This is a discussion on With all this global warming going on, where are we to put all the snow? within the Off Topic & Humor Discussion forums, part of the The Back Porch category; Toss all the virgins into your ‘global warming volcano’ you like, it will still erupt when it wants. Stop trying to justify and force us ...
Toss all the virgins into your ‘global warming volcano’ you like, it will still erupt when it wants.
Stop trying to justify and force us to do the same with Cap & Trade.
Unbelievable modern day folk lore and superstition.
The models they use to predict global warming are the same models used in the 70's that predicted we would all be frozen in the next ice age by now. The only problems with the model are the total lack of cloud formation and the impact of clouds on the climate. Oh, and if you put the data from the last 30 years into the model and run it, it doesn't come even close to the climate we have now.
Of course the weather data is suspect. The NASA data goes back to 1880. We had weather sats back then? Of course not. We had weather stations everywhere back then we have them now? No. All the instruments are the same? Nope. No urban heat islands now where weather stations are located? You wish. No mistakes made by NASA scientists with weather data? Last year a NASA scientist put September data in for October data and we had the hottest October in decades per NASA (until someone outside the Global Warming crowd noticed the error).
And there is a real question whether CO2 causes global warming or follows it.
You're probably cooler than me too. : )
For the record Rod I'm a believer in intelligent design over macro evolution. I do not wish to debate that here.
"For the Lord your God will bless you in all your harvest and in all the work of your hands." Deuteronomy 16:15
Global warming or not, it was 94 on my back porch today, Sept 22. It normally is about 60 here in the Puget Sound this time of year.
In eastern washington they are now starting to use Cow Manure to generate electricity.
I think you have extreme people on each side manipulating the data to show they are right and the other side is wrong. Throwing politics out the window I can't see why a sane person wouldn't want a clean environment to live in. My degree is in environmental science. When in college you had people who were extreme in their beliefs that the environment should be protected no matter the cost to humans. You had others that wore t-shirts to class that read "I love spotted owls, they taste like chicken". Most of us fell in between. There were many projects going on at Virginia Tech in relation to land reclamation after mining. I got to see the results of those projects at a strip mine site after new ideas were used for combining different materials and types of shale to increase soil formation on reclaimed land. It was amazing to see how much new top soil had formed in just 5 to 10 years with the right mixture, and the right types of plant material. This is evidence that even the harshest destruction of the land can be repaired with the right techniques. I always believed that you should try to maintain a clean environment, but not at the expense of people. China and India are examples of complete disregard for others. Last year during the olympics the air was so polluted that many there said their lungs would burn from it. I don't think we want it to get that bad here, but we don't want to go overboard on the controls either. There has to be a middle ground in the end. Kind of like love thy neighbor, but with a glock 27 in a crossbreed supertuck just in case.
G23 w/GTL21, G27, Ruger LCP, & Taurus 617 SS
NRA Life Member
VT Class of '96
YES, there are Very Real environmental concern/issues that exist without us inventing fake ones. Some are eventually going to have catastrophic consequences unless they are addressed.
Just off the top of my head.
One huge pending problem would be the incredibly toxic highly concentrated waste dumped for decades into the oceans by Russia in 55 Gallon drums. The vast majority of which have not broken open to release their contents yet.
Another would be severe overfishing by the newer enormous super fishing vessels that are like 4 blocks wide with computer controlled nets in order to catch entire schools of millions of fish and they are depleting entire species of the most popular/desirable edible fish varieties.
All of the "other caught fish" being ground up into millions of tons of fish-meal animal feed.
The oceans are NOT boundless and limitless as we once believed. Species need time to repopulate and are not being given time to do that.
Another is the drought in Africa which has been decimating animal populations for years now.
I can think of many others.
argumentum ad hominemOriginally Posted by rodc13
argumentum ad populum and argumentum ad verecundiamOriginally Posted by rodc13
And here we devolve into personal attacks and statements that have absolutely nothing to do with the subject under debate.Originally Posted by rodc13
You, like all "true believers", accuse the other side of the debate of engaging in tactics which you then employ yourself, while refusing to admit that you are doing so. You have chosen a belief, and you follow that up by filtering data in such a manner that it fits that pre-determined belief. You inherently trust data that supports your belief, and inherently distrust data that contradicts it. And you attack the PEOPLE who challenge your belief, rather than attacking the point.
You rant and rail against these people you call "deniers", yet you hold your position just as irrationally as you accuse them of holding theirs. Perhaps you need to step back and consider how your pre-determined belief is affecting your ability to consider data rationally.
BTW, the basic laws of physics clearly indicate that the "inevitable trend" is toward COOLING, not warming - at least as far as this planet is concerned.
You don't end up with a clean environment by making the masses poorer.
G23 w/GTL21, G27, Ruger LCP, & Taurus 617 SS
NRA Life Member
VT Class of '96
About that Arctic ice disappearance …
National Geographic in summer 2008:
National Geographic this week:Arctic warming has become so dramatic that the North Pole may melt this summer, report scientists studying the effects of climate change in the field.
“We’re actually projecting this year that the North Pole may be free of ice for the first time [in history],” David Barber, of the University of Manitoba, told National Geographic News aboard the C.C.G.S. Amundsen, a Canadian research icebreaker. …
But this summer’s forecast—and unusual early melting events all around the Arctic—serve as a dire warning of how quickly the polar regions are being affected by climate change.
This year’s cooler-than-expected summer means the Arctic probably won’t experience ice-free summers until 2030 or 2040, scientists say.
Some models had previously predicted that the Arctic could be ice free in summer by as soon as 2013, due to rising temperatures from global warming.
Scientifically, what does this tell us about the climate-change models used to make this hysterical claim?
1. They’re completely wrong and should be jettisoned — or,
2. They speak to a larger truth and should be used and heretics/skeptics shunned
Which option would a real scientist choose, and which one would a political hack with interests in glomming onto big government grants choose?
"Who is to say that I am not an instrument of karma? Indeed, who is to say that I am not the very hand of God himself, dispatched by the Almighty to smite the Philistines and hypocrites, to lay low the dishonest and corrupt, and to bust the jawbone of some jackass that so desperately deserves it?"
Did anyone mention the "other" pole? The ice that has GROWN there more than replaces the ice that has melted at the north!
So is there a change? (not the Obama one) Yes, slowly, and most likely a natural one.
Interesting Earth Factoid.
Did you know that there is 11 times ALL of the surface water (inclusive of all of the oceans) on Planet Earth trapped within the mantle of the Earth?
That there is a LOT of doggone water.