NASA Data shows polar ice caps not receding

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10240622].message }}

This is climate skeptics’ latest argument about melting polar ice — and why it’s wrong - The Washington Post

8 years ago

[ 2 ] Thanks

Signature

Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10240748].message }}

Purnima Shah

8 years ago

Is it true?

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10240803].message }}

Princess Balestra 8 years ago

It's so great that these cool geological structures ain't changed since 1979.

Hell, that's before I was even born.

Kudos shoutout to the guys with the yardstick on this timeless geoplanetary baby.

If things stay this way, all hope of global warming oblivion will be swept from the horizon of my cranky, bio-implanted 120yo's nightmares.

Gotta tune in to the infinite, bust up on the scrummiest chunks.
- [ 1 ] Thanks
Signature

Lightin' fuses is for blowin' stuff togethah.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10240832].message }}

8 years ago

The Polar caps were at a 15 year high last winter. The caps have been snow free before - just before the little ice age. There are underground volcanoes going off in some spots up there and you'll see the "taxing us will fix things" dreamers being duped by shots of clear water near the volcanoes. Same thing with Greenland. The Mid-Atlantic rift runs right through it and theres 6 or more active volcanoes and mantle plumes under it - so yeah, they are going to have some spots with slushy snow, duh.

I like the way anyone who isn't in the "politically edited science" loop is still called a denier. Among those of us who listen to what scientists say before they are edited or paid off -- there are NO climate "deniers". They just don't agree with the official BS that looks more like politics than science. Everyone is well aware that the climate is changing. Good grief people. Can't have a good global take over of science without ad-hominem argument after all, can ya?

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10240915].message }}

myob 8 years ago

The ice caps are melting beneath the surface, particularly along the Arctic shelf due to ocean warming. This is making the vast mineral and energy resources in the region increasingly accessible and perhaps politically unstable: Russia launches military drills in Arctic

NASA data also shows the polar regions are becoming more ecologically unstable due to ocean warming with global ramifications: NASA: Rising Sea Levels More Dangerous Than Thought
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10241074].message }}

8 years ago

NASA knows damned well what is causing the "warming"....which is snow melt at some points in the Northern seas due to underground volcanoes that are heating up the water right now. Every freaking geologist and seismologist on this planet knows that one. Quit eating media as science.

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10273859].message }}

8 years ago

From Canadian Geographic:
So scientists end up counting bears in many different ways, including incorporating observations by knowledgeable local residents. But population estimates are just that: estimates. Some subpopulations of bears haven’t been counted in decades, if ever. And some are counted more frequently but with slightly different survey areas or methodologies from year to year. The Polar Bear Specialist Group, an international consortium of experts, classifies 10 of the 19 subpopulations as being “data-deficient,” which isn’t exactly conducive to a coherent discussion about how polar bears are faring worldwide.
Despite all this hedging, the numbers still tell a powerful story. It’s just not always clear what that story is. In Davis Strait, between Greenland and Baffin Island, the polar bear population has grown from 900 animals in the late 1970s to around 2,100 today. In Foxe Basin — a portion of northern Hudson Bay — a population that was estimated to be 2,300 in the early 2000s now stands at 2,570. And in specific areas of western Hudson Bay, the most-studied, most-photographed group of bears on Earth seems to have been on a slow but steady increase since in the 1970s.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10273865].message }}

8 years ago

Actually the polar regions have risen approximately 4 degrees in the last two decades, they are on pace to rise about 15 by by 2100, and that has nothing significant to do with volcano activity. Global temperature averages in 2014 was the hottest on record with a correlation to the highest levels of CO2 in the atmosphere - from 275ppm in the early 1800's to now hovering above 400ppm. CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels is the primary forcing in climate change, not volcanoes.

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10277814].message }}

Banned 8 years ago

Originally Posted by myob

Actually the polar regions have risen approximately 4 degrees in the last two decades, they are on pace to rise about 15 by by 2100, and that has nothing significant to do with volcano activity. Global temperature averages in 2014 was the hottest on record with a correlation to the highest levels of CO2 in the atmosphere - from 275ppm in the early 1800's to now hovering above 400ppm. CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels is the primary forcing in climate change, not volcanoes.

I love CO2. More CO2 means more plants, more food, greener planet. Eventually more fuel. Warmer planet = more plants as well. Why don't stop worrying about the pests (people) and worry about the planet itself instead?

P.S. You should see what happened to my tomatoes once I raised CO2 level in my greenhouse.

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10278479].message }}

8 years ago

Originally Posted by HN

I love CO2. More CO2 means more plants, more food, greener planet. Eventually more fuel. Warmer planet = more plants as well. Why don't stop worrying about the pests (people) and worry about the planet itself instead?

P.S. You should see what happened to my tomatoes once I raised CO2 level in my greenhouse.

I want to address this, because I hear similar things often.

It is true that CO2 raises the temperature, and makes plants grow faster and better...if...the temperature in the specific area was originally a little too cool for maximum growth. (Like the greater heat in your greenhouse)

But different plants require different conditions. Pine trees are used to cold weather. Most plants are used to the specific conditions they are growing in. Raise the temperature year round...and you may have pockets of better plant growth (like a greenhouse raising tomatoes). But you will also have a serious change in all the conditions around the plants. For example, on a mountain, at every level, there are different plants and trees. Is it because of the altitude? No. It's because of the change in temperature....and the change in humidity.

If you change the temperature, you change which plants will thrive in specific areas.

CO2 is plant food, it's true. And if the CO2 didn't also change the environment, it would be good for plants. But the CO2 also changes the area that the plants will thrive, because of the changes in season, temperature, humidity.

CO2 retains heat. It also dries the land, in areas that are already warm, and may wet the land, in areas that are cooler. But the plants aren't used to the change. They can't evolve in 50 years. But they can die....and maybe be replaced by other plants more suited to the areas new environment.

In California, there is more CO2. Yup, it is plant food. But the lawns are brown. Plants are dying. Why? Because the CO2 is also creating a rise in temperature, a change in rainfall.....which either causes, or at least exacerbates, a severe drought.

Plants that are already growing in a desert, evolved to the dry conditions, the temperature of the desert. A shift to too much water, a shift to hotter temperatures, and the plants die.

Unlike us, plants aren't very good at moving to a new, more hospitable location. Sure, they shift location over millions of years, because of tectonic shifts....but over a hundred years, they aren't moving fast enough.

So, CO2 gives us a little good news, but a lot of bad news. Not because the CO2 levels are so high, but because the changes in CO2 levels means a change in environment, that plants can't adapt to.

And if the local plants die, the local animals can either move or die.

Your tomatoes grow better in a greenhouse. But imagine all the plants that would die, in a greenhouse. Not all plant life grows better in a greenhouse.

Yup, not really all that great. Maybe in 100 years, we can grow tomatoes in Antarctica. Won't that be nice?

Thanks
3 replies

Signature

One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

Terence Fletcher: "There are no two words in the English language more harmful than Good Job." Whiplash.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10278603].message }}

tagiscom 8 years ago

Originally Posted by Kurt

Even funnier is how the "deniers" NEVER mention farming is part of man made climate change.

Course not, who wants to grow boring old wheat?

I know, Cluade,+Donuts, but wheat!!!!

I read today that scientists, say that MMGW will kickstart within a few year's, and we will be on the we will all die, crap again?

So they are acknowledging that MMGW has stalled for the last 16 years?????

Unless it is directly related to sun activity, then we will have a mini ice age, before we all die, from excessively high temp,......ahem.......never mind!!!!!
- Thanks
Signature
Archimedes-Forum where Ideas Take Flight..
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10278673].message }}

8 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

I want to address this, because I hear similar things often.

It is true that CO2 raises the temperature, and makes plants grow faster and better...if...the temperature in the specific area was originally a little too cool for maximum growth. (Like the greater heat in your greenhouse)

But different plants require different conditions. Pine trees are used to cold weather. Most plants are used to the specific conditions they are growing in. Raise the temperature year round...and you may have pockets of better plant growth (like a greenhouse raising tomatoes). But you will also have a serious change in all the conditions around the plants. For example, on a mountain, at every level, there are different plants and trees. Is it because of the altitude? No. It's because of the change in temperature....and the change in humidity.

If you change the temperature, you change which plants will thrive in specific areas.

CO2 is plant food, it's true. And if the CO2 didn't also change the environment, it would be good for plants. But the CO2 also changes the area that the plants will thrive, because of the changes in season, temperature, humidity.

CO2 retains heat. It also dries the land, in areas that are already warm, and may wet the land, in areas that are cooler. But the plants aren't used to the change. They can't evolve in 50 years. But they can die....and maybe be replaced by other plants more suited to the areas new environment.

In California, there is more CO2. Yup, it is plant food. But the lawns are brown. Plants are dying. Why? Because the CO2 is also creating a rise in temperature, a change in rainfall.....which either causes, or at least exacerbates, a severe drought.

Plants that are already growing in a desert, evolved to the dry conditions, the temperature of the desert. A shift to too much water, a shift to hotter temperatures, and the plants die.

Unlike us, plants aren't very good at moving to a new, more hospitable location. Sure, they shift location over millions of years, because of tectonic shifts....but over a hundred years, they aren't moving fast enough.

So, CO2 gives us a little good news, but a lot of bad news. Not because the CO2 levels are so high, but because the changes in CO2 levels means a change in environment, that plants can't adapt to.

And if the local plants die, the local animals can either move or die.

Your tomatoes grow better in a greenhouse. But imagine all the plants that would die, in a greenhouse. Not all plant life grows better in a greenhouse.

Yup, not really all that great. Maybe in 100 years, we can grow tomatoes in Antarctica. Won't that be nice?

Increased CO2 doesn't make plants grow faster because of the temperature raise. Plants use CO2 and water through photosynthesis to make sugar (or food). But there are other factors that have to be in place in order for plants to utilize an increase in CO2.
It's to long of a subject to really get into here, but in College one of my projects was studying the effects of increased CO2 in a greenhouse. Lets just say that even though plants can thrive with increased CO2, because of other limitations in the environment increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere isn't really a good thing for plants.

[ 1 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10278827].message }}

8 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

Increased CO2 doesn't make plants grow faster because of the temperature raise. Plants use CO2 and water through photosynthesis to make sugar (or food). But there are other factors that have to be in place in order for plants to utilize an increase in CO2.

I knew that, and meant to say that. I re-read my post, and can see where the confusion is. I did address it later in the post.

Yes, CO2 raises temperature and is also what plants breath. And I can tell you know far more about that process than I do.

Thanks

Signature

One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

Terence Fletcher: "There are no two words in the English language more harmful than Good Job." Whiplash.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10278909].message }}

Banned 8 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

It's to long of a subject to really get into here, but in College one of my projects was studying the effects of increased CO2 in a greenhouse. Lets just say that even though plants can thrive with increased CO2, because of other limitations in the environment increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere isn't really a good thing for plants.

When the results of research fit the agenda, they'll tell you all about it. When they don't you'll hear things like, well it's good for the plants in your greenhouse, but not in the nature. LOL. How cute!

Seeing is Believing - YouTube

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10278980].message }}

8 years ago

Originally Posted by HN

When the results of research fit the agenda, they'll tell you all about it. When they don't you'll hear things like, well it's good for the plants in your greenhouse, but not in the nature. LOL. How cute!

Seeing is Believing - YouTube

A greenhouse is a controlled environment where you have control over things like soil temperatures, air temperatures, humidity, nutrients, etc. All things you pretty much have no control over outside that greenhouse.

Thanks

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10279120].message }}

Banned 8 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

It is true that CO2 raises the temperature, and makes plants grow faster and better...if...the temperature in the specific area was originally a little too cool for maximum growth.

Can you explain the mechanism? How does co2 raise the temperature and is there data to support this?

This video (data from Vostok's ice core record) says there is 800 year lag between temperature and co2. What is your logical interpretation of this data? How does it fit in? Are you going to dismiss it as not a credible source? Or are you going to accept the explanations provided?

25 - Climate Change -- The "800-year...

[ 1 ] Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10279198].message }}

8 years ago

Originally Posted by HN

Can you explain the mechanism? How does co2 raise the temperature and is there data to back support this?

This video (data from Vostok's ice core record) says there is 800 year lag between temperature and co2. What is your logical interpretation of this data? How does it fit in? Are you going to dismiss it as not a credible source?

25 - Climate Change -- The "800-year lag" unravelled - YouTube

An article from NASA explains it better than I can. I don't know about the time lag. I can't think of a reason there would be a time lag. It doesn't take 800 years for a greenhouse to get warmer. But I'm not an expert.

Here's the article.

NASA - Carbon Dioxide Controls Earth's Temperature

In every argument, about every subject...no matter how expert you are, eventually the answer is "I don't know".

i didn't watch the Youtube video.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

Terence Fletcher: "There are no two words in the English language more harmful than Good Job." Whiplash.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10279210].message }}

8 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

An article from NASA explains it better than I can. I don't know about the time lag. I can't think of a reason there would be a time lag. It doesn't take 800 years for a greenhouse to get warmer. But I'm not an expert.

Here's the article.

NASA - Carbon Dioxide Controls Earth's Temperature

In every argument, about every subject...no matter how expert you are, eventually the answer is "I don't know".

i didn't watch the Youtube video.

Damn Claude we posted the same link at the same time

I guess average minds think alike as well as great ones

Thanks

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10279213].message }}

Banned 8 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

I can't think of a reason there would be a time lag. It doesn't take 800 years for a greenhouse to get warmer. But I'm not an expert.

I think you didn't get the point. Did you watch the video? First the temperature goes up and then the co2 level goes up. co2 rise lags behind temperature rise, not the other way round. Or are you trolling me? Anyway I 've done for today. I'll better go pick some cranberries while I still can.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10279241].message }}

8 years ago

Originally Posted by HN

I think you didn't get the point. Did you watch the video? First the temperature goes up and then the co2 level goes up. co2 rise lags behind temperature rise, not the other way round. Or are you trolling me? Anyway I 've done for today. I'll better go pick some cranberries while I still can.

Honestly, I don't watch Youtube videos, or think if them as evidence. But I see it's only 13 minutes, so I'll watch it tonight.

Am I trolling you? I had to look that up. You mean by answering the questions that you are asking me? I thought I was just being a nice guy.

OK I watched it. The video actually explains, in well constructed arguments, something completely different than what you are saying. The only thing I can say bad about the Youtube video, is that the last scientific reference it uses is from 1990. Although, it does show a very short clip of Al Gore and his talk on Global Warming. The video doesn't take into account the immense rise in CO2 in just the last 20 years or so.

A lot has been learned since then.

It's actually an expose of the "800 year CO2 lag" idea. You should watch it again. It also exposes The Great Global Warming Swindle for the nonsense that it is.

Now, did you read the NASA article?

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

Terence Fletcher: "There are no two words in the English language more harmful than Good Job." Whiplash.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10279257].message }}

Banned 8 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

OK I watched it. The video actually explains, in well constructed arguments, something completely different than what you are saying. The only thing I can say bad about the Youtube video, is that the last scientific reference it uses is from 1990. Although, it does show a very short clip of Al Gore and his talk on Global Warming. The video doesn't take into account the immense rise in CO2 in just the last 20 years or so.

A lot has been learned since then.

Now, did you read the NASA article?

You mean the outdated article? Yes, but I also read these:

Solar Storm Dumps Gigawatts into Earth's Upper Atmosphere - NASA Science

Global warming debunked: NASA report verifies carbon dioxide actually cools atmosphere - NaturalNews.com

Quote from the latter:

Dr. Hansen, (the author of the article you provided?) of course, is an outspoken global warming activist who helped spark man-made climate change hysteria in the U.S. back in 1988. Just after the release of the new SABER study, however, Dr. Hansen conveniently retired from his ??? (Kathryn Hansen?) career as a climatologist at NASA, and reportedly now plans to spend his time "on science," and on "drawing attention to [its] implications for young people."

Edit: there are several Hansens. The doctor in question is Dr. James Hansen.

It's actually an expose of the "800 year CO2 lag" idea. You should watch it again. It also exposes The Great Global Warming Swindle for the nonsense that it is.

Potholer, author of that video, is a former science journalist and he debunks and would debunk anything which questions mainstream science. I just wanted to see how easily you are convinced by some journalist that supposedly "dismissed" the claim and scientific data.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10280655].message }}

8 years ago

Originally Posted by HN

Potholer, author of that video, is a former science journalist and he debunks anything which questions mainstream science. I just wanted to see how easily you are convinced by some journalist that "dismissed" the claim and scientific data.

I think you are being dishonest.

The video didn't convince me of anything. It just questioned assertions you have made. It was organized well, for an amateur video. The video did effectively poke holes in an idea you proposed. But like I said, it was old data, and much has been learned since then.

Your last post shows that this isn't a serious discussion anymore.

I'm going to admit to a little experiment. Based on your posts over the last few years, I assumed you would get nasty. On this thread, you asked intelligent questions. So I ignored a few insults, and treated you like another inquiring mind. I engaged you in serious discussion. I showed you respect.

For awhile, you returned the favor. I wanted to see how you would react if you were treated like an equal. And honestly, until now, I was impressed.

You asked me some of the most intelligent questions here. Your challenges made sense, and showed insight. I welcomed them. I consider hard questions...challenging my opinions....as a huge favor.

But now, you are defending yourself. Not challenging a thought, Not thinking critically....just being defensive. It's too bad. For awhile there, the conversation was pretty rewarding. To be fair, you aren't alone here. Attacking and defending positions is what usually passes for a conversation on this forum.

Here is the quote from your last post (that you quoted from a source)

"Dr. Hansen, (the author of the article you provided?) of course, is an outspoken global warming activist who helped spark man-made climate change hysteria in the U.S. back in 1988. Just after the release of the new SABER study, however, Dr. Hansen conveniently retired from his ??? (Kathryn Hansen?) career as a climatologist at NASA, and reportedly now plans to spend his time "on science," and on "drawing attention to [its] implications for young people."

Honestly, does that sound intelligent and objective to you? To me, it reads like something from a conspiracy/political blog. More saber rattling. This isn't science.

I just went to the website. It's not a science website at all. You should know better.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

Terence Fletcher: "There are no two words in the English language more harmful than Good Job." Whiplash.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10280732].message }}

8 years ago

Originally Posted by myob

So how's the science education system in Australia coming along? Tell us what happened to Venus in its early history when it had an abundance of water and was very similar to Earth. Both planets were formed at the same time and have similar density and chemical composition. Could our planet be headed toward a similar fate?

Ok, but Venus is also a lot closer to the sun!

Sun, Solar activity?????

This discussion is going off the emotional rails as usual.

In the meantime the wheels fall off MMGW!

Thanks

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10280809].message }}

8 years ago

[DELETED]

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10280938].message }}

Banned 8 years ago

[DELETED]

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10280971].message }}

8 years ago

Originally Posted by HN

LOL. You won't go away.
Someone who thinks his one liners are relevant indeed has that. But he wouldn't know it.

My one liners always have a purpose, including this one.

"I determined never to stop until I had come to the end and achieved my purpose."
- David Livingstone

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10281012].message }}

Banned 8 years ago

Originally Posted by myob

My one liners always have a purpose, including this one.

"I determined never to stop until I had come to the end and achieved my purpose."
- David Livingstone

62 years and 5 months of age and you act like a kid. It makes me wonder.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10281036].message }}

8 years ago

Originally Posted by HN

62 years and 5 months of age and you act like a kid. It makes me wondering.

Perhaps you should turn your immense capacity for research to more relevant efforts by helping those who seem to be struggling in matters of real science. For instance what is your answer to tagiscom's feeble statement in post #59? Inquiring minds want to know.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10281095].message }}

8 years ago

Originally Posted by myob

Perhaps you should turn your immense capacity for research to more relevant efforts by helping those who seem to be struggling in matters of real science. For instance what is your answer to tagiscom's feeble statement in post #59? Inquiring minds want to know.

Feeble!!!! You are right l should have used a few pages of incomprehensible science instead?

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10281775].message }}

myob 8 years ago

Originally Posted by tagiscom

Feeble!!!! You are right l should have used a few pages of incomprehensible science instead?

This was regarding your answer to the question (post #59) about which is actually 5th grade science. Why do you suppose Venus is so much hotter than Mercury, even though Mercury is a lot closer to the sun? This can be answered with a simple one-liner. In contrast, your explanation of how "the wheels fall off MMGW" may take a few pages of incomprehensible pseudoscience.
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10281904].message }}

HN Banned 8 years ago

Your last post shows that this isn't a serious discussion anymore.

I tried my best to avoid linking to some silly conspiracy blogs and provided you a link to NASA article. Not serious? That site drew the conclusion based on that NASA article.

I'm going to admit to a little experiment. Based on your posts over the last few years, I assumed you would get nasty.

This is irrelevant and certainly not any sort of an argument, but don't forget who got nasty first. Yesterday (last year) I was too young and didn't know any better than to simply return the favor.

But now, you are defending yourself. Not challenging a thought, Not thinking critically....just being defensive. It's too bad. For awhile there, the conversation was pretty rewarding.

Here is the quote from your last post (that you quoted from a source)

Honestly, does that sound intelligent and objective to you?

I think you are smart enough to understand that the quote wasn't the main argument. I don't think you are actually looking for answers either. You are trying to defend your beliefs. Actually, I ain't on either side. I either know the answer or willing to find it out. If necessary change my opinion 180 degrees. But I don't just believe something because a scientist, NASA, consensus or a conspiracy blog is trying to make me believe.
To have an educated opinion on the subject one should probably spend the entire life researching it. And even then one could draw wrong conclusions.

So I think, indeed, there is no sense to waste any more time. Perhaps it is indeed silly trying to find answers here. Convince someone? I don't care what anyone believes. I just wanted to see how you handle the contradicting evidence. Knowing the truth on this particular issue has no effect other than satisfying our natural curiosity, thus not worth wasting any more time. I mean what are you going to do if you know beyond the shadow of the doubt that is a scam? Start another "conspiracy" blog? There are things that are actually important and have real impact on one's life. I'll get back to the brain research. Wanna talk about brain science instead?
- Thanks
- 1 reply
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10280822].message }}
- Claude Whitacre 8 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by HN
  
  Wanna talk about brain science instead?
  
  Not with you. Anyway, thank you for an interesting discussion. You did show that you're capable of asking great questions.
  
  Thanks
  
  1 reply
  
  Signature
  One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr
  
  Terence Fletcher: "There are no two words in the English language more harmful than Good Job." Whiplash.
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10280855].message }}
  
  HN Banned 8 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre
  
  Not with you.
  
  Good decision.
  
  Thanks
  
  1 reply
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10280877].message }}
  
  Claude Whitacre 8 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by HN
  
  Good decision.
  
  Yes it is.
  
  Thanks
  
  Signature
  One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr
  
  Terence Fletcher: "There are no two words in the English language more harmful than Good Job." Whiplash.
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10281033].message }}

8 years ago

Originally Posted by HN

Can you explain the mechanism? How does co2 raise the temperature and is there data to support this?

This video (data from Vostok's ice core record) says there is 800 year lag between temperature and co2. What is your logical interpretation of this data? How does it fit in? Are you going to dismiss it as not a credible source?

25 - Climate Change -- The "800-year lag" unravelled - YouTube

I think it's a tad more complex them this, but there is evidence out there to support Claude's claim. NASA - Carbon Dioxide Controls Earth's Temperature
Roads, buildings parking lots, cities all contribute to raising temps.

Thanks

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10279211].message }}

8 years ago

Originally Posted by HN

I love CO2. More CO2 means more plants, more food, greener planet. Eventually more fuel. Warmer planet = more plants as well. Why don't stop worrying about the pests (people) and worry about the planet itself instead?

P.S. You should see what happened to my tomatoes once I raised CO2 level in my greenhouse.

Hmmm.. then why doesn't the planet Venus have any green plants? It's 96% CO2. Your logic suggests tomatoes would do quite well there.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10279612].message }}

Banned 8 years ago

Originally Posted by myob

Hmmm.. then why doesn't the planet Venus have any green plants? It's 96% CO2. Your logic suggests tomatoes would do quite well there.

Yeah, exaggerate it beyond reasonable. That lacks any logic whatsoever.

I don't know if you have taken any astronomy lessons in school. Venus is much closer to the Sun. This would actually support the argument that when temperature goes up, co2 levels rise. If that was the only factor.

Mars atmosphere is 95% CO2 too. What do you make out of this, genius? It must me terribly hot on Mars, I'd say according to your logic, but you seem to lack it.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10279716].message }}

8 years ago

Originally Posted by HN

I don't know if you have taken any astronomy lessons in school. Venus is much closer to the Sun. This would actually support the argument that when temperature goes up, co2 levels rise.

ROFLMAO! You're a very,very sad reflection of our science education system.

Originally Posted by HN

Mars atmosphere is 95% CO2 too. What do you make out of this, genius? It must me terribly hot on Mars, I'd say according to your logic, but you seem to lack it.

Actually Mars does have seasonal polar regions of pristine white frozen CO2 where cute fuzzy rabbits have been seen romping around, according to a keen NASA observer right here on this thread.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10279841].message }}

Banned 8 years ago

Originally Posted by myob

Actually Mars does have seasonal polar regions of pristine white frozen CO2 where cute fuzzy rabbits have been seen romping around, according to a keen NASA observer right here on this thread.

You are still on this thread? I am sure your one line contributions are very important, but can't you find another playground where your intellect is appreciated?

Originally Posted by myob

ROFLMAO! You're a very,very sad reflection of our science education system.

If it was said by someone who actually knows what he is talking about it would make sense or perhaps even be insulting. In this case it's like a barking dog on the street. Doesn't bother me.
What has your (United States) pathetic education system to do with me?

Someone who thinks CO2 on planet Venus is somehow related or that people in other countries are a reflection of the US education system, is certainly qualified to draw logical conclusions about my education. And I predict he will. Well, let's hear some more barking.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10279867].message }}

8 years ago

Originally Posted by HN

If it was said by someone who actually knows what he is talking about it would make sense or perhaps even be insulting. In this case it's like a barking dog on the street. Doesn't bother me.
What has your pathetic education system to do with me?

You really should not have ditched so many of your science classes. Just sayin'

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10279893].message }}

8 years ago

Originally Posted by Zodiax

Good Jeebus why are you nerds debating whether climate change is real or not.

Is this because they banned politics a while back?

No, this has been going on for years Zodiax, but now, since the wheels are falling off, (or according to scientists falling on and being put back on) the discussion is less heated and more intelligent!

Although some will cling onto the MMGW crap til the mini ice age is well and truly upon us!

Since cooling and heating of the Earth, is linked to solar sun spot activity, l suspect that a mini ice age, is on the cards for the near future. Like to see the MMGW advocates say it is still happening when Niagra Falls freezes over again, (it almost froze solid, last winter, a good sign of a mini ice age)?

Originally Posted by HeySal

LMAO -I agree that the Washington Post isn't real MEDIA but they aren't SCIENTISTS either, that's for damned sure, right?

Yep, no matter how cold it gets, some will still be spinning MMGW, (it is hard to get your snout out of the MMGW trough, when it has been awash with cash for so long?

[quote=myob;10279612]Hmmm.. then why doesn't the planet Venus have any green plants? It's 96% CO2. Your logic suggests tomatoes would do quite well there.

Originally Posted by myob

ROFLMAO! You're a very,very sad reflection of our science education system.

Yes, pretty silly argument, Venus also has crushing pressures on its surface and can melt lead. Most probes sent there seize up within an hour!

This video gives a good indication of Venuse's surface.

Voyage to the planets: Venus 1 - YouTube

https://youtu.be/AbKrPmb0Ljw

Actually Mars does have seasonal polar regions of pristine white frozen CO2 where cute fuzzy rabbits have been seen romping around, according to a keen NASA observer right here on this thread.

Hey, don't try to make friends with me!

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10280089].message }}

myob 8 years ago

Originally Posted by tagiscom

Yes, pretty silly argument, Venus also has crushing pressures on its surface and can melt lead. Most probes sent there seize up within an hour!

So how's the science education system in Australia coming along? Tell us what happened to Venus in its early history when it had an abundance of water and was very similar to Earth. Both planets were formed at the same time and have similar density and chemical composition. Could our planet be headed toward a similar fate?
- Thanks
- 1 reply
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10280694].message }}
- HN Banned 8 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by myob
  
  So how's the science education system in Australia coming along?
  
  Pretty much like in Lancaster, Reseda and Palmdale.
  
  Thanks
  
  1 reply
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10280708].message }}
  
  myob 8 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by HN
  
  Pretty much like in Lancaster, Reseda and Palmdale.
  
  I see you've been doing some heavy research. Congratulations.
  
  Thanks
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10280923].message }}

8 years ago

Originally Posted by myob

Actually the polar regions have risen approximately 4 degrees in the last two decades, they are on pace to rise about 15 by by 2100, and that has nothing significant to do with volcano activity. Global temperature averages in 2014 was the hottest on record with a correlation to the highest levels of CO2 in the atmosphere - from 275ppm in the early 1800's to now hovering above 400ppm. CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels is the primary forcing in climate change, not volcanoes.

Actually it can be said that commercial agriculture including factory farming of animals contributes in a major way in climate change.

33% of the total global warming effect can be attributed to the food system. Sustainable Table | Agriculture, Energy & Climate Change

Funny how you hardly ever hear any of the "global warming" crowd mention it though.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10278560].message }}

8 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

Actually it can be said that commercial agriculture including factory farming of animals contributes in a major way in climate change. Funny how you hardly ever hear any of the "global warming" crowd mention it though.

Even funnier is how the "deniers" NEVER mention farming is part of man made climate change.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10278572].message }}

8 years ago

Originally Posted by Kurt

Even funnier is how the "deniers" NEVER mention farming is part of man made climate change.

Of course not Kurt they deny any part of mans contribution to climate change. Which makes more sense then the people who don't deny mans contributions to climate change ignoring commercial farmings contribution to it.
By the way it's not farming that is the problem, it's commercial agriculture including so called factory farms.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10278811].message }}

8 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

Of course not Kurt they deny any part of mans contribution to climate change. Which makes more sense then the people who don't deny mans contributions to climate change ignoring commercial farmings contribution to it.
By the way it's not farming that is the problem, it's commercial agriculture including so called factory farms.

Sorry, but to me it doesn't make any sense to deny the effect of carbon emissions. Even if one denies they contribute to climate change, there's no debate of the effect carbon emissions have on our health.

I read a study recently about how much money green tech would save in various regions of the US on health cost alone. Shouldn't the cost of the health impact also be included in the cost of carbon fuels? Let alone, how much is living longer and healthier worth to our quality of life? We can't even put a dollar figure on that.

And if anyone tries to debate the health issues, let them breath that crap.

BTW, for the deniers that think global warming is just a made up "hoax" to make money, there's no need to use a hoax. The health issues and associated costs alone are enough to justify green energy.

Thanks
3 replies

Signature

Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10278823].message }}

8 years ago

Originally Posted by Kurt

Sorry, but to me it doesn't make any sense to deny the effect of carbon emissions. Even if one denies they contribute to climate change, there's no debate of the effect carbon emissions have on our health.

I read a study recently about how much money green tech would save in various regions of the US on health cost alone. Shouldn't the cost of the health impact also be included in the cost of carbon fuels? Let alone, how much is living longer and healthier worth to our quality of life? We can't even put a dollar figure on that.

And if anyone tries to debate the health issues, let them breath that crap.

BTW, for the deniers that think global warming is just a made up "hoax" to make money, there's no need to use a hoax. The health issues and associated costs alone are enough to justify green energy.

Ok, I was going to agree with this...but I can't decide if this is another one of your traps. If I agree with this post, I suspect you will tell me that you were wrong...and thus I was wrong for agreeing with you.

So.....I do not agree..even though everything you said....I agree with.

Now, I'm crying...and I have a headache. Because of you.

Thanks

Signature

One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

Terence Fletcher: "There are no two words in the English language more harmful than Good Job." Whiplash.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10278890].message }}

8 years ago

Originally Posted by Kurt

Sorry, but to me it doesn't make any sense to deny the effect of carbon emissions. Even if one denies they contribute to climate change, there's no debate of the effect carbon emissions have on our health.

I read a study recently about how much money green tech would save in various regions of the US on health cost alone. Shouldn't the cost of the health impact also be included in the cost of carbon fuels? Let alone, how much is living longer and healthier worth to our quality of life? We can't even put a dollar figure on that.

And if anyone tries to debate the health issues, let them breath that crap.

BTW, for the deniers that think global warming is just a made up "hoax" to make money, there's no need to use a hoax. The health issues and associated costs alone are enough to justify green energy.

No it doesn't make any sense to deny the effects of carbon emissions. Never said it did. At the same time it doesn't make any sense to ignore the role commercial agriculture plays in contributing to climate change. In addition to contributing to climate change it also contributes to our sicknesses and the earth's sicknesses.
Where do you think all that CO2 fossil fuels add to the atmosphere will go without healthy soils and sustainable agriculture to trap them? Why do you think the oceans are turning acidic and have pretty much reached their capacity to store CO2?
Why do you think we're having a problem with CO2 levels to begin with? If we practiced sustainable agriculture and maintained healthy soils the CO2 levels wouldn't be raising as they are because the soils (and plants that grow in them) could sequester it all. The oceans would be able to play their part again also because we wouldn't be polluting them with all the excess synthetic fertilizers and pesticides run off that end up in them lowering the Ph.
Green energy is great and we defiantly need more of it, but without "green" agriculture we still won't solve our climate problems. We need to stop killing the planet on all fronts, not just the one that is the current whipping post of the left.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10278930].message }}

8 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

No it doesn't make any sense to deny the effects of carbon emissions. Never said it did. At the same time it doesn't make any sense to ignore the role commercial agriculture plays in contributing to climate change. In addition to contributing to climate change it also contributes to our sicknesses and the earth's sicknesses.
Where do you think all that CO2 fossil fuels add to the atmosphere will go without healthy soils and sustainable agriculture to trap them? Why do you think the oceans are turning acidic and have pretty much reached their capacity to store CO2?
Why do you think we're having a problem with CO2 levels to begin with? If we practiced sustainable agriculture and maintained healthy soils the CO2 levels wouldn't be raising as they are because the soils (and plants that grow in them) could sequester it all. The oceans would be able to play their part again also because we wouldn't be polluting them with all the excess synthetic fertilizers and pesticides run off that end up in them lowering the Ph.
Green energy is great and we defiantly need more of it, but without "green" agriculture we still won't solve our climate problems. We need to stop killing the planet on all fronts, not just the one that is the current whipping post of the left.

I never said we didn't need to be greener on all fronts. And if we quit pumping so much CO2 into the atmosphere we wouldn't need to worry as much about how nature cleans it up.

If I don't spill a glass of milk on the floor, I don't need to worry about whether I should use a mop or a rag to clean it up.

And stop with your political "on the left" bull. The left is far more concerned about all aspects of environment than those on the right and you "free market" people.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10278944].message }}

TLTheLiberator

8 years ago

Originally Posted by Kurt

I never said we didn't need to be greener on all fronts. And if we quit pumping so much CO2 into the atmosphere we wouldn't need to worry as much about how nature cleans it up.

If I don't spill a glass of milk on the floor, I don't need to worry about whether I should use a mop or a rag to clean it up.

And stop with your political "on the left" bull. The left is far more concerned about all aspects of environment than those on the right and you "free market" people.

Ditto, especially on the last paragraph.

Thanks

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10278951].message }}

8 years ago

Originally Posted by Kurt

I never said we didn't need to be greener on all fronts. And if we quit pumping so much CO2 into the atmosphere we wouldn't need to worry as much about how nature cleans it up.

If I don't spill a glass of milk on the floor, I don't need to worry about whether I should use a mop or a rag to clean it up.

And stop with your political "on the left" bull. The left is far more concerned about all aspects of environment than those on the right and you "free market" people.

Wrong again.
By the way I'm more in the middle then on the right or left. So I don't see it as a political agenda like the two sides have. If the Left was concerned about all aspects of the environment then they would be just as concerned about our farming practices as they would fossil fuel usage. But truth is they're not and there is plenty of evidence to support that. Really that's the biggest problem with climate change in the way both sides have made it a political issue.

EDIT: By the way it was you and Salesguru that started the political thing mentioning Al and the Koch brothers. Or do you think we're all naive and don't know who they are or where their affiliation lies.

Thanks

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10279106].message }}

HN Banned 8 years ago

Originally Posted by Kurt

Even if one denies they contribute to climate change, there's no debate of the effect carbon emissions have on our health.

Does that mean you have no arguments for the debate? Is it because of this there is no debate?
Tell me about the effects.

I once talked to a guy who said you can't go to that greenhouse if you raise the level of co2 to 5%. He said it will kill me instantly. Probably heard some myths on the internet. Just shows how some people completely lack the ability to think rationally and logically.
I asked if he had heard about the CPA and mouth-to-mouth ventilation? Said yes. I asked if he know that the air we exhale contains 5% co2 and 16% o2. Said yes again. I asked if you are killing the person when you perform CPA? Never heard from the guy again. Some people just can't sum up 1 + 1. There are always some dummies trying to pass the myths for facts.

Furthermore, it's cute to be concerned, but perhaps we should solve these health issues first? Where is the co2 on the list of problems? #12,674?

Uprooting the Leading Causes of Death - YouTube

Google is definitely rigged. I tried to find some links between co2 emissions and health issues, but it threw this video at me. Description says: low co2 levels cause chronic diseases. I 've heard once that when you have asthma attacks you hold your breath to increase co2 level. I searched and found these
http://www.correctbreathing.com/asthma.php
https://sagaciousmama.wordpress.com/...arbon-dioxide/

So yes, low co2 is bad for us. Now if you would be so kind and provide some medical articles about excessive co2 having negative effects, too. That would be great.

04 - Evolution of Air (Low CO2 Now) Causes Low...
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10278960].message }}

8 years ago

Originally Posted by HeySal

From Canadian Geographic:
So scientists end up counting bears in many different ways, including incorporating observations by knowledgeable local residents. But population estimates are just that: estimates. Some subpopulations of bears haven't been counted in decades, if ever. And some are counted more frequently but with slightly different survey areas or methodologies from year to year. The Polar Bear Specialist Group, an international consortium of experts, classifies 10 of the 19 subpopulations as being "data-deficient," which isn't exactly conducive to a coherent discussion about how polar bears are faring worldwide.
Despite all this hedging, the numbers still tell a powerful story. It's just not always clear what that story is. In Davis Strait, between Greenland and Baffin Island, the polar bear population has grown from 900 animals in the late 1970s to around 2,100 today. In Foxe Basin -- a portion of northern Hudson Bay -- a population that was estimated to be 2,300 in the early 2000s now stands at 2,570. And in specific areas of western Hudson Bay, the most-studied, most-photographed group of bears on Earth seems to have been on a slow but steady increase since in the 1970s.

Give up while you are ahead Sal!

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10277851].message }}

HeySal 8 years ago

Originally Posted by tagiscom

Give up while you are ahead Sal!

LMAO -I agree that the Washington Post isn't real MEDIA but they aren't SCIENTISTS either, that's for damned sure, right?
- [ 1 ] Thanks
Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10279580].message }}

salegurus

8 years ago

Al and his cohorts don't care - they've milked it for everything it's worth...

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.

― George Carlin

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10278120].message }}

Kurt 8 years ago

Originally Posted by salegurus

Al and his cohorts don't care - they've milked it for everything it's worth...

Big Oil and the Koch brothers don't care - they've milked it for everything it's worth...

Fixed It for you.
- Thanks
Signature

Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10278253].message }}

8 years ago

I think the folks at NASA are smart enough to figure out if the polar ice is melting because of volcanic causes that the ice would be melting from the bottom and not the top. Not to mention, soil and rock is a very good insulator.

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10278251].message }}

8 years ago

Originally Posted by Kurt

I think the folks at NASA are smart enough to figure out if the polar ice is melting because of volcanic causes that the ice would be melting from the bottom and not the top. Not to mention, soil and rock is a very good insulator.

No! It's funnier if sensible posts aren't allowed.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

Terence Fletcher: "There are no two words in the English language more harmful than Good Job." Whiplash.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10278461].message }}

Kurt 8 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

No! It funnier if sensible posts aren't allowed.

I wasn't entirely accurate though...My post was about polar ice on land. Ice on the oceans would also melt from the bottom up if the water temp was high enough.

But still, if I can figure out a way to test the volcanic "theory" on land, I'm betting NASA can too.
- Thanks
- 1 reply
Signature

Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10278480].message }}
- Claude Whitacre 8 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by Kurt
  
  I wasn't entirely accurate though....
  
  I get it. It was a trap. Your strategy was to say something intelligent, get me to agree with you..and then disagree with your previous statement....thereby making my agreement wrong.
  
  I can't stop crying.
  
  Thanks
  
  Signature
  One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr
  
  Terence Fletcher: "There are no two words in the English language more harmful than Good Job." Whiplash.
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10278538].message }}

Zodiax

8 years ago

We aren't going anywhere.

The climate is fine and will stay that way,

unless Claude farts.

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

'I hated every minute of training, but I said, 'Don't quit. Suffer now and live the rest of your life as a champion'
-Muhammad Ali

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10278810].message }}

Zodiax

8 years ago

Good Jeebus why are you nerds debating whether climate change is real or not.

Is this because they banned politics a while back?

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

'I hated every minute of training, but I said, 'Don't quit. Suffer now and live the rest of your life as a champion'
-Muhammad Ali

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10279035].message }}

Claude Whitacre 8 years ago

Originally Posted by Zodiax

Good Jeebus why are you nerds debating whether climate change is real or not.

Is this because they banned politics a while back?

This thread will be shut down soon, as they always are. It's just fun to poke at each other, I guess.
- Thanks
- 1 reply
Signature
One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

Terence Fletcher: "There are no two words in the English language more harmful than Good Job." Whiplash.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10279283].message }}
- Zodiax 8 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre
  
  This thread will be shut down soon, as they always are. It's just fun to poke at each other, I guess.
  
  This Shocking Photograph Reveals The Reality Of Climate Change | IFLScience
  
  This showed up in my e-mail from delicious.
  
  Thanks
  
  1 reply
  
  Signature
  
  'I hated every minute of training, but I said, 'Don't quit. Suffer now and live the rest of your life as a champion'
  -Muhammad Ali
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10279286].message }}
  
  Claude Whitacre 8 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by Zodiax
  
  This Shocking Photograph Reveals The Reality Of Climate Change | IFLScience
  
  This showed up in my e-mail from delicious.
  
  I've seen it on IFLScience. It's a great (although heartbreaking) photo. But it doesn't really address climate change. The photo grabs at the heartstrings. But it isn't evidence of climate change on its own.
  
  IFLScience has some interesting stuff. And I want it all to be scientifically accurate. But not all of it is. It is however more accurate than any conspiracy blog I've seen....or any cobbled together amateur Youtube video.
  
  Science with an agenda, isn't really science. Even if it points in the right direction.
  
  [ 1 ] Thanks
  
  1 reply
  
  Signature
  One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr
  
  Terence Fletcher: "There are no two words in the English language more harmful than Good Job." Whiplash.
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10279324].message }}
  
  lanfear63 8 years ago
  
  It's pretty simple. We have gone within the space of about 150 years from a relatively small population burning wood to having electrically and mechanically powered just about everything and using mainly coal and oil to do it.
  
  Despite some big wars that trimmed our population back a lot we have resurged again in numbers to the point where the raw materials for the power required to accommodate us is outstripping the Earth's abilities to provide. The offshoot from burning these materials provides the Co2 and releasing frozen methane and is warming the planet. Thom's dialogue about intensive farming and soil etc is also a big contributing factor.
  
  I feel like a cracked record pointing this out over and over again. It's so obvious though. A huge reduction in population (restricting Childbirth) is about the only real practical thing we can do within a generation to reduce consumption of these resources and the resulting effects. Tech in green energy research should also be intensified. If we can utilise something natural or non polluting to make movement, we have power. Not rocket science.
  
  Suggestions on a postcard please.
  
  Thanks
  
  Signature
  
  Marriage, For The Best Arguments
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10279465].message }}

pkrme

8 years ago

Global Warming is real and I don't need evidence from New Daily's that have a business to support.

Am witnessing unusual weather phenomenon not only in regards to drought/flood conditions like never before but also some very disturbing signs concerning the vegetation around my place.

Thanks

Signature

Peace and Love to All.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10280307].message }}

8 years ago

So if all you global warming alarmists want to fix global warming..........

1. Get rid of cell phones - do you understand what a microwave grid is? Microwave radiation is NOT an answer to cooling a planet - ya think? Yet I bet you have one very close to you right now. Did you ever see the data that.........ho, I forgot.......the media doesn't print THAT science.

2. Why are you not out putting your efforts to reforestation? Desertification not only warms the planet, but cutting trees below glaciers is removing the moisture needed to produce new snow.

It is truly nothing more than a stinking joke to see people bashing other people's science educations when it sounds like the only scientific thing they know is edited science. NASA - bet you didn't even know it's not gov.........it's a corporation. DUH.

Get some real science for lunch: ICECAP.us - independent climatologists and related scientists without the editing. It's sounding like the main forum down here. I'm out of here again until the dipstick IM trolls with the 30 year gone high school science educations are gone. Not one of the people laughing at the people who aren't drinking warming kool aid has any science degree in any field at at all. They need to stick to discussing stuff like selling backlinks. LMAO.

[ 3 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10281939].message }}

8 years ago

[DELETED]

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10282441].message }}

8 years ago

Originally Posted by whateverpedia

For all the deniers who insist we do nothing and let the "market" decide, here's another reminder that the market has already decided.

World's biggest PR firm ends work with coal producers and climate change denie

Couple that with the fact that pension and mutual funds across the globe are divesting themselves of fossil fuel investments (particularly coal), and the message is clear. The market IS speaking.

I guess though if you've your head buried in the sand, the only way you can talk is through your arse.

Yeah, that conclusively proves that MMGW, is the end of us all!

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10282495].message }}

Kurt 8 years ago

[DELETED]

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10282515].message }}
- tagiscom 8 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by Kurt
  
  You breath the crap and quit polluting my air.
  
  You are right Sal, Troll fest!
  
  Thanks
  
  1 reply
  
  Signature
  Archimedes-Forum where Ideas Take Flight..
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10282570].message }}
  
  Kurt 8 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by tagiscom
  
  You are right Sal, Troll fest!
  
  Typical response for someone that wants to avoid a point that doesn't fit their agenda and doesn't have anything useful to say.
  
  Are you denying that pollution from burning carbon hurts our health? Yes or no?
  
  [ 1 ] Thanks
  
  1 reply
  
  Signature
  
  Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
  Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10282576].message }}
  
  SteveJohnson 8 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by Kurt
  
  Are you denying that pollution from burning carbon hurts our health? Yes or no?
  
  Typical response for someone that wants to avoid a point that doesn't fit their agenda and doesn't have anything useful to say.
  
  [ 1 ] Thanks
  
  Signature
  
  The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.
  
  Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10282845].message }}
whateverpedia 8 years ago

Originally Posted by tagiscom

Yeah, that conclusively proves that MMGW, is the end of us all!

Wrong. it proves that the "market" is taking steps to prevent MMGW ending us all.
- [ 1 ] Thanks
Signature

Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?
So that blind people can hate them as well.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10282568].message }}

8 years ago

Originally Posted by HeySal

It is truly nothing more than a stinking joke to see people bashing other people's science educations when it sounds like the only scientific thing they know is edited science. NASA - bet you didn't even know it's not gov.........it's a corporation. DUH.

So far I haven't seen anyone here with the scientific background to make any critique of publications from NASA or climatologists. A simple answer to the questions posed in posts #59, #69, and #77 for example would clearly demonstrate a critical factor of basic science that is being ignored by deniers of AGW. Stubborn ignorance of basic science is not productive.

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10282861].message }}

Claude Whitacre 8 years ago

Originally Posted by myob

Stubborn ignorance of basic science is not productive.

True. This subject isn't a debate. The science is conclusive, the precise measurements are public knowledge. Literally every climatologist tells us the same thing. We are talking about high school science here, not Celestial Mechanics. It isn't a matter of who's right. It's a matter of learning.

It isn't Believers VS Non-Believers. It's the informed VS the uninformed. And the uninformed are becoming a smaller and smaller group....but more adamant.
- [ 2 ] Thanks
Signature
One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

Terence Fletcher: "There are no two words in the English language more harmful than Good Job." Whiplash.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10282921].message }}

8 years ago

Originally Posted by Kurt

Typical response for someone that wants to avoid a point that doesn't fit their agenda and doesn't have anything useful to say.

Are you denying that pollution from burning carbon hurts our health? Yes or no?

Oh, is that what you were asking? Of course it does? But are we all going to be extinct by 2100, no!

Originally Posted by myob

So far I haven't seen anyone here with the scientific background to make any critique of publications from NASA or climatologists. A simple answer to the questions posed in posts #59, #69, and #77 for example would clearly demonstrate a critical factor of basic science that is being ignored by deniers of AGW. Stubborn ignorance of basic science is not productive.

LOL, l have given basic science statements before and had to sift through pages of ultra complex science, that would give Stephen Hawking a headache, as a response!

If l mention that the needle hasn't shifted in 16 years plus, and the US has a higher occurence of colder than normal winters, at the moment, l will get the usual "so you believe in that BS", blah, blah statement!

If you and others want to believe that we will all perish, or start growing wheat on mass, in 75 years, if we don't use wind or solar on a scale that will effetely cripple industry, not to mention lives, then, that is fine,...pat, pat!

Sounds more like the gaping holes in your views are getting so big, that going into emotionally rabid mode, will compensate?

Sounds more like others are just throwing views about here, because they are amused by this thread, and just want to throw some katnip into the catfight for laughs!

Yes, Sal, getting over this thread as well, too many desperate individuals trying to glue the wheels back on!

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10282986].message }}

8 years ago

Originally Posted by tagiscom

Oh, is that what you were asking? Of course it does? But are we all going to be extinct by 2100, no!

Finally. That wasn't so hard now, was it?

So we should cut down on carbon emissions to improve our health, correct? Shouldn't we also pay for the health costs associated with burning carbon fuels based on how much we use them? Isn't this what's called "personal responsibility"?

As far as your "extinct" comment, that's simply a straw man argument. No need to make things up.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10283017].message }}