Global warming BS?

2

Comments

  • Flutter Girl
    Flutter Girl Posts: 548
    edited January 2009
    BinFrog wrote:
    RM291946 wrote:
    Glaciers are not receding all over the world. They are receding in the southern hemisphere, and data shows colder drier air is the culprit.

    http://www.extremeicesurvey.org/
    http://www.nationalgeographic.com/adven ... ery-1.html

    Really? Southern hemisphere only?

    I stand corrected. I was not paying attention. For some reason I was thinking about ice capping mountains/volcanos. My apologies.
    Post edited by Flutter Girl on
  • Jeanwah
    Jeanwah Posts: 6,363
    edited January 2009
    RM291946 wrote:

    All data shows ice has been building up over the past year..not melting.

    Glaciers are not receding all over the world. They are receding in the southern hemisphere, and data shows colder drier air is the culprit.

    I know this wasn't directed to me, but have you ever been to Glacier National Park? 90% of the glaciers there (Montana) are GONE. And climatologists are forecasting no glaciers to be left at all by 2030.
    http://www.livescience.com/environment/ ... _melt.html
    They are more than just slightly capitalizing on fear. Both companies and the goverment are using the fear to take away more of our freedoms, and force us into buying new, more expensive (ie: those light bulbs) products..The poor can't afford the change in costs, and noone should afford the change in freedom. Look how they attempted to turn Cali into a nanny state with a bill that, if passed, would regulate what the temp of you home a/c may be set to. Now they want to ban flat screen tv's. The de-evolutionising process they hail has begun, and every single law they have ever passed was to further limit our rights and freedom. Every...single...one.

    The planet does not need saving, it's not in danger.
    The gov't is not behind going green at all, have you been paying attention at ALL during Bush's legacy? Do your research here. I'm afraid you may think that the gov't is behind this so called debate when they are the ones who do want us in fear, but also want our hands covered in fossil fuels. And the gov't is not behind the tv thing, that's just capitalism at its best, getting rid of the old and forcing consumers to buy into the new, which I guess can be tied into the gov't if you will.

    ETA: You are right, the planet does not need saving, as it knows how to adjust and survive. What's at stake is human civilization. We need to save ourselves, and that's the bottom line.
    Post edited by Jeanwah on
  • Jeanwah
    Jeanwah Posts: 6,363
    RM291946 wrote:
    You got it backwards..Big business is making big money off Global Warming fears, and the government finally has an excuse to scare you into wanting laws that limit your freedoms. The idea that there is no debate, and the massive campaign to slander the scientists who are debunking the theory, and silence them, is scary.

    I've already gone into why we should dispute it and how what they are doing is harmful to the earth, not helpful. I'm not going to repeat it every single time someone poses the same question cos they can't be bothered to read the older posts from everyone else here.

    I heard about the coal ash spills and 3 consecutive oil spills in another location within a week I believe..Heard that one just yesterday.

    You heard about how it snowed for the first time since biblical times in Israel January last year..And how Canada had the first white Christmas coast-to-coast since 1971..And how it snowed in New Orleans, Georgia, and Vegas..And how Alaska was just in such a deep freeze that in some areas temps were as 60 below, and that was not due to the wind chill factor. There was no wind. That was dead still cold air..And how we just recently had a blizzard from seattle to NYC..And how there were 2 deep freezes before the official winter season even began..And how right now across the nation there are temps as low as 40 below..I could go on..really..

    See, you're wrong here. Big Business is pro oil and coal, not pro renewables. Why do you think that it is so difficult to get going? You've really got it backwards and in return for that, you're licking up everything the corporations want you to. A NASA scientist was threatened with his job a couple years ago by George Bush if he released his findings on global warming to the public. Refusing to be be censored, he quit the job and went public. NASA is gov't related remember.
    http://www.space.com/news/bush_warming_041027.html

    And what do you think about these environmental disasters w/ coal ash? No reporting, no one knows, and nothing's done. And that's all you have to say about it?

    I'm not a novice here, but your last paragraph shows just how much you are. Global warming and climate change have nothing to do with how warm or cold it is, it has to do with massive fluctuations in precipitation, more intense storms, unusual weather and, yes temperature. And when I say temperature, it has to do with extremes as in both cold and warm temps.
  • Flutter Girl
    Flutter Girl Posts: 548
    Jeanwah wrote:
    I know this wasn't directed to me, but have you ever been to Glacier National Park? 90% of the glaciers there (Montana) are GONE. And climatologists are forecasting no glaciers to be left at all by 2030.
    http://www.livescience.com/environment/ ... _melt.html
    I corrected my mistake just above your last post.
    The gov't is not behind going green at all, have you been paying attention at ALL during Bush's legacy? Do your research here. I'm afraid you may think that the gov't is behind this so called debate when they are the ones who do want us in fear, but also want our hands covered in fossil fuels. And the gov't is not behind the tv thing, that's just capitalism at its best, getting rid of the old and forcing consumers to buy into the new, which I guess can be tied into the gov't if you will.
    No Bush was not backing the greens. Bush, does not a government, make. The Democratic Congress, on the other hand...........................

    Bush just quietly made a very large part of the ocean, located near Hawaii in what is the deepest part of the ocean, protected territory, despite how desperately his oil buddies want to drill for oil there.
    They aren't as deep in his pockets as you are assuming.
    And his doing this quietly shows he did it because he thought he should, not as a shallow ploy to better his image before dipping out of the white house.
    His refusing to sign the Kyoto Protocol also was a good thing. It is taking power and money out of the hands of wealthier cleaner countries, and putting it into the hands of more polluted countries, giving these countries complete freedom to continue to pollute.

    Read it...You'll see what I mean. It is one of the worst agreements I've seen. Lets hand power and wealth on a silver platter to red China to abuse as they destroy the environment..what a brilliant idea!
  • Flutter Girl
    Flutter Girl Posts: 548
    Jeanwah wrote:
    See, you're wrong here. Big Business is pro oil and coal, not pro renewables. Why do you think that it is so difficult to get going? You've really got it backwards and in return for that, you're licking up everything the corporations want you to. A NASA scientist was threatened with his job a couple years ago by George Bush if he released his findings on global warming to the public. Refusing to be be censored, he quit the job and went public. NASA is gov't related remember.
    http://www.space.com/news/bush_warming_041027.html

    And what do you think about these environmental disasters w/ coal ash? No reporting, no one knows, and nothing's done. And that's all you have to say about it?

    I'm not a novice here, but your last paragraph shows just how much you are. Global warming and climate change have nothing to do with how warm or cold it is, it has to do with massive fluctuations in precipitation, more intense storms, unusual weather and, yes temperature. And when I say temperature, it has to do with extremes as in both cold and warm temps.

    Big business is pro nuclear, and pro coal. Coal can run clean, and nuclear is clean. same with hydropower. All things the greens are either blocking, or trying to put an end to. Petrol is costly. It's eating into big business profits. Nuclear and/or recycling garbage into petrol are cheap. cheap enough that they can still make 2x more than their currently are with petrol, and that's even if they drop prices on the cheaper energy. Greens don't like cheap abundant energy. They think the more costly and difficult to come by it is, the better.

    I said I heard about the disaster, amoung another one...hell amoung many others. It is reported.

    Climate change has everything to do with how warm or cold it is. And in turn, the tempurature effects the weather. For instance, colder weather creates more turbulence, not only for planes, as mentioned earlier, but also when combined with the warm ocean, creates hurricanes. If the globe was warmer, that extreme hurricane season would never have occured. Without cooler air, it is physically impossible for a hurricane to form. And of course colder temps make extreme blizzards and ice storms possible..

    Edit: I want to add that the dark ages are associated with a cold period. The age of reason, following the dark ages, led to gains in wealth, health, larger variety in crops and plants, and less death..............and was warmer than the 90's are claimed to have been.

    That and I wanted to point out again that if 1998 was the hottest, then we have been cooling for the past decade. That's fantastic news yea?
  • Jeanwah
    Jeanwah Posts: 6,363
    RM291946 wrote:
    No Bush was not backing the greens. Bush, does not a government, make. The Democratic Congress, on the other hand...........................

    Bush just quietly made a very large part of the ocean, located near Hawaii in what is the deepest part of the ocean, protected territory, despite how desperately his oil buddies want to drill for oil there.
    They aren't as deep in his pockets as you are assuming.
    And his doing this quietly shows he did it because he thought he should, not as a shallow ploy to better his image before dipping out of the white house.
    His refusing to sign the Kyoto Protocol also was a good thing. It is taking power and money out of the hands of wealthier cleaner countries, and putting it into the hands of more polluted countries, giving these countries complete freedom to continue to pollute.

    Read it...You'll see what I mean. It is one of the worst agreements I've seen. Lets hand power and wealth on a silver platter to red China to abuse as they destroy the environment..what a brilliant idea!
    You do know that Bush does have to look as if he cares, when her really doesn't don't you. For if it was extremely obvious about Big Oil and Big Coal's doings, the public eye wouldn't let it go unnoticed. It's all about image, baby! Do you know what else is in the Pacific? The massive garbage dump called the North Pacific Gyre. Do you know that Bush has done absolutely nothing about this plastic dump north of Hawaii?
    http://scienceblogs.com/deepseanews/200 ... pacifi.php
    Yes, that's human made.

    I'm thinking that you defend Bush, which makes sense now when I think about it. Who else would put so much energy into unsustainability for future generations? Oh, and do some research on China, another pollution loving country. I don't think they signed Kyoto either.
  • whgarrett
    whgarrett Posts: 574
    I hope you guys don't spend too much time worrying about this. What's the big deal? Ignorance is bliss. Live life and die. Humans are so fucking arrogant. The earth shall go on. Humanity hopefully will be reduced to nothing.
  • Jeanwah
    Jeanwah Posts: 6,363
    RM291946 wrote:
    Big business is pro nuclear, and pro coal. Coal can run clean, and nuclear is clean. same with hydropower. All things the greens are either blocking, or trying to put an end to. Petrol is costly. It's eating into big business profits. Nuclear and/or recycling garbage into petrol are cheap. cheap enough that they can still make 2x more than their currently are with petrol, and that's even if they drop prices on the cheaper energy. Greens don't like cheap abundant energy. They think the more costly and difficult to come by it is, the better.
    Big business is all about oil and coal. Nuclear is not much better and hydro power is definitely a good thing. Don't you know that there is no such thing as clean coal? Sequestering coal underground is great in theory but does not work. I'm disappointed in Obama for thinking that there is such thing as clean coal. What a joke. Again, do your research, because that subject is everywhere. Recycling garbage is a great idea and is just getting off the ground. Cheap abundant energy is nothing but COAL. We have a ton, and it's killed how many people? More than you can imagine, including mine workers from black lung and folk living in nearby communities breathing in the pollution and soot. And the gov't doesn't care. It makes money and that's all that matters. And you wonder why cheap abundant energy is NOT the way to go. Go live next to a coal mine and see for yourself.
    I said I heard about the disaster, amoung another one...hell amoung many others. It is reported.

    Climate change has everything to do with how warm or cold it is. And in turn, the tempurature effects the weather. For instance, colder weather creates more turbulence, not only for planes, as mentioned earlier, but also when combined with the warm ocean, creates hurricanes. If the globe was warmer, that extreme hurricane season would never have occured. Without cooler air, it is physically impossible for a hurricane to form. And of course colder temps make extreme blizzards and ice storms possible..
    Ok, then, how do you explain tornadoes in RI? How about tornadoes in upstate NY? Hurricanes do occur in warmer weather, what makes the difference is the presence of el nino and la nina in the Pacific. And their presence make them larger and more intense. A sign of global warming.
    I want to add that the dark ages are associated with a cold period. The age of reason, following the dark ages, led to gains in wealth, health, larger variety in crops and plants, and less death..............and was warmer than the 90's are claimed to have been.

    That and I wanted to point out again that if 1998 was the hottest, then we have been cooling for the past decade. That's fantastic news yea?
    Cyclical. That's all you're pointing out. Yet we are in no way cooling. Where do you get that info that the last decade's been cooler? No so.
  • Flutter Girl
    Flutter Girl Posts: 548
    Jeanwah wrote:
    Big business is all about oil and coal. Nuclear is not much better and hydro power is definitely a good thing. Don't you know that there is no such thing as clean coal? Sequestering coal underground is great in theory but does not work. I'm disappointed in Obama for thinking that there is such thing as clean coal. What a joke. Again, do your research, because that subject is everywhere. Recycling garbage is a great idea and is just getting off the ground. Cheap abundant energy is nothing but COAL. We have a ton, and it's killed how many people? More than you can imagine, including mine workers from black lung and folk living in nearby communities breathing in the pollution and soot. And the gov't doesn't care. It makes money and that's all that matters. And you wonder why cheap abundant energy is NOT the way to go. Go live next to a coal mine and see for yourself.

    Ok, then, how do you explain tornadoes in RI? How about tornadoes in upstate NY? Hurricanes do occur in warmer weather, what makes the difference is the presence of el nino and la nina in the Pacific. And their presence make them larger and more intense. A sign of global warming.

    Cyclical. That's all you're pointing out. Yet we are in no way cooling. Where do you get that info that the last decade's been cooler? No so.

    I hate Bush..But I have enough sense to know that life on earth is not black and white..He is actually capable of doing good things..And I stress that the good things he did for the environment, he did it quietly..Hate to repeat myself, but if it were merely for his image, he would have made a big to-do about it, not kept it quiet.

    Nuclear is cheap abundant energy.
    Recycling garbage by heating it in extreme indirect temps, a la mother earth, only faster..instead of making God aweful biofuel of it, is heaps of abundant and cheap as hell, and the only digging it requires is digging up landfills, and this process, while already being used in Japan, is blocked in the U.s. by environmentalist groups. Cheap and abundant equals bad according to them. And not because of coal..LoL..I have quotes from those folk that clarify their reasons. Coal was never mentioned.

    My grandad was a coal miner, and my fam on my dad's side live right near a coal mine in PA. Do you really want to take it there?

    Regarding the hurricanes..sources? I really gotta see this bs.
    It's simple science, no friction in the air equals no hurricanes/tornados. What causes friction, periodic el nino and la nina as you mentioned, that have been occuring since long before we went industrial, and....cold air.
    Considering there was no el nino or la nina during the most recent freak hurricane season, guess whats left as the cause...

    Cyclical, it's all I'm pointing out? Are you serious..Try cyclical since before the industrialised world, which leaves us out as the culprit. Common sense.
    You know what else is common sense? If 1998 was the hottest, and today is not, then we are cooler today than in 1998. I don't need a bloody source for that one. You got to be right fucking retarded to not figure that out.

    Regarding what "experts" are predicting-
    Experts also predicted that hundreds of millions of people would soon perish in smog disasters in NY and LA (said in 1969). The also predicted the oceans would die of DDT poisoning by 1979, and the U.s. life expectancy would drop to 42 years by 1980 due to cancer epidemics..

    so much for predictions. If they could predict the future so good, why aren't they making big money in the psychic and palm reading industry?

    In twenty years since the Chernobyl tragedy, the world's worst nuclear accident, there have been nearly [FILL IN ALARMIsT AND ARMAGEDDONIsT FACTOID HERE].

    Greenpeace press release...prematurely released 24 May 2006.
    source- J.shields, "Greenpeace's fill-in-the-blank public relations meltdown" Philadelphia Inquirer, 29 May 2006
    http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/14691089.htm

    They drew up a press release to steer Reporters to base their stories on fear. But imagine their surprise when Greenpeace was apprised they'd forgotten to put "[ALARMIsT FACTOID HERE]!"

    Jon sanders, John Locke Foundation, posted on The Locker Room blog.
    source- http://www.johnlocke.org/lockerroom/loc ... ml?id=8090

    To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest.

    Climate Alarmist stephen schneider


    scientists who want to attract attention to themselves, who want to attract great funding to themselves, have to find a way to scare the public...and this you can achieve only by making things bigger and more dangerous than they really are.

    Petr Chylek, professor of Physics and Atmospheric science, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova scotia. Commenting on reports by other researchers that Greenland's glaciers are melting.


    In the long run, the replacement of the precise and disciplined language of science, by the misleading language of litigation and advocacy, may be one of the more important sources of damage to society incurred in the current debate over global warming.

    MIT sloan Professor of Meteorology, Dr.Richard Lindzen. Testimony before the U.s. senate Committee on Environmental and Public Works.


    The greenhouse effect might play some role. But those who are absolutely certain that the rise in temperatures is due solely to carbon dioxide have no scientific justification. It's pure guesswork.

    Henrik svensmark, director of the Centre for sun-Climate Research, Danish National space Centre, as quoted by the Copenhagen Post, 4 Oct 2006


    The advent of a new ice age, scientists say, appears to be guaranteed. The devastation will be astonishing.

    Gregg Easterbrook, "Return of the Glaciers," Newsweek 23 Nov 1992

    Wait...whah? I thought the 90's were the hottest decade..Why can't these people make their minds up? Are we all going to freeze to death...or fry to death?


    James Inhofe, Chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, describes global warming as the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people, and it uses McCarthy-like tactics to threaten and intimidate scientists.


    oh how I love this one...namely cos of who it came from!-
    Greenpeace co-founder, and former leader [and now noted skeptic of climate alarmism and modern green pressure groups] Dr.Patrick Moore said the United Kingdom's Royal society should stop playing the blame game on global warming and retract it's recent letter that smacks of repressive and anti-intellectual attitude. "It appears to be the policy of the Royal society to stifle dissent and silence anyone who may have any doubts about the connection between global warming and human activity. That kind of repression seems more suited to the Inquisition, than to a modern, respected scientific body."

    Newswire     21 sept 2006

    I have plenty more..I'm tired.
  • Flutter Girl
    Flutter Girl Posts: 548
    whgarrett wrote:
    I hope you guys don't spend too much time worrying about this. What's the big deal? Ignorance is bliss. Live life and die. Humans are so fucking arrogant. The earth shall go on. Humanity hopefully will be reduced to nothing.

    petting.gif

    ach, true..I think I'll pretty well stick to posting more quotes instead..It's more fun
  • Jeanwah
    Jeanwah Posts: 6,363
    RM291946 wrote:

    I hate Bush..But I have enough sense to know that life on earth is not black and white..He is actually capable of doing good things..And I stress that the good things he did for the environment, he did it quietly..Hate to repeat myself, but if it were merely for his image, he would have made a big to-do about it, not kept it quiet.
    He's made it quite clear he is not a fan of the environment. If he's done anything, and I've heard of a couple things, it's because he's pretty much forced to out of image.
    Nuclear is cheap abundant energy.
    Recycling garbage by heating it in extreme indirect temps, a la mother earth, only faster..instead of making God aweful biofuel of it, is heaps of abundant and cheap as hell, and the only digging it requires is digging up landfills, and this process, while already being used in Japan, is blocked in the U.s. by environmentalist groups. Cheap and abundant equals bad according to them. And not because of coal..LoL..I have quotes from those folk that clarify their reasons. Coal was never mentioned.
    Environmentalists are all about reusing and recycling. I don't know where you're getting your info, but they're certainly not against recycling garbage. The process is organic and one less step from overfilling our already full landfills. It is not blocked in the U.S. as it's just emerging.
    My grandad was a coal miner, and my fam on my dad's side live right near a coal mine in PA. Do you really want to take it there?
    I know enough that these mine workers are willing to put their health (and their family's) at stake for income and a lot won't speak badly about the industry as many of these workers have been doing all their lives and have nothing else. How is the air quality where your Dad's fam lives? You must have visited.
    Regarding the hurricanes..sources? I really gotta see this bs.
    It's simple science, no friction in the air equals no hurricanes/tornados. What causes friction, periodic el nino and la nina as you mentioned, that have been occuring since long before we went industrial, and....cold air.
    Considering there was no el nino or la nina during the most recent freak hurricane season, guess whats left as the cause...

    Cyclical, it's all I'm pointing out? Are you serious..Try cyclical since before the industrialised world, which leaves us out as the culprit. Common sense.
    You know what else is common sense? If 1998 was the hottest, and today is not, then we are cooler today than in 1998. I don't need a bloody source for that one. You got to be right fucking retarded to not figure that out.
    Hurricanes: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 130647.htm
    The link between changes in the temperature of the sea's surface and increases in North Atlantic hurricane activity has been quantified for the first time. The research - carried out by scientists at UCL (University College London) and due to be published in Nature on January 31 - shows that a 0.5°C increase in sea surface temperature can be associated with an approximately 40 per cent increase in hurricane activity.
    The study, conducted by Professor Mark Saunders and Dr Adam Lea of the Benfield UCL Hazard Research Centre and the UCL Tropical Storm Risk forecasting venture, finds that local sea surface warming was responsible for about 40 per cent of the increase in Atlantic hurricane activity (relative to the 1950-2000 average) between 1996 and 2005.

    The study also finds that the current sensitivity of tropical Atlantic hurricane activity to sea surface warming is large, with a 0.5°C increase in sea surface temperature being associated with a ~40 per cent increase in hurricane activity and frequency.

    As for 1998, it's not the hottest, it ties with 2007 for being the 2nd hottest. 2005 was the hottest.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 114150.htm
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 154533.htm

    Those quotes you mentioned - watch out for certain sources. Greenpeace isn't a viable source, neither is someone called a "climate alarmist". Anything out of a science peer-reviewed journal or magazine, college of science or the like, I basically trust.
  • Flutter Girl
    Flutter Girl Posts: 548
    Bush was pressured to not make the area protected, by big oil, and by folk who live there including organisations representing them.

    When he passed the Clear skies Initiative, greens were criticising him for it..Doesn't sound like their were pushing him into it too much to me?

    Cos the garbage deal creates abundant cheap energy. They don't like that.

    We've already had too much economic growth in the U.s.
    Economic growth in rich countries like ours is the disease, not the cure.
    Paul Ehrlich, an esteemed Environmentalist and Academic.

    Another one from him-
    Giving society cheap abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.
    An Ecologists Perspective on Nuclear Power, published in the Federation of American scientists Public Issue Report.

    If you ask me, it'd be a little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy.
    Amory Lovins, Professional Environmentalist and Chairman and Chief Scientist of the Rocky Mountain Institute, a MacArthur Fellowship recipient (1993), and author and co-author of many books on renewable energy and energy efficiency.

    Told you they don't like cheap clean energy..

    The only real good technology is no technology at all. Technology is taxation without representation, imposed by our elitist species upon the rest of the natural world.
    John shuttleworth, Friends of the Earth manual writer.

    And before you agree with him, realise you are on a computer.

    They don't like humans much either-
    To feed a starving child is to exacerbate the world population problem
    Dr.LaMont Cole, another esteemed environmentalist, and professor at Yale.

    When asked about the millions of Africans who died after DDT was banned based on falsified data, Charles Wursta, chief scientist for the Environmental Defense Fund said-
    This is as good a way to get rid of them as any.

    Bono would have a shit fit if he read those..


    The air was fine last time I was in PA. Heaps of trees around. The air was a nice relief from the stink of sweaty people in Miami. I don't remember the other 2 times I been at ages 7 and 1. The only health problems my grandad ever had was related to his smoking pipes and cigars heavily since he was a teen.

    Regarding the heat...based on what? Again, without a global mean surface temp measurement, the info is compromised, incomplete, and innacurate. I was being a cynical ass with my comments about 1998. I can't know what it really was any more than anyone else, scientist or not.

    The sources were the folk who said it..I have an annoying habit of hoarding stuff like that. Greenpeace isn't a viable source for the weather, but they are a viable source for understanding the mindset of the Environmentalists, and the tactics used by these huge organisations, such as themselves, to bully businesses, scientists, and the media.

    The climate alarmist, Dr.stephen schneider, is a professional environmentalist, Climatologist, and Professor for the Department of Biological sciences at stanford. I do not/will not mention anyone who is not of this sort esteem.

    I quoted 4 climate scientists, 2 professional environmentalists, and a co-founder of one of, if not the, largest environmentalism organisations.

    In this post I have quoted a Nobel scientist who has worked with immunology and chemotherapy, yet hates humans and feels that the more of us that die, the better (gives me great confidence in the scientists working to cure our diseases to keep us alive..), and 3 climate scientists, and an environmentalist.
  • Songburst
    Songburst Posts: 1,195
    Jeanwah wrote:
    As for 1998, it's not the hottest, it ties with 2007 for being the 2nd hottest. 2005 was the hottest.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 114150.htm
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 154533.htm

    Those quotes you mentioned - watch out for certain sources. Greenpeace isn't a viable source, neither is someone called a "climate alarmist". Anything out of a science peer-reviewed journal or magazine, college of science or the like, I basically trust.

    Actually American temperature records give the best reflection of long-term temperature trends because they have been so diligent in recording temperatures from the same locations. The 10 hottest years on record in the US are 1934, 1998, 1921, 2006, 1931, 1999, 1953, 1990, 1938, 1939 in that order. It's definitely not skewed to recent years as global warming alarmists would have you believe.
    1/12/1879, 4/8/1156, 2/6/1977, who gives a shit, ...
  • LikeAnOcean
    LikeAnOcean Posts: 7,718
    It's times like now, -15 F where I'm at, that makes me want to root for global warming..

    I've said it before and I'll say it again, the root of the problem is not what we are putting into the atmosphere, but how many of us fuckers are spreading across the globe. In my lifetime, 30 years, the human population has doubled!

    Just look at that number and think, only 30 years ago we were doing half as much damage as now.. and 30 before that, probably less than a quarter damage we are doing now.


    My advice..

    Wear a condom.
  • whgarrett
    whgarrett Posts: 574
    wear a condom....

    That's an environmentalist! For reals for real.
  • Jeanwah
    Jeanwah Posts: 6,363
    edited January 2009
    Songburst wrote:
    Jeanwah wrote:
    As for 1998, it's not the hottest, it ties with 2007 for being the 2nd hottest. 2005 was the hottest.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 114150.htm
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 154533.htm

    Those quotes you mentioned - watch out for certain sources. Greenpeace isn't a viable source, neither is someone called a "climate alarmist". Anything out of a science peer-reviewed journal or magazine, college of science or the like, I basically trust.

    Actually American temperature records give the best reflection of long-term temperature trends because they have been so diligent in recording temperatures from the same locations. The 10 hottest years on record in the US are 1934, 1998, 1921, 2006, 1931, 1999, 1953, 1990, 1938, 1939 in that order. It's definitely not skewed to recent years as global warming alarmists would have you believe.
    Where are you getting your info?
    Post edited by Jeanwah on
  • Jeanwah
    Jeanwah Posts: 6,363
    RM291946 wrote:
    Bush was pressured to not make the area protected, by big oil, and by folk who live there including organisations representing them.
    again, image. Bush is not green by any means. As president, he has to look somewhat like a president.
    RM291946 wrote:
    When he passed the Clear skies Initiative, greens were criticising him for it..Doesn't sound like their were pushing him into it too much to me?
    That's because the clear skies initiative weakens the clean air act which would result in significantly fewer reductions of air pollutants. The misnamed "Clear Skies" initiative expands the pollution trading system so some communities will get cleaner, but many communities will lose out on cleaner air. The two-stage plan isn't even fully in place for another 15 years. Even if the plan caused some net reductions in pollution, many communities would still be threatened by more pollution. Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) is a major contributor to smog that is linked to asthma and lung disease. Current Clean Air Act programs could result in NOx pollution levels of about 1.25 million tons by 2010. But the Bush plan calls for loosening the cap on NOx pollution to 2.1 million tons by 2008 - an increase of 68 percent more NOx pollution.
    Cos the garbage deal creates abundant cheap energy. They don't like that.
    Recycling garbage is right up environmentalist's alley, for the second time. You can't seem to get that.
    We've already had too much economic growth in the U.s.
    Economic growth in rich countries like ours is the disease, not the cure.
    Paul Ehrlich, an esteemed Environmentalist and Academic.

    Another one from him-
    Giving society cheap abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.
    An Ecologists Perspective on Nuclear Power, published in the Federation of American scientists Public Issue Report.
    I agree with him. Nuclear is not the answer for the future.
    If you ask me, it'd be a little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy.
    Amory Lovins, Professional Environmentalist and Chairman and Chief Scientist of the Rocky Mountain Institute, a MacArthur Fellowship recipient (1993), and author and co-author of many books on renewable energy and energy efficiency.
    Talk about taking it out of context. The real quote by Lovins is this: "If you ask me, it'd be a little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy because of what we would do with it. We ought to be looking for energy sources that are adequate for our needs, but that won't give us the excesses of concentrated energy with which we could do mischief to the earth or to each other."
    Told you they don't like cheap clean energy..
    Nope.
    The only real good technology is no technology at all. Technology is taxation without representation, imposed by our elitist species upon the rest of the natural world.
    John shuttleworth, Friends of the Earth manual writer.

    And before you agree with him, realise you are on a computer.
    Yep, agree. Do you really think that technology will expand and lengthen human existence? If anything technology and depleting the world's resources will make our existence even shorter. The key to our existence is working with our environment, not destroying it. Look at the few tribes that still exist in the world. They live off the land. Because they haven't let technology and capitalism take over their existence, their hunting and gathering way of life that have lasted hundred of years prove that their ideals have longer lasting power.
    They don't like humans much either-
    To feed a starving child is to exacerbate the world population problem
    Dr.LaMont Cole, another esteemed environmentalist, and professor at Yale.

    When asked about the millions of Africans who died after DDT was banned based on falsified data, Charles Wursta, chief scientist for the Environmental Defense Fund said-
    This is as good a way to get rid of them as any.

    Bono would have a shit fit if he read those..
    I know where you're getting these quotes. From those nutjob websites that take many quotes out of context and try to further their agenda for global warming. You're right there with them, which is sad. They're certainly not science based, rather opinion based and easily influenced people fall for it. I'd really like to see some concrete scientific evidence from you that proves your theory. The quotes really don't mean anything because they're easily twisted and taken out of context on the web.
  • Flutter Girl
    Flutter Girl Posts: 548
    likeanocean- LoL...But bear in mind, even the most populated countries, India and China, have heaps of untouched land. We aren't as plentiful as some would think. We could all stuff into texas and still have about 800-1200 square feet for each of us. spread the world pop across the u.s. and it'd be like living in the city.

    jeanwah-are you completely skipping over each time where I repeat how he did it quietly. Hardly anyone knew about either deal. It has jack to do with his image.

    The 2 stage plan isn't even fully in place, yet 2003-2005 had the lowest ozone on record. seems like it did it's job to me, with less regs or not. The greens were just pissed they didn't have a greater chokehold on our freedoms.

    It's not up their alley cos it's too cheap and too abundant. I find it amusing that you say they are in favour of that, then find the rest of that statement showing they think we'll do mischief with it? You are contradicting yourself. I didn't post all of it cos it wasn't necessary to type the whole bloody thing out when it is still in the same context. They don't want us to have clean abundant energy. That was what I was trying to show, and that is what he meant by it.

    Why is nuclear not the answer? They use it in Japan. Works out wonderfully.

    Well then you take the first step towards de-industrialisation...donate your computer. And tv, and radio, and car, and home, and all your valuables and money. Why do I somehow doubt you will do this?

    Think about the times before industrialisation. People died from pnuemonia and smallpox and many other ailments that are easily prevented today. In Africa, they still die from things like Malaria. DDT is a solution..blocked by the greens bs research. When treated, they don't die from it. Treatment for something like that back in the day was not possible. People froze in the winters, died from unclean water, and generally had very hard lives that led to far shorter lifespans than we enjoy today. You are so very painfully mistaken on this point. Longer lifespans, better treatments, taller people (attributed to better health and happiness)..

    Um, no. I am subscribed to every science mag available, and regularly read up on various scientists, along with having a library of science books and more pertinent to this case, books about scientists (I don't do fiction)..
    They got any quotes from the likes of Dr.Hawass, or Dr.C.Brace? I have plenty of others that I am certain they have nowt about. And I have plenty of odd ball, and/or alarming statements from them.

    A direct quote from someone shows plenty. It shows how they feel about the subject in question. When enough of the top ranking folk on a subject share the same sentiments, it shows what they would/wouldn't be doing for it based on their beliefs. My opinion on lizards is positive, therefore, I would not kill one intentionally. see how that works? Their own words mean a lot.

    Tell me, genius, how one takes out of context the statements about starving children and Africans dying? You act as tho I have yet to post anything regarding the real science behind what I'm stating. Don't twist me like that. I haven't done that shit to you.
  • Jeanwah
    Jeanwah Posts: 6,363
    RM291946 wrote:
    likeanocean- LoL...But bear in mind, even the most populated countries, India and China, have heaps of untouched land. We aren't as plentiful as some would think. We could all stuff into texas and still have about 800-1200 square feet for each of us. spread the world pop across the u.s. and it'd be like living in the city.
    Source, please. You obviously don't understand how overpopulated the world is.
    jeanwah-are you completely skipping over each time where I repeat how he did it quietly. Hardly anyone knew about either deal. It has jack to do with his image.
    Any idiot knows that Bush is not Green. Are you on glue?
    Well then you take the first step towards de-industrialisation...donate your computer. And tv, and radio, and car, and home, and all your valuables and money. Why do I somehow doubt you will do this?
    Let's see...well, living green is living with less, reusing and recycling more, which I do, but don't have to prove it to you...just because I own a computer does not mean I treat the earth like it's a dumping ground and buy all the latest crap. Consumerism is the anti-green. So that would be you seeing you hate everything environmental.

    "Green BS research" you say, and you subscribe to every science mag available? YOU HAVE NOT LISTED ONE RESOURCE FROM A SCIENCE BASED WEBSITE OR MAGAZINE. Like I said before the quotes you're listing are taken from bogus biased websites that take quotes out of context. You are not listing direct quotes, see your last post which I had to correct. You know what else you're doing? You won't answer my questions and will change the topic to please yourself. Do something, read a science journal why don't you? You have a clear anti-environmental agenda that you have no problem making anything that helps the earth, evil. Go pollute some more, ya Republican.
  • Songburst
    Songburst Posts: 1,195
    Jeanwah wrote:
    Songburst wrote:
    Jeanwah wrote:
    As for 1998, it's not the hottest, it ties with 2007 for being the 2nd hottest. 2005 was the hottest.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 114150.htm
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 154533.htm

    Those quotes you mentioned - watch out for certain sources. Greenpeace isn't a viable source, neither is someone called a "climate alarmist". Anything out of a science peer-reviewed journal or magazine, college of science or the like, I basically trust.

    Actually American temperature records give the best reflection of long-term temperature trends because they have been so diligent in recording temperatures from the same locations. The 10 hottest years on record in the US are 1934, 1998, 1921, 2006, 1931, 1999, 1953, 1990, 1938, 1939 in that order. It's definitely not skewed to recent years as global warming alarmists would have you believe.
    Where are you getting your info?

    There was a paper published by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) that a few newspapers picked up last year. Erroneous temperature calculations that reported inflated temperatures after the year 2000 were corrected and the top 10 hottest years in US history were revised to reflect the changes. The paper also notes that anomalies such as the decommissioning of half of the former USSRs weather stations and the relocation of several Chinese weather stations introduce error when comparing current global temperature data with historical data. I think that GISS supports current global warming theories (ie GHG effects, etc) though.
    1/12/1879, 4/8/1156, 2/6/1977, who gives a shit, ...

Categories