Well as far CO2 goes even Gore is saying that it isn't the major player in "Climate Change". There have been quite a few studies that make the argument of our CO2 emissions now as opposed to the Industrial era isn't even close. As far as UN and US government studies are concerned it seems that all government funded scientist and studies come back with a pro global warming argument where as private studies with nothing to gain come back saying the opposite. However even some of the government scientist are jumping ship now, and then there was the whole climate gate scenario a few months back.
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
Global Warming..........
- Thread starter CoachV40
- Start date
Well as far CO2 goes even Gore is saying that it isn't the major player in "Climate Change". There have been quite a few studies that make the argument of our CO2 emissions now as opposed to the Industrial era isn't even close. As far as UN and US government studies are concerned it seems that all government funded scientist and studies come back with a pro global warming argument where as private studies with nothing to gain come back saying the opposite. However even some of the government scientist are jumping ship now, and then there was the whole climate gate scenario a few months back.
Werbung:
Gipper
Well-Known Member
Funny...
You libs are sooooooooooooooooo concerned about the effects of huge amounts of CO2, but the hugely expansive growth of government does not concern you in the least. In fact, you want it to grow even more.
Silly lbs...they are so confused.
Proof?
Asleep in high school science? India was part of Antarctica. Plates move. Nothing to do with global warming.
A single weather event(ie. a snow storm), is not indicative of climate change.
Carbon dioxide is not a poison. Carbon monoxide is. For human respiration purposes, the percentage of carbon dioxide and the percentage of oxygen is important.
The percent of oxygen at sea level, etc., is 21%
The percent of carbon dioxide at sea level, is .039%
"...CO2 is toxic in higher concentrations: 1% (10,000 ppm) will make some people feel drowsy.[5] Concentrations of 7% to 10% cause dizziness, headache, visual and hearing dysfunction, and unconsciousness within a few minutes to an hour.[6]..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide
All this stuff is easily researched by those who slept though high school or were cheer leaders.
Pandora
Well-Known Member
The spring of 2010 not only unleashed some of our wackiest weather ever -- from record rains to May flurries -- but it was also the warmest on record, Environment Canada climatologists say.
Must be an example of libs believing those crazy scientists. Those of us in the know realize that there is a conspiracy among the world's scientists, and that Canada is a liberal country that is in on the hoax. Global warming indeed. Both Limbaugh and Hannity have assured us that there is no such thing.
sure, that's the ticket, sure.
Must be an example of libs believing those crazy scientists. Those of us in the know realize that there is a conspiracy among the world's scientists, and that Canada is a liberal country that is in on the hoax. Global warming indeed. Both Limbaugh and Hannity have assured us that there is no such thing.
sure, that's the ticket, sure.
Pandora
Well-Known Member
If you want to say "climate change" I am with you, its the global warming thing that is silly to me. Even the global warming nuts are changing the wording to "Climate change"
No one would disagree the climate is changing and has been since long before humans walked the earth.
Given some of the silly arguments I've read, I'm not so sure that no one would disagree that climate has been changing for millennia.
The problem is, they're talking geologic time, hundreds of millennia. Now, we're talking historic time, decades. That is the difference.
Moreover, there weren't six billion human beings on the Earth to record the events during past ice ages and warming trends.
The term "climate change" is more accurate, as "global warming" has been misconstrued as a nice, even warming of the planet. Climate change is a whole lot more complex than that.
Pandora
Well-Known Member
If you went back to any ice age and checked temps for 100 years before the ice age hit or 100 years after the ice age was over it would look I think much like it looks now.
You say there are silly arguments against the global warming argument, I guess they would seem silly to you. But I read the stuff that AlGore has said for years about global warming, Ted Turner and others and they are flat retarded. Ted Turner says we will be eating each other in a short period of time and AlGore had the planet destroyed by now due to global warming.
What I find strange is none of the "man made" global warming alarmists will discuss the fact that the sun is in a solar minimum right now and at the hottest point on record the sun was in a solar maximum. Its as though they think the sun has nothing to do with it.
If the planet is getting warmer in general we should not see record colds anyplace. I understand the extra hurricanes and tornados can be blamed on global warming but persistent colder weather in a global warming cycle is something I expect Winston to understand not normal people.
pocketfullofshells
Well-Known Member
thats because your talking about weather, not climate...
overall temps go up, some places will get much cooler..
climate change...
also rainfall will be off, sea levals changing, and many other issues...not just well its cold in one place and hot in another.
Hobo1
Well-Known Member
All this discussion about whether Global Warming is real or fictional... study, study, here... study, study, there.
The only INDISPUTABLE FACT is that nobody, but nobody, knows if Cap and Trade will have any effect on the problem. What kind of fool would spend billions of dollars on a program that nobody has a clue if it will make the slightest difference or have the slightest effect?
Now somebody show me a link where is says, "Cap and Trade will significantly reduce Global Warming".
The only INDISPUTABLE FACT is that nobody, but nobody, knows if Cap and Trade will have any effect on the problem. What kind of fool would spend billions of dollars on a program that nobody has a clue if it will make the slightest difference or have the slightest effect?
Now somebody show me a link where is says, "Cap and Trade will significantly reduce Global Warming".
Gipper
Well-Known Member
Well that is an easy question to answer. A liberal fool will confiscate and spend billions of other people's money to enrich himself and increase his power.
And, as we know from the historical record of government programs imposed by liberals, whether the program works or not is of no consequence.
The ends justify the means...
Hobo1
Well-Known Member
I don't believe a vast majority of liberals have the devious intentions of simply taking money from the American public. Why would it enrich anyone? The result of cap and trade would be to make most products in American more expensive for everyone. Perhaps some large land owner in the Amazon will get rich by selling carbon credits when he plants trees.
I think most people who support cap and trade think they are making the world a better place by what they are trying to do. Regrettably, there is not a shred of evidence to support what they believe.
Gipper
Well-Known Member
You are missing the forest for the trees.
The liberal elites like Fat Al Gore and BO are the ones driving the bus on this issue. They are the ones making money and gaining power.
The vast majority of liberals are useful idiots...just believing what their leaders tell them.
The Scotsman
Well-Known Member
.......... and yet that hasn't happened anywhere else in the world currently operating such schemes so I'd be interested on your views as to why you think this may happen in only the US. The argument being that in many cases quite the opposite happens as companies become more efficient in their use of energy and consumable resources and shareholder equity in fact rises as costs reduce. If your assuption is that American industry is not as responsive to such changes in the economic environment then they make themselves ripe for takeover by more efficient non-US companies? Also, do you not think that benchmarking also comes into the equation?
I'd be interested in your take on this.
Werbung:
Your provided links are not proof of solar activity melting the Martian ice caps. The first link includes the reason scientists think that the cap is melting (because of the great wobble in its cycle). The other link attributes it to normal seasonal "freeze-thaw" changes.
In short, there is less evidence that solar activity causes the reduction of the ice caps on Mars than there is that global warming of Earth is not man made.
