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.
And what demeaning words should we have for people like you? What is your purpose in denying any scientific data that suggests global warming is happening?
Now you talk about Power. Why Power? We have the power to curtail our use of fossil fuels. We have the power to elect representatives that will find ways to increase energy efficiency. What do you mean by power?
You never gave me an answer about the Wegman report's recommendation number one...what does that mean?
Thank you for the information Frenchman. Some people might use the 425,000 year graph where 50,000 years are compressed into 20 mm (3/4 inch) as proof that over the last 50,000 years the temperature swings are about the same as the first 400,000 years. When you expand the most recent data over 2000 years we can see a trend to a warmer climate. How warm may depend on how much more CO2 we, the global population, puts into the atmosphere.
Mamabee, in "her" astute observation has stated that warming only occurs AFTER a CO2 spike upward. Data shows we are spiking upward now and as we trend upward in CO2 content of the atmosphere the climate will tend to warm. This isn't power, as Mamabee would have it, it's just a fact of manufacturing processes and suppling energy to the populations and that's where we have the power. The power to use our resources more efficiently.
The number one greenhouse gas is H20 not CO2. When you understand that, you can research where the money is coming from and going to for this Global Warming Scare. If the President was really in the pocket of industry, he would be on the other side of the issue. Read books on both sides of the issue before making up your mind on it, and take propaganda movies by politicians with a huge grain of salt. The proof that it is a political issue and not an environmental one is that the divisiveness is across the aisle.
The politics of global warming is short-sighted - it does not see beyond the next popular election - which has nothing to do with science. Science deals with evidence that can be verified by experimentation, tests and measurements. Unhappily, however, the subject of global warming is governed by politics, and not science; and for the powers that be, the true test of science is not empirical evidence but political correctness. We shall all see the proof of the scientific evidence for ourselves shortly; as to politics, one can be confident that, if need suit purpose, our political leaders would fund a study to show that the moon is made of blue cheese.
The politics of global warming is short-sighted - it does not see beyond the next popular election - which has nothing to do with science. Science deals with evidence that can be verified by experimentation, tests and measurements. Unhappily, however, the subject of global warming is governed by politics, and not science; and for the powers that be, the true test of science is not empirical evidence but political correctness. We shall all see the proof of the scientific evidence for ourselves shortly; as to politics, one can be confident that, if need suit purpose, our political leaders would fund a study to show that the moon is made of blue cheese.
Even if we see that the earth warms in the future, we will not see whether it was caused by man, and in a world of limited resources, we may find that this red herring might be stripping our capability to actually do something good like eliminate world hunger. Short sightedness can go both ways.
The problem is data models and information is changing. Others ignore data and only use data over the last 100 years. Some use man-made C02 as the reason for different climate changes yet we have C02 that is create naturally. Ocean currents change and the artic ice melts and then freezes back up once the ocean currents change again. Environmental groups believe warming is completely and mostly man-made and nature can't possiblity warm in cycles. They love nature so much then can't believe mother nature would cause such things to happen to the planet and that they would only happen now because of CARS. While past history pre-industrial human inventions showed the earth was warmer. Also Solar Flares and other scientific data is ignored because if humans are not causing warming that means their dooms day and control of man and nature put them in their place. This is nothing more then ego, self-rightous driven people who like to control peoples consumption and think humans are a virus to the planet. Since we are a virus then with the power of governments and eco groups we can tax those who disagree and pretend we are doing anything to change the planet.
Thank you for the information Frenchman. Some people might use the 425,000 year graph where 50,000 years are compressed into 20 mm (3/4 inch) as proof that over the last 50,000 years the temperature swings are about the same as the first 400,000 years. When you expand the most recent data over 2000 years we can see a trend to a warmer climate. How warm may depend on how much more CO2 we, the global population, puts into the atmosphere.
Mamabee, in "her" astute observation has stated that warming only occurs AFTER a CO2 spike upward. Data shows we are spiking upward now and as we trend upward in CO2 content of the atmosphere the climate will tend to warm. This isn't power, as Mamabee would have it, it's just a fact of manufacturing processes and suppling energy to the populations and that's where we have the power. The power to use our resources more efficiently.
So you choose to ignore the history of the earth before we began tracking temperatures, in the previous 150 years...but when confronted with that information you choose to ignore the history of the earth prior to the last 2,000 years.
Write to Wegman and find out, I cited enough accurate information that you chose to ignore.
Power? Please don't talk to me about the power of using our resources more efficiently. Renewable energy and the like is extremely inefficient and too costly. Feel free to ride around in a little electric 2 cylinder car and place solar panels on your own home...not everyone has $80,000 to blow on "sun power".
I also have power, the power to vote for people who use logic instead of buying into this garbage. In the 1970's the earth was supposed to turn into a giant iceball...global cooling it was called. The earth was also supposed to become overpopulated to the point where there would be mass starvation and no open spaces for people...time after time the enviro-nuts have been proven wrong.
I also have power, the power to vote for people who use logic instead of buying into this garbage. In the 1970's the earth was supposed to turn into a giant iceball...global cooling it was called. The earth was also supposed to become overpopulated to the point where there would be mass starvation and no open spaces for people...time after time the enviro-nuts have been proven wrong.
I agree with you completed. I will be voting for common sense and not those who move from global cooling, to warming. Ozone layer to over populated.
Enviro-nuts have been proven wrong time and time again yet just like socialism and communism and "free national health care" we still hear from these people. They can take the carbon tax, credits and shove them.
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.
Proven Wrong
