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.
most climate scientists are already biased to begin with(why do you think there are climate scientists?),
What? So people only study the atmosphere out of a "bias" to get in on all that climate change money? You think all climate scientists got into it merely to propagate a hoax? What kind of loon are you? You DO realize that climate science involves studying far more than just global warming, right?
Quote:
For instance we know that Europe, Greenland, and Asia had to have been much warmer during the Medieval warm period than it is today.
We don't base scientific study on localzed temps for "much of" a certain area (hardly an exact term).
The NOAA and NASA measure atmospheric temp and ocean temps. That's reliable, and not some shoot-from-the-hip Fox news analysis intended to distract.
Quote:
If it can be proven that it had to have been much warmer during the medieval warm period than it is today. Then there is no reason to believe the world is in some kind of unstoppable increase in Earth's temperature. Especially since we know that CO2 levels were also much much much higher in the past than they are today, and Earth didn't suddenly become Venus. The CO2 levels eventually dropped, and nothing catastrophic happened.
You literally have no idea what you're talking about. CO2 levels have never been this high in man's history, that we're aware of. CO2 levels being this high could very well result in man's extinction.
Quote:
The truth is, the Earth is heating up for a variety of reasons. I have no doubt man is a part of it, but we just aren't contributing enough to worry as much as we do about it.
Okay, so the PRECISE, EXACT correlation between the use of fossil fuels, and the never-before-seen rise in CO2 in the atmosphere holds no causation concerns and shouldn't be bothered with? This is literally like denying the fundamental concepts of gravity or entropy. People like you are the reason the debate is so f____ed.
Quote:
I am sure scientists could come up with some kind of plan to deal with global warming if it actually became an imminent threat. But currently, they can't agree on anything,
There is literally NO truth to this statement. It's a bald-faced lie. I have no other words to use to describe it.
Quote:
I dunno, the rise in CO2 levels of the other four events seemed to have occurred very swiftly. They all seem to be very sharp upward lines to a high point, then generally taper off slowly.
Perhaps you need to learn how to read graphs.
Over 600,000 years, CO2 levels have NEVER reached as high as they are now, and it all happened in 150 years. Prior increases of more than 50 or so PPM happened over THOUSANDS of years. This rise of more than 100 happened in a century and a half.
You need to learn to read and understand data. You're terrible at this.
Quote:
All I am saying is that, the amount of energy required to feed people is a tiny fraction of the energy that humans need. Most of the energy that Americans use is on things like cars, air conditioning, lighting, video games, and other forms of entertainment. Just look at Las Vegas if you don't know what I mean.
This is assuming that the only energy we need is the energy to grow food. You need 1000 times that energy to transport it around the world to those people who are not in immediate proximity to the food being grown.
I don't even know why I'm explaining this to you. You're just a right-wing Heritage Foundation drone who will keep denying the obvious, so post away with your nutball conclusions if you want to.
Indeed, Africa has plenty of natural resources, and it's the West that has exploited those countries, colonized those countries, and pit them against each other for the use of those resources.
No doubt the rise of the middle classes in China and India pose a huge problem. Yet still, Americans per capita consume more energy than even the upper class Chinese. But it's a difficult problem, because who are we to tell these newly wealthy Chinese and Indians "Hey, you can't live the life that we've enjoyed for 60 years!" They want our lifestyle because we exported it to them. So the hunger for resources and a life of energy-consuming leisure by the Chinese and Indians is a reflection of our own behavior.
Believe it or not, we're still the biggest hogs at the trough. It's 3-car garages, SUVs, fast food, and plastic everything. We can't dig up oil for 150 years, shove trillions of tons of it into the atmosphere, and expect no adverse consequences for our air.
What? So people only study the atmosphere out of a "bias" to get in on all that climate change money? You think all climate scientists got into it merely to propagate a hoax? What kind of loon are you? You DO realize that climate science involves studying far more than just global warming, right?
So do you really believe there is no bias in the scientific fields?
"Although the cultural cognition typology is more subtle, the Climatic Change study survey of over 400 climate scientists found that 67 percent identified as liberal, 20 percent moderate, and 13 percent conservative."
"On a scale in which 1 means no risk and 10 means extreme risk of climate change, the average for the overall sample was a score of 5.7. Hierarchical/Individualists averaged 3.15 points on climate change risk, whereas Egalitarian/Communitarians scored 7.4 on average."
I don't know what you think, but it seems to me that bias is quite rampant in the climate science field, and with everyone else as well.
Quote:
You literally have no idea what you're talking about. CO2 levels have never been this high in man's history, that we're aware of. CO2 levels being this high could very well result in man's extinction.
I agree, CO2 levels have never been this high in man's history. Just like CO2 levels had never been higher in man's history during the Medieval Warm period, and also practically any arbitrary date in history before that. The question is, does it matter? What does it mean?
The Earth has had CO2 concentrations as much as 18 times greater than they are today. At one time the Earth had CO2 concentrations that were 12 times greater than today, and we were actually in a rather long ice age, and it was far colder than it is today. In fact, the Earth is very cold today compared to most of the distant past. If you were to believe these alarmist scientists, the Earth should have been a flaming ball of uninhabitable space a long time ago. But their presumptions and predictions rarely ever actually pan out.
For instance, they try to say that severe weather would be the result of a heating Earth. But there is no proof of it. In fact, there is some proof that the incidence of Hurricanes reaching land will probably drop. It would limit the impact of things like the Santa Ana winds. Right now, satellite images show the Sahara desert shrinking, not growing. They believe a warmer Earth would cause much more rain, as water would evaporate into the air much more readily, this would reduce the amount of deserts. And would add much more farmland to the United States and Canada, as well as many other areas of the world(esp Russia). Plants are also going to grow far more quickly in a more CO2 rich environment.
The truth is, the last time CO2 levels were as high as they are today, it was about 15 million years ago, and it was 5-10 degrees warmer than today and there was basically no ice in Greenland or in Antarctica. And sea levels were at least 75 feet higher than they are today. But....
If 400 PPM of CO2 in the atmosphere caused such vast differences in the Earth's temperature 15 million years ago. Then why isn't our current almost 400 ppm of CO2 pushing our temperatures anywhere near what they were back then? Why don't any the climate models believe that our current 400 ppm of CO2 will push us anywhere near a 5 degree celsius increase in temperature like there was in the past? Because there is a lot more to the issue than just CO2.
Currently, both Greenland and Antarctica are actually cooling down, not heating up. Greenland is cooler now than it has been in more than 40 years. This man named Oppenheimer, who is a scientist working in Antarctica, believes there is actually a possibility that the warmer air will bring in more moisture that will fall on Antarctica as snow, and may actually increase the size of Antarctica as the Earth warms, and would actually slow any sea level rise caused by warmer temperatures elsewhere.
Even if you look at his other sea-level rising possibilities, he is talking about that there will likely not be any significant sea level rise for centuries into the future.
I am not saying that there is no warming of the Earth happening. What I am simply stating is that, the whole situation is largely exaggerated by opportunistic people. That the real impact of global warming will be minimal, and it will happen over a very very long period of time(you and I will be long be dead before there is any real impact). That there could quite possibly be far more positive results of any warming than negative results. And that, the current temperature swings are simply not abnormal at all. That the Earth was probably just as hot or hotter during the Medieval Warm period as it is today. And anyone who sits around spewing all this alarmist drivel about how within some really short period of time, that there won't be snow, or that we will all have to move to Canada within a couple decades, or some other crap. Is being plain stupid.
The more important part is, the Earth's climate will change regardless of if Humans are here or not. Eventually the Earth will be thrown into another Ice age. In fact, we are overdue for one. There is far more to be concerned about from an Ice Age than from global warming. We may have even staved off an impending Ice Age by artificially heating the Earth.
Basically, don't be so worried about global warming. If you are an environmentalist and you really want to make a difference in the world, pollution is a hundred times more important than global warming. Trying to bring an end to all of our foreign wars all around the world to maintain our oil supply, is a far more noble cause than global warming. Asking to end government subsidies for the automobile to lower our demand for oil would be a good place to spend some of your time. That includes things like no longer bailing out car companies, raising the gas tax so it actually pays for the roads(and its other environmental damages). Rework the diesel gas tax so it doesn't penalize diesel cars for the damages that semi's do to the roads. Raise taxes on Semi trucks in some fashion, because they don't come anywhere close to paying for the roads that they destroy. I could go on and on about the real environmental issues facing America, but global warming simply isn't a major concern.
No, its more like the conservatives solution is to bring them all to the USA where they can exploit the cheap labor. The out-of-control US-Mexican border didn't happen because liberals were waving their hands saying "come on over for social services!". It happened because there was a ready market for the near slave labor.
Yes and not to mention Texas, which leads the nation in job gro
wth, 37% of its New jobs are paying minimum wage or under so you see what's going on here.
Furthermore, I hate those real treehugging hippie people that want to save the animals. They get all upset when they see a polar bear and her cubs starving, looking for food. So I assume they don't realize a polar bear is a vicious predator, that murders other animals and their cubs on a daily basis.
I stayed in Florida for a while, I absolutely despise the Alligator, it is absolutely worthless and unnecessary, and I have no Earthly idea why in the hell it still exists. Would be nice to a feel a little safer swimming in the thousands of lakes and ponds in that state. But you have all these idiots in the state that have been propagandized to think the Alligator needs protection or some crap. And now alligator attacks keep increasing every single year.
The same can be said for most large predators. I get tired of these people defending them like "OMG they were here before humans", "the humans are the bad guys", blah blah blah.
Listen here, I am a human-being. Humans are the only things that matter. All other animals alive on this planet are only alive because we allow them to live. You hear me bears, sharks, wolves, crocodiles, etc?
Getting back to the original thread; I think couples have had large families in places with high infant and child mortality rates in order to have someone around to take care of their fathers and mothers when they become elderly. In many cultures taking care of parents first is ingrained into children at a very early age. In most places kids are the social Security system. I believe this is why more affluent societies with government support of the elderly have fewer children per couple.
About alligators etc – After suffering through a couple of episodes of “Swamp People” I’m on the side of the alligators.
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.
