|
|
Post by amelietm on Apr 18, 2012 7:59:41 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Warkitty on Apr 18, 2012 8:28:06 GMT -5
Yes, the glaciers in the highest peaks are still healthy and growing. It's the lower altitude glaciers that are melting worldwide.
|
|
BlackFox
Senior Forumite
Stay thirsty my friends
Posts: 4,496
|
Post by BlackFox on Apr 18, 2012 8:43:20 GMT -5
Meanwhile in the real world, a new Cold War is taking shape over the mineral rich Arctic, which is melting away.
We didn't have a winter in North America this year, but Europe had its coldest, harshest winter in a very long time.
It takes a lot more to explain climate science other than "It's not true because it got cold somewhere".
|
|
|
|
Post by LimitedRecourse on Apr 18, 2012 15:56:26 GMT -5
"It takes a lot more to explain climate science other than "It's not true because it got cold somewhere"."
Which is why when global warming alarmists say the earth is in peril "because it got warmer somewhere" the sane people are not so impressed or alarmed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Half-Tard on Apr 18, 2012 15:59:40 GMT -5
The climate is changing, get the facts from science not your political party of choice..
|
|
|
|
Post by wheels on Apr 19, 2012 13:15:58 GMT -5
The climate is changing, get the facts from science not your political party of choice.. climate is always changing. that doesn't mean humans are causing it. |
|
|
|
Post by Warkitty on Apr 19, 2012 14:15:39 GMT -5
Yeah. Just because the lowly beaver can change an entire ecosystem and hence the localized climate doesn't mean humans having changed the entire face of the planet have had ANY affect on the climate.
|
|
|
|
Post by LimitedRecourse on Apr 19, 2012 16:49:02 GMT -5
"The climate is changing, get the facts from science not your political party of choice.. "
There is no doubt the climate is changing. It is part of the natural cycle. Science shows (if YOU will stop getting YOUR facts from a political party) that we are coming out of a "cold" cycle into another "warm' time period.....probably should last 50-80 years and should peak somewhere around half-way before heading back into a "cold" time period. The last one had Europe under several feet of snow for MONTHS. Read and learn instead of listening to the alarmists. We can certainly harm the environment, as well as help preserve it, but we can't do a whole lot to stop the natural weather pattern cycles.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tsavodiner on Apr 20, 2012 3:13:47 GMT -5
Yeah. Just because the lowly beaver can change an entire ecosystem and hence the localized climate doesn't mean humans having changed the entire face of the planet have had ANY affect on the climate. "EXTIRPATE these CLIMATE CHANGING BEAVERS!!!"  |
|
|
|
Post by wheels on Apr 20, 2012 10:51:28 GMT -5
Yeah. Just because the lowly beaver can change an entire ecosystem and hence the localized climate doesn't mean humans having changed the entire face of the planet have had ANY affect on the climate. if humans are causing the current warming trend, what do you suggest has caused past warming trends? |
|
osrb
Senior Forumite
Semper Fi
Mostly Harmless
Posts: 3,150
|
Post by osrb on Apr 20, 2012 10:57:52 GMT -5
It is no longer called Global Warming it is not Climate Change because we all know that the climate should never change.
|
|
|
|
Post by Half-Tard on Apr 20, 2012 14:26:56 GMT -5
but we all agree the climate is changing right? Then lets STFU about this and move on...
|
|
|
|
Post by LimitedRecourse on Apr 20, 2012 15:20:30 GMT -5
So, you state that climate is changing and imply that anyone with an opposing view to humans causing it is "getting their facts from their political party" to paraphrase. Once you are called out with REAL facts that NEITHER political party uses, and it is shown that YOU are merely getting YOUR facts from YOUR political party, you just want to end the debate? Who is short on facts, now?
|
|
|
|
Post by Justin Thyme on Apr 20, 2012 16:18:33 GMT -5
Yeah. Just because the lowly beaver can change an entire ecosystem and hence the localized climate doesn't mean humans having changed the entire face of the planet have had ANY affect on the climate. if humans are causing the current warming trend, what do you suggest has caused past warming trends? What would the answer matter? Each trend could have its own cause or multiple causes. I suspect the warming trend we are now in can't be explained by only one cause. It can't be disputed that man is a significant contributing factor, though. How significant? I will agree that that is debatable. Regardless of how significant man's contribution to the warming trend is there are reasons other than global warming for us to reduce our carbon footprint. The biggest reason for you is that it will save you money. Find more efficient ways to use energy and ways to not use energy and you will reduce your output of carbon based gases and increase the size of your bank account. You might also increase your life span. |
|
|
|
Post by wheels on Apr 23, 2012 12:46:05 GMT -5
if humans are causing the current warming trend, what do you suggest has caused past warming trends? What would the answer matter? b/c knowing what has caused past trends might give us insight into what is causing the current trend. It can't be disputed that man is a significant contributing factor, though. sure it can. Regardless of how significant man's contribution to the warming trend is there are reasons other than global warming for us to reduce our carbon footprint. The biggest reason for you is that it will save you money. Find more efficient ways to use energy and ways to not use energy and you will reduce your output of carbon based gases and increase the size of your bank account. You might also increase your life span. i fully support anyone's attempt to limit their impact on the environment. however, i don't necessarily think that everyone should be forced to do so. governments around the world are cashing in on the "green" movement. this is a brand new revenue stream and we're all paying for it. |
|
|
|
Post by Justin Thyme on Apr 23, 2012 14:33:47 GMT -5
What would the answer matter? b/c knowing what has caused past trends might give us insight into what is causing the current trend. Past trends have been caused by a change in multiple variables, not always the same combination. Core samples taken from glacial ice has shown an increase in CO 2 levels in the atmosphere in most past trends but not all of them. What caused past warming trends may or may not be causing the current trend. It can't be disputed that man is a significant contributing factor, though. sure it can. No, it can't. We are a population of seven billion burning mountains of coal and oceans of oil. Our emmissions are raising the level of CO 2 in the atmosphere a significant amount. We are still pouring enough sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides into the air to alter the ph of rain fall to be acidic enough to remove the finish from cars. We are affecting our climate. The only thing debatable is by how much. What have you been forced to do? |
|
|
|
Post by Warkitty on Apr 23, 2012 14:38:04 GMT -5
In a past life, wheels said "there's no way people could cause the passenger pigeon to go extinct."
|
|
|
|
Post by Tsavodiner on Apr 23, 2012 16:01:10 GMT -5
In a past life, wheels said "there's no way people could cause the passenger pigeon to go extinct." and anything that craps on aforesaid conveyance can go STRAIGHT to where ever extinct things go.... |
|
|
|
Post by wheels on Apr 24, 2012 13:38:44 GMT -5
b/c knowing what has caused past trends might give us insight into what is causing the current trend. Past trends have been caused by a change in multiple variables, not always the same combination. Core samples taken from glacial ice has shown an increase in CO 2 levels in the atmosphere in most past trends but not all of them. What caused past warming trends may or may not be causing the current trend.may or may not. exactly. the debate is not over, yet many want to attribute it all to human causes. No, it can't. We are a population of seven billion burning mountains of coal and oceans of oil. Our emmissions are raising the level of CO 2 in the atmosphere a significant amount. We are still pouring enough sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides into the air to alter the ph of rain fall to be acidic enough to remove the finish from cars. We are affecting our climate. The only thing debatable is by how much. if all 7 billion of us urinated in the pacific ocean, you could call that a significant change. however, the sea level change would be negligible. i fully support anyone's attempt to limit their impact on the environment. however, i don't necessarily think that everyone should be forced to do so. governments around the world are cashing in on the "green" movement. this is a brand new revenue stream and we're all paying for it. What have you been forced to do? i pay higher prices for products. soon i may even have to pay extra for flights to europe. i have to get my car tested for emissions. soon i'll have to stop using incandescent light bulbs. many of the changes are subtle by design. many of the changes i'll be required to accept won't be implemented for years. however, they are coming. |
|
|
|
Post by wheels on Apr 24, 2012 13:39:08 GMT -5
In a past life, wheels said "there's no way people could cause the passenger pigeon to go extinct." huh? |
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Apr 24, 2012 14:37:30 GMT -5
If man is causing Earth to warm, what is causing almost every other planet in the Solar System to heat up? Our SUV's carrying over? Check out this .doc file |
|
BlackFox
Senior Forumite
Stay thirsty my friends
Posts: 4,496
|
Post by BlackFox on Apr 24, 2012 14:54:04 GMT -5
if all 7 billion of us urinated in the pacific ocean, you could call that a significant change. however, the sea level change would be negligible.  /obligatory |
|
|
|
Post by wheels on Apr 24, 2012 15:57:32 GMT -5
if all 7 billion of us urinated in the pacific ocean, you could call that a significant change. however, the sea level change would be negligible. /obligatory all good goals that have their own merit. i would imagine that most people, even climate change skeptics, could get behind those goals. if you want clean water/air, then convince people to work toward that. if you want energy independence, then sell it on its merits. don't, however, try to scare people into it by pushing unproven climate change science. |
|
|
|
Post by Tsavodiner on Apr 24, 2012 16:03:01 GMT -5
LOVE the cartoon; it perfectly illustrates the left's proclivity for "change" without any real reason other than political expediency that benefits them by giving them inroads into your not only everyDAY, but every MINUTE life, usually through the voluntary and compliant diminution of your God-given Liberty.
It also highlights their penchant for making light of any opposition through hyperbole and hypercriticality.
|
|
|
|
Post by ssmynkint on Apr 24, 2012 18:23:29 GMT -5
Pot, meet kettle.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tsavodiner on Apr 24, 2012 18:42:42 GMT -5
Back atcha'
I meet people who STILL raise nine kinds of hell about the Patriot Act and it's "intrusions" into their lives who think NOTHING of having to test their cars for emissions, being told what kind of LIGHT BULBS they can own and use, and being charged a fee for the f*cking RAIN to run off their lawns and into a ditch.
Read the news lately? We are about to take it in the ever-loving ASS from the EPA over storm water.
The $100 million they propose to 'assess" us is the kind of tribute the Romans used to demand from the slave countries to avoid destruction. And this is only the BEGINNING.
Dave Crockett and the "sustainability" crew better watch their six or they might see an Alamo of a different sort.
|
|
|
|
Post by Half-Tard on Apr 24, 2012 19:39:45 GMT -5
Patriot Act = Rico laws been around for years.
|
|
|
|
Post by ssmynkint on Apr 24, 2012 21:16:43 GMT -5
Tsavo,the rest of your, obviously tongue in...er...cheeck, screed aside, the fact that Chattanoogans and their elected leaders have dicked around for decades, delaying needed and necessary improvements in the septic sewers has nothing to do with inappropriate Federal intervention and everything to do with irresponsible local stewardship and lack of due diligence.We have met the enemy and he is you.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tsavodiner on Apr 24, 2012 21:25:48 GMT -5
"Necessary" according to WHOM?
Chattanooga's spent millions on recovery and treatment facilities over the years.
Many people don't know the entire area beneath where Riverbend is held are mammoth holding tanks to receive runoff for holding until it can be processed. Moccasin Bend is in constant refinement and improvement.
But it's never ENOUGH for Obama's EnviroNazi Protection Agenda, run by a Czar and devoid of Congressional oversight, meting out leftist "justice" in punitive riposte for being a "red" area.
I'M not the one taxing you into penury like they're going to.
|
|
Bob
Global Moderator
Bird Geek
Posts: 7,029
|
Post by Bob on Apr 25, 2012 6:18:02 GMT -5
|
|
tq8oBMsj(qiGRg~~_3.JPG)
