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.
I understand temperature recorders in third world countries are expecting to get paid for planting trees thanks to carbon-credits.
Of course they are adding a degree or two.
Everyone gets paid for going along with the official story.
As for cloud cover, even the IPCC admits it is a huge unknown.
Computer models don`t like things like clouds that continuously vary in density and opacity and gain and lose altitude all while collecting and releasing water content as they move through the atmosphere.
You can`t herd chicks.
There you go again, just making things up....You never back up your statements, and by the way chicks are easy to herd....Clouds are a known important factor in climate... ISCCP: Cloud Climatology
I assure you, even if I did, I'd hardly be the first to do so.
The problem I see with the climate change debate is both sides seem to have a need to over simplify it. It's either completely natural or completely man made for most people. I assert that it's realistically both. Every living thing impacts their environment and, by extension, the climate. Humans are not separate from nature and therefor are impact is just as natural as a tree's impact.
Sure, fossil fuels wouldn't be burned without human actions, but even if that's the root cause of climate change (which I assert is a gross oversimplification) nothing that has changed wasn't already possible, nor would a constant stable point be reached if the factor was removed entirely. And for obviously political reason, the concept of 'alternative energy' is almost always the focal point of climate discussion. But what is wind power going to do to address mass deforestation, constant rising of human population, and general wastefulness of man kind?
Nothing. Absolutely nothing.
I'm far more concerned with the destruction of forests and general pollution of the planet than I am with the use of oil or coal. I do think that scientific and industrial progress demands of us that we are on a constant search for more efficient energy, but it shouldn't be due to the political thought of the time. Technology needs to be thoroughly tested before it's introduced to the masses. Not every American owned a car the moment the car was invented. Change takes time and to force it is to doom it.
Climate change is natural, and humans do effect it. An idiotic notion exists that humans are in some way separate from nature; we're not. We're just as governed by natural laws as any other living or non-living thing, and we are just as influential to the environment and climate as any other species.
Wile I find your position to be reasonable amidst the dominant theme of irrationality, in my opinion, it is wrong nonetheless. The key failing point here is to assign some responsibility to human activity, when there is no hard evidence to support it.
The REAL key factor that is ignored in the climate debate is the fact that aside modern "scientific" claims regarding manmade CO2 as being the operative component in climate change, several hundred thousand years of climate data (prior to modern industrial activity and the discovery of so-called fossil fuels) shows atmospheric CO2 levels fluctuate as a RESULT of warming and cooling cycles, and not the other way around. Therefore, blaming CO2 for increased temperatures is like blaming a dented fender as being responsible for the automobile accident. It is nonsensical thinking.
Many years ago, we mused that the government would tax the air we breathe if they could figure out a way to do it. And bam! Here it is …. CO2!! By golly, those con artists figured it out … too bad the unwashed masses can't do the same.
The hard cold reality is, the earth's climate can be summed up in two distinct states …. periods of glaciation, and inter-glacial periods. Within this two distinct conditions, we are either exiting a glacial period (earth getting warmer) or heading toward another glacial period (getting colder). These cycles can last hundreds of thousands of years to complete the entire cycle from glacial, to inter-glacial, and back to glacial. During these cycles … there are fluctuating periods of warming and cooling that can last for decades, yet have no effect whatsoever on the overall trend which is measured in ten's of thousands of year cycles. It would be helpful to envision a "bell curve" … at the bottom, we have the coldest temps, and glaciation. As temps increase, and glaciation recedes, we travel up the left side of the bell curve until we hit the top and the highest temperatures are experienced. Necessarily, this trend will be followed by a cooling period as we travel down the the right side of the bell curve heading back toward a glacial period. There are cooling and warming periods on both sides of that bell curve, some which may last for decades, yet have NO EFFECT on the overall direction the climate is heading. There are only to possibilities … we are either on the left side of the bell showing temperatures to be increasing (exiting a glacial period) or we are on the right side with temperatures falling, and headed toward another glacial period. This has been occurring for Millions of years, with no help from mankind. It's ludicrous to think that all of a sudden, during a brief period of 150 years, human activity took over this complex cycle.
Nevertheless, given the choice of global warming and global cooling, irrespective of the contributing factors, any sane individual would prefer warming over cooling, since glaciation periods result in massive die off in plant and animal life, while warming results in the dramatic expansion of plant and animal life, and consequently. expanding human life too. Of these two choices, it's a no brainer … warmer is better, regardless of the alleged dire consequences of arctic melting, sea rising, etc. Better that than having the North American continent under two miles of freaking ice, dontcha think? Seems to be an easy choice …
So, even if CO2 causes warming … take a deep breath, and exhale that CO2 as much as you like … and then head to the beach, and leave your Parka in the closet!!
California is surrounded on two sides by desert and a third side by ocean. it isn't a farfetched guess that its natural climate is desert or semi-arid scrub. Putting millions of people there was a major mistake.
Dang, I'd swear I read somewhere those people migrated to California......probably in a history book.
When it slides off into the ocean, the only this I regret the loss of are all those neat cars (except the lowriders that is )
This point should be obvious but is ignored by "scientists" who have nothing better to do but run other people's lives.
Huh? The Arctic is being monitored by scientists from several nations.
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.
)