Jump to content

Global Warming. Is the hype coming to an end?


Guest Steven1963

Recommended Posts

Guest Steven1963

Unfortunately, Klipsch has no specific policy against idiots.

 

Close the thread.

Not contributing by calling people idiots.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Yeah TWK, I agree that does have some merit to it. I remember several years ago this subject was a very hot topic. As I recall there was a hole in the ozone but it shrunk or similar? Can you expound on what happened?im

 

The Montreal Protocol happened.

 

 

As a Canadian, blaming the french for anything is like shooting fish in a barrel. I think smoking by the age of 10 is mandatory in Montreal.

:P

 

A friends opening joke at the Melbourne comedy fest. The whole set is funny 

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/bB_SyZeG0E4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Edited by ajoker2c
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Steven1963

 

I will monitor this, and lock it when the ad hominems increase or it becomes political

 

The very first post is a slanted partisan political view, with a link to a slanted partisan source.  The linked article was in response to recent reports from reputable climate scientists that 2014 was the hottest on record.  Christopher Booker, the author of the linked article, has a long track record of promoting ideas that run counter to the scientific consensus.  He's a partisan hack, and his article is just pandering to the misinformed.

 

Is that the sort of open discussion you want to promote?   

 

As I said, the whole thread is an ad hominem, inherently political, and not really appropriate in an audio forum.

 

 

Here is what I think, since I am the OP.  There are without a doubt 'partisan hacks' that promote their agendas on both sides. Some of those sources you like, I'm sure.  But just because you aren't friendly with the source doesn't mean you get to lock a thread.  That'd be for purely personal reasons.  I'm sure you could post an article from one of your favorite news sources to rebut the one I linked?  I'm sure you could also link some scientific data from a university?  And I'm sure I could pull some numbers about how much the government funds those scientific studies.  

 

So you see....it's all subject to controversy and just because you don't like the source doesn't mean you get to shut down the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Steven1963

gw is one of those topics that people on both sidea are very passionate aboot. since ive made my views quite clear......i still respect this planet very much....insert violins....and sometimes go out of my way to live a "clean" life.

simple things, turning of lights, turning baseboard heaters on low/off when the room is not in use, etc. not only for mother earth or my electric bill....just makes me feel warm and fuzzy.

 

I wonder if when Al Gore leaves his mansion for his fossil fuel burning private jet, if he turns out the lights and turns down the thermostat and lowers the heater on the pool and hot tub?  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a lady in my town, she walks the highways and roads in the area picking up cans. I stopped and told her years back I have some cans you're welcome to. She told me no thanks she had plenty. She explained she was picking up trash to make the community look better and to get exercise. I don't know if mother nature appreciated it, but I did.

I think some of us can recycle plastic ,help the old guy down the road shovel snow off his walkway and occasionally take in a critter,have it fixed and try to find a home for it.

None of those will save humanity, but it makes me feel a little more humane.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Steven1963

Why are we having a discussion about the paucity of evidence?

 

"Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position."

 

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

 

I can't speak for everyone else, but my skepticism is based in four areas:

 

1. Many, if not all of those climate scientists are tainted by government money funding their research.  Either directly or through universities.  And it doesn't take another scientist to figure out the conflict of interest there.

 

2. Science is a field designed purposefully to disprove itself.  What a scientist tells me is happening now is often disproved next year from the discovery of more evidence. They are wrong...alot.

 

3. They can't get next weeks forecast right.  But I'm supposed to believe them when they tell me what is going to happen 30 and more years from now?

 

4. Earth: 5 billion years.  Man (industrial age): 75 years.  We are but a fraction of an eye blink in the overall timeframe of this planet - which has had a history of climate changes.  And I'm supposed to buy into the idea that we are causing this current change?

 

 

 

3. 

Edited by Steven1963
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the deal - if the earth is warming up the way some claim, melting of the polar ice caps and the rise in sea level would cause the subways in New York City to be flooded and people would be wading in ankle to knee deep water all over Manhattan and every coastal city throughout the world. Islands would be disappearing and continents would be shrinking in size. While it is getting warmer in some spots it is cooling off in others, so there is no significant total loss in the total amount of ice world wide.

 

As far as humans influencing the climate, we are in a period of low sunspot activity, and this factor is responsible for severe icecap shrinkage... on Mars. I think this factor is also having an effect on our planet, which is about 50,000,000 miles closer to the sun than Mars.

 

The earth has been changing it's climate for millions of years, alternating ice ages with warm periods, and it will continue to do so. Data shows that temperatures have peaked and the earth seems to be cooling:

 

vostok-ice-core-petit-web.gif

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,

The courage to change the things I can,

And the wisdom to know the difference.

Clearly, opinions on this issue cannot be changed. "And the wisdom to know the difference."

 

I thought that was the AA (audio-holics anonymous) prayer?  :emotion-46:

+++

 

I'll go on the record and say I am not a man-made global warming skeptic, I just don't believe in it.  :emotion-14:

+++

 

I have noticed every summer it gets hotter.  Global warming!  And every winter, I've also noticed it gets colder; global cooling!

 

I'm glad I could settle this for both sides.  Any questions?  :cool:

Edited by wvu80
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

 

 

I will monitor this, and lock it when the ad hominems increase or it becomes political

 

The very first post is a slanted partisan political view, with a link to a slanted partisan source.  The linked article was in response to recent reports from reputable climate scientists that 2014 was the hottest on record.  Christopher Booker, the author of the linked article, has a long track record of promoting ideas that run counter to the scientific consensus.  He's a partisan hack, and his article is just pandering to the misinformed.

 

Is that the sort of open discussion you want to promote?   

 

As I said, the whole thread is an ad hominem, inherently political, and not really appropriate in an audio forum.

 

Here is what I think, since I am the OP.  There are without a doubt 'partisan hacks' that promote their agendas on both sides. Some of those sources you like, I'm sure.  But just because you aren't friendly with the source doesn't mean you get to lock a thread.  That'd be for purely personal reasons.  I'm sure you could post an article from one of your favorite news sources to rebut the one I linked?  I'm sure you could also link some scientific data from a university?  And I'm sure I could pull some numbers about how much the government funds those scientific studies.  

 

So you see....it's all subject to controversy and just because you don't like the source doesn't mean you get to shut down the world.

Unfortunately you happened to pick a hack who is also known as quack over there. He is a journalist, not a scientist. In addition to being a global warming skeptic he also argues that "asbestos, passive smoking and BSE have not been shown to be dangerous. His views on these matters go against scientific consensus, and as a result have attracted much criticism from other journalists as well as public bodies. Thus his articles on asbestos and on global warming have been repeatedly challenged by George Monbiot of The Guardian and the UK Health and Safety Executive has repeatedly refuted his claims about asbestos."

Booker has repeatedly claimed that white asbestos is "chemically identical to talcum powder" and poses a "non-existent" risk to human health. He also believes in intelligent design and that evolution is a hoax.

I went to one of the sites someone linked, Global Warming lies .com, and it was filled up it with a lot of "facts", with no back up to support the "facts", but it said go to any of the links below for the "full story" and I saw that one is NASA. NASA no longer has to tone down, edit or have their scientific findings watered down like they did in a previous administration, so I went there. What I expected to find was there,  that there are cyclical patterns to to warming and cooling, and "global warming" is the study of determining whether we are at, below, or above average for any point in a cycle, whether we are in a cooling or a heating period.  There is a 90% consensus in mainstream science, both private, academic and public, that we are above where we should be, and that it is manmade.

It is not just in the air, it significantly affects ocean water temperature. So not only do we get more intense El ninos, we are seeing measured increase in ocean temperatures that are up. A simple search for "corral loss" will get you to scholarly mainstream sites.

CO2, the byproduct of greenhouse emissions, goes into the air, and more than a third of that ends up in the ocean.  It is part of the carbon cycle that we all learned about.  The elevated amounts from fossil fuels has caused the cycle to go out of balance, increasing the acidity of the oceans, which also results in lowered the amount of calcium carbonate that is necessary of the ocean lifecycle.  The acidity of the oceans has increased (lowered pH) by 30% from the beginning of the use of fossil fuels.  The acidity of the ocean will continue to rise, as a million pounds a day are currently being absorbed by the oceans from CO2 emissions.  This is independent of the "warming" debate.    There is no question that it is increasing, that it continues to increase, and that it is a result of the burning of fossil fuels.  What is being sorted out now is what the effect will be on the fisheries, etc.    

This is happening now, not maybe in 30 years, but now.  

I mean if there is a global warming skeptic, that has science behind him, I am most haapy to look at what he's got.

Travis

 

Edited.

Edited by dwilawyer
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean if there is a global warming skeptic, that has science behind him I am most haapy to look whst he rvgas got,

 

Many of us are skeptical when confronted with seeing reasonable questions hooted down with derision, often by non-scientists.  Solid scientific evidence is often so clear and plain that reasonable questions simply aren't possible.  This isn't one of them.  That the climate changes over time, often rapidly, is clearly evident in the historic and geologic record.  Such changes are responsible for massive impacts on human history, what tiny amount of it there is.  This one is no different except suddenly there is some mechanism in society that has a strong belief that the planet shouldn't do this and if it's happening it's humanities price for its sins.

 

The odds are against it.  Even if it is the case it remains a natural phenomenon unless you believe we are supernatural beings.  Further, the effects are almost perfectly balanced in upside and downside...which is pretty much natures way.  Some areas get warmer and wetter, others drier.  In Britain, crops are being cultivated again that haven't been possible in a thousand years. 

 

It's better for the "news cycle" to beat the drum of doom than to discuss the upside.

 

What remains a mystery to me is how people develop such emotions over it.  Last time I looked out this morning the sun was rising on a beautiful day with no sign that human extinction is any more likely today than yesterday. 

 

Dave

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

This is happening now, not 30 rears from now, in significant amouts in some areas.

I mean if there is a global warming skeptic, that has science behind him I am most haapy to look whst he rvgas got,

Travis

 

 

 

Travis,

I agree with the substance of your post.

It can only be assumed that passion while typing explains the numerous typos, my favorite being, ". . . 30 rears from now . . ." What do the Kardashians have to do with global warning?

My posts are frequently found to be riddled with typos when I re-read them. That prompts a removal of the mittens and editing.

Solving global warming will only stall, briefly, the population crisis. The developed world's population is under control. The developing world's population is out of control. Until we recognize that there is only one world, and that we're all in this together, population growth will accelerate with catastrophic consequences. I'm not optimistic.

Edited by DizRotus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is infinite room for population growth, and as population growth remains a fundamental law of nature it will continue.  Animals, including humans, either flourish or they die.  People like Elon Musk, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Burt Rutan, and the like and efforts such as Planetary Resources are, IMHO, every bit as much cutting edge evolution as they are business initiatives and these are the forces that will free humanity to go forth and multiply. 

 

One of the great moments in film is the appearance of that fetus in space in 2001, A Space Odyssey.  I felt the moment I saw it that it represented the real birth of the human race.  Earth is a womb, and like all wombs carries only enough resources to bring the child to full term.  My opinion is that we are now in the early stages of labor.  No baby leaves the comfort of it's mother willingly.  They come out kicking and screaming...or they are stillborn.

 

Dave

Edited by Mallette
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most people confuse climate data with local weather data. They are two different animals. As far as the ice melt and temperature of the oceans they are rising but some of the ice melt has been negated by the increase in snowfall in Antartica

caused by the increased temperature of the ocean. More data to confuse.

JJK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What remains a mystery to me is how people develop such emotions over it.  Last time I looked out this morning the sun was rising on a beautiful day with no sign that human extinction is any more likely today than yesterday. 

 

Bingo!  My hypothesis is that most people are so bored with themselves and their lives that they need to manufacture paranoia to keep things exciting.  It's sort of a "Walter Mitty" mentality.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Steven1963

It should surprise no one that population control and ecology are two legs wearing the same pants. It begins with Malthus, and is brought forward now with Pianka and Holdren and Erlich and the radical environment movement. To wit: Let's get rid of 90% of the population!

GW is a bit of a Trojan horse for the eugenics and population movement. It creates the back story of looming disaster to grease the skids for action by elites.

I think the anti GW folks have chosen the wrong point to attack. They are trying to attack the science with non science. I think that is a fail. The easier point of attack is the PREMISE. The science after all, is sound - the earth heats and cools over time. The argument is just a statistical one of when and where?

However, the premise is lunacy. And can be successfully argued by anyone. The premise is that we can reverse the predicted effect by changing behavior. Don't fear this, embrace it! It's pure insanity. Just start asking for explicit answers- What needs to change and by how much, and for whom? The answer is nothing but stuttering. There is no answer because there's no control over consumption.

Let's review. The entire global economy is based on....GROWTH OF CONSUMPTION. Every country, every business, every stock market, every billionaire every person's job on earth depends on growing consumption. Stop the growth of consumption and the world collapses. This is well understood by every jabbering politician on earth. Understood, but not acknowledged to the public!

So, what are the chances of changing the entire global economy? When you stop laughing, the answer is none. The dreamers who want to kill off the population are not economists, they are idealists. They have promoted this massive religion of "ecology" with out understanding the economic underpinning of the world.

Win the argument every time. Just keep asking, who gives up what when?

 

I agree with every word of this. Us Neanderthals haven't well formulated our defenses to the global climate change idealists. I could conceptualize what you said, but I couldn't put it into words. 

 

I would go one step further however, and postulate that the response, when one is finally formulated, would be that governments would determine how to move forward.  And, that is my greatest fear. Because personally, I believe the goal is population control. If (and I am not pointing out a political affiliation here to be a tempest, simply drawing an example) progressives are upset about inequality now between the poor/middle class and the rich/corporations, wait until government gets to decide who lives and who dies and who gets to consume more than the next guy.

Edited by Steven1963
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...