an empty bottle, watch their actions. They will first say “where’s the recycling?” If you say “we don’t recycle,” prepare for some awkwardness. They will make a move to throw the bottle away, they will hesitate, and then ultimately throw the bottle away. But after they return look in their eyes. All they can see is the bottle lasting forever in a landfill, trapping small animals. It will eat at them for days, at this point you should say “I’m just kidding, the recycling is under the sink. Can you fish out that bottle?” And they will do it 100% of the time!
The best advice is that if you plan to deal with white people on regular basis either start recycling or purchase a large blue bin so that they can believe they are recycling.
how are you showing an open mind by being equally stubborn? ... really - look in the mirror before you go back to ole reliable ...
again ... no peer-reviewed scientific articles support your claim ... the only ones supporting your assertation are oil/coal industry funded geologists writing op-ed pieces ...
feel free to google "climate change not happening" and post links all day - but if you really want to show an "open mind" go read the basic science behind it ... it's not complicated ...
this article is the funniest ... it's like you have a fever and one day it's down a tenth of a degree - now, everything is ok ... the point is you are still running a fever! ...
a big chunk of the wilkins ice shelf the other day ... we are seeing more extreme weather conditions throughout the world ... it is upon us ...
do you naysayers really think the world is gonna get together every year to try and find a solution on some hocus pocus iffy science?
What's the temperature supposed to be?
6/30/98 Minneapolis, 10/8/00 East Troy (Brrrr!), 6/16/03 St. Paul, 6/27/06 St. Paul
temperature where?
really - if people truly care about this issue then read up on it ... as complex as the climate is - the issue is really quite simple ...
temperature is the single biggest factor contributing to weather - assuming one does not dispute the science behind the "greenhouse effect" - put it together and what do you get when you increase greenhouse gases - you are artificially affecting temperature thus directly affecting weather patterns on a global scale ...
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462
I can't believe you would post a far left wing organization as proof...yada yada yada.
(see how annoying that is? that is your typical response)
That's pretty much all you have been doing. Kettle.
eekster I have never brought politics into this discussion.
feel free to read the UN reports from the IPCC ... or any source from people who have studied this and have had their studies scrutinized by others in the field ... better yet - give me some reasons why most every country in this world is wrong on this subject ...
just a technicality.
but yes it exists, and yes, it is at least predominately the fault of fossil fuel consumption.
Thank you both for these informative posts.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
http://forums.pearljam.com/showpost.php?p=5305645&postcount=72
It is irrefutable that the world is warming. It is irrefutable that plankton deposits are shrinking (this is the world's REAL concern...because that is what would truly screw us). It is irrefutable that ice caps are shrinking.
Fact...it has been proven that the average atmospheric temperature cycles +/-3.6C every 136 years. That means from peak to peak the is a 7.2C change. This was discovered by researching polar core samples. We are about 80% into the upward cycle right now.
Fact...why is Greenland called Greenland...from the ice? No...because it was once a fertile vineyard area. Thats right...the land used to have the climate to make premier wines.
The climate changes in cycles. Ethiopia was once a grain growing capitol.
I am not saying that how we live does not hurt the environment, and probably does speed up the cycle...but in the long run...mother nature IS out of our hands.
And I won't make the same mistakes
(Because I know)
Because I know how much time that wastes
(And function)
Function is the key
And I won't make the same mistakes
(Because I know)
Because I know how much time that wastes
(And function)
Function is the key
And I certainly haven't ever heard of grapes being grown in Greenland. Weird.
Although I have seen on the History channel that vikings did inhabit Greenland in places that are now uninhabitable... but they certainly weren't "fertile vineyard areas" either.
Just sayin'...
On a different subject, what in the world is your (not replying to depopulationINC here) agenda if you are trying to disprove global warming or man's causation of global warming? Does it really matter if it really is our fault? Shouldn't we be protecting this beautiful earth which we cannot exploit to its end because we have nowhere else to fucking go? Shouldn't we conserve natural resources, keep the earth clean, and BE GOOD STEWARDS OF OUR LAND? Please tell me why we SHOULDN'T!!!
Even if it is a "left winger radical conspiracy," don't the means justify the end? Isn't it a good thing if we wean ourselves off of Saudi Arabia's giant oil titty? The only people who believe oil is a renewable resource are the stupid Rush Limbaugh cronies. So shouldn't we get started transitioning to clean energy (renewables, solar, wind, hydro, nuclear, even natural gas)??? If not because it has to be done sooner or later, because it just might mean a cleaner, safer earth that is livable?
Ice melts big deal.
http://www.nodnc.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=60
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn13134-melting-ice-may-not-explain-warming-arctic.html
Good articles, but they are inconclusive to be fair.
From the second article:
That first article was a tad sensationalist for me to take it too seriously.
There is more ICe today in Antarctica than in 1980.
Here check the NATIONAL SNOW AND ICE DATA CENTER.
http://nsidc.org/cgi-bin/wist/wist.pl?annot=1&legend=1&scale=75&tab_cols=2&tab_rows=2&wcf=seaice_index&submit=Refresh&mo0=02&hemis0=S&img0=extn&mo1=02&hemis1=S&img1=conc&year0=2008&year1=1980&.cgifields=no_panel