Global warming debunked, again.

[fotlkid]

That's the pot calling the kettle black!

But, sure, go on believing the leftist drivel!

Those on the left think they own the environmental issue. They don't. Conservatives have embraced good stewardship of the earth's natural resources all long. The environmental whacko crowd put forth lots of effort to make the public think they, and they alone, care for the environment.

What a bunch of phonies! From candidates using plenty of "carbon footprint" to go to their precious debates, separately, while they could all pool the flights, to Senator Gore living in a huge mansion that uses ten times the energy of your average home. Because they get the press out in front of them, and continue to beat a drum about how conservatives don't care, the mindless sheep (including many who view this forum) think the lieing lefties are for real. They are the biggest batch of hypocrites of the modern era!

The Global Warming ruse is being enacted by anarchists bent on the destruction of capitalism, and the free-market economy. No one wants to go that deep, and you might think it is far-fetched. But these extremists have those goals in mind, ultimately. There is more of this to come, but their aim is the same. To bring down the global economy, and bring complete anarchy to the world's governments!

I refuse to be drawn into a partisan debate with you or anyone else in this thread. I made no declaration of my political opinions in that post whatsoever, you have assigned me an ideology.

This issue is not about politics, its not about left wing vs. right wing it is about whether or not climate change is occuring and what the potential ramificiations of that could be. When you can confine yourself to speaking on those issues, then I will respond.

 

[HenryReardon]

Bob, let's assume for a second that this is true.

Why on Earth, then, is almost every other nation on the planet embracing Global Warming? Even China has been taking steps.

The only other hold-out besides the US is Australia.

Do you think the whole world is hell-bent on destroying capitalism?

That portion of it controlled by the left certainly is.

The Czech president has had a few things to say on the subject:

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/05/16/europe/EU-GEN-Czech-Klaus-Global-Warming.php

 

[Spensed]

Plus ol' Henry and his ilk studiously ignore what their own Administration has to say on the subject:

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/sci...knowledge.html

 

[HenryReardon]

Plus ol' Henry and his ilk studiously ignore what their own Administration has to say on the subject:

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/sci...knowledge.html

\

Whose administration? Not mine. I haven't approved of any of them in years.

 

[Spensed]

Whose administration? Not mine. I haven't approved of any of them in years.

Ok, but you still fail to address any of the points set out by the EPA or why the EPA has come to the conclusions it has.

 

[Nishin]

The Global Warming ruse is being enacted by anarchists bent on the destruction of capitalism, and the free-market economy. No one wants to go that deep, and you might think it is far-fetched. But these extremists have those goals in mind, ultimately. There is more of this to come, but their aim is the same. To bring down the global economy, and bring complete anarchy to the world's governments!

That must be the most dumb-founding thing I read about global warming on this forum...
Do you even realize how RIDICULOUS and STUPID such claim is??
Sorry.. but do you even THINK?? ... because you make no sense at all... how is fighting global warming in opposition to capitalism or free-market economy?? Would you care to explain?
Do you think solar panels, wind turbines, are free?? Fighting global warming is about reducing GHG emmissions.. NOT about going back to neanderthal People will still need energy, more and more, there will still be a market and big companies exploiting it ...
Grow up.

 

[Nishin]

2000 years isn't much of a sample. [...]

Long enough?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr-2.png

 

[HenryReardon]

Long enough?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr-2.png

Hardly a scientific source, what?

 

[HenryReardon]

Ok, but you still fail to address any of the points set out by the EPA or why the EPA has come to the conclusions it has.

The EPA is a governmental body, with ties to the environmental movement, and, as such, has zero credibility.

When you read a report which uses catch phrases such as "virtual certaintity" you should run like hell in the other direction.

Nobody, let me repeat, nobody - no group, no individual, no government - has shown even one absolutely solid shred of scientific proof that man's puny activities have had any impact on global warming.

I put it to you - list one, just one, test that can be replicated in the laboratory, or the field, which can conclusively prove that global warming is either caused by, or influenced by the activities of humankind.

You cannot do it. It cannot be done.

All that can be absolutely proven, is that the earth warms and cools in cycles over many thousands of years.

 

[Centexfarmer]

The EPA is a governmental body, with ties to the environmental movement, and, as such, has zero credibility.

When you read a report which uses catch phrases such as "virtual certaintity" you should run like hell in the other direction.

Nobody, let me repeat, nobody - no group, no individual, no government - has shown even one absolutely solid shred of scientific proof that man's puny activities have had any impact on global warming.

I put it to you - list one, just one, test that can be replicated in the laboratory, or the field, which can conclusively prove that global warming is either caused by, or influenced by the activities of humankind.

You cannot do it. It cannot be done.

All that can be absolutely proven, is that the earth warms and cools in cycles over many thousands of years.

When they can replicate thunderstorms, rain showers, lightening strikes, and F5 Tornadoes in the laboratory, I'll get back with you on that.

What about Ice Cores, Glacier Melts, and rising sea levels?

If there's even the most remote chance that Mankind has any effect of these changes shouldn't we at least be doing something about it?

It's evident to me, as a farmer, that our environment is out of wack! I see it everyday.

Individuals who live inside airconditioned cars and homes, and only briefly deal with the weather in their daily lives wouldn't notice "observable" changes in their day to day climates, because they're not paying any attention to it.

Easter Sunday 2006, we experienced a record high of 110 degrees, in the shade here in Central Texas.

Easter Sunday 2007, it snowed for the first time in 78 YEARS!

We've received more rain in the past six months, than we received in the past two years! Busting a drought that we've been in for the past three.

Never in my life have I witnessed such extremes in weather.

But, yeah, I guess it's just a naturally occurring phenomena, which in itself can't seem to be proved.

Where have the Honey Bees gone?

Why have migratory patterns of birds changed?

What in the fuck is going on?

Oh nothing, cuz we can't repeat it in a lab.

What a bunch of BULLSHIT!

*end rant*

 

[JayHawk]

All I know is that we have had iceages before and we were not around for the destruction of the earth. The melting will cause more precipitation which will cause more snow which will reflect more sun and cause the earth to chill. We are headed for a new ice age.

So now that you know that go out and buy a big 4wd SUV with a block heater.

Toodles

 

[HenryReardon]

When they can replicate thunderstorms, rain showers, lightening strikes, and F5 Tornadoes in the laboratory, I'll get back with you on that.

What about Ice Cores, Glacier Melts, and rising sea levels?

If there's even the most remote chance that Mankind has any effect of these changes shouldn't we at least be doing something about it?

It's evident to me, as a farmer, that our environment is out of wack! I see it everyday.

Individuals who live inside airconditioned cars and homes, and only briefly deal with the weather in their daily lives wouldn't notice "observable" changes in their day to day climates, because they're not paying any attention to it.

Easter Sunday 2006, we experienced a record high of 110 degrees, in the shade here in Central Texas.

Easter Sunday 2007, it snowed for the first time in 78 YEARS!

We've received more rain in the past six months, than we received in the past two years! Busting a drought that we've been in for the past three.

Never in my life have I witnessed such extremes in weather.

But, yeah, I guess it's just a naturally occurring phenomena, which in itself can't seem to be proved.

Where have the Honey Bees gone?

Why have migratory patterns of birds changed?

What in the fuck is going on?

Oh nothing, cuz we can't repeat it in a lab.

What a bunch of BULLSHIT!

*end rant*

Don't talk to me about farmers.
I live in Florida.
My late father was a citrus grower in North Central Flordia, who lived to see his life's work frozen to the ground in 1983 and 1984 when he had just turned 70.

Here in North Central Florida, we have 90 year cycles of cold. The citrus froze in 1895/1897, again in 1983/84, and it will happen again circa 2070.

The Northern limit for successful citrus growing has moved 100 miles South in my lifetime.

Weather patterns come in 40 and 50 (and greater) year cycles, which, themselves are subsets of 1000 year cycles, which, themselves, are subsets of 10,000 year cycles, which themselves are in ...........greater cycles.

The activities of mankind are so insignificant, in relation to the whole, that they really do not matter. This is a hard concept for some people to grasp.

However, I digress. The historical record of all of this can be demonstrated.

Again, I repeat - where is the proof???????

Where is the empirical evidence to the contrary?

 

[Centexfarmer]

Don't talk to me about farmers.
I live in Florida.
My late father was a citrus grower in North Central Flordia, who lived to see his life's work frozen to the ground in 1983 and 1984 when he had just turned 70.

Here in North Central Florida, we have 90 year cycles of cold. The citrus froze in 1895/1897, again in 1983/84, and it will happen again circa 2070.

Weather patterns come in 40 and 50 (and greater) year cycles, which, themselves are subsets of 1000 year cycles, which, themselves, are subsets of 10,000 year cycles, which themselves are in ...........greater cycles.

The activities of mankind are so insignificant, in relation to the whole, that they really do not matter. This is a hard concept for some people to grasp.

However, I digress. The historical record of all of this can be demonstrated.

Again, I repeat - where is the proof???????

Where is the empirical evidence to the contrary?

Point well noted, as I come from a history of farmers myself, and I'll damned sure claim the mantle to speak on their behalf. Thank you very much.

Yes, it has been noted that there are cyclical developments within our environment over the course of centuries. Science, and not just mere observation has proven that.

However, I don't understand the opposition to the current warnings that our use of fossil fuels over the past 100 years may be contributing to what some call global warming.

Is there a cottage industry out there in the wings that's waiting to profit on going green?

Is there any reason why we shouldn't revert back to the farming practices prior to WWII, before DDT, and multi-billion dollar industries and Corporations that cater to Genetically Modified Crops, or Poisons that kill everything that's natural in order to put food on our tables?

Is there any reason why we should continue to fight global wars, and to over throw governments for their precious crude, while killing everything in site, and everyone and anything that stands in our way to get it?

Is there any reason why we're having this argument except to further the debate of misinformation bought and paid for by the very corporations that have something to lose if we change the way that we think about our planet, our world, our environment?

Where's your fucking proof that the events that I've outlined aren't happening, and aren't taking place within this debate?

 

[Nishin]

Hardly a scientific source, what?

Sources for the data are mentionned in the link, you'd know if you'd bother to click... or is it that you're more interested in "debunking" without acknowledging first?

1. (blue) Vostok ice core: Fischer, H., M. Wahlen, J. Smith, D. Mastroianni, and B. Deck (1999). "Ice core records of Atmospheric CO2 around the last three glacial terminations". Science 283: 1712-1714.
2. (green) EPICA ice core: Monnin, E., E.J. Steig, U. Siegenthaler, K. Kawamura, J. Schwander, B. Stauffer, T.F. Stocker, D.L. Morse, J.-M. Barnola, B. Bellier, D. Raynaud, and H. Fischer (2004). "Evidence for substantial accumulation rate variability in Antarctica during the Holocene, through synchronization of CO2 in the Taylor Dome, Dome C and DML ice cores". Earth and Planetary Science Letters 224: 45-54. DOI:10.1016/j.epsl.2004.05.007
3. (red) Law Dome ice core: D.M. Etheridge, L.P. Steele, R.L. Langenfelds, R.J. Francey, J.-M. Barnola and V.I. Morgan (1998) "Historical CO2 records from the Law Dome DE08, DE08-2, and DSS ice cores" in Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global Change. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tenn., U.S.A.
4. (cyan) Siple Dome ice core: Neftel, A., H. Friedli, E. Moor, H. Lötscher, H. Oeschger, U. Siegenthaler, and B. Stauffer (1994) "Historical CO2 record from the Siple Station ice core" in Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global Change. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tenn., U.S.A.
5. (black) Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii: Keeling, C.D. and T.P. Whorf (2004) "Atmospheric CO2 records from sites in the SIO air sampling network" in Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global Change. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tenn., U.S.A.

 

[smelter]

I keep searching for the upside to being a senior citizen. With old age comes poor circulation and a colder core body temperature. Global warming sounds like a Godsend to me, so keep sending that CO2 into the atmosphere. Since I don't believe in reincarnation, I'll be long gone before glacier melting reclaims the east coast.

 

[texpatriot]

I keep searching for the upside to being a senior citizen. With old age comes poor circulation and a colder core body temperature. Global warming sounds like a Godsend to me, so keep sending that CO2 into the atmosphere. Since I don't believe in reincarnation, I'll be long gone before glacier melting reclaims the east coast.

From what I can tell you're a young'en compared to some who've posted to this thread!

 

[Spensed]

The EPA is a governmental body, with ties to the environmental movement, and, as such, has zero credibility.

When you read a report which uses catch phrases such as "virtual certaintity" you should run like hell in the other direction.

Nobody, let me repeat, nobody - no group, no individual, no government - has shown even one absolutely solid shred of scientific proof that man's puny activities have had any impact on global warming.

I put it to you - list one, just one, test that can be replicated in the laboratory, or the field, which can conclusively prove that global warming is either caused by, or influenced by the activities of humankind.

You cannot do it. It cannot be done.

All that can be absolutely proven, is that the earth warms and cools in cycles over many thousands of years.

The EPA is part of this anti-global warming Administration, but it still concludes that human pollution contributes to global warming and it cites its sources for doing so.

The proof you ask for is available to you in the many links and examples in this thread and on the web that back up the EPA's conclusions.

 

[HenryReardon]

The EPA is part of this anti-global warming Administration, but it still concludes that human pollution contributes to global warming and it cites its sources for doing so.

The proof you ask for is available to you in the many links and examples in this thread and on the web that back up the EPA's conclusions.

Proof - surely you jest.

There is no proof. No hard science.

All the gore crowd has are theories, speculation, opinions, beliefs, and computer models.

There is absolutely no empirical evidence that mankind has anything to do with global warming.

 

[HenryReardon]

And what is this 100 mile movement of successful citrus growing, can you cite that to anything?

Drive down US highway 27 from Leesburg, Florida for about 50 miles, and see for yourself.

Formerly there were citrus groves as far as one could see on all the rolling hills.
Now it is all planted pines and abandoned groves, and, of course, the closer you get to greater Orlando, development.

Talk to the people in Lake and Marion county who were wiped out.

 

[HenryReardon]

Is there any reason why we shouldn't revert back to the farming practices prior to WWII, before DDT, and multi-billion dollar industries and Corporations that cater to Genetically Modified Crops, or Poisons that kill everything that's natural in order to put food on our tables?

Is there any reason why we should continue to fight global wars, and to over throw governments for their precious crude, while killing everything in site, and everyone and anything that stands in our way to get it?

Is there any reason why we're having this argument except to further the debate of misinformation bought and paid for by the very corporations that have something to lose if we change the way that we think about our planet, our world, our environment?

Where's your fucking proof that the events that I've outlined aren't happening, and aren't taking place within this debate?

What have any of the above got to do with the false allegations that global warming is either man made or man influenced?