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.
They have no solutions, just whining what they think "must be done".
That's the thing, and I'm tired of voicing my opinion that I think the jury is most definitely OUT on this theory, but if a person looks at the facts, the only reason there are 7 billion souls on this planet is because of fossil fuels.
120 years ago there were 1 billion people on the Earth and it had been pretty constant for about a thousand years. Fossil fuels allowed energy and the power to build the society we all live in and there is NO PRACTICAL replacement for burning fossil fuels. The renewables are a joke compared to oil and coal.
There is nuclear fission, but they hate that as well, even though it emits no greenhouse gasses.
So the only solution is to cull the population or invent some fantastic power source like super solar or nuclear fusion...or cull the population by half just to begin with.
But they don't want to talk about that.
Sometimes I think they just like to have something to talk about because there is nothing profound changing in the future.
BTW, I have a brother who is actually a real scientist but doesn't waste his time on this "science" (he says it's more like Scientology than Science LOL)
Something they aren't talking about in the GW community...natural occuring CO2 under the oceans dispersing through the oceans. They are in fact stifling any discussion about THAT. In fact they are looking for ways to actually try to explain underocean venting of greenhouse gasses on global warming.
The fact is, the CO2 that man creates might very well be a tiny fraction of the natural occurring greenhouse gasses filtering through the oceans.
Status:
"Apparently the worst poster on CD"
(set 26 days ago)
27,646 posts, read 16,125,463 times
Reputation: 19062
sounds really important..."the a mith ro zeen? period" cool us peeps finally granted an official "period" ... I'm still waiting for an accurate 3 day. Warmongers gonna get their pittance damnt
They are using tree data to determine a new geological epoch? Do they even know the difference between a tree and a rock? Talk about abject stupidity.
The Anthropocene epoch theory has been floating around for over a decade. It is based on the fact that human changes to the environment is so pervasive we are eaving own own distinct geological layer.
The Anthropocene epoch theory has been floating around for over a decade. It is based on the fact that human changes to the environment is so pervasive we are eaving own own distinct geological layer.
If this is true, what can be done without destroying the World economy and starving a billion people?
I would honestly like to know what you think?
Many conservatives seem to have shifting stances on global warming. If goes from it doesn't exist, to it won't be that bad, to its too late anyway, to to do anything about it will be futile.
Your argument that it taking action will destroy the world economy is cop out. Given human recklessness with the environment, the economic, financial and human toll of doing nothing will dwarf the relatively small cost it will take to ameliorate the problem. But I don't expect much from conservatives today because it is all about the short term impact and future generations will be left holding the bag.
oh the appeal to authority """if trees could talk"""
well Plato (an ancient Greece person) can.....Plato from about 400BC
historical record tells us of many warming episodes - and subsequent cooling periods - that have bedevilled humans for thousands of years.
The ancient Greek philosopher Plato, who lived in 427-347 BC, wrote about major climate changes known in his day. In the dialogue, "Timaeus," he argued global warming occurs at regular intervals, often leading to great floods. Said Plato, "When... the gods purge the Earth with a deluge of water, the survivors... are herdsmen and shepherds who dwell on the mountains. But those who... live in cities are carried by the rivers into the sea."
In the dialogue, "Critias," Plato wrote about weather-related geological changes. He referred to "formidable deluges" that washed away all the top soil, turning the land into a "skeleton of a body wasted by disease." What were now plains had once been covered with rich soil, Plato said, and barren mountains were once covered with trees. The yearly "water from Zeus" had been lost, he went on, creating deserts where the land was once productive.
Plato's student, Aristotle, who lived from 384 BC to 322 BC, also recorded evidence of global warming in his work, "Meteorologica." He noted that in the time of the Trojan War, the land of Argos was marshy and unarable, while that of Mycenae was temperate and fertile. "But now the opposite is the case," Aristotle wrote. "The land of Mycenae has become completely dry and barren, while the Argive land that was formerly barren, owing to the water has now become fruitful." He observed the same phenomenon elsewhere covering large regions and nations.
Theophrastus, a student of Aristotle who lived 374-287 BC, discussed climate change in his work, "De ventis," which means "The Wind." He observed that in Crete, "nowadays the winters are more severe and more snow falls." In earlier times, he said, the mountains there bore grain and fruit, and the island was more populous. But when the climate changed, the land became infertile. In his book, "De causis plantarum," Theophrastus noted the Greek city of Larissa once had plentiful olive trees but that falling temperatures killed them all.
In the first century AD, an ancient Roman named Columella wrote an agricultural treatise called, "De re rustica." In it, he discussed global warming that had turned areas once too cold for agriculture into thriving farm communities. Columella cites an authority named Saserna who recorded many such cases. According to Saserna, "regions which formerly, because of the unremitting severity of winter, could not safeguard any shoot of the vine or the olive planted in them, now that the earlier coldness has abated and weather is becoming more clement, produce olive harvests and the vintages of Bacchus [wine] in greatest abundance."
In the Middle Ages, people began recording the temperature and climate-related phenomena, such as the dates when plants began to blossom annually. They were aware of a warming trend that began around 900 and a cooling trend that began around 1300. We know that during the warm period, the Vikings established settlements in Greenland where perpetual ice had previously covered the land. Ancient Norse records tell us these settlements were abandoned after 1250 when falling temperatures made farming less viable and spreading ice in the sea made transportation more difficult.
The cooling trend led to heavy rains in 14th century Europe that were too much for the crops, leading to reduced agricultural output and numerous famines. In the 15th century, a warming trend returned, which lasted until the middle of the 16th century when temperatures again started to fall. By the 17th century, it was clearly apparent that a cooling trend was altering sea routes, changing the kinds of crops farmers could grow, fishing patterns and so on. Glaciers began to advance rapidly in many places and rivers that had long been ice-free year round started to freeze in the winter. This "little ice age" continued well into the 19th century.
These changes occurred long before industrialization and could not possibly have been man-made in any way. They It may only be a matter of time before another cooling trend comes along.
you see the problem,,we are not saying that there is no such thing as global warming/cooling...we are saying that it is a NATURAL OCCURANCE.....The simple FACT is, to say its 'man-made' is just a LIE...do we humans help/hinder it...certainly..but we are not the CAUSE
Makes too much sense and will cause heads to explode. I hear them across the world at this time.
This should be a sticky.
The fact we acknowledge it isn't good enough, we don't attribute it all to mankind and that is our crime.
My attitude?
dogs get fleas. fleas die.
In other words...we may be a problem for earth for a very brief period of time. Earth has done fine without any inhabitation by man for eons on end and will do so when we disappear. This one will start a new thread. How many times has man appeared/disappeared from earth?
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.
