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.
You know what I believe. I have laid it out in spades many times in many AGW threads.
But here is my summary.
The end of the great glaciation 12,000 or so years ago was not caused by man. The climate has warmed ever since, with the following exception.
The Little Ice Age was not caused by man. The climate changed.
The end of the Little Ice Age was not caused by man. The climate changed again.
The crux of the AGW argument is that the climate change that occurred when the LIA ended was indeed caused by man. All the data they accumulate is chosen to make the data fit the theory.
There is no AGW, none. It's been a political scam from the beginning funded by those who seek to benefit from the control it would give them and the useful idiots that we see posting here with myriad charts they don't understand are their best tools to try to convince us that naturally occurring climate change is somehow the fault of human activity the past 100 years. Anyone who has the least bit of science education knows it's all BS.
The ONLY solution is to drastically reduce the world's population. It was 1 billion in 1900. It's pushing 8 billion today. That, my friend is the problem and we a can thank oil 100% for that rise in numbers.
But we don't want to talk about that do we?
The net effect of increasing the costs of fuel by any substantial amount will lead to more starvation in third world countries. Of course, the elites will blame that on "rich" people while they attend $30,000 a plate dinners before jumping back on their private jets.
The ONLY solution is to drastically reduce the world's population. It was 1 billion in 1900. It's pushing 8 billion today. That, my friend is the problem and we a can thank oil 100% for that rise in numbers.
The ONLY solution is to drastically reduce the world's population. It was 1 billion in 1900. It's pushing 8 billion today. That, my friend is the problem and we a can thank oil 100% for that rise in numbers.
What is your solution? Birth control in our water supplies? Neutron weapons exploded in places where them pesky poor people live? Worldwide?
I invite you to start a thread on just such a topic as you suggest. Let's see if we do or dont want to discuss it.
I'm saying that these Global Warmers are always railing on this issue but never give any solutions.
My questions are rhetorical. If GW is real, then the only solution is population decline since the more people, the more oil is burned and that cannot be controlled.
Understand? I for one personally, do not believe in this nonsense and I think the World's population will take care of it's self and Mother Nature is certainly trying out different methods to cut us down.
I'm saying that these Global Warmers are always railing on this issue but never give any solutions.
My questions are rhetorical. If GW is real, then the only solution is population decline since the more people, the more oil is burned and that cannot be controlled.
Understand? I for one personally, do not believe in this nonsense and I think the World's population will take care of it's self and Mother Nature is certainly trying out different methods to cut us down.
One way to reduce the increasing population of humans is to limit migration from areas of low resources to those of high resources, but the global warming crowd tends to also be the open borders crowd, so they refuse to acknowledge it.
One way to reduce the increasing population of humans is to limit migration from areas of low resources to those of high resources, but the global warming crowd tends to also be the open borders crowd, so they refuse to acknowledge it.
Yep, they absolutely avoid the questions.
That's why their threads should be moved to the science forum.
Obama is trying that and its blowing up in his face.
Fossil fuels will always be with us.
Alternatives are too expensive and not reliable.
The climate is going to change as it always has. Prove that man is causing it. You can't.
Wrong fossil fuels will not always be with us. Even the most optimistic estimates of the total amount of carbon based fossil fuels, give a total amount of about 5000 Gtons of such fuels (i.e coal all grades) peat , petroleum (including tar sands and oil shales) and natural gases. This also assumes 100% recovery,
At current consumption this will be all burned up roughly 2000 years from now (2000 years ago Rome was a great empire) . If we assume even modest increase in growth or assume all mankind will be using our current per capita consumption within this century . This amount of fossil carbon fuels may be used up in only 200-300 years (roughly the time frame the fictional Star Trek series) and 200-300 years isn't that long of a time historically speaking . So the age of fossil fuels has a finite bound and after the fuels are used up we will not be having this debate over putting more carbon in the environment. We wll just have to live with the consequences of the world which we as a species made.
Actually, that poll is all Americans. It is the least of our worries for a good reason.
Color me informed.
And? When you take a very low percentage from Republicans and a percentage in the 60-70 percent from Democrats, you are given a low number because of Republicans and their lack of care for climate change. This is nothing surprising to anyone.
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.