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.
This is why the rhetoric has changed to "global climate change". Warming doesn't apply this week. Back in the early 70's the mantra was "global cooling". Only a liberal can have it both ways.
Right you are. When the warming failed to materialize, "global warming" was renamed "climate change", which could then encompass every weather event from the "norm". Floods, drought, hurricane, tornado, fire, feast, famine, ice, melting ice, too much ice could also be included.
In retrospect, how DUMB was that for the AGWcultist to do?
16 scientists from all of those around the world huh?
Lets get what they said straight, first of all, ok?
Most of the distinguished scientists on the list said that their problem is with the APS saying that drastic action must be taken to curb global warming.
There is currently 0 scientific evidence that if humans cut all carbon emissions tomorrow, that it would stop, roll back, or change global warming. The truth is, we just don't know.
But that doesn't mean it isn't happening. Ice levels are at lower levels in many regions of the world then ever before. A one year event doesn't mean anything really, but Michigan without snow on the ground in January is quite weird.
Global warming has been said all along to cause one thing by those that know what it does, climate swings. Climate changes from one extreme to another. Record snow one year followed by a year with no snow pack in Michigan?
Look, I'm not saying that global warming may not have been over hyped, it may very well have been. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to limit human intervention into the environment of the Earth.
One thing that conservatives know, humans getting involved in complex systems is bad. The environment is a complex system. The more we put into it, and the more we interfere with it, the worse off it gets. Surely we don't think that pumping emissions into the atmosphere is a good thing.
You're right. We don't know, but what we do know is that CO2 is a necessary ingrediant for plant life. Perhaps there are other ingrediants in fossil fuel burning that are harmful to the environment, but we still don't have the answers. Until we do have the answers, any change we make could just as likely do more harm than good. Electric cars? How do we dispose of the batteries without impacting the environment? The same arguement can be made for any form of power. We simply don't know.
You're right. We don't know, but what we do know is that CO2 is a necessary ingrediant for plant life. Perhaps there are other ingrediants in fossil fuel burning that are harmful to the environment, but we still don't have the answers. Until we do have the answers, any change we make could just as likely do more harm than good. Electric cars? How do we dispose of the batteries without impacting the environment? The same arguement can be made for any form of power. We simply don't know.
You do know that you can die from water or oxygen poisoning, right?
To much of anything, is bad. Thats the problem with CO2 emissions. We have put more CO2 into the atmosphere then would naturally have occurred without human intervention.
Should we destroy our way of life on a theory that cutting those emissions will end global warming? No. Should we do everything we can within reason to limit human impact on the environment? Yep.
You do know that you can die from water or oxygen poisoning, right?
To much of anything, is bad. Thats the problem with CO2 emissions. We have put more CO2 into the atmosphere then would naturally have occurred without human intervention.
Should we destroy our way of life on a theory that cutting those emissions will end global warming? No. Should we do everything we can within reason to limit human impact on the environment? Yep.
And what specifically is impacting the environment negatively?
To much of anything, is bad. Thats the problem with CO2 emissions. We have put more CO2 into the atmosphere then would naturally have occurred without human intervention.
Absolute NONSENSE. Co2 has been much higher in the past. Co2 is a MINUTE trace gas that makes up approx .038% of the atmosphere. WOW!
Now, HOW to explain the "high" levels of Co2 over the last 15 years.....WITHOUT any warming occurring??
Quote:
Duh! Oceans Drive Climate (Not CO2), Says New Nature Study
I'm saying that we should aim for 0 human impact on the environment of the Earth. Thats not a realistic goal, but its what we should aim for.
Nothing at all wrong with cutting down on pollution, with conservation and sustainability.
In fact, most legitimate "greens" are now trying to focus on those various issues since the AGWcultists have HIJACKED the movement and dealt a serious blow to their credibility.
So do you have anything to back up your statement about the tornadoes being uncharacteristic?
Yeah. A whole slew of folks from weather reporting indicating the tornadoes we've been experiencing are uncharacteristic.
Quote:
According to the National Weather Service, the average number of U.S. tornadoes touching down by this time of the year [April] is 448. In 2011, the weather service has registered 877 twisters.
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.
