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.
Sorry dear, the Northern Plains and southern Canada are permafrost? I didn't notice that when I drove through. Maybe because they're not. Want to try again?
No agriculture in the permafrost, that's impossible right? You said that right?
And this is just one guy. We CAN FIGURE OUT agricultural possibilities for the permafrost. We're smart enough.
And yes, fossil fuel dependence ABSOLUTELY equals energy independence in today's world. We need to pump, dig, and frack and USE IT ALL UP. In about 75 years or so, it will start to run out. And get expensive. Then more expensive. Until solar, nuclear, wind, wave, geothermal, what-have-you is cheaper than fossil fuels. Then, and only then, we can transition to these other modalities. But until then, we will be energy independent from Islamic oil and Russian oil. And that's a good thing.
Finally, dear, and embarrassingly, you pull out the appeal to consensus, lecturing me on what "most Americans" think. As if that has any logical weight.
I think you should post more carefully. If you keep getting schooled by a lowly real estate agent you are not going to be able to include these posts in your curriculum vitae. And God forbid a waitress decides to weigh in...
You just out right lie. It is fascinating.
Go back and read it. I never said ALL the areas you mentioned were permafrost, I said much, I never said agriculture was impossible, I said it won't be like farming in the midwest (which is what you orginally referenced). All LIES you made up.
The reason why it matters what "most americans think" is because you have repeatedly and unnecssarily given your opinion as if you personally get to decide what happens. You do not. This is a democracy and as such what "most americans think" matters more than what one parasitic real estate agent thinks.
Humans may or may not be the cause. Remember the ice ages? The earth warmed up, massively --- and there was no industry to speak of, no CO2 being put in the atmosphere at all. And yet the earth still warmed up. You have no idea if we are warming the planet up, or if it's being done by other forces.
They key thing is, we need to learn to improvise, adapt, and overcome the warmer temperatures. We need to turn a potential negative into a positive. We need to stop shedding liberal tears over something that may very well be uncontrollable.
The bold is incorrect. CO2 typically correlates with past periods of warming (aka glacial minimas of the Milankovich cycles. It is higher during warming, lower during cooling. Sources of CO2 (and other GHGs like methane) vary widely and can include everything from vulcanism, thawing of permafrost, changes to the oceans buffering system, and many, many more.
What is not known when talking about paleoclimatology vs the current climate event, is whether the CO2 forced the climate or the climate forced the CO2. We know CO2 and climate are ties in what are called feedback loops, many of which are positive feedback loops which increase the original condition. For example warming climate causes warming of surface waters, warm water hold's less gas (this is called Hess's Law) and releases more CO2 back to the atmosphere which in turn warms the climate and the whole thing goes around again.
And while I agree adaptation and resilency is part of the large scale solution, so is mitigation.
There is technology right now that can sequester CO2 from the atmosphere. As part of a mitigation plan, it could be used on a large scale to offset out CO2 output.
That being said, the notion that sea level rise and warmer temps are the only concern is foolish. Spread of diseases, invasive species that can destroy agriculture, and even potential issues related to loss of atmospheric oxygen are all possible. Sitting back and taking a "wait and see" approach to something that could potentially threaten humans on a large scale warrant being examined, closely.
Not the appeal to authority and consensus claim. Cook also claimed such, as well as Oresk, and a couple others who focused not on the science, but the fallacy of appealing to consensus, which is not a scientific principal. You see, what this activist avoids is the fact that science is not dependent on a bunch people agreeing, it is established on verification, validation, and replication. They do not have this, which is why they continue to demand appeals to authority.
Note again the focus on attacking skeptics with name calling, and then focusing again on consensus with claims of "peer review".
They have no evidence, all they have is rhetoric which is why they always end up going to the emotional arguments once you press them. Keep it up, name calling is the foundation of a losing position. What next, a media campaign showing the killing of those who don't toe the line of your dogma? Oh wait... too late:
Another Fallacy. In fact, numerous scientists have shown errors in the hypothesis (you do understand that CAGW is still a hypothesis right?). Though something tells me you are not really up on the science as much as you are on the promoting the activism?
Also, the fact that you use evolution as an argument shows you are not educated to any real level in science.
Good luck with that!
Are you serious with this nonsense? LOL!
Link to one credible source that has presented a peer reviewed rebuttal of global warming. Im not going to bother with the rest of your nonsense, just this. Present your peer reviewed ( not Billy Bob's Guide to the Global Warming Hoax, or other such "authority" you seem to read to get your info ) evidence that scientists dispute man made global warming .
In addition, Im not sure how you see me comparing climate change to creationists shows anything of the sort. care to explain that? My point is that just as creationists will deny the science they dont like, and even create alternate pseudo scientific sites to offer so called rebuttals for their believers to read as some sort of evidence against evolution, climate change deniers do the same. And are generally as illiterate about it as creationists are about evolution. In fact, many conservatives fall into BOTH camps, climate change deniers and creationists.
Last edited by wallflash; 02-26-2017 at 03:51 PM..
Go back and read it. I never said ALL the areas you mentioned were permafrost, I said much, I never said agriculture was impossible, I said it won't be like farming in the midwest (which is what you orginally referenced). All LIES you made up.
The reason why it matters what "most americans think" is because you have repeatedly and unnecssarily given your opinion as if you personally get to decide what happens. You do not. This is a democracy and as such what "most americans think" matters more than what one parasitic real estate agent thinks.
Excellent dear, so now that we are past that, vast new areas of non-permafrost will now become more amenable to conventional agricultural techniques. And actual perma-frost areas will even become amenable to advanced agricultural techniques. We can feed more humanity. Sea levels will rise. That will cause the necessity for vast amounts of human relocation from various islands and coastal cities. Enabling us to scrap older obsolete buildings in favor of modern green buildings farther inland. Creating a universe of opportunity for creativity and new industry, and nearly limitless new jobs.
So far AGW is looking pretty cool. It's all in how you look at it.
Let's also keep in mind that direct measurement of actual temperatures is a recent phenomenon. A large part of the AGW research is faith-based on paleoclimatological inference. Meaning, ESTIMATING temperature in the past utilizing indirect methods and assumptions which may not be accurate, are probably not accurate, but which are assumed to be accurate and are fed into computer models. Computer models that are then used to construct false apocalypses for public consumption. But, as they say, garbage in garbage out.
So, if we predict Armageddon based on data that is not reliable, are we trashing the Scientific Method and acting as political advocates for an ideology that just happens to hate individualism, freedom, and Capitalism? Why, yes. Yes we are.
There is technology right now that can sequester CO2 from the atmosphere. As part of a mitigation plan, it could be used on a large scale to offset out CO2 output.
That being said, the notion that sea level rise and warmer temps are the only concern is foolish. Spread of diseases, invasive species that can destroy agriculture, and even potential issues related to loss of atmospheric oxygen are all possible. Sitting back and taking a "wait and see" approach to something that could potentially threaten humans on a large scale warrant being examined, closely.
Note the Armageddon sales job. This apocalypse COULD happen. And if this happens, IT IS POSSIBLE that this apocalypse could then happen. And we can't "wait and see", because if the apocalypse that could happen, does happen, it will be "too late", and the apocalypse will consume us all.
It's all utter complete bullfeces based on innuendo and ideology.
The Words of AGW: Could, May, Might, Possible, Perhaps, If. It's all a crock of non-declarative garbage. They can't predict anything, because the future is utterly unpredictable. They can't predict tomorrow's weather, yet they can predict with political certainty the fate of climate in the next century. Crock. Of. Bullfeces.
"Oh no. Weather and climate are 2 different things. We can't predict weather, but we can certainly predict climate." Especially since trillions of dollars can be confiscated now if we can convince politicians that we can predict the future climate, and we'll all be dead and the money long since spent before our silly claims can be verified.
Faith-based AGW advocates can't even accurately discern the past:http://www.astrobio.net/climate/ice-...-thermometers/ Yet we are supposed to MITIGATE CIVILIZATION and MITIGATE the INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION and give them our money to redistribute to their cronies and sycophants and minions in Big Environment. And tyrannize first world industries with carbon credits so that we can redistribute the wealth of the first world in the form of bribes to third world countries so that they decide not to develop at all or better yet, using our Big Environment partners to do things "sustainably" the way we decide it should be done.
Let's not do that. Let's wait and see. Let's opt for reality over faith-based redistribution-based AGW ideology.
Last edited by Marc Paolella; 02-26-2017 at 04:44 PM..
Excellent dear, so now that we are past that, vast new areas of non-permafrost will now become more amenable to conventional agricultural techniques. And actual perma-frost areas will even become amenable to advanced agricultural techniques. We can feed more humanity. Sea levels will rise. That will cause the necessity for vast amounts of human relocation from various islands and coastal cities. Enabling us to scrap older obsolete buildings in favor of modern green buildings farther inland. Creating a universe of opportunity for creativity and new industry, and nearly limitless new jobs.
So far AGW is looking pretty cool. It's all in how you look at it.
Lying trolls do not deserve responses. Don't you have some cookies to bake for the next open house anyway?
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.
