The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

  • Hi Guest - Did you know?
    Hot Topics is a Safe for Work (SFW) forum.

Global warming another farce?

Finn

On the Prowl
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Posts
131
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
24° 33' N 81° 45' W
I don't accept global warming as fact. I'm also not saying it might not be real. Research scientist depend on funding in order to earn a living. No one will be funded in this political climate if they speak out against global warming.
Everyone takes everything scientists say as fact, when in fact science is often wrong about many things.
Remember Y2K bug. Head for the hills, the end is near.
That said, I still think that we need to change our energy habits.
Oh....and you can attack me if you want to. It won't change the historic facts.
The Cooling World

Newsweek, April 28, 1975



[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]www.denisdutton.com[/FONT]

Here is the text of Newsweek’s 1975 story on the trend toward global cooling. It may look foolish today, but in fact world temperatures had been falling since about 1940. It was around 1979 that they reversed direction and resumed the general rise that had begun in the 1880s, bringing us today back to around 1940 levels. A PDF of the original is available here.
A fine short history of warming and cooling scares has recently been produced. It is available here. — D.D.

[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.
[end]


 
Here is another example.

It was five years before the turn of the century and major media were warning of disastrous climate change. Page six of The New York Times was headlined with the serious concerns of “geologists.” Only the president at the time wasn’t Bill Clinton; it was Grover Cleveland. And the Times wasn’t warning about global warming – it was telling readers the looming dangers of a new ice age.

The year was 1895, and it was just one of four different time periods in the last 100 years when major print media predicted an impending climate crisis. Each prediction carried its own elements of doom, saying Canada could be “wiped out” or lower crop yields would mean “billions will die.”

Just as the weather has changed over time, so has the reporting – blowing hot or cold with short-term changes in temperature.

Following the ice age threats from the late 1800s, fears of an imminent and icy catastrophe were compounded in the 1920s by Arctic explorer Donald MacMillan and an obsession with the news of his polar expedition. As the Times put it on Feb. 24, 1895, “Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again.”

Those concerns lasted well into the late 1920s. But when the earth’s surface warmed less than half a degree, newspapers and magazines responded with stories about the new threat. Once again the Times was out in front, cautioning “the earth is steadily growing warmer.”

http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/fireandice.asp
 
I'm so glad the tide has finally begun to turn on this silliness. I agree with you wholeheartedly. I love the fact that people are thinking a bit about their energy usage. WalMart announced the other day that they are three months early in achieving their goal of selling 100 million compact flourescent bulbs. Of course those things present disposal problems, but at least we don't have to dispose of them nearly as often as old style bulbs.

But folks seem to fiinally be waking up to the reality underlying all the hype. The alarmists have had the floor for entirely too long.
 
Are "Idustrialized" Humans releasing more CO2 into the Atmosphere year after year? Yes! Are "We" defoliating more CO2 consuming plants/trees year after year? Yes! Are the Polar Ice Caps disintegrating more year after year? Yes! Are we experiencing more distructive storms year after year? Yes! Have the Jet Stream, and Ocean Currents been changing year after year? Yes!

But, hey! That's O.K.! The Earth is going to Survive! Perhaps without "US"! But, it'll still be here! ..| #-o ](*,)

Keep smilin'!! :kiss:(*8*)
Chaz ;)
 
No one has proven that CO2 increases temperature.
But if you want to torture yourself with this, be my guest.
 
What an interesting response to global warming.
Thjis is not an attack, for I believe that knowing your carbon
foot print is an important piece of information about yourself.

But saying one thing and doing another is called hedging
your bets. In fact, the difficulty is not knowing long term
information on Global warming and cooling. Is it just cyclic?
That was we were taught fifty years ago.

Cause and effect thinking seems to be the way of the
scientific method. But we will always have uncertainty
around global meteorology.
Shep+
 
No one has proven that CO2 increases temperature.
But if you want to torture yourself with this, be my guest.

You're absolutely right! CO2 does not increase temperature, in, and of, itself! (It just increases the portion of air that we can't, healthfuly, breathe!)

It does, however, reflect accumulated energy (sunlight), back into the lower atmosphere that would "normally" escape out into Space. Sort of like increasing the thickness of your usual blanket to that of a down-filled comforter. Ah! ... Cozy!! :D :rolleyes:

Torturing myself over this? Naw! I live far enough away from the coasts to not be all that concerned about rising Ocean levels! (Until the coastal populations start moving to the Heartland for the dry land, and fresh water! #-o)

Besides, I understand we could be hit by an asteroid, or comet, any time now, too! :eek: :help:

And, at my current age? I doubt I'll be around for any of the Disasters, anyway! ..|

Keep smilin'!! :kiss:(*8*)
Chaz ;)
 
i love this global warming
no snow last year
and the year before too

send it to buffalo i say
buffalo loves it's snow
 
i love this global warming
no snow last year
and the year before too

send it to buffalo i say
buffalo loves it's snow

Buffalo just happens to be on the wrong side of it's Great Lake! (Given a general NW wind pattern, "lake effect" snow, etc.) #-o ](*,) :D

Keep smilin'!! :kiss:(*8*)
Chaz ;)
 
but i need some snow this year

going snowboarding
i say

trying it again.
let's see what happen's
 
Ha!
The reason I take this so seriously and really want to know the truth is I live in the Florida Keys on a tiny island not quite 4 miles long. My house sits at 4 feet above sea level. Did you know that in the past 100 years sea level has risen by 1 foot?
Sea level rise and fall is all a part of nature.
 
I don't accept global warming as fact. I'm also not saying it might not be real. Research scientist depend on funding in order to earn a living. No one will be funded in this political climate if they speak out against global warming.
Everyone takes everything scientists say as fact, when in fact science is often wrong about many things.
Remember Y2K bug. Head for the hills, the end is near.
That said, I still think that we need to change our energy habits.
Oh....and you can attack me if you want to. It won't change the historic facts.

I realise that you are being provocative, but you aren't impressing anyone.

Not accepting that global warming is a fact is ridiculous. You can argue that the temperature rise is not due to anthropogenic carbon emissions if you like. You can argue that scientists' explanations for the changes of temperatures are motivated by funding considerations - evn though that argument is offensive and unsupported by evidence. You can even quote a documentary which has been comprehensively discredited, if it makes you feel better. But denying a fact because you don't happen to like it is foolish. Just as my denying the fact that average temperatures fell from the 1940s to the mid 1970s would be foolish. Temperatures have been rising since the 70s - a fact - and are presently much higher than was the case in the 1940s - another fact.

Have a look at the attached data - from NASA, in case you were wondering - showing relative temperatures for the Northern and Southern Hemispheres since 1880. The red line, showing the five year moving average for the Northern Hemisphere, clearly shows the decrease over the four decades from 1940 - a total drop of about 0.3 °C over nearly forty years - and the rise since 1980 - a rise of more than 0.7 °C in less than 30 years.

Global warming is a fact. You can argue about cause. You can sling mud at the scientific community if it makes you feel better. But don't deny facts - it isn't impressive to anyone.
 

Attachments

  • HemTempChange.GIF
    HemTempChange.GIF
    14.6 KB · Views: 69
Ahhh okay. The term "Global warming" has become the title of a theory that blames man made co2 on the rise of earth temperature.

I didn't say that earth temperature isn't rising. It has in fact risen 1 degree fahrenheit. What I am saying is that I don't take as fact that earth's rise in temp is because of man.
Sorry if this doesn't appeal to you.
 
The CO2 emissions are leading to more plant growth -lots more plant growth. There are more trees in the United States now than when Columbus dropped in. The downside is that a whole butt-load of today's trees are pines. The paper/lumber industry does a great job of planting trees, but they need to plant a variety. Monoculture sucks.

I don't think anyone is arguing about the existence of global warming. But Gore and his followers are being alarmists with very little science to support their position. The public needs an honest and open debate. The Gore-babies won't allow that. If you won't agree with their concensus, you're shut out.
 
I realise that you are being provocative, but you aren't impressing anyone.

Not accepting that global warming is a fact is ridiculous.

Scientific theories are always considered to be “works in
progress.” No scientist worth his/her salt is ever going to say,
“This is a FACT” to be carved in stone forever.
 
Ahhh okay. The term "Global warming" has become the title of a theory that blames man made co2 on the rise of earth temperature.

I didn't say that earth temperature isn't rising. It has in fact risen 1 degree fahrenheit. What I am saying is that I don't take as fact that earth's rise in temp is because of man.
Sorry if this doesn't appeal to you.

So ... who else has been consuming fossil fuels, at a geometricly expanding rate, that have taken millions of years to form, and releasing all of the CO2 contained therein? Perhaps the Dinosaurs? Oops! NO! They're Gone! #-o ](*,)

Oh! Wait! Maybe it's been those annoying Chimps! Our (perhaps) ancestors! :badgrin: :cool:

Sorry, Finn! Get a "Clue", Dude!! (group)

And, of course, no matter what ...

Keep smilin'!! :kiss:(*8*)
Chaz ;)
 
Now you're splitting hairs - anthropogenic carbon emissions as a cause of global temperature rises is a theory; global temperature rises themselves are a fact. Just because you want the term 'global warming' to refer only to the theory and not to the underlying observation doesn't make it so. Theories and facts are distinct. Theories undergo development and change over time. New evidence is discovered that supports them, or falisifies them, and this evidence is incorporated into the body of scientific knowledge. 'Water boils at 100 °C 1t 101.3 kPa of pressure' is a fact, and it will not change. I did not assert that it is impossible for global warming to be caused by something other than anthropogenic carbon emissions. However, this theory as to the cause of global warming is well supported with evidence, and there is no competing theory with anything like the same evidence base.
 
The CO2 emissions are leading to more plant growth -lots more plant growth. There are more trees in the United States now than when Columbus dropped in. The downside is that a whole butt-load of today's trees are pines. The paper/lumber industry does a great job of planting trees, but they need to plant a variety. Monoculture sucks.

I don't think anyone is arguing about the existence of global warming. But Gore and his followers are being alarmists with very little science to support their position. The public needs an honest and open debate. The Gore-babies won't allow that. If you won't agree with their concensus, you're shut out.

Uh ... Amazon Rain Forest! Where did that go? (Is going?) Just curious! :eek: :confused: :help:

Keep smilin'!! :kiss:(*8*)
Chaz ;)
 
Back
Top