Global Warming... Oops, I'm Sorry It's Now Called CLIMATE CHANGE :lol:
- Thread starter CrackerJax
- Start date
ChChoda
Well-Known Member
Government grants, government grants, government grants, government grants, my friend, plain and simple. Reality sucks, huh?
TheBrutalTruth
Well-Known Member
We are not even that much. In the great scheme of things, humanity is nothing more than an exterior surface mold. While egotistic individuals such as yourself seem eager to seize the blame for the crisis, the fact is that this is not a "unique" "unprecedented" or "special" event. The climate of the globe has been in a dramatic state of flux since the Earth first came together due to gravitation. It makes me wonder if environmentalists had it there way the Earth would still be a bunch of space junk floating around in semi-random orbits. At least then the climate would never change...
CrackerJax
New Member
Scientists....now WHICH scientists is the crux of the biscuit. Today, an ever growing of scientists who are actually QUALIFIED in climatology are starting to speak out. There is a backlash in progress to the bully tactics of the green left and Al Gore. They just can't keep the lid on it and that is what is starting to be played out. Al Gore is a fake and a disingenuous person. Yes indeed, take a look at his swelling bank accounts......it's all about money and the gathering of power, as always.
One need only pluck the heart strings of far too many folks to have the deception work and the money start rolling in.
Al Gore is exactly like Jerry Falwell....
ViRedd
New Member
I pegged Al Gore as a phoney the first time I heard him speak ... and that was when he was running for VP on the Clinton ticket. After a lifetime in commissioned sales, I've developed an innate ability to read people. Honestly, I can spot a phoney a mile away. Some of you may remember the things I wrote early on about John Edwards, no? Anyway ... Global Warming is a scam of the highest caliber. Its about money, power and control.
Vi
Vi
bicycle racer
Well-Known Member
these threads are like chewing glass ill respond when i have the energy to argue for no reason and repeat the obvious again and again. politics has nothing to do with this you guys act like before gores documentary this concept had not existed for many many years which is simply incorrect.
ChChoda
Well-Known Member
Newsweek, April 28, 1975
THIRD PARAGRAPH
"To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”
http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm
So if it's cooling, we're screwed. But, if it's warming, we're also screwed. So, if we can't find a way to control the weather, and quick, we're screwed?
THIRD PARAGRAPH
"To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”
http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm
So if it's cooling, we're screwed. But, if it's warming, we're also screwed. So, if we can't find a way to control the weather, and quick, we're screwed?
natrone23
Well-Known Member
They don't want to discuss what the climatologists think and what the science says....lol They just keep bringing up Al Gore this Al Gore that....such a transparent tactic.
what... huh?
Active Member
I am not aware that the majority of the scientific community does agree, firstly. I believe that since it has been posited, there has been a strict divide amongst them. Because a wheel squeaks does not indicate that there are no other wheels. It is typically the only one you pay attention to.
The motivation of the wheels that squeak? Grants.
Why does nobody want to talk about the ozone layer? Were you aware that the hole is gone? Why aren't they screaming about that? Why didn't you know? Did you know that NASA and NOAA predict that within the next 50 years, that hole is likely going to close for good and result in a dangerous rise in oceanic temperatures... resulting in the widespread problems now prophesied by the global warm... climate change crowd?
Is the solution to arm every citizen of the planet with aqua-net to save the planet? It is utterly ridiculous.
Why did the majority of squeaky wheels in the 70's believe that man made pollutants were hurling us into a global cooling which threatened another ice age? Or are you too young to remember that? There is a certain indoctrination that occurs at higher level education institutions... but that is for another thread. Suffice it to say the beauty of science is that beautiful principal that truth exists, regardless of your perception. It is tempting to use junk data like the heat/CO2 data when you are expecting or wanting a result to match your theory. To submit to that folly. It ceases, at that point, to be science... it is obnoxious liberal philosophy.
If I turn off my light switch, and the whole town inexplicably goes dark... how much time are you going to spend arguing that it is not coincidence? That is about the scale of your argument.
Here you go... some of you are in a unique position to test this. You will need:
A lump of coal.
An enclosed hood (no ventilation).
A heat source (such as a hot light).
A tank of oxygen.
A CO2 detector.
A thermometer.
Put the coal near the light towards the top of the hood. Measure the CO2 level. Turn on the light, and add oxygen. Come back in 10 hours and measure the CO2 level.
Now you are a scientist. Go spread the results of your empirical data.
Stupid monkeys.
ChChoda
Well-Known Member
So for thirty years this guy claims to have known what nobody at the time knew? But he was a congress dude and not a scientist or a climatologist? Seems to be the logical target for those of us that don't trust the government and it's agents.
http://www.algore.com/about.html
Former Vice President Al Gore is cofounder and Chairman of Generation Investment Management, a firm that is focused on a new approach to Sustainable Investing.
Gore is also cofounder and Chairman of Current TV, an independently owned cable and satellite television network for young people based on viewer-created content and citizen journalism. A member of the Board of Directors of Apple Computer, Inc. and a Senior Advisor to Google, Inc. Gore is also Visiting Professor at Middle Tennessee State University in Murfreesboro, Tennessee.
Mr. Gore is the author of An Inconvenient Truth, a best-selling book on the threat of and solutions to global warming, and the subject of the movie of the same title, which has already become one of the top documentary films in history. In 2007, An Inconvenient Truth was awarded two Academy Awards for Best Documentary Feature and Best Original Song.
Since his earliest days in the U. S. Congress 30 years ago, Al Gore has been the leading advocate for confronting the threat of global warming. His pioneering efforts were outlined in his best-selling book Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit (1992). He led the Clinton-Gore Administration's efforts to protect the environment in a way that also strengthens the economy.
Al Gore was born on March 31, 1948, the son of former U.S. Senator Albert Gore, Sr. and Pauline Gore. Raised in Carthage, Tennessee, and Washington, D.C., he received a degree in government with honors from Harvard University in 1969. After graduation, he volunteered for enlistment in the U.S. Army and served in the Vietnam War. Upon returning from Vietnam, Al Gore became an investigative reporter with the Tennessean in Nashville, where he also attended Vanderbilt University's Divinity School and then Law School.
Al Gore and his wife, Tipper, reside in Nashville, Tennessee. They have four children- Karenna, Kristin, Sarah, and Albert III; and three grandchildren: Wyatt Gore Schiff, Anna Hunger Schiff, and Oscar Aitcheson Schiff.
http://www.algore.com/about.html
Former Vice President Al Gore is cofounder and Chairman of Generation Investment Management, a firm that is focused on a new approach to Sustainable Investing.
Gore is also cofounder and Chairman of Current TV, an independently owned cable and satellite television network for young people based on viewer-created content and citizen journalism. A member of the Board of Directors of Apple Computer, Inc. and a Senior Advisor to Google, Inc. Gore is also Visiting Professor at Middle Tennessee State University in Murfreesboro, Tennessee.
Mr. Gore is the author of An Inconvenient Truth, a best-selling book on the threat of and solutions to global warming, and the subject of the movie of the same title, which has already become one of the top documentary films in history. In 2007, An Inconvenient Truth was awarded two Academy Awards for Best Documentary Feature and Best Original Song.
Since his earliest days in the U. S. Congress 30 years ago, Al Gore has been the leading advocate for confronting the threat of global warming. His pioneering efforts were outlined in his best-selling book Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit (1992). He led the Clinton-Gore Administration's efforts to protect the environment in a way that also strengthens the economy.
Al Gore was born on March 31, 1948, the son of former U.S. Senator Albert Gore, Sr. and Pauline Gore. Raised in Carthage, Tennessee, and Washington, D.C., he received a degree in government with honors from Harvard University in 1969. After graduation, he volunteered for enlistment in the U.S. Army and served in the Vietnam War. Upon returning from Vietnam, Al Gore became an investigative reporter with the Tennessean in Nashville, where he also attended Vanderbilt University's Divinity School and then Law School.
Al Gore and his wife, Tipper, reside in Nashville, Tennessee. They have four children- Karenna, Kristin, Sarah, and Albert III; and three grandchildren: Wyatt Gore Schiff, Anna Hunger Schiff, and Oscar Aitcheson Schiff.
CrackerJax
New Member
what... huh?
Active Member
[SIZE=+2]T[/SIZE]here are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.
The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars’ worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.
To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”
[SIZE=+2]A[/SIZE] survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.
To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth’s average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras – and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the “little ice age” conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 – years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.
Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery. “Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data,” concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. “Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions.”
[SIZE=+2]M[/SIZE]eteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases – all of which have a direct impact on food supplies.
“The world’s food-producing system,” warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA’s Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, “is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago.” Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during past famines.
Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.
Newsweek 1975
The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars’ worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.
To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”
[SIZE=+2]A[/SIZE] survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.
To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth’s average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras – and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the “little ice age” conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 – years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.
Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery. “Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data,” concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. “Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions.”
[SIZE=+2]M[/SIZE]eteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases – all of which have a direct impact on food supplies.
“The world’s food-producing system,” warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA’s Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, “is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago.” Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during past famines.
Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.
Newsweek 1975
bicycle racer
Well-Known Member
so al gore is behind this whole climate conspiracy thing oh well you learn something everyday lol. your devotion to your chosen political groups is similar to religious devotion no different a simple fanatical unwillingness to look at things in a subjective manner. i find anyone who sides with any of our pseudo political powers based entirely on that alone is doing just what the powers that be want. i know many think my opinions are based on politics but that is false. our destruction of the enviroment effects everyone equally in the long run. believe what you like but everyone will get fucked by enviromental negligence in the long run regardless of how big the bank accounts get of the major contributers to this problem or the benefits one nation receives. i could cut and paste this and that but choose to speak from my own mind and knowledge base. this issue as i have said is not political please try and do your own clarified research. the arguments so far have not been based on what the majority of intelligent people worldwide theorize about our impact on the planet is. and will be in time.
P
PadawanBater
Guest
Well, human activity has increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere which has increased temperatures over the last century, that data is already in, it's also known that the planet goes through different temperature periods every few hundred thousand years, the problem is making the connection and trying to establish whether human activity is increasing the rate at which the temps change or not, most scientists say yes, it does. That's not a conspiracy.
On the bigger picture, don't you think it would be generally good for the majority of the human population if we were to start using cleaner technologies and more efficient fuel sources instead of coal and oil? What's the problem there?
I'd rather we produce clean energy while reducing emitions at the same time, what's wrong with doing them both? You're not against not polluting the environment, right?
That would decrease the amount of leverage the oil companies have in American politics, decrease the amount of influence countries in the middle east hold, decrease American interests abroad... going green and developing clean energy is good for America from an economic perspective and good for the planet from an environmental perspective. I don't see the problem...
On the bigger picture, don't you think it would be generally good for the majority of the human population if we were to start using cleaner technologies and more efficient fuel sources instead of coal and oil? What's the problem there?
I'd rather we produce clean energy while reducing emitions at the same time, what's wrong with doing them both? You're not against not polluting the environment, right?
That would decrease the amount of leverage the oil companies have in American politics, decrease the amount of influence countries in the middle east hold, decrease American interests abroad... going green and developing clean energy is good for America from an economic perspective and good for the planet from an environmental perspective. I don't see the problem...
ChChoda
Well-Known Member
The "intelligent people" are government employees for the most part. Like most of the European populous. Not rocket science.
bicycle racer
Well-Known Member
simple question do you think we as the human race have any effect on climate? or is the whole thing purely a political conspiracy?
bicycle racer
Well-Known Member
so the huge majority of all american and european scientists are corrupt and paid off and all are connected to political enterprise come on now really.
ChChoda
Well-Known Member
If you shit in your backyard instead of the bathroom, do you think you'll have a shit problem in no time quick? In that sense, we play an important role. Cleaning up your messes is embraced by most Americans. Most often by embracing technology. Like that nifty flushing toilet they don't have in most places around the world. The "catastrophic effects" of "man made climate change" are a ploy, or, a political conspiracy, used to get you to argue with me about nothing in particular. That way, when it comes time to vote, you will embrace the most irrational candidate put forth. You'll be practiced at doing just that. Your turn.
ChChoda
Well-Known Member
That's about right.