U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-10-2010, 08:27 AM
 
8,640 posts, read 7,956,277 times
Reputation: 2854

Advertisements

We're all going to diiieeee!


Where oh where is the Goracle when we need him?


He's probabaly stuck in some ice berg somewhere that has refused to melt with all this Global Warming? Climate Changie? thingy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-10-2010, 08:54 AM
 
Location: Indiana
2,047 posts, read 1,349,540 times
Reputation: 395
Quote:
Originally Posted by okccowboy View Post
A major study by a lead scientist at NOAA determined that climate change would largely be irreversible for the next 1000 years after all carbon emissions ended.
ScienceDaily (Jan. 28, 2009) — A new scientific study led by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reaches a powerful conclusion about the climate change caused by future increases of carbon dioxide: to a large extent, there’s no going back.

“Our study convinced us that current choices regarding carbon dioxide emissions will have legacies that will irreversibly change the planet,” said Solomon, who is based at NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratory in Boulder, Colo.

The study examines the consequences of allowing CO2 to build up to several different peak levels beyond present-day concentrations of 385 parts per million and then completely halting the emissions after the peak. The authors found that the scientific evidence is strong enough to quantify some irreversible climate impacts, including rainfall changes in certain key regions, and global sea level rise.

Climate Change Largely Irreversible For Next 1,000 Years, NOAA Reports
global warming,you have beatten us with that global warming b.s.... give,,,it,, up all ready.go and huge a tree
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2010, 08:54 AM
 
Location: stairway to heaven
1,136 posts, read 582,699 times
Reputation: 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by okccowboy View Post
A major study by a lead scientist at NOAA determined that climate change would largely be irreversible for the next 1000 years after all carbon emissions ended.
ScienceDaily (Jan. 28, 2009) — A new scientific study led by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reaches a powerful conclusion about the climate change caused by future increases of carbon dioxide: to a large extent, there’s no going back.

“Our study convinced us that current choices regarding carbon dioxide emissions will have legacies that will irreversibly change the planet,” said Solomon, who is based at NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratory in Boulder, Colo.

The study examines the consequences of allowing CO2 to build up to several different peak levels beyond present-day concentrations of 385 parts per million and then completely halting the emissions after the peak. The authors found that the scientific evidence is strong enough to quantify some irreversible climate impacts, including rainfall changes in certain key regions, and global sea level rise.

Climate Change Largely Irreversible For Next 1,000 Years, NOAA Reports

Another United Nations Study. Wonder how much we pay them to create models? Wonder how they create the models they trely on. They always tell us the results but they never tell us the construct of the model. I would bet that in many of these studies we would laugh our asses off at the construct of the model on which the conclusion is based.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2010, 09:23 AM
 
Location: Oklahoma City
759 posts, read 707,940 times
Reputation: 238
NOAA is a Fed. US government agency. They are the people who give us our daily weather forecasts among other issues related to the oceans and the atmosphere. They are not the UN. The lead scientist in this study works for NOAA


Quote:
Originally Posted by Atilla View Post
Another United Nations Study. Wonder how much we pay them to create models? Wonder how they create the models they trely on. They always tell us the results but they never tell us the construct of the model. I would bet that in many of these studies we would laugh our asses off at the construct of the model on which the conclusion is based.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2010, 09:31 AM
 
Location: Somewhere in Kentucky
3,790 posts, read 7,772,048 times
Reputation: 2416
So okccowboy...what are YOU going to do about all of it? Are you going to stop it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2010, 09:39 AM
 
23,851 posts, read 19,802,302 times
Reputation: 9381
Let us not forget that NOAA is not exempt from political influence. Barack Obama appointed the head of NOAA. I can assure you that NOTHING is released without having been signed off on by the political appointees. And I can assure you that nothing is signed off on if the subject matter is not congruent with the current Agenda.

Does anyone really believe that an Obama appointee will release something that is damning to the Democratic environmental agenda?

(My boss is a political appointee, I see it everyday).

Last edited by AeroGuyDC; 01-10-2010 at 10:04 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2010, 09:50 AM
 
Location: stairway to heaven
1,136 posts, read 582,699 times
Reputation: 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC View Post
Let us not forget that NOAA is not exempt from political influence. Barack Obama appointed the head of NOAA. I can assure you that NOTHING is released without having been signed off on by the political appointees. And I can assure you that nothing is signed off on if the subject matter is not congruent with the current Agenda.

(My boss is a political appointee, I see it everyday).
Thank you... thank you. In the article he posted up there was in fact, allusion, or delusion as it were, to United Nations groups.

I don't remember what or how and I don't intend to revisit the propoganda to find out. Problem is the United Nations is strongly behind the global warming phenom because they know there is money in it for them. They then ,become the international sister of the democratic party for redistribution of wealth from those who earned it, to those that did not earn it.
The fallacy of course in the logic, or lack thereof, is that all the rechanneling of resources if they had it, would go to enhance the lives of the mafia style politicians of these independent countries and would do nothing whatsoever, to address the plight of the poor or global warming for that matter.
Folks if we don't get these people out of power and soon, we are all literally f...ed. The world we have known since the 50s or before of constant evolution of individual wealth and prosperity and the opportunity for evolution of a free society is going to be lost forever,- if it is not already. Vote these fing loons out of office ...please.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2010, 10:11 AM
 
Location: Minnesota
1,554 posts, read 1,345,433 times
Reputation: 2030
This is NOT an argument for or against the science of global warming, but who the heck can make a prediction like that with any confidence it will have any meaning or bearning on our circumstances in 1000 years.

A hundred years ago could we have even envisioned how we'd live today and what our circumstances would be ? Not even close. Now imagine 1000 years from now and we cannot even fathom what will be out living circumstances or the "crisis" of the decade at that time. Chances are it won't be anything even close to what we're obscessing about today.

Of course we need to be careful in our use of our natural resources. Regardless of how you feel about the global warming or climate change issue we should always be good stewards of that which is given us. It's a shame that the general populace needs to be beaten into submission with the fear of climate change to change their ways and stop squandering our natural resources when just good common sense and decency should suffice.

At the rate things are changing now with technology and living conditions now.....1000 years from now I'll make my prediction now....my prediction is that we haven't a clue what the problems of the day will be....but I'll bet climate change won't be the issue.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2010, 10:44 AM
 
Location: stairway to heaven
1,136 posts, read 582,699 times
Reputation: 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasper1372 View Post
This is NOT an argument for or against the science of global warming, but who the heck can make a prediction like that with any confidence it will have any meaning or bearning on our circumstances in 1000 years.

A hundred years ago could we have even envisioned how we'd live today and what our circumstances would be ? Not even close. Now imagine 1000 years from now and we cannot even fathom what will be out living circumstances or the "crisis" of the decade at that time. Chances are it won't be anything even close to what we're obscessing about today.

Of course we need to be careful in our use of our natural resources. Regardless of how you feel about the global warming or climate change issue we should always be good stewards of that which is given us. It's a shame that the general populace needs to be beaten into submission with the fear of climate change to change their ways and stop squandering our natural resources when just good common sense and decency should suffice.

At the rate things are changing now with technology and living conditions now.....1000 years from now I'll make my prediction now....my prediction is that we haven't a clue what the problems of the day will be....but I'll bet climate change won't be the issue.


Last sentence, roger that Jasper!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2010, 10:49 AM
 
17,538 posts, read 19,712,218 times
Reputation: 7291
The reason for the 1000 years so that the morons who bought into the Global Warming BS will forget about it by then... such BS... Global Warming is like the old system of currency... meant to make people poorer and keep the wealthy rich... when the wealthy start to lose their control, they will always fool the stupid public into some BS... this time its GW... take the money out of GW and what do you get? Nothing because that's all it ever was.. stealing money...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top