Socialists in a Panic

[Extrafire]

Anyone who thinks there is no global warming is either blind or stupid.

Is there anyone on this forum that thinks there's no global warming? Anyone????

Over the last 100 years, the average temperature of the air near the Earth´s surface has risen a little less than 1° Celsius (0.74 ± 0.18°C, or 1.3 ± 0.32° Fahrenheit). Does not seem all that much? It is responsible for the conspicuous increase in storms, floods and raging forest fires we have seen in the last ten years, though, say scientists.

Their data show that an increase of one degree Celsius makes the Earth warmer now than it has been for at least a thousand years.

You're kidding, right? You don't seriously mean that they're still trying to push that bit of fraud, come on! That was debunked years ago. 1000 years ago was much warmer than now, or have you forgotten the Medieval Climate Optimum?

Out of the 20 warmest years on record, 19 have occurred since 1980. The three hottest years ever observed have all occurred in the last ten years.

Funny how the US is so much cooler than the rest of the world

Ten Hottest Years (U.S.):
1. 1934
2. 1998
3. 1921
4. 2006
5. 1931
6. 1999
7. 1953
8. 1990
9. 1938
10. 1939

Since man has pumped seven or eight trillion of tons of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere over the last couple hundred years, it is a good bet that man is responsible.

Since most of the warming occured in the first half of the 20th century, before massive human emission, it's a good bet man isn't responsible. Since the climate has stopped warming for 10 years now when CO2 levels are much higher than the first half of the 20th century, it's a good bet that neither man nor CO2 is responsible. Since temperature increase does not track well with CO2 levels, but do track well with variations in solar activity, it's a good bet that neither man nor CO2 is responsible. Since mans emissions are only 3% of total global emissions it's not a good bet that man is responsible. And on and on....

 

[Avro]

Evidence has convinced me otherwise. In science, that's ultimately the only thing that counts, and it's all on the side of the skeptics.

No it's not.

 

[Extrafire]

So? I haven't seen any evidence not full of holes that says we can't influence climate.

We can influence climate in a miniscule way, but there is no evidence not full of holes that says we are responsible for climate change like the IPCC says.

Concerning the beetle kill, it is exascerbated by global warming and the evidence points towards a human influence on climate.

There likely is a small effect on the beetles by the warmer climate, but not much at all. Evidence does not point to a human influence on climate, fraud does. Part of my many-checkered past includes a stint as Assistant Ranger for the BC Forest Service, Kamloops District in the late '60's and early '70's, a time of global cooling. Way back then we were trained to be on the lookout for beetles because they were concerned that an outbreak such as the current one could occur. This concern was based on observations of outbreaks in the northern half of the province, where they were more frequent and larger than in the south. Since that time we've been fighting a losing battle against the bugs. It was only a matter of time until we couldn't contain them. If warming was a cause, or even a factor, in the beetle infestation, why didn't it start long ago in the south, where the temps are never all that cold? Why did it start in the north? I won't bother listing all the actual reasons for the outbreak unless you want them.

Besides, I was mostly retorting to Walter's ignorant statement that "There is no mess to get out of."

And he was only refering to the AGW scam, not pollution.

Also, the pulp mill in Castlegar near here, was forced to cut back on its emissions and whatnot, yet it is still operating. The smelter of Teck Cominco's in Trail is immensely cleaner than it used to be because the gov't told it to clean up and it is still humming along, too.
So auto makers switch from making one type of car to another. They're still in business. So Shell Oil switches from refining crude to developing solar and wind energy. So we all become cleaner. How is that a negative effect on the economy?

I'm with you except for the Shell Oil part. They're going to keep refining crude because there's going to be an ongoing and growing demand for it. Solar and wind can be a small supplement to our energy needs, but they can't replace traditional energy sources.

 

[Extrafire]

No it's not.

:lol: Drink that Koolaid!

Here's a task for you: Make a case for AGW without using models.

 

[gopher]

I log on to CC and see three threads in a row by Freepers who are desperate to try to get you to believe their story that climate change is mythical. Why won't they believe their hero Bush who said it is for real?

haha!

 

[Avro]

:lol: Drink that Koolaid!

Here's a task for you: Make a case for AGW without using models.

I'm not a scientist, or a climatologist like you.

I just know a few.

 

[Extrafire]

We are a part of the earth ..Therefore we affect the climate...How we affect the earth ..And what are the effects ?..Have to be asked..But anyone with half a brain..Can see the effects..


Solutions will get us everywhere ...Opposition with no alternatives will get us nowhere fast...

Problem solver or problem maker..?

Good post Anna G ..

Instead of spending trillions to address a non-existant problem (AGW) why not go after real problems, like actual pollution?

Want to know what that looks like? Anna's pictures were mild. Take a look at this:
Amazing Pictures, Pollution in China | ChinaHush

 

[Extrafire]

I'm not a scientist, or a climatologist like you.

I just know a few.

OK then, get them to do it.

 

[Avro]

OK then, get them to do it.

Since you know it all how about you explain it to me.

Show me your research.

I've seen the other side in person.

Your turn....no links.

Just you.

 

[Extrafire]

In Aussie the politicians are listening

Climategate: five Aussie MPs lead the way by resigning in disgust over carbon tax

Australia is leading the revolt against Al Gore’s great big AGW conspiracy – just as the Aussie geologist and AGW sceptic Professor Ian Plimer predicted it would.
ABC news reports that five frontbenchers from Australia’s opposition Liberal party have resigned their portfolios rather than follow their leader Malcolm Turnbull in voting with Kevin Rudd’s Government on a new Emissions Trading Scheme.

The Liberal Party is in turmoil with the resignations of five frontbenchers from their portfolios this afternoon in protest against the emissions trading scheme.
Tony Abbott, Sophie Mirabella, Tony Smith and Senators Nick Minchin and Eric Abetz have all quit their portfolios because they cannot vote for the legislation.
Senate whip Stephen Parry has also relinquished his position.
​

The ETS is Australia’s version of America’s proposed Cap and Trade and the EU’s various carbon reduction schemes: a way of taxing business on its CO2 output. As Professor Plimer pointed out when I interviewed him in the summer, this threatens to cause enormous economic damage in Australia’s industrial and mining heartlands, not least because both are massively dependent on Australia’s vast reserves of coal. It is correspondingly extremely unpopular with Aussie’s outside the pinko, libtard metropolitan fleshpots.
Though the ETS squeaked narrowly through Australia’s House of Representatives, its Senate is proving more robust – thanks not least to the widespread disgust by the many Senators who have read Professor Plimer’s book Heaven And Earth at the dishonesty and corruption of the AGW industry. If the Senate keeps rejecting the scheme, then the Australian government will be forced to dissolve.
For the rapidly increasing number of us who believe that AGW is little more than a scheme by bullying eco-fascists to deprive us of our liberty, by big government to spread its controlling tentacles into every aspect our lives, and scheming industrialists such as Al Gore to enrich themselves through carbon trading, this principled act by Australia’s Carbon Five is fantastic news.
Where they lead, the rest of the world’s politicians will eventually be forced to follow: their appalled electorates will make sure of it.

Climategate: five Aussie MPs lead the way by resigning in disgust over carbon tax – Telegraph Blogs

 

[Extrafire]

Since you know it all how about you explain it to me.

Show me your research.

I've seen the other side in person.

Your turn....no links.

Just you.

Hah! Nice try.

I asked you first. Since you've seen it in person you shouldn't even have to ask them, you could do it yourself. So go ahead.

 

[Avro]

Oooooo, a conspiracy....:lol:

 

[Extrafire]

I didn't think you could. After all, no-one else has ever done it.

 

[Avro]

Hah! Nice try.

I asked you first. Since you've seen it in person you shouldn't even have to ask them, you could do it yourself. So go ahead.

Oh no...I'm just a drinker of "Koolaid" and have no clue....please, do explain.

Let's see your research...I'm curious.

No links.

 

[Avro]

I didn't think you could. After all, no-one else has ever done it.

I can't, I'm not a scientist, nor a climatologist. Sure, I could roam the web and find some links that I never bother to actually read but I'll go by what was explained to me face to face by real climatologists.

Perhaps, in your own words you could explain why I should buy into it.

No links.

Just you.

Thanks, look forward to it.

....oh he left, I'm shocked.:lol:

 

[Tonington]

:lol: Drink that Koolaid!

Here's a task for you: Make a case for AGW without using models.

Here's a task for you, make a case for attribution in the climate system without a model. Solar, greenhouse, volcanic...if you want to attribute the changes, you have to use a model, unless you know of a spare planet we can experiment with.

Go ahead. Google now. I'll wait.

If you can come up with a better analog, say something we can use in a lab to experiment with, well there will be plenty of people who would be quite happy to hear your thoughts.

Your ignorance concerning what models have given to science, not just climate science, is showing. I use them for fish health, engineers use them to build, bio-chemists use them to study drug interaction, geneticists use them to track gene movement...the list is long.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

That's a bit extreme for you Dex.

Aging is not mellowing me, quite the reverse. I'm getting grumpier and less tolerant of willful ignorance and stupidity as I get older. Watch out, I'm going to get worse. :smile:

 

[AnnaG]

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/images/last2000-large.jpg

 

[Cliffy]

I quess you believe we are all going to die.
Your right probably for most of us between the age of 65 to 80.
I am sure future generations will find the same livespan or greater .
But they surely will all die just as we will.
Life is to short for me to become a chicken little and worry about falling skies,
or is that rising temperatures.

Ya, who cares about the kids or the grandkids. Phuque em as long as you're comfortable. Who cares if there are a growing number of kids who have to live on respirators? Who cares about the hundreds of species going extinct every year? "I'm all right Jack, so up yours!"

 

[AnnaG]

We can influence climate in a miniscule way, but there is no evidence not full of holes that says we are responsible for climate change like the IPCC says.

And the evidence saying we can't influence climate is irrefutable? lmao

There likely is a small effect on the beetles by the warmer climate, but not much at all. Evidence does not point to a human influence on climate, fraud does. Part of my many-checkered past includes a stint as Assistant Ranger for the BC Forest Service, Kamloops District in the late '60's and early '70's, a time of global cooling. Way back then we were trained to be on the lookout for beetles because they were concerned that an outbreak such as the current one could occur. This concern was based on observations of outbreaks in the northern half of the province, where they were more frequent and larger than in the south. Since that time we've been fighting a losing battle against the bugs. It was only a matter of time until we couldn't contain them. If warming was a cause, or even a factor, in the beetle infestation, why didn't it start long ago in the south, where the temps are never all that cold? Why did it start in the north? I won't bother listing all the actual reasons for the outbreak unless you want them.

Apparently the bug is pretty choosy about temperatures, food sources, habitat, and that sort of thing.

http://www.usu.edu/beetle/documents/Logan_Powell01.pdf

And he was only refering to the AGW scam, not pollution.

He didn't say so.

I'm with you except for the Shell Oil part. They're going to keep refining crude because there's going to be an ongoing and growing demand for it. Solar and wind can be a small supplement to our energy needs, but they can't replace traditional energy sources.

They'll have to eventually, along with hydro, nuclear, etc.
That's beside my point, though. What effect would it have on the economy if people were cleaner, dirty businesses like oil companies went out and were replaced by energy companies that were cleaner? I think it'd be more economical to go clean than remain dirty and having to clean up your mess later and then go clean.

But whatever; foul up the planet as much as you want and defend Shell Oil, Exxon, and the others if you like, but stay off my property.