Thread: Proof of global warming...........

Tweet

If anybody has heard of John Coleman from Chicago, weather man from 70’s and 80’s ABC he went on to Good morning America for a while. He has a lot to say why Global warming is a bunch of bull. He said recently in an interview, which I only caught the tail end of, that out of about 20 thousand Scientist 500 or less are convince there is global warming. I’ve heard people saying for years that it is a natural thing that occurs with nature every so often. I’ll have to see if I can do some research on his theory. Look what happened to recycling, that was going to help but only cause a big mess. Big ideas end up costing the taxpayers lots of money, and make a few people rich. Global warming has opened up a lot of opportunities for some, and made it very difficult for a lot of us.

Richard

Saturday and Sunday here in the normally frozen tundra of way Upstate NY it was in the mid fifties - and yesterday we had 2-3 inches of snow. February was several degrees lower then average and it's supposed to be between the mid 20's to the mid 30's through all of next week. It snowed a week after Thanksgiving and this past Saturday was the first that I saw of the ground since - and no January thaw. Global warming - my fanny!!!

Originally Posted by ford2custom

....... Big ideas end up costing the taxpayers lots of money, and make a few people rich. Global warming has opened up a lot of opportunities for some, and made it very difficult for a lot of us.

Richard

Apparently we're so odious that we're also affecting the climate on Jupiter: http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/200903...potisshrinking

Richard, what's been little reported is the pending costs of the Cap and Trade scheme. Anybody who uses energy or buys products that have energy use as part of bringing that product to market (in other words everybody and everything, not just the so called rich) is going to be slapped with significant increases in cost. Estimates run as high as 40% increases for home heating, lighting (including powering the computer you're looking at right now), and auto fuel to every user. When your budget has to be adjusted for that you're going to have to give up other things you spend on. Who's going to lose their job when you cut back on whatever you choose? What will others cut back on that you provide? All in the name of climate change that is rightfully disputed? And the masses of sheeple in this country just blythely watch it all unfold without protest. When the price of gasoline goes up because of this we'll hear the ignorant blame the "greedy" oil companies. We'll hear the laments of various groups who claim to care about the "poor", without any examination of what causes this huge displacement. The pols will try to buy off these groups by blaming "greedy corporations" who provide these necessities of life while lining their own pockets with money, and more importantly to themselves, power. And most, many included in our hobby, just stand by siliently as is all goes down. Sigh!!!!!!

I cannot believe that billions of people can pump out daily emissions with no effect on the environment. That would seem illogical.

They are reporting that livestock emissions add to it. Hello! Who is breeding the millions of animals?

I also read that the warming would cause temperature and weather extremes...higher highs, like our recent record temperatures....and lower lows. (Hello! That's you guys complaining about the cold).

There is much talk about major volcanic erruptions, and such, in the past. As I recall there were accompanying climate changes that wiped out species. They may have been natural occurences, but they were also catastophic for many life forms!

My position would be to assume it has merit, and act on that assumption. Better safe than sorry.

Jay, whether it's your intent or not, you've rolled out the same false choice that is often used. In essense you're projecting on us the "do nothing to keep the environment clean" position. Of course that's bogus, but it is a current theme in many national "arguments". The others can speak for themselves, but where I stand is we should do as much as we can to keep our environment as clean as possible, but realize there's no way to have humans exist without some level of impact. The real protest here is what's real and what's conjured up by those who would try to capitalize by empowering themselves. CO2 is less than .039% of our atmosphere, water vapor is somewhere around 20%. Which is the greater greenhouse gas? I'm all for keeping trash out of water systems, trash off the road sides, sewage out of aquafers. Those are legitimate and proven perils. Excessive CO2 on the other hand is not proven...........it's a scam. However it is a significant exhaust product of human beings who breathe (everyone in other words). What better way to enslave those people than by controlling what is a biological necessity?

I doubt that this debate will end in our lifetimes. It will take longer than that to find out which position was closer to the truth.

My own theory is that mankind will eventually bring about it's own demise. We have honorable intent as a group, but cannot overcome our individual selfishness. Somehow I think that will translate to the inability to act as a group....even for our overall good as individuals.

As with most issues these days, the extreme ends of the debate get all the attention, when the best solution to the problem is probably a middle of the road, common sense approach.... Maybe if we all just made a more conscious effort to be better stewards of the land and quit trying to change everything to fit our needs.... When people's houses slide into the ocean, get burnt down by forest fires, and all the other malady's, maybe many of them are caused because we're messing with things in nature we can't control and building houses where there shouldn't be houses. Trees are the natural air cleaners, go plant a few, doesn't cost much. Walk more, live closer to your job, car pool, use public transportation....they all would help, and even save you a buck or two. Has common sense and a reasonable approach to solving problems completely gone????? The radicals on either extreme side of an issue are the minority...yet most of the time it's the only voice we hear.....

Well said Dave.

For those of you who weren't around in the '50's, the big thing then was the coming of the next Ice Age.
Some in the scientific community proclaimed that in a very short period of time that ice would spread almost to the Ohio river. Most people with enough common sense to come in out of the rain dismissed this theory as pure folly and it lived a short life. Unfortunately this time around we have a so called distinguished Pied Piper and a lot of people that don't have enough common sense to come in out of the rain.

Originally Posted by NTFDAY

For those of you who weren't around in the '50's, the big thing then was the coming of the next Ice Age.
Some in the scientific community proclaimed that in a very short period of time that ice would spread almost to the Ohio river. Most people with enough common sense to come in out of the rain dismissed this theory as pure folly and it lived a short life. Unfortunately this time around we have a so called distinguished Pied Piper and a lot of people that don't have enough common sense to come in out of the rain.

I don't think it's a lot of people....More of a very vocal minority that only gains credibility because of media hype.... There is no such thing as fair and unbiased reporting of the news anymore, everything on the air is from one extreme or the other and seems to thrive on an "us against them" mentality.....

Originally Posted by Dave Severson

I don't think it's a lot of people....More of a very vocal minority that only gains credibility because of media hype.... There is no such thing as fair and unbiased reporting of the news anymore, everything on the air is from one extreme or the other and seems to thrive on an "us against them" mentality.....

You must watch not Fox. Their people are mostly moderate to conservative but it sure beats the heck out the major networks who are in the liberal tank.

Lots of the stuff on Fox is way out Conservative stuff....and still treat Limbaugh like some kind of hero--instead of just another doper.....and he hopes ALL the presidents programs fail??? What the heck will that accomplish???? Then the Fox Loudmouth Hannity gets off on one of his rants and turns more people off to conservative issues then he could ever hope to promote....

I'll stand by my statement that there is seldom any fair and unbiased reporting on any network......Oh well, maybe if there was a network that actually did news reporting in an unbiased manner few would watch or listen.... Maybe they like to be told what to think, or just prefer taking an extreme and join in the worthless "blame game" that never has or never will accomplish anything?????

Though BBC is very liberal biased on a lot of subjects - and me being a card carrying conservative, they do tend to spend a bit more time on real news rather then totally political crap. They tend to subscribe to the adage that if it "bleeds it leads" and show bodies lying in the street in countries seldom heard from until the red stuff flows.

I can stand Rush .... for about 10 minutes. Hannity - he often has good subject matter and good guests, but how about a more rational discussion. He's good for ..... maybe 15 minutes. Did you ever try listening to Michael Savage? Now that's a piece of work!! I wont give his diatribe more then the time it takes to push the button to change the station.

Originally Posted by Dave Severson

....and still treat Limbaugh like some kind of hero--instead of just another doper.....and he hopes ALL the presidents programs fail??? What the heck will that accomplish????

Hmmmm, being a previous "doper" devalues a private citizen from expressing his opinion? I seem to recall that President Obama is also a self professed "doper". Limbaugh can't force anyone to do anything, but the President can...............I'd say that gives many of us the right to challenge his proposals/programs, especially when they are in direct contradiction of our Constitution and our operating as a free market society.

Here's a surprising (to me anyway) apparent supporter of the rights of those in opposition to Obamunism;


Or could it be there's a double standard.......................

Originally Posted by DennyW

People will often talk what you want to hear, and get your attention to be at ease, while they slowly raise the bat to hit you in the head from behind...

You mean like stating on the campaign trail that "Earmarks" will not be allowed in my administration and then signing a spending bill after elected that contains over 8000 of them? Is that lying or just being a hypocrite?