Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When that was the hot issue here I did some research since Europe had been doing the carbon trading.
Japan is the poster child for how this didn't work.
They never decreased their carbon footprint and each year goes out to the open market to buy up credits to make up for their not hitting their goal.
And that makes it alright ? That counts for you reducing your emissions ?
It's sort of like paying thru the nose for a snow tax, but no worries, when no one plows the streets or shovels the sidewalks, because paying that snow tax warmed the environmental cockles of your heart. They're feeling that warmth in New York city, I'm sure.
Perhaps you can first explain in some detail the definition of anthropomorphic and why you used it in this context? Personally, I laughed the first time because it wasn't used properly. In fact, I'll save you some time.
I understand that people are attempting to use this word connotatively with "man made", but this is not an accurate use of language, in fact it is rather clumsy.
When you are done here, be sure to check the spelling and grammar of everyone in the thread as well. I know I misuse that word at times getting them mixed up when my mind is on the content of my delivery and not the specifics of spelling and the like.
Though I find it odd, that you well know what the poster was meaning, but you felt it very important to go into a drawn out lecture on the issue. A simple "I think you mean Anthropogenic correct?" would have sufficed if you sought clarification, but maybe you needed the confidence boost to make you feel better about yourself?
None the less, so far, your "position" on the issue wreaks of arrogance and condescension. There is no other reason to refer to a skeptic as "Deniers", it is a well know point of contention that this is meant to offend and insult, but considering your fondness of using it combined with your need to display skills that are irrelevant to the content of the discussion, I guess it is not a surprise.
So when you are done playing secretary and have finished all the menial discussion concerning writing composition, maybe you could then get back to actually supporting your argument or were these diversions intentional?
I don't give a squat if I get a "million hits", the word anthropomorphic does not mean man made, it has never meant man made and you obviously don't have a clue. A big word that sounded good and someone else used it so you thought you would just throw it in there for effect not really having any idea what its definition is.
The statement is that the North Atlantic Oceanic current is slowing in flow and recently is showing signs of a decline in temperature as well. This flow is a measurable tangible thing and is currently taken as verifiable fact. Now as to the causes of this decline there are many theories and some of these are related to various things associated with global warming theories, but not explicitly. The article states it as such because the conclusions as to cause haven't been determined, only that a decline in flow and temperature has occurred in this current.
Many things can be inferred from this and the article itself states they are speculative, including the cause. You've already come to a conclusion based upon at best an assumption that wasn't even explicit. The fact you can't even use a simple definition correctly suggest to me you don't have a clue as to what you are even talking about.
In any event, the fact that you can't even admit that NASA believes global warming is man made makes everything else that flows from you, to be charitable, suspect.
When you are done here, be sure to check the spelling and grammar of everyone in the thread as well. I know I misuse that word at times getting them mixed up when my mind is on the content of my delivery and not the specifics of spelling and the like.
Though I find it odd, that you well know what the poster was meaning, but you felt it very important to go into a drawn out lecture on the issue. A simple "I think you mean Anthropogenic correct?" would have sufficed if you sought clarification, but maybe you needed the confidence boost to make you feel better about yourself?
None the less, so far, your "position" on the issue wreaks of arrogance and condescension. There is no other reason to refer to a skeptic as "Deniers", it is a well know point of contention that this is meant to offend and insult, but considering your fondness of using it combined with your need to display skills that are irrelevant to the content of the discussion, I guess it is not a surprise.
So when you are done playing secretary and have finished all the menial discussion concerning writing composition, maybe you could then get back to actually supporting your argument or were these diversions intentional?
Are you done making excuses? I corrected the use of the word and still some members persist on using a wrong definition, so then we move from ignorance or lack of understanding to what some people would refer to as stupidity, which is the willful and intentional continued misuse because "they believe".
What was the argument, in fact before we get there what is the single primary root of an argument or debate? Perhaps a claim, which is then followed by evidence, reasons, warrants to support reasons when challenged.
What was the claim made in the OP? At first glance it seems rather clear to me, "The possibility that a decline in arctic sea ice could case the North Atlantic current to slow or stop that might create cooler conditions in Europe and the North Eastern US." In fact it is so stated in the beginning of the article.
To support this claim, NASA, The Pentagon, and Defense Department, as well as other scientist can factually show a decline in arctic polar ice as viewable in the article by satellite imagery. This is what is known as evidence to support the claim.
Now from this there is further evidence in the form of lessened temperature differential as well as a drop in sea water salinity in the Northern Atlantic ocean, which is also verifiable.
From these basic pieces of evidence supporting the claim that it has a possible effect on climate temperatures in the NW United States and Western Europe, we can then infer a number of things, not all of which are proven, but are merely hypothetical, and this article so states this.
Now when someone offers a response of "AGW lunatics all think alike", which in itself explicitly is a patently false gross assumption, I would then ask, what kind of argument is this? There is no challenge even to the claim or the statement, let alone any of the supporting evidence. This is nothing more than clap trap drive by ignorance made by people who just want to respond to a topic because they feel compelled to, not because they wish to challenge the claim stated in the OP.
Now if people wish to have a debate or argument in a well measured and reasoned fashion, I'm game, I do it all the time. If someone wishes to make inane commentary based upon nothing but opinion, which more often than not doesn't even challenge the claim made but more of a contemptuous statement against a universal proposition which may or may not be related to the claim, then yes, I'll treat people accordingly.
Now when you are done with your whine festival, care to address the claim and its supporting evidence?
Yep.
Regardless of whether or not what we are seeing is man-made or not, the fact remains that the changes can and will have an impact on human life on this planet, a point that seems to be willfully missed by the deniers.
Why anyone would chose not to take action to prevent possible cataclysm is totally beyond me.
Is it time to panic? Even the Sahara Desert is benefiting from the current climate.
Scientists are now seeing signals that the Sahara desert and surrounding regions are greening due to increasing rainfall. If sustained, these rains could revitalize drought-ravaged regions, reclaiming them for farming communities.
Was this a part of the al gore movie? Is the IPCC in hysterics because of a greener Africa? If this is all caused by man-made global warming, we can use more of it
Scientists are now seeing signals that the Sahara desert and surrounding regions are greening due to increasing rainfall. If sustained, these rains could revitalize drought-ravaged regions, reclaiming them for farming communities.
Was this a part of the al gore movie? Is the IPCC in hysterics because of a greener Africa? If this is all caused by man-made global warming, we can use more of it
Embrace the good stuff and ignore the bad. Got it.
The only thing I notice is that temperatures and precipitation are becoming more extreme around the world...
More extreme then what, when or where? Remember, anecdotal stories about the weather is not climate. Isn't that what the AGW scammers always tell us when we point out that if it snows in June?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
