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.
So, if Bama and Gore want to start off to the sun in the LEAD bus, I'll be glad to follow a coupla buses later. Keep us posted to make sure you got the route down right.
So you also have no facts you can cite, linking man's activity to global warming/cooling/whatever? Nothing but "Aw, it must be true!"
Global-whatever pushers are still maintaining their perfect 0-for-everything record in presenting an actual human cause for climate change.
Pretty impressive.
I need stats and cites to state the obvious? Look at google earth to see how much man has changed the surface of the world. Do you really think that didn't alter the natural balance? Do you think we can cut, carve, suck and dump in perpetuity without causing any problems?
Today a report came out that for the last couple of years the measurements of the climate in The Netherlands was done wrong...and this caused the temperature to be measured too high!
What convenient to tell people how Global Warming is there...while it was just measured wrong!
Today a report came out that for the last couple of years the measurements of the climate in The Netherlands was done wrong...and this caused the temperature to be measured too high!
What convenient to tell people how Global Warming is there...while it was just measured wrong!
The question you need to ask is why you are so passionate about finding a reason to discredit this issue. What is your core motivation? Is it simply a curiosity of science or is it rooted in the fact that it challenges your fundamental ideology?
If you think mismeasuring one indicator in one small corner of the planet is suddenly going to disprove the piles upon piles of science from across the globe that refute your fundamental claim, then perhaps you have not studied the science on this matter to the depth necessary for informed comment.
The question you need to ask is why you are so passionate about finding a reason to discredit this issue. What is your core motivation? Is it simply a curiosity of science or is it rooted in the fact that it challenges your fundamental ideology?
If you think mismeasuring one indicator in one small corner of the planet is suddenly going to disprove the piles upon piles of science from across the globe that refute your fundamental claim, then perhaps you have not studied the science on this matter to the depth necessary for informed comment.
Speaking for myself, I have never discounted that the climate has always and will always change. We have real scientific data that proves this. As the glaciers retreat in Greenland they uncover evidence of past civilizations, including tree stumps of very old trees.
There are fossil records that indicate that plant life once thrived farther north than thought possible. Climate change is a certainty. The reason I am passionate about it is because I am selfish. The Gorebots of this world have convinced the politicians that nothing short of a massive tax increase will save the planet. Imminent doom is just around the corner.
I recycle. I live in a passive solar home. I drive less than most of you simply because I work from home a fair bit. I use mass transit when I travel to DC or the Bay. I grew up hunting and fishing, and like many in the west love the land. That is my fundamental ideology.
I see no benefit, however, to taxing Americans another trillion dollars based on pseudo-science simply to appease a few fringe environmentalists while destroying our ability to compete globally with countries like China and India who don't care one bit about GW.
Speaking for myself, I have never discounted that the climate has always and will always change. We have real scientific data that proves this. As the glaciers retreat in Greenland they uncover evidence of past civilizations, including tree stumps of very old trees.
There are fossil records that indicate that plant life once thrived farther north than thought possible. Climate change is a certainty. The reason I am passionate about it is because I am selfish. The Gorebots of this world have convinced the politicians that nothing short of a massive tax increase will save the planet. Imminent doom is just around the corner.
I recycle. I live in a passive solar home. I drive less than most of you simply because I work from home a fair bit. I use mass transit when I travel to DC or the Bay. I grew up hunting and fishing, and like many in the west love the land. That is my fundamental ideology.
I see no benefit, however, to taxing Americans another trillion dollars based on pseudo-science simply to appease a few fringe environmentalists while destroying our ability to compete globally with countries like China and India who don't care one bit about GW.
Well, please cite where a trillion dollar tax hike has been proposed to address climate change. Also, while you are accurate that the climate has always changed, the rate of change and the impact is on an unprecedented scale when accounting for natural cycles. The science is really quite conclusive on these issues. It's beyond any natural cycle on record (and we are experiencing the most hurricanes in the past 1,000 years as well).
So, whenever people cite Al Gore, a red flag goes up for me. This issue was of critical importance in the scientific community decades before Gore brought it to the mainstream with his slide show. So, if one's basis of argument is that Gore brainwashed a bunch of people, then I simply can't trust that they fully understand what is at stake or what the actual facts are. They see this issue through a political spectrum. While some abuse this issue for selfish gains, there do need to be drastic changes in our lifestyles. Seems like you are well ahead of the curve and I applaud you for that.
The reality is that we can't compete with China and India because they are developing - just like Great Britain couldn't compete with us when the industrial base moved from western Europe in the 19th century to the U.S. in the 20th century. They are not in a position to address climate change. We are because we are the mature adults in the room. We, along with western Europe, bear a responsibility they cannot yet undertake. To simply say, "Well, China won't play nice so neither will we." is, at best, immature and at worst catastrophic.
Why with this idiot is it always seem to be our fault?
This is the greatest,most generous country in the history of mankind and as usual he seems to bash us.
His plan is in full swing!
Why with this idiot is it always seem to be our fault?
This is the greatest,most generous country in the history of mankind and as usual he seems to bash us.
His plan is in full swing!
What do you consider "bashing"? Is it pointing out that we are not perfect? I don't get it. You seem to want to hold onto a mythological worldview that America is just a pristine model and that there is no way for us to improve. I guess that's the core of conservatism - believing that the way things are or were is as good as it could get. I guess that's why progress always comes from progressives - beyond British rule, beyond slavery, beyond women's subjugation, civil rights, etc...
We possess 5% of the global population and consume 25% of its natural resources. The U.S. and China alone consume 40%. That's a MAJOR problem and compelling us to use our ingenuity, wealth, and resources to create the solutions (and jobs) for a world that works better is FAR from bashing. It's simply acknowledging that we can do better and encouraging us to do so rather than sticking our head in the sand. We need to act before it's too late.
Thats right it is perfect..all the left cares about is spreading the wealth around...If other countries are to stupid to figure out how to fend for themselve..Oh well.
Also, while you are accurate that the climate has always changed, the rate of change and the impact is on an unprecedented scale when accounting for natural cycles. The science is really quite conclusive on these issues. It's beyond any natural cycle on record (and we are experiencing the most hurricanes in the past 1,000 years as well).
What is the range of natural variability in climate? The range of natural climate variability is known to be quite large (in excess of several degrees Celsius) on local and regional spatial scales over periods as short as a decade. Precipitation also can vary widely. For example, there is evidence to suggest that droughts as severe as the “dust bowl” of the 1930s were much more common in the central United States during the 10th to 14th centuries than they have been in the more recent record. Mean temperature variations at local sites have exceeded 10°C (18°F) in association with the repeated glacial advances and retreats that occurred over the course of the past million years. It is more difficult to estimate the natural variability of global mean temperature because of the sparse spatial coverage of existing data and difficulties in inferring temperatures from various proxy data. Nonetheless, evidence suggests that global warming rates as large as 2°C (3.6°F) per millennium may have occurred during retreat of the glaciers following the most recent ice age.
As for the hurricanes, there is not enough data. We do know that some of the largest and deadliest storms were before the 20th century. Even this data is useless because it discounts the affect of early warnings on fatality prevention.
So, whenever people cite Al Gore, a red flag goes up for me. This issue was of critical importance in the scientific community decades before Gore brought it to the mainstream with his slide show. So, if one's basis of argument is that Gore brainwashed a bunch of people, then I simply can't trust that they fully understand what is at stake or what the actual facts are. They see this issue through a political spectrum. While some abuse this issue for selfish gains, there do need to be drastic changes in our lifestyles. Seems like you are well ahead of the curve and I applaud you for that.
I don't think Al Gore brainwashed the scientists, I think Al Gore brainwashed the rank-and-file American. Those are the Gorebots I was referring to. The average non-scientist American. Oh, and a few decades ago the threat was Global Freezing. At least when I was in high school.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefly
The reality is that we can't compete with China and India because they are developing - just like Great Britain couldn't compete with us when the industrial base moved from western Europe in the 19th century to the U.S. in the 20th century. They are not in a position to address climate change. We are because we are the mature adults in the room. We, along with western Europe, bear a responsibility they cannot yet undertake. To simply say, "Well, China won't play nice so neither will we." is, at best, immature and at worst catastrophic.
If they are the developing economies and they will be the next large producer of CO2 and pollutants and they are not in a position to address climate change, tell me again why we should tax Americans over a trillion bucks?
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.
