Climate Change

[Golfingnut]

I believe (without intervention), the effect of climate change will be more disastrous than any threat the earth has ever seen. Climate dictates all that allows earth to function as it does. Small variation in temperature WILL transform earth of today into a moon like wasteland.

[rubicon]

The experts get variable degrees in temperature in any local area and to suggest that they can fold in all the variants needed to accurately predict rise in temperature into computer models is to underestimate the limits to our understanding of nature. In essence the very basic measure is subject to great failings

I would agree that climate change occurs. I doubt humans have that much of an affect and to suggest such is pure conceit. And to underestimate the power of nature to balance it all out is short sighted because nature outlook is long term while humans is short term

I agree with the struggle to keep American clear of pollutants that affect our waterways, cities, etc.

The EPA has declared war on carbon dioxide an element that is constantly and naturally occurring on a planet

Climate change means only one thing $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ It is why Al Gore became a multi millionaire.

The campaign on climate control is based on junk science.

We would be better served to have our scientist engineers, etc focus on disease and cypersecurity that have had a direct affect and real affect on our lives.

[Cisco Kid]

When I was a boy,
First it was global cooling, then global warming, and now it's climate change ...
I'm going to wait for the next revision and then take another look at it.

[graciegirl]

I think....... that we do affect the ozone layer. We humans. But I KNOW that getting enough people to act differently is well nigh impossible. The humans aren't going to give up cars fueled by gas and other comforts. Some of us would. Some of us won't.


We can't get people to do things short term to help themselves, like working two jobs and saving money and reusing and repurposing and taking care of what they have. It is the beautiful young and idealistic who will argue with the old and sage. There are things that are right, but not feasible. You cannot change certain elements in certain people. In this case a LOT of people.


It will again be a huge argument that will further polarize people instead of motivating them to do what they can do to improve the air and water. Too many people do NOT care about anything but their own instant gratification. They do not plan or try to save the country's money. They don't realize that is the same principle. Waste not, want not. Necessity is the mother of hard work and the work ethic.


I know these things only because I am old.

[Golfingnut]

There is no question it's happening but because of many factors we are most likely already to late to turn it a round. That includes our stupidity and greed for more more more. I would say the young that are living in the fast lane today are doing the right thing as it is all they will have. In 30 to 40 years I don't see a livable earth.

[Golfingnut]

The experts get variable degrees in temperature in any local area and to suggest that they can fold in all the variants needed to accurately predict rise in temperature into computer models is to underestimate the limits to our understanding of nature. In essence the very basic measure is subject to great failings

I would agree that climate change occurs. I doubt humans have that much of an affect and to suggest such is pure conceit. And to underestimate the power of nature to balance it all out is short sighted because nature outlook is long term while humans is short term

I agree with the struggle to keep American clear of pollutants that affect our waterways, cities, etc.

The EPA has declared war on carbon dioxide an element that is constantly and naturally occurring on a planet

Climate change means only one thing $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ It is why Al Gore became a multi millionaire.

The campaign on climate control is based on junk science.

We would be better served to have our scientist engineers, etc focus on disease and cypersecurity that have had a direct affect and real affect on our lives.

Junk science REALLY.
97% of the scientific community KNOW global warming is happening and WHY.
the consensus project (http://theconsensusproject.com/#sharePage)

[CFrance]

Golfingnut, you are just not going to be able to convince the naysayers that global warming is happening. You're just not. It's like trying to convince an atheist there is a God. If your purpose was to engage in some debate, then this is fine, but you are likely to get some nasty replies to your subject.

Just so's ya know.

[memason]

... In 30 to 40 years I don't see a livable earth.

This is a little chicken little-ish...don't you think?

The earth [and nature] has an amazing ability to repair itself...

But hey, that's just my opinion....

[graciegirl]

Golfingnut, you are just not going to be able to convince the naysayers that global warming is happening. You're just not. It's like trying to convince an atheist there is a God. If your purpose was to engage in some debate, then this is fine, but you are likely to get some nasty replies to your subject.

Just so's ya know.





Listen to this smart and kind woman.

[Arctic Fox]

The biggest mistake is calling it "Global Warming".

While technically correct, because the average temperature of the planet is increasing, people can point at one particularly cold winter (or cool summer) and say it proves global warming is a fallacy.

Call it "Climate Change" and most people would agree that is happening - colder winters, drier summers, more-powerful storms, more wildfires.

[DDoug]

Climate change is nothing than a tool for the powers to be to try and bring the world under one governing body. Any time you put a sphere spinning the center axis will tend to move,you can do this experiment with a bicycle wheel. Sin it and see if it wants to turn. By doing this with the earth you will some day move the spin of the earth and the poles will start to move and that causes the climate in certain areas of the world to change. Take it for what it's worth you dont have to believe it.

[TexaninVA]

I believe (without intervention), the effect of climate change will be more disastrous than any threat the earth has ever seen. Climate dictates all that allows earth to function as it does. Small variation in temperature WILL transform earth of today into a moon like wasteland.

I believe this is like saying the sky is falling ... and that we are all doomed.

On the other hand, I do know that expanding the government's power will be the net result of climate change policy, along with ruining our already shaky economy. The irony is the Chinese will be laughing at us at the same time.

[dewilson58]

I believe (without intervention), the effect of climate change will be more disastrous than any threat the earth has ever seen. Climate dictates all that allows earth to function as it does. Small variation in temperature WILL transform earth of today into a moon like wasteland.

This will be fun!!!!

Thanks for putting a smile on my face and creating a thread to watch.

:pepper2::pepper2::pepper2:

[CFrance]

I believe this is like saying the sky is falling ... and that we are all doomed.

On the other hand, I do know that expanding the government's power will be the net result of climate change policy, along with ruining our already shaky economy. The irony is the Chinese will be laughing at us at the same time.

No worries... the Chinese will have asphyxiated their population by that time, due to their disregard for their citizens' health vis-a-vis their desire to push industry (and resultant pollutants).

Look how they had to ban auto traffic during the Olympics so the world wouldn't realize how polluted the area was.

[rubicon]

Junk science REALLY.
97% of the scientific community KNOW global warming is happening and WHY.
the consensus project (http://theconsensusproject.com/#sharePage)

Hi golfingnut: It has always amazed me how people can be manipulated and pressured. Example "Lottery "You can't win if you don't play". How many of us have been duped into that one? I can but my post most likely will be striken if I presented some political examples so I won't.

It is junk science fabricated to a preconceived conclusion. I question the 97% figure but will relinquish in your favor. But again global warming climate change is happening but its driven by nature's cycles perhaps cycles that stretch millions of years.

Other posters are spot on by suggesting its a nice way to control the uncontrollable. You see if you don't play you can't win." Well I ain't plying their game. Its silly science

Personal Best Regards

[manaboutown]

I believe (without intervention), the effect of climate change will be more disastrous than any threat the earth has ever seen. Climate dictates all that allows earth to function as it does. Small variation in temperature WILL transform earth of today into a moon like wasteland.

Yeah - and I have a bridge in Brooklyn I can sell you for a great price!

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303945704579391611041331266

[DDoug]

Bottom line economics rules

[kbace6]

Golfingnut, you are just not going to be able to convince the naysayers that global warming is happening. You're just not. It's like trying to convince an atheist there is a God. If your purpose was to engage in some debate, then this is fine, but you are likely to get some nasty replies to your subject.

Just so's ya know.

CFrance I agree with you in general. However I am one who used to believe in "Manmade Global Warming". Any time "Global Warming" or "Climate change" is mentioned the Manmade part is inferred no matter how it is labeled or spun and what it is called.

So why do I not believe in it today? Mainly because about 15 years ago it started no not smell right to me. Once people started to propose money making enterprises, such as "Carbon Credits". That made me raise an eyebrow. Now with the theory of the "Hockey Stick" found to be...... A hoax would be too strong of a word. So let's say poor scientific practice. There is NO PROVEN link between manmade CO2 emissions and a rise in the Earth's temperature. I can not believe any scientific research that builds off of the "Hockey Stick" theory. The scientific community has to re-prove everything as far as I am concerned.

I do not care that the emails dis-proving the "Hockey Stick" theory were stolen. I only care what they say and that the incriminated scientists do not deny any of it.

Climate Email Leak: University Of East Anglia Slams Apparent New Leak (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/22/climate-email-leak-university-east-anglia_n_1107929.html)

I'm not saying that the rise in the over all Earth's temperature is not caused by manmade things. I am saying it has NEVER been proven to my satisfaction. I am open to the idea, but you have to prove it. And I do not believe any climate change scientists whose funding relies on perpetuating this agenda. Nor any scientists whose funding relies on dis-proving it. I have found one with who I find very credible though. His name is Richard Linden of MIT. Here is an article about him and his work.

I say again, I am open to the idea, but you have to prove it to me first.

Richard Lindzen: A Case Against Precipitous Climate Action | Watts Up With That? (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/17/richard-lindzen-a-case-against-precipitous-climate-action/)

No bomb tossing folks, this is just a fairly researched opinion that likely clashes with some others.

Love you folks here on TOTV.

[Cisco Kid]

Junk science REALLY.
97% of the scientific community KNOW global warming is happening and WHY.
the consensus project (http://theconsensusproject.com/#sharePage)

I looked @ the website.
It said the debate was over.
terminate the thread.

[billethkid]

it is truly amazing how some can speak with such authority on a subject they know little more about than they read or talk about. Even if they read/listen to how ever many so called experts.

Just what is it that has been presented that would convince anybody that those who believe....who have been residents of the planet for how long....for the sake of argument let's just say 75 years. 75 years out of how many thousands of years has the earth been here? And we are to believe they are so scientifically accurate to be able to predict how many tenths of an inch or degree something is going to change 100 to 300 years out in time! And then go so far as to predict how all the other elements of the earth will react year by year!

I put this subject in the same category as the list of "forecasters who have predicted the end of the world for what ever reason over the same 75 years some have been on the planet. Thousands of forecasts.

Hence not worth spending any time on it. And the real kiss of death on this subject? It is just another political contrivance.

[Golfingnut]

Could I possibly be wrong? If it does happen, my concern will be simple. How much more will I have to pay to keep my beer cold?

[Cisco Kid]

Scientists warn if we dont act now to stop global warming, Ice Road Truckers could be cancelled as early as 2030.

[Golfingnut]

LOL. I love this site.

[Golf View]

There is no question it's happening but because of many factors we are most likely already to late to turn it a round. That includes our stupidity and greed for more more more. I would say the young that are living in the fast lane today are doing the right thing as it is all they will have. In 30 to 40 years I don't see a livable earth.

I will be packing my bags to move to Mars while there is still time.

[CFrance]

it is truly amazing how some can speak with such authority on a subject they know little more about than they read or talk about. Even if they read/listen to how ever many so called experts.

Just what is it that has been presented that would convince anybody that those who believe....who have been residents of the planet for how long....for the sake of argument let's just say 75 years. 75 years out of how many thousands of years has the earth been here? And we are to believe they are so scientifically accurate to be able to predict how many tenths of an inch or degree something is going to change 100 to 300 years out in time! And then go so far as to predict how all the other elements of the earth will react year by year!

I put this subject in the same category as the list of "forecasters who have predicted the end of the world for what ever reason over the same 75 years some have been on the planet. Thousands of forecasts.

Hence not worth spending any time on it. And the real kiss of death on this subject? It is just another political contrivance.

I don't think anybody on either side has any irrefutable proof, despite the fact that there are much more advanced scientific measuring sticks around today than there were 60 years ago when those 75-year-olds were teenagers, and despite the fact that some people are making $ off the theory.

So this is nothing more than a debate, which is a perfectly legitimate exercise, in my opinion. I stick with my original statement that nobody is going to convince anybody the change his/her mind on the subject.

[Golfingnut]

I don't think anybody on either side has any irrefutable proof, despite the fact that there are much more advanced scientific measuring sticks around today than there were 60 years ago when those 75-year-olds were teenagers, and despite the fact that some people are making $ off the theory.

So this is nothing more than a debate, which is a perfectly legitimate exercise, in my opinion. I stick with my original statement that nobody is going to convince anybody the change his/her mind on the subject.

Your so right. But not the debate part. It is opinion from some and insult from others. That is at least one constant you can bet on. I would debate what will happen in the future and I certainly exaggerated the 30 to 40 year prediction, but not to believe it is happening is to be a blind fool.

[TheVillageChicken]

I blame it on the ruminants.

[l2ridehd]

These same "scientist" can't even predict the weather correctly tomorrow and be accurate more than 25% of the time. I do believe we have climate change. I do believe the North pole is shrinking and the South pole is growing. I do not believe we have any impact on the cause. Termites cause more CO2 in a day than man does in a 100 years. I do believe we had a negative impact on the ozone layer. I do believe we need to do everything possible to clean up our rivers and streams and oceans. But to believe man has caused the climate change is one of the biggest hoax that we have been subjected to since Ponzi. Can we do better for our environment? Absolutely yes.

[TNLAKEPANDA]

To each their own. Live you life the way you want to but don't force others to do what YOU believe is the right thing OK. Reduce pollution...yes. Global warming...No.

[buggyone]

Of course, climate change is occuring. That is a proven fact! Is it all a natural thing? Is it all a manmade thing? No one knows for sure except that climate change is happening.

With all of the world industry spewing contaminants and gasses into the atmosphere, you have a major cause of climate change. I would venture to say that the industry and car gasses are a huge part of the climate change.

Clean those up to a large degree and we will be able to slow down climate change.

BTW, Golfingnut, your new avatar shows a nice looking car. What kind is it? I am sure that Mrs. Golfingnut picked it out for you. :beer3:

[Hacker1]

The climate has been changing ever since the world began - for millions of years. We have climate data going back about 140 years or so. The earth has gone through at least two ice ages, followed by periods of warming and melting.
Did anyone notice the article in the Daily Sun a couple of weeks ago saying that scientists have very strong evidence of droughts in California hundreds or thousands of years ago of much greater severity and duration than the current one? This was shortly after our President in his State of the Union declared that the current California drought is definitly caused by man-made climate change.
We should continue to take reasonable measures to keep our air clean -- and America has done far more of that than any other Nation. Here's an idea: If those politicians clamoring for action to control climate change were really interested in a solution, rather than a political issue, they could propose a climate change tax on all goods imported from China.

[Villages PL]

Could I possibly be wrong? If it does happen, my concern will be simple. How much more will I have to pay to keep my beer cold?

There's more to it than that. Have you ever studied the "fizzics" of beer?
All those little bubbles (fizz) are made up of carbon dioxide. So every time someone opens a bottle or can of beer, they are contributing to "global warming." Then comes the belch and the fart, and we are in big trouble. ;)

[Hacker1]

The climate has been changing ever since the world began - for millions of years. We have climate data going back about 140 years or so. The earth has gone through at least two ice ages, followed by periods of warming and melting.
Did anyone notice the article in the Daily Sun a couple of weeks ago saying that scientists have very strong evidence of droughts in California hundreds or thousands of years ago of much greater severity and duration than the current one? This was shortly after our President in his State of the Union declared that the current California drought is definitly caused by man-made climate change.
We should continue to take reasonable measures to keep our air clean -- and America has done far more of that than any other Nation. Here's an idea: If those politicians clamoring for action to control climate change were really interested in a solution, rather than a political issue, they could propose a climate change tax on all goods imported from China.

Oh, and I forgot to mention I saw a report on Fox News Sunday recently that the effects of the current drouth in California are being exacerbated by the Federal Government's refusal to release water that could be used to irrigate crops (or help relieve shortages in cities), in order to preserve habitat for some threatened or endangered fish species.

[Golfingnut]

There's more to it than that. Have you ever studied the "fizzics" of beer?
All those little bubbles (fizz) are made up of carbon dioxide. So every time someone opens a bottle or can of beer, they are contributing to "global warming." Then comes the belch and the fart, and we are in big trouble. ;)

OMG. Don't tell me that.

[graciegirl]

I think, but am not sure, that poor people and rich people both fart.

[DianeM]

Let's be real here. Global climate changes all the time. Some years are mild and some are horrendous. If all the doom and gloom is correct, it will take a long time and I'll be long gone and not care anymore.

[Golfingnut]

I think, but am not sure, that poor people and rich people both fart.

But it don't stink if your rich.

[perrjojo]

Yup, the climate is changing. I think I read in the past couple billion years there have been five ice ages. Of course we humans have an effect on the Earth but as George Carlin once said, the Earth does not need us to save it because Mother Nature will just shake us humans off like a dog shaking off a flea.

[BarryRX]

Junk science REALLY.
97% of the scientific community KNOW global warming is happening and WHY.
the consensus project (http://theconsensusproject.com/#sharePage)

I didn't even think this was a debate anymore. The huge amount of science that points to the increase of trapped greenhouse gases is overwhelming. Yet, folks with little or no scientific knowledge of the issue feel free to state their "feelings" on the matter.

[gomoho]

As a human on this planet I try and do what I can to be conscious of my footprint that I may leave on this earth. But I believe if every American did everything right as far as the environment it would hardly be a blip on the radar screen when you look at what the rest of the world is doing. We need to do the best we can with what we have, but have to balance the good of man vs the endangered fish or bug or bird or whatever. Once again if only we could use common sense!

[l2ridehd]

Arctic Fox.

I don't see anyone saying climate change is not happening. I certainly believe it is. I just doubt that any scientist can accurately predict it. And the blonde bimbos only parrot from a teleprompter, they don't forecast the weather, they use many meteorologists to do that for them. Part of the same scientific community that project global warming. My disagreement comes from mans impact on the cause and mans ability to change the direction. I don't believe we are causing it and I don't believe we can change it. That is very different than doubting it is happening. This earth had global warming and ice ages in many cycles long before man ever burned a single lump of coal. And it will have them after we are long gone. I will spend my cycles on something I can impact and will make a difference like water quality. Not tilt at windmills on something I can't change.

[rubicon]

Let's approach this differently

History tells us that at one point in time most people believed the earth was flat, except the skeptics (deniers) . HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

History tells us that 1950 many Americans believed that all that junk they were launching into space was having an adverse affect on our weather.

Let's suppose the climate modelers are correct. it becomes a bad news -good news scenario. If Bangladesh floods its good news for Greenland which desires to break from Denmark. Profit from those adjoining countries around the melting Arctic would gain profit from recoverable minerals, etc. including the USA

The are two known facts, carbon dioxide has increased due to fossil fuels, and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a greenhouse gas. what is not known is how much of the Earth's atmosphere will warm into this added carbon. From the surface to 75,000 feet above is the most vulnerable yet scientist have yet to prove heating is occurring there.

Theorist have over stated the variables in their computer model and as years pass and their predictions fail they re-work the numbers to be softer to fit their predictions

What is known for sure is that the Koyoto Protocol Pact failed and renewables still haven't proved cost effective. Every Telsa that comes off the assembly line means taypayers are picking up a heavy credit

[Golfingnut]

[QUOTE=rubicon;835241]

Let's approach this differently

History tells us that at one point in time most people believed the earth was flat, except the skeptics (deniers) . HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

History tells us that 1950 many Americans believed that all that junk they were launching into space was having an adverse affect on our weather.

Let's suppose the climate modelers are correct. it becomes a bad news -good news scenario. If Bangladesh floods its good news for Greenland which desires to break from Denmark. Profit from those adjoining countries around the melting Arctic would gain profit from recoverable minerals, etc. including the USA

The are two known facts, carbon dioxide has increased due to fossil fuels, and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a greenhouse gas. what is not known is how much of the Earth's atmosphere will warm into this added carbon. From the surface to 75,000 feet above is the most vulnerable yet scientist have yet to prove heating is occurring there.

Theorist have over stated the variables in their computer model and as years pass and their predictions fail they re-work the numbers to be softer to fit their predictions

What is known for sure is that the Koyoto Protocol Pact failed and renewables still haven't proved cost effective. Every Telsa that comes off the assembly line means taypayers are picking up a heavy credit[/

You need some of my wisdom or some serious drugs to bring you back to reality.

[eweissenbach]

Let's be real here. Global climate changes all the time. Some years are mild and some are horrendous. If all the doom and gloom is correct, it will take a long time and I'll be long gone and not care anymore.

We will all be gone, but our grandchildren and their grandchildren will pay the price for our foolish attitudes.

[Golfingnut]

I love all TOTV posters, but as all are created equal, the grey matter was not distributed equal.

[justjim]

If you have ever been on an Alaska Cruise you can see with your own eyes that "things" are melting up there. You can call it whatever you want but it's happening---the ice is melting at a rapid rate.

Will it reverse itself? I'm not a scientist but the majority of experts are concerned. If what is currently happening up there continues----our planet earth will need to do something about it----hopefully it won't be too late. Enough said.

[buggyone]

Personally, I would not believe one word printed in the Sun Journal of New Bern.

Of course, everyone can believe whatever paper their side is on climate change.

Go for the scientific proof and you will be right.

[Bucco]

I agree with a lot of what you are saying, Bucco. My problem is not knowing how to determine if that which I read is scientific or political.

As with many, and getting to be most issues, I am finding my self researching the author and then all of his references, but on this issue, I just stopped. This is more of the "p" word than almost anything right now and I , like you, have no idea of whom to trust.

There are "scientific" studies that come down on both sides of this issue

[eweissenbach]

I don't rely on any politician or any study funded by special interests, or the opinion of anyone with a bias such as Fox News or MSNBC etc. I have been to Glacier N.P. where the "glaciers" are clearly disappearing. I have been to Alaska where the ice is clearly receding and I have seen pictures of ice in the arctic which has diminished drastically. We can wait until Manhattan and Miami are under water, or we can begin taking common sense action before we saddle future generations with the consequences. Corporate Interests will always refute science when the fix costs them money. Our rivers throughout this country have been saved from pollution from companies and cities dumping raw and industrial waste in the watershed with regulations that they fought tooth and nail. The same sort of action will be required to reverse some of this problem, but they and their minions will fight it with every breath they take and every cent they can spare. This isn't a political issue, it is a scientific issue that politicians have been well paid to fight.

[Bucco]

I don't rely on any politician or any study funded by special interests, or the opinion of anyone with a bias such as Fox News or MSNBC etc. I have been to Glacier N.P. where the "glaciers" are clearly disappearing. I have been to Alaska where the ice is clearly receding and I have seen pictures of ice in the arctic which has diminished drastically. We can wait until Manhattan and Miami are under water, or we can begin taking common sense action before we saddle future generations with the consequences. Corporate Interests will always refute science when the fix costs them money. Our rivers throughout this country have been saved from pollution from companies and cities dumping raw and industrial waste in the watershed with regulations that they fought tooth and nail. The same sort of action will be required to reverse some of this problem, but they and their minions will fight it with every breath they take and every cent they can spare. This isn't a political issue, it is a scientific issue that politicians have been well paid to fight.


I am not sure that ANYONE thinks that climate change does not exist !

It is the degree to which it exists which is in question. I can come up with studies on both sides of the issue on the severity and THAT is where the political money is polluting the discussion.

Today in Forbes is an editorial claiming while there is climate change the affects are not what claimed to be.......and also today there is a Billionaire announcing he will finance hard hitting attack ads to advance the other side.

The politicians had muddied this so very badly....I spent two years in the Aleutian islands in the very early 60's and saw some of what you reference which has since reversed. THAT is not to counter your statements, but I honestly think this will be answered with the money...not the facts, whatever they are.

the two articles is site...

Let's Be Very Clear Mr. Kerry: No Scientific Evidence Of 'Dangerous' Human Climate Influence Exists - Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2014/02/24/lets-be-very-clear-mr-kerry-no-scientific-evidence-of-dangerous-human-climate-influence-exists/)

Billionaire Targets '14 Races in Climate Change Fight | RealClearPolitics (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/02/18/billionaire_targets_14_races_in_climate_change_fig ht_121618.html)


PS....I would be very excited if you could route me to one of those studies not funded by a special interest group and that is not sarcasm because I have looked for one and can not find any.

[billethkid]

like so many other issues facing this country today, we will have to wait until some other entity/country that can afford it to do anything about it.....regardless which direction reality should take it.

[NoMoSno]

Climate has been changing since Earths beginning.
Hot...Cold...Hot...Cold...We will adjust.
Aren't we supposed going into the next ice age?
Just glad I'm in central FL, not Northern MI.:pepper2:

[TexaninVA]

I love all TOTV posters, but as all are created equal, the grey matter was not distributed equal.

Yes, you make a persuasive case

[gomoho]

So how does anyone know this hasn't happened previously and we are simply in a cycle that Mother Earth goes through? Like I said before do what you can to be a friend of the earth, but use common sense.

[BS Beef]

If this isn't a political issue why is it no longer called "Global Warming" and is now referred to as "Climate Change"?

I just find it interesting that some insist it's not a political issue but then want to put down others for watching a news channel they consider to be a political hack for one of the parties. Because you watch one channel or the other doesn't automatically make you neutral and able to see issues through an unfiltered lens.

[eweissenbach]

PS....I would be very excited if you could route me to one of those studies not funded by a special interest group and that is not sarcasm because I have looked for one and can not find any.

Global Warming -- Research Issues (http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html)

[Bucco]

Global Warming -- Research Issues (http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html)


Thank you...time to read :)

[Bucco]

Global Warming -- Research Issues (http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html)

This appears to be a great site. I read through it quickly and need to more digest some of the details but seems very comprehensive and non political.

This read will lead me to what the plan is to fight this...I know the Supreme court will rule, NOT ON WHAT TO DO, but HOW whatever might be done. But I need to get more information on this.....it is not simple...not as clear as many make it but this site I would recommend to anyone who has a serious, non political interest in the issue. It seems to serve that purpose for sure !

Thanks again

[Barefoot]

I don't see anyone saying climate change is not happening. I certainly believe it is. I just doubt that any scientist can accurately predict it. And the blonde bimbos only parrot from a teleprompter, they don't forecast the weather, they use many meteorologists to do that for them. Part of the same scientific community that project global warming.

My disagreement comes from mans impact on the cause and mans ability to change the direction. I don't believe we are causing it and I don't believe we can change it. That is very different than doubting it is happening.

This earth had global warming and ice ages in many cycles long before man ever burned a single lump of coal. And it will have them after we are long gone. I will spend my cycles on something I can impact and will make a difference like water quality. Not tilt at windmills on something I can't change.

:agree: Climate change is happening. The earth is going through a cycle. I don't think we are causing it or that we can reverse it.

[Bucco]

Global Warming -- Research Issues (http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html)

Just want to bring this up again. This link supplied by EWEISSENBACH is good reading if you are truely interested in this issue. Be sure when you visit to also read the links they supply. On a positive note, on one of the links funding was restored on a VERY BI PARTISAN stage and we await the new budget for research.

It is a great jumping off link to learn more.

[Topspinmo]

Let's see, Climate change??? Daa The climate will change and has been changing for millions of years. People up north probably not going to want to hear about Global Warming this year. Course Foundation Study groups (tha get millions to do study can alter the results as in any study or pole) are smart say it's climate change and not calling it Global Warming. You can go back 1 day, 10 days, 10 years. 10,000 years, or 1,000,000,000,000 years and the climate has changed. After all how can you argue with climate change. CAUSE IT WILL and HAS CHANGED since the BIG BANG!

Taking my Car or elect. or stove, or your Car, elect. stove, big house, private airplane, 10,000 sq. ft House, and Chaffee driving limo will change that? I like how important people want to change the life of everyone else except theirs. when 75% of the world population is just trying to survive another day.

[Russ_Boston]

The largest decade for Hurricanes (landfall) was in the 1940's. Second was the 1910's and third was 1890's.


Climate change? Sure. The earth is always evolving. Someday humans will be gone from the face of the earth from some catastrophic event. But I don't think it will caused by man.


http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_gRuPC7OQdxc/SqzfJ3hdZbI/AAAAAAAAAWg/CN91lDfvEjM/s1600-h/Hurricane+wind-chart_thumb[1].gif

[Walt.]

I'm sure we could stop global warming... I mean climate change... if we would just stop all that fracking! Thank you... glad to help.

[senior citizen]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/climate-change-sandy.html (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/climate-change-sandy.html)

Interesting link (above)............and, for what it's worth......

Sandy wreaked havoc on both New Jersey and on Vermont. Vermont, a state that never makes weather news, finally did.
Images of the barns and horses and cows being swept away down the rivers; towns being cut off, unable to go east or go west down from their mountain communities due to roads and bridges being washed out. This was not normal weather or normal climate.


This year, our friends and relatives in Atlanta, Georgia and North Carolina have experienced extreme weather distress.


Anyone who has adult children who fly coast to coast, know that they've been experiencing flight issues and frozen tundra in the states they do business in. Some states had 40 straight days of sub freezing temps.


Those of us who have lived in both states which "Sandy" impacted, (N.J./VT.) for extended periods of time, do realize the weather has been unpredictably EXTREME.....and VT. is a snow state; we expect cold and snow.......but not disasters.

Lately, we've been so "iced in" it's like existing in Siberia. We are thankful for the very short "slow thaw" last week, but now it's back to extreme cold again.

The worst case scenario would have been the torrential rains they had predicted on top of our three feet or more of snow on the FROZEN ground.....and a fast thaw, which would have led to flooding.


However, due to it warming up, without the rain, last week HUGE PORTIONS of chunks of snow were sliding off of our roof due to the ice glides/slides. 37 felt like a heat wave.


It also took a very long time for the five foot long icycles to thaw, which were hanging from the gutters on the back three season sun room.


So, just grateful for the slower thaw........before reverting back to very cold temps again at the moment.


It's hard on the people who cannot afford the heating oil up here. Numerous accidents due to icy roads, day after day.


Truthfully, we have not seen such extreme winter weather since 1970. So whether one calls it climate change or a cycle of weather, it is not easy on the residents of any of the northern states.


Thinking spring.

[jblum315]

I blame it on the ruminants.

I blame it on the astronauts who walked around on the moon. We weren't meant to walk on the moon. The moon is in charge of tides and other phenomena. That's when the climate began to change

[senior citizen]

Stephen Hawking: climate disaster within 1000 years - See more at: http://www.rtcc.org/2012/01/06/stephen-hawking-warns-of-climate-disaster-ahead-of-70th-birthday/#sthash.CPUmNhwK.dpuf (http://www.rtcc.org/2012/01/06/stephen-hawking-warns-of-climate-disaster-ahead-of-70th-birthday/#sthash.CPUmNhwK.dpuf)


Well, he's 72 years old now, God bless him......


However, guess we don't have to worry about climate disaster as we will not be alive for most of the next 1,000 years.......


The extreme weather will still impact people's travel plans, property safety issues, pocketbooks and general comfort as to extreme temperatures.

[Golfingnut]

Each generation is smarter than the last one. That is the hope for the future. As us old (set in our ways) folks die off, many things will change for the better. We are becoming more tolerant and live longer with better health services. Our younger folks will come into power and do something to stop us from destroying the earth.

[TheVillageChicken]

Each generation is smarter than the last one. That is the hope for the future. As us old (set in our ways) folks die off, many things will change for the better. We are becoming more tolerant and live longer with better health services. Our younger folks will come into power and do something to stop us from destroying the earth.


From my perspective, with each generation, technology advances and society regresses.

[billethkid]

From my perspective, with each generation, technology advances and society regresses.

And we (old and newer/younger alike) will eventually conclude that this subject is really on page two of the list of issues that ail this country.

Let's hope the countries that will lead the world set a direction/pace/tone we can accept.....and afford!

[TNLAKEPANDA]

Study: Volcanic Eruptions Cooling Planet Earth (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/02/25/Study-Volcanic-Eruptions-Cooling-Planet-Earth)

[Golfingnut]

From my perspective, with each generation, technology advances and society regresses.

A larger number are regressing; however, the smart minority are getting better and almost all are becoming more aware of issues like climate change as their minds are less clogged with the outdated views and prejudices of their parents and grandparents.

[graciegirl]

A larger number are regressing; however, the smart minority are getting better and almost all are becoming more aware of issues like climate change as their minds are less clogged with the outdated views and prejudices of their parents and grandparents.



ONLY SOME of us have outdated views and prejudices. Some of the younger folks are very unformed and uninformed as well.


Always standing WITH my peers.


And teasing you a little too GN.


From the not too silent majority around these parts.

[Golfingnut]

ONLY SOME of us have outdated views and prejudices. Some of the younger folks are very unformed and uninformed as well.


Always standing WITH my peers.


And teasing you a little too GN.


From the not too silent majority around these parts.

Good point.
I am a senior that thinks we have much smarter and better young today than in our generation. Very well proven by the military of today. Old people, in my opinion have failed the young by letting so many of them go off track. Those coming up will be less concerned with personal greed and will be kinder to their fellow man and this planet. The media does a great job showing us the rotten members of the younger generation, but many of us have grandchildren out there in the world with the desire and the ability to improve this world IF WE JUST GET OUT OF THEIR WAY.

Love
Lou

[Villages PL]

I think, but am not sure, that poor people and rich people both fart.

The only difference is that rich people are more discrete about it, if you know what I mean.

[Arctic Fox]

Our younger folks will come into power and do something to stop us from destroying the earth.

I'm sure they will.

The problem is that climate change is picking up momentum. It will be far easier and cheaper to slow or reverse it if we start now rather than waiting another ten years.

Even if we start today, the weather will continue becoming more extreme, and sea levels will continue rising, until the middle of the century.

We've left future generations enough of our problems to clear up (including a national debt currently over $17,000,000,000,000) without neglecting our duty on this one too.

[Golfingnut]

I'm sure they will.

The problem is that climate change is picking up momentum. It will be far easier and cheaper to slow or reverse it if we start now rather than waiting another ten years.

Even if we start today, the weather will continue becoming more extreme, and sea levels will continue rising, until the middle of the century.

We've left future generations enough of our problems to clear up (including a national debt currently over $17,000,000,000,000) without neglecting our duty on this one too.

I agree 100%; however, with a portion of our population that are more concerned with their portfolio than the next generation having a healthy planet refuse to see the obvious and research the facts.

[Bucco]

Last evening EWEISSENBACH posted a great link to STANFORD SOLAR CENTER, which because of the conversation that was taking place at the time, the first thing I did was check on WHO, WHAT, WHY, etc emphazing the financial support and they get their support from NASA and government grants. One of my concerns was the politicizing of this subject and there certainly does not appear to be any chance of that.

The site has a number of great and certainly top flight links which will direct you to many worthwhile studies.

I thank EWEISSENBACH for such a link and recommend anyone who truely cares to investigate it.

As of now, for me, climate change does exist....HAS existed forever basically and will continue to exist. Our growth, not the USA..the world...is about the largest contributor at present. The consequences, many of which we have already felt and dealt with, can be quantified for the future...again, we have been dealing with these changes for a time, but with technological advance, we can better determine the future. They could be serious, and probably can be dealt with by the world population now.

You notice words like COULD, PROBABLY are words that you find quite a bit in many of the studies I looked at...they are not me trying to be coy. The seriousness, and timing of the consequences are not a finite thing, but are real.

I still want to continue reading especially the possible timing and consequences and what can be done to slow, alter or whatever word may apply.

At this point, this issue moves up in MY priorities but not one that LEADS my list. We have a number of issues that will destroy us well before climate change that we need to address. That does not mean to ignore, but move forward recognizing our financial restraints. I do not know of UN moves in this regard, but perhaps showing some leadership there may help.

I notice the conversation here has taken a turn, and since it does apply somewhat to what I am posting now......one thing that I think will destroy us quicker than climate change is our societal changes which someone alluded to in an earlier post. NOT, in my opinion, in any way related to rich versus poor, but the breakdown of our entire moral compass. The rich versus poor by the way is not new...I am presently reading "THE BULLY PULPIT" which is the actual history of T. Roosevelt and WH Taft, and the same exact conversation about rich versus poor taking place now but set in 1900 era..great book to get serious depth, background, and context for what is happening today.

[Golfingnut]

Well, one more on the side of reason. Welcome.

[Villages PL]

It's a metaphor for the tendency to reject new evidence or knowledge as it contradicts established norms.

Dr. Semmelweis was a hungarian doctor who discovered the importance of hand washing in obstetrical clinics in 1847. He tried to spread the word to other doctors but was largely ridiculed and harassed by the medical community. Finally, after he faught this battle for many years, they thought he was going crazy and committed him to an asylum. He died 14 days later; it was 1865. 18 years had passed with little to show for his effort to bring about change.

Wouldn't you think the medical community would try washing their hands to see if it improved the survival rates in their clinics? In his clinic, he reduced fatalities, from puerperal fevor, from 10% down to 1-2%.

He was right but he was only one doctor against many. The other doctors could have discredited him by saying: "99.9% of the scientific community does not believe that hand washing is of any importance."

So it seems that it doesn't always matter how many scientists you have on one side or the other.

[BS Beef]

I had to chime back in for a couple of reasons. 1st, Oldcoach Ed posted an excellent article already mentioned few times. But I mostly just wanted to say how heartening it has been to see the discourse so respectful with such a contentious topic. Well done TOTV'ers :bowdown::bowdown::bowdown:

[Polar Bear]

The only thing that is certain about the earth's climate is that it has always been changing. It's never been constant and almost certainly never will. I believe man has some impact on the earth and its environment, but not one that changes the overall direction of the earth's cycles of change.

As others have said, it's important that we always take steps to minimize any negative impacts of societal development on the environment. But I also agree with others that to think man can totally control earth's environment and eliminate cycles of heating and cooling is unrealistic to put it mildly.

[LndLocked]

Survey finds 97% climate science papers agree warming is man-made | Dana Nuccitelli | Environment | theguardian.com (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/may/16/climate-change-scienceofclimatechange)

[DougB]

According to a news story, if global warming continues, in 20 years the only chance we’ll have to see a polar bear is in a zoo. So in other words, nothing is going to change.

[buzzy]

If the information is available to the public, it's intended to mislead them.

[Polar Bear]

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/NinteySevenpercentnotwhatyouthink1.28.12.pdf

http://www.petitionproject.org/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/

[gamby]

Just in today NBC news;


Scientists More Certain Than Ever on Climate Change, Report Says


Clear evidence and uncertainty

Concentrations of carbon dioxide, the document notes, increased by 40 percent between 1880 and 2012 and are now higher than at any time in at least 800,000 years. As a result, global temperatures are 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than in 1900, Arctic sea ice is shrinking, sea levels are 8 inches higher, ocean acidity is on the rise, and the geographical ranges of many plants and animals are shifting.

"The evidence is clear," reads the report.

[CMANN]

Junk science REALLY.
97% of the scientific community KNOW global warming is happening and WHY.
the consensus project (http://theconsensusproject.com/#sharePage)

consensus is not science

[CMANN]

Survey finds 97% climate science papers agree warming is man-made | Dana Nuccitelli | Environment | theguardian.com (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/may/16/climate-change-scienceofclimatechange)

I think that it is very doubtful that anyone who writes a paper denying climate change will be able to get any funding.

[Monkei]

Man never walked on the moon, he did however walk on a fake moon in a production set somewhere.

[graciegirl]

Bill? We are nearly out of popcorn here and you haven't supplied us in AGES. Don't you love us anymore????

[memason]

Just in today NBC news;


Scientists More Certain Than Ever on Climate Change, Report Says


Clear evidence and uncertainty

Concentrations of carbon dioxide, the document notes, increased by 40 percent between 1880 and 2012 and are now higher than at any time in at least 800,000 years. As a result, global temperatures are 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than in 1900, Arctic sea ice is shrinking, sea levels are 8 inches higher, ocean acidity is on the rise, and the geographical ranges of many plants and animals are shifting.

"The evidence is clear," reads the report.

It's comments like the above that kill any semblance of credibility for me. Scientists in 1800 were still trying to figure out if the earth was flat or not... They were certainly not measuring the effects of carbon dioxide on the atmosphere.

[Golfingnut]

It's comments like the above that kill any semblance of credibility for me. Scientists in 1800 were still trying to figure out if the earth was flat or not... They were certainly not measuring the effects of carbon dioxide on the atmosphere.

It's comments like this that convince me that most do not know silence. You don't have to have been born in the 1800's to know what the climate was made up of.

[memason]

It's comments like this that convince me that most do not know silence. You don't have to have been born in the 1800's to know what the climate was made up of.

Yeah well, whatever.... Most reasonable people don't respond well to "the sky is falling" BS...

[Golfingnut]

Yeah well, whatever.... Most reasonable people don't respond well to "the sky is falling" BS...

Those that understand that the sky is falling was and is a fairy tale, where climate change is a very serious matter do respond to it quite well.

[Arctic Fox]

In a word: dendrochronology:

By looking at tree rings, scientists can tell how much carbon dioxide was in the Earth's atmosphere during each year of a tree's life, and since some trees are over 5,000 years old they can look back five millennia.

They can go back even further by looking at long-dead trees and working out, using radio-carbon dating, how long ago the trees died.


And paleoclimatology:

If you want to go back 1.5 million years, the study of ice cores will tell you how much of each atmospheric gas was present in each period's precipitation.

[TexaninVA]

Yeah well, whatever.... Most reasonable people don't respond well to "the sky is falling" BS...

Agree with you ... some people just like to be in on the latest left wing fad and whereby they can feel better about themselves and the world.

The climate has been "changing" for eons. Cutting back on one's carbon footprint yadda may make one feel morally superior but the impact will be n/a.

[JP]

The thing that gets me about all this climate change stuff is when people say carbon dioxide is the most in 800,000 years. What?

The last time I checked people weren't around 800,000 years ago to cause the earth's atmosphere to have so much carbon in it, the earth for what ever reason DID IT ON ITS OWN.

So, what was the rest of the world like back then? How high were the oceans, how big were the ice caps, how big were the deserts, what flora was where, what where animals ranges, what animals existed and how many, where were the continents located, what tilt did the earths magnetic poles have?

There is no doubt mankind is contributing CO2 to the atmosphere but I don't know and I don't think anybody knows how much the earth is also contributing and if it is part of a cycle and/or if it is good or bad.

[eweissenbach]

Agree with you ... some people just like to be in on the latest left wing fad and whereby they can feel better about themselves and the world.

The climate has been "changing" for eons. Cutting back on one's carbon footprint yadda may make one feel morally superior but the impact will be n/a.

Labeling climate change as a "left wing fad", makes me believe the right wing propoganda machine is working. Does anyone care to review history and understand how badly this country's rivers and lakes were polluted in the the nineteenth and early twentieth century? The industrialists and their political pawns maintained it was no problem and fought against any regulation,which was eventually overcome thankfully, and our waters have largely recovered. The same goes for air pollution, and asbestos and any number of pesky problems that corporations fought because they didn't want to have to spend any money to fix them, despite the human cost. Yes they too were left-wing fads I suppose.

[Golfingnut]

I am ok with saying so what to the weather. I can also accept not believing in the possible severity of what it will do, but to say it is a hoax shows a lack of knowledge. So sad.

[Golfingnut]

The thing that gets me about all this climate change stuff is when people say carbon dioxide is the most in 800,000 years. What?

The last time I checked people weren't around 800,000 years ago to cause the earth's atmosphere to have so much carbon in it, the earth for what ever reason DID IT ON ITS OWN.

So, what was the rest of the world like back then? How high were the oceans, how big were the ice caps, how big were the deserts, what flora was where, what where animals ranges, what animals existed and how many, where were the continents located, what tilt did the earths magnetic poles have?

There is no doubt mankind is contributing CO2 to the atmosphere but I don't know and I don't think anybody knows how much the earth is also contributing and if it is part of a cycle and/or if it is good or bad.

The sad thing about this thinking is, WE DO KNOW THE STATISTICAL FACTS OF THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO.

HOW CAN ANYONE POSSIBLY THINK WE DONT.

[Moderator]

Please address the topic and not each other and try to avoid political references and name calling.

This thread, by and large, has remained a thoughtful discussion. Let's try to keep it that way.

Moderator

[Polar Bear]

The sad thing about this thinking is, WE DO KNOW THE STATISTICAL FACTS OF THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO.

HOW CAN ANYONE POSSIBLY THINK WE DONT.

We do have knowledge about the way things were thousands of years ago. But to the level of detail that we have about today's world? Not even close.

[buggyone]

The sad thing about this thinking is, WE DO KNOW THE STATISTICAL FACTS OF THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO.

HOW CAN ANYONE POSSIBLY THINK WE DONT.

Look at the people who believe that Earth is only 6,000 years old. The Creation Museum in Kentucky (of course) sponsored a "debate" a few weeks ago between their founder and Bill Nye to debate evolution ever happening and that the Young Earth Creationists are right.

It really is scary to see how many supposedly educated people ( and not all are from Kentucky or West Virginia) believe that despite actual scientific proof to disprove their ideas.

[billethkid]

WE DO KNOW THE STATISTICAL FACTS OF THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO.


I believe there may be a terminology issue as don't really have "statistical facts" from the past thousands of years. The following might be of some use as to differing types of evidence over differing historical periods:

http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/climate/CDcourses_investigate_climate.html

With these and many other evidences those qualified to do so can conclude, speculate, extrapolate, conjecture, opine, et al what it all means and whether or not it has any application to the topic at hand that far too many are trying to capture in a finite terms such as global warming, climate change or what ever is the latest hot button.

The real key is the bold underscore above. And politicians certainly do not fit this group in any way, shape or form....I do not care what party, religion, race or what ever category.

Way too much biased parroting to suit me.

[eweissenbach]

Corporations exist to make money for their shareholders and there is nothing wrong with that. They often will place profit above ethics or morals, and there is something wrong with that. That is why the government has to intervene occasionally, as Teddy Roosevelt understood, to make sure the citizens interests are looked out for. Corporate interests are constantly crying about "burdensome regulations", but look what happened a few years ago when banking and finance regulations were relaxed. Sure regulation costs corporations money, which will be passed along to the consumer, but isn't that better than having a financial system collapse, costing a trillion dollars, or worse yet a catastrophic environmental disaster? Corporate interests have spent a LOT of money to insure that their interests are represented by politicians, talking heads, and even quasi researchers and "think tanks". Climate change is the latest environmental issue that has attracted huge sums of corporate money in an effort to convince people that it is not a problem that corporations should have to address. Ask yourself who benefits financially from lack of regulation designed to control emissions that affect the atmosphere. It is not us who will suffer the consequences of doing nothing, it will be our grandchildren and their grandchildren.

[Golfingnut]

I would be stunned to hear a human if today that could think of the earth as only 6000 years old. That would be cause for a full evaluation from a mental institution.

[Arctic Fox]

As CFrance said very early on, we can discuss this issue amongst ourselves and will never reach a consensus.

But one thing that is inescapable is that the World as a whole is getting on board, with more and more countries each year starting to take action to combat climate change.

There are two main ways to do this:

- replace carbon-based energy with renewables - the French and Chinese lead the way in nuclear power stations; the Danish in wind turbines and the Germans in solar power;

- carbon sequestration - capture the carbon dioxide before it reaches the atmosphere, or extract that which is already there - the Norwegians and the Canadians lead the way in this.

So we can either get our heads out of the sand and start making America a World-leader in these future technologies, or continue denying that there is a problem and end up paying foreign companies for their expertise. Then, like we currently do with imported goods from China, blame them for taking away American jobs.

[graciegirl]

Corporations exist to make money for their shareholders and there is nothing wrong with that. They often will place profit above ethics or morals, and there is something wrong with that. That is why the government has to intervene occasionally, as Teddy Roosevelt understood, to make sure the citizens interests are looked out for. Corporate interests are constantly crying about "burdensome regulations", but look what happened a few years ago when banking and finance regulations were relaxed. Sure regulation costs corporations money, which will be passed along to the consumer, but isn't that better than having a financial system collapse, costing a trillion dollars, or worse yet a catastrophic environmental disaster? Corporate interests have spent a LOT of money to insure that their interests are represented by politicians, talking heads, and even quasi researchers and "think tanks". Climate change is the latest environmental issue that has attracted huge sums of corporate money in an effort to convince people that it is not a problem that corporations should have to address. Ask yourself who benefits financially from lack of regulation designed to control emissions that affect the atmosphere. It is not us who will suffer the consequences of doing nothing, it will be our grandchildren and their grandchildren.



I would say SOMETIMES. Big business is the heartbeat of the US economy......AND a good share of the recent financial downturn was because lots of people defaulted on home loans who should not have been given home loans. AND THAT was due to government programs that were faulty and too lenient.

[mrfixit]

....is the earth SLOWLY Warming ???.....

Stopped in a Cabela's Sporting Goods Store
in South Michigan a few years ago........

....a plaque in the store clearly states...

On this site
...........over 1xxxx years ago was Ice 457 feet thick......
...........1xxxx years ago was water 224 feet deep...
...........Today we enjoy fertile black dirt..and...
...........the second largest Cabela's in the USA.

So, clearly, we are SLOWLY warming.

[Golfingnut]

I believe there may be a terminology issue as don't really have "statistical facts" from the past thousands of years. The following might be of some use as to differing types of evidence over differing historical periods:

How Do We Investigate Climates of the Past? - Windows to the Universe (http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/climate/CDcourses_investigate_climate.html)

With these and many other evidences those qualified to do so can conclude, speculate, extrapolate, conjecture, opine, et al what it all means and whether or not it has any application to the topic at hand that far too many are trying to capture in a finite terms such as global warming, climate change or what ever is the latest hot button.

The real key is the bold underscore above. And politicians certainly do not fit this group in any way, shape or form....I do not care what party, religion, race or what ever category.

Way too much biased parroting to suit me.

WRONG

WE HAVE STATISTICS FROM FATHER BACK THAN that.

[billethkid]

I would be stunned to hear a human if today that could think of the earth as only 6000 years old. That would be cause for a full evaluation from a mental institution.

I suggest others may have differing opinions or understandings or beliefs and as such are not any lessor in any of their capacity that anybody else who may not agree with or has a different view!

Let's show the moderator, we can keep the conversation within the scope of the discussion without with the personal measuring of others.

[Golfingnut]

I suggest others may have differing opinions or understandings or beliefs and as such are not any lessor in any of their capacity that anybody else who may not agree with or has a different view!

Let's show the moderator, we can keep the conversation within the scope of the discussion without with the personal measuring of others.

Like you just did me. Please allow admin to determine what is or is not ok.

[rubicon]

I have read and reread the enclosed posts and what is clear is that some posters here are heavily invested in being absolutely right while the remaining posters do not care to deal in absolutes.

In my humble view climate change is and has always been occurring and given the vast complex nature of our planet always will do so and man will never really know exactly why.

In my humble view carbon dioxide is entering the atmosphere but so what there has never been anyone to proved that it is over heating.

In my humble view any changes such as melting ice caps presents a lose/win scenario and that has always been mother nature's way.

In my humble view cataclysmal events have and do occur naturally below the ground on the surface and above us

In my humble view those hawking climate change trade on conceit, celebrity and profit. Just follow the money.

In my humble view it has always amazed me how well P.T. Barnum defined the American psyche

Personal Best Regards:

[Golfingnut]

Let's get back on track. The planet is getting warmer. What can we or should we as concerned citizens do to help curb this effect.

Will this pass the test as OK?

[Golfingnut]

I have read and reread the enclosed posts and what is clear is that some posters here are heavily invested in being absolutely right while the remaining posters do not care to deal in absolutes.

In my humble view climate change is and has always been occurring and given the vast complex nature of our planet always will do so and man will never really know exactly why.

In my humble view carbon dioxide is entering the atmosphere but so what there has never been anyone to proved that it is over heating.

In my humble view any changes such as melting ice caps presents a lose/win scenario and that has always been mother nature's way.

In my humble view cataclysmal events have and do occur naturally below the ground on the surface and above us

In my humble view those hawking climate change trade on conceit, celebrity and profit. Just follow the money.

In my humble view it has always amazed me how well P.T. Barnum defined the American psyche

Personal Best Regards:

I agree with the bulk of your post. I hope s few others can get it also.

[billethkid]

:icon_bored:

:popcorn:

[Golfingnut]

:icon_bored:

:popcorn:

Great post.

[graciegirl]

CFrance saw all this comin'.


We just LOVE to bicker and debate.


And we sometimes strike nerves.


We are gonna see politics in most everything at our age. We didn't all used to be like that. I never thought of politics except when I was ready to vote twenty-thirty years ago. I have voted for both sides and changed my views many times over time. .


CFrance is smarter than the average bear. I like her to pieces.

[Golfingnut]

CFrance saw all this comin'.


We just LOVE to bicker and debate.


And we sometimes strike nerves.


We are gonna see politics in most everything at our age. We didn't all used to be like that. I never thought of politics except when I was ready to vote twenty-thirty years ago. I have voted for both sides and changed my views many times over time. .


CFrance is smarter than the average bear. I like her to pieces.

If two or three more would disappear, political would never come up. That would make climate a discussion rather than an argument. Global warming is here and has nothing to do with Washington.

[CFrance]

CFrance saw all this comin'.


We just LOVE to bicker and debate.


And we sometimes strike nerves.


We are gonna see politics in most everything at our age. We didn't all used to be like that. I never thought of politics except when I was ready to vote twenty-thirty years ago. I have voted for both sides and changed my views many times over time. .


CFrance is smarter than the average bear. I like her to pieces.

Thank you! But CFrance wishes she knew the truth of the matter and what to do about it. So I have been interested in all these responses, and probably fall somewhere in the middle. But it's frustrating trying to sort out what groups have an agenda over this issue and what groups don't.

I tend to agree with Coach Ed, mainly because I grew up spending summers at Lake Erie and remember when they closed all the beaches that I swam at as a kid because industry had so polluted the water. Then they were brought to task over that, and the river in Cleveland is no longer burning, and you can swim in Lake Erie again.

So I'm thinking there IS something mankind can do to help prevent the destruction of the planet.

[buggyone]

Thank you! But CFrance wishes she knew the truth of the matter and what to do about it. So I have been interested in all these responses, and probably fall somewhere in the middle. But it's frustrating trying to sort out what groups have an agenda over this issue and what groups don't.

I tend to agree with Coach Ed, mainly because I grew up spending summers at Lake Erie and remember when they closed all the beaches that I swam at as a kid because industry had so polluted the water. Then they were brought to task over that, and the river in Cleveland is no longer burning, and you can swim in Lake Erie again.

So I'm thinking there IS something mankind can do to help prevent the destruction of the planet.

The cleanups even get to Washington, DC. The Potomac River back in the 1960's was nothing more than an open sewer. Now, it is clean water and prime smallmouth bass fishing area.

You are absolutely that messes can be reversed - and must be reversed.

[Golfingnut]

Now were getting someplace. It is not any one thing, but it is happening. One of the biggest factors is methane from the astronomical amount of animals we raise for food. To pick out say animal and go into a long winded rebuttal to say the word is wrong and should have nap been livestock is just childish and does nothing to further the discussion. I feel better now, so Buggy, I am calm again. Thanks for the gentle poke.

[Golfingnut]

For those interested in doing their part, see if any of the causes in the site below are within your control.

Sources | Climate Change | US EPA (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/sources.html)

[TexaninVA]

If two or three more would disappear, political would never come up. That would make climate a discussion rather than an argument. Global warming is here and has nothing to do with Washington.

How can you possibly say that.? You enjoy bringing up political discussion, do it a lot, but somehow you don't think what you are doing is political?

[graciegirl]

I think....... that we do affect the ozone layer. We humans. But I KNOW that getting enough people to act differently is well nigh impossible. The humans aren't going to give up cars fueled by gas and other comforts. Some of us would. Some of us won't.


We can't get people to do things short term to help themselves, like working two jobs and saving money and reusing and repurposing and taking care of what they have. It is the beautiful young and idealistic who will argue with the old and sage. There are things that are right, but not feasible. You cannot change certain elements in certain people. In this case a LOT of people.


It will again be a huge argument that will further polarize people instead of motivating them to do what they can do to improve the air and water. Too many people do NOT care about anything but their own instant gratification. They do not plan or try to save the country's money. They don't realize that is the same principle. Waste not, want not. Necessity is the mother of hard work and the work ethic.


I know these things only because I am old.




Bump

[TexaninVA]

Labeling climate change as a "left wing fad", makes me believe the right wing propoganda machine is working. Does anyone care to review history and understand how badly this country's rivers and lakes were polluted in the the nineteenth and early twentieth century? The industrialists and their political pawns maintained it was no problem and fought against any regulation,which was eventually overcome thankfully, and our waters have largely recovered. The same goes for air pollution, and asbestos and any number of pesky problems that corporations fought because they didn't want to have to spend any money to fix them, despite the human cost. Yes they too were left-wing fads I suppose.

I'm afraid you totally missed the point of my post. I am not talking about bonafide ecological issues, clean water and such. No one that I know is opposed to that. I would also disagree that corporations are inherently the bad guys as you seem to imply. State it more clearly if I have misconstrued what you said.

What I am saying is there is a certain faddishness, largely on the left, to "climate change" ... it was originally global cooling years ago, then global warming and now climate change. That word seems to sell better. Do you deny that "fixing" climate change will require a much more intrusive government intervention? Do you deny that there is a huge political agenda that goes with it?

I also note that the latest technique is to dismiss all counter arguments by saying climate change is now settled science. It is not.

The hypocrisy also is bothersome. The leading proponents (well know politicians) of this movement tend to live in huge mansions, burn electricity by the bundle, fly around the world in private jets, make gazillions off the credulous, and then lecture the common man/woman about how they should cut back. It's beyond a joke ... it's a racket.

[billethkid]

How can you possibly say that.? You enjoy bringing up political discussion, do it a lot, but somehow you don't think what you are doing is political?

:thumbup:

[Golfingnut]

How can you possibly say that.? You enjoy bringing up political discussion, do it a lot, but somehow you don't think what you are doing is political?

LOL. You think I enjoy bringing up the P word. You be wrong again.

[Golfingnut]

Time for me to close and give this thread to the agitators. I will start a new one.

[Golfingnut]

Posted by Gracie Girl. I think....... that we do affect the ozone layer. We humans. But I KNOW that getting enough people to act differently is well nigh impossible. The humans aren't going to give up cars fueled by gas and other comforts. Some of us would. Some of us won't.


We can't get people to do things short term to help themselves, like working two jobs and saving money and reusing and repurposing and taking care of what they have. It is the beautiful young and idealistic who will argue with the old and sage. There are things that are right, but not feasible. You cannot change certain elements in certain people. In this case a LOT of people.


It will again be a huge argument that will further polarize people instead of motivating them to do what they can do to improve the air and water. Too many people do NOT care about anything but their own instant gratification. They do not plan or try to save the country's money. They don't realize that is the same principle. Waste not, want not. Necessity is the mother of hard work and the work ethic.


I know these things only because I am old.

Fortunately the arguing is age tatted by only a few. I am sorry to the folks that could have had meaningfull discussion about what cause s global warming, but you can read. That I tried ti get it back on track three times only to be attacked again. See ya on the next START of a thread.

[EastCoastDawg]

It was a good thread, GolfingNut, with lots of interesting input and different viewpoints - thanks for starting it

[Golfingnut]

It was a good thread, GolfingNut, with lots of interesting input and different viewpoints - thanks for starting it

Thank you for saying that. The attacks that continue on me go way back to days when there was a now closed forum. The few just can't build a bridge and leave me alone. There's only three left, so it's tolerable.

[TexaninVA]

I think....... that we do affect the ozone layer. We humans. But I KNOW that getting enough people to act differently is well nigh impossible. The humans aren't going to give up cars fueled by gas and other comforts. Some of us would. Some of us won't.


We can't get people to do things short term to help themselves, like working two jobs and saving money and reusing and repurposing and taking care of what they have. It is the beautiful young and idealistic who will argue with the old and sage. There are things that are right, but not feasible. You cannot change certain elements in certain people. In this case a LOT of people.


It will again be a huge argument that will further polarize people instead of motivating them to do what they can do to improve the air and water. Too many people do NOT care about anything but their own instant gratification. They do not plan or try to save the country's money. They don't realize that is the same principle. Waste not, want not. Necessity is the mother of hard work and the work ethic.


I know these things only because I am old.

Fortunately the arguing is age tatted by only a few. I am sorry to the folks that could have had meaningfull discussion about what cause s global warming, but you can read. That I tried ti get it back on track three times only to be attacked again. See ya on the next START of a thread.

You are not being "attacked" but simply questioned about the accuracy of what you propose as a societal solution. That's what a discussion is supposed to be about.

And I am curious about a point you raise ... are you personally willing to give up your car? Just asking since you brought it up.

[Golfingnut]

And I am curious about a point you raise ... are you personally willing to give up your car? Just asking since you brought it up.

You will have to ask Gracie Girl about her car since you are referencing her post and not mine.

[TexaninVA]

You will have to ask Gracie Girl about her car since you are referencing her post and not mine.

Sorry ... let me rephrase it.

Are you willing to give up your car Golfingnut?

What about your golf cart?

[Golfingnut]

Sorry ... let me rephrase it.

Are you willing to give up your car Golfingnut?

What about your golf cart?

Absolutely not. I would vote to pay more for renewable energy that does not use oil however.

[rubicon]

I think....... that we do affect the ozone layer. We humans. But I KNOW that getting enough people to act differently is well nigh impossible. The humans aren't going to give up cars fueled by gas and other comforts. Some of us would. Some of us won't.


We can't get people to do things short term to help themselves, like working two jobs and saving money and reusing and repurposing and taking care of what they have. It is the beautiful young and idealistic who will argue with the old and sage. There are things that are right, but not feasible. You cannot change certain elements in certain people. In this case a LOT of people.


It will again be a huge argument that will further polarize people instead of motivating them to do what they can do to improve the air and water. Too many people do NOT care about anything but their own instant gratification. They do not plan or try to save the country's money. They don't realize that is the same principle. Waste not, want not. Necessity is the mother of hard work and the work ethic.


I know these things only because I am old.

Fortunately the arguing is age tatted by only a few. I am sorry to the folks that could have had meaningfull discussion about what cause s global warming, but you can read. That I tried ti get it back on track three times only to be attacked again. See ya on the next START of a thread.

Hi golfingnut: In all due respect you paint with a very wide brush indeed.

I am old too and managed people for many years and I can promise you unless you can make a cogent and factual case you will not get people to follow you. The climate change advocates have been continually caught in so many lies and half truths that they have lost credibility. secondly employees as I remember could always figure out when a manager (VP etc) was pushing a program because they personally gained and that fact dealt them the death blow.

You suggest that people won't give up their comforts as if it was their responsibility. Yet all those who are suppose to be taking the lead have a larger carbon print than many of the people combined that you direct this criticism. Think Al Gore and his residence

You reference the lack of people being willing to work two jobs, etc. I agree. Growing up in my American-Italian neighborhood it was an act of shame to take a handout. Our government has made handouts fashionable.

But the big flaw in your body of logic on this particular post is you suggest because someone says it so it is so. This is the madding logic going on within this country that name calling is the argument. So if someone says I find nothing unusual or suspect about the statistics being leveled by scientist concerning climate change the counter point is that this individual is a denier. Being called a denier in their eyes is sufficient to have made their point.

This approach is being utilized in every aspect of our lives and the reality is its hurting us and worse yet we won't know it until its too late.

So forgive me if I take the path of the man from Missouri..the show me state because I am tired of self interest not letting a crisis go to waste

Personal Best Regards

[CFrance]

Quote from Rubicon: "You reference the lack of people being willing to work two jobs, etc. I agree. Growing up in my American-Italian neighborhood it was an act of shame to take a handout. Our government has made handouts fashionable."

Rubicon... how is this not a political statement? I had a post removed in another thread for saying who the Koch brothers are, and I wasn't making a political statement. But your statement seems political to me. I thought we were not supposed to put political statements into this argument.

I'm having trouble knowing what's a political statement and what's not.

As for the climate change issue, I think you are painting with a broad brush as well. How do you know those taking the lead have a larger footprint than those people with the same amount of wealth who aren't taking the lead?

As far as a blanket statement that "The climate change advocates have been continually caught in so many lies and half truths that they have lost credibility," thatg too is too broad of a brush. Some have, most have not.

[Arctic Fox]

Rubicon... how is this not a political statement? I had a post removed in another thread for saying who the Koch brothers are, and I wasn't making a political statement. But your statement seems political to me. I thought we were not supposed to put political statements into this argument.

I had an earlier post removed for quoting Rubicon's "$$$$$" statement in his first post in this thread - see post #2.

If his post wasn't political, how come my quoting it was?

I guess some people just lead charmed lives!

[Bucco]

Quote from Rubicon: "You reference the lack of people being willing to work two jobs, etc. I agree. Growing up in my American-Italian neighborhood it was an act of shame to take a handout. Our government has made handouts fashionable."

Rubicon... how is this not a political statement? I had a post removed in another thread for saying who the Koch brothers are, and I wasn't making a political statement. But your statement seems political to me. I thought we were not supposed to put political statements into this argument.

I'm having trouble knowing what's a political statement and what's not.

As for the climate change issue, I think you are painting with a broad brush as well. How do you know those taking the lead have a larger footprint than those people with the same amount of wealth who aren't taking the lead?

As far as a blanket statement that "The climate change advocates have been continually caught in so many lies and half truths that they have lost credibility," thatg too is too broad of a brush. Some have, most have not.

I have no idea whom I will offend with this post, but surely somebody.

I said on this thread early on and with all the reading I have done since, my thoughts have not changed......I do not believe you can discuss this subject without getting into po...ics ! It has been made that way and thus it is. And since it is pol..ics, stretching the truth is just part of it. With some of the links supplied on here, I have found all the studies filled with "perhaps", "could", etc. so even the best studies have trouble making definitive statements.

If you take something like that.....give it to politicians and you will have pol...itical discussion no matter now hard you try to avoid.

The issue is/has been used as needed by those pol...ticians , and you can check me on that. I do not want to go any further as then we have discussion on an issue that is Pol...cal !!!!

Some have suggested and implied about the younger generation being so much better than the older generation.....THAT kind of thing is certainly painting with the broadest brush possible. Speaking for my generation, all the criticizing in the world will not make me feel guilty, as NONE of this was ever discussed.

I still think it is important but we will destroy OURSELVES well before any climate change gets us if we do not address the moral breakdown !

[CFrance]

I have no idea whom I will offend with this post, but surely somebody.

I said on this thread early on and with all the reading I have done since, my thoughts have not changed......I do not believe you can discuss this subject without getting into po...ics ! It has been made that way and thus it is. And since it is pol..ics, stretching the truth is just part of it. With some of the links supplied on here, I have found all the studies filled with "perhaps", "could", etc. so even the best studies have trouble making definitive statements.

If you take something like that.....give it to politicians and you will have pol...itical discussion no matter now hard you try to avoid.

The issue is/has been used as needed by those pol...ticians , and you can check me on that. I do not want to go any further as then we have discussion on an issue that is Pol...cal !!!!

Some have suggested and implied about the younger generation being so much better than the older generation.....THAT kind of thing is certainly painting with the broadest brush possible. Speaking for my generation, all the criticizing in the world will not make me feel guilty, as NONE of this was ever discussed.

I still think it is important but we will destroy OURSELVES well before any climate change gets us if we do not address the moral breakdown !

I agree with you, Bucco, but would add one thing. Yes, I grew up knowing nothing of this and do not feel guilty about my prior practices, but now that I know some things, I feel a responsibility to change my ways, and when I slip I feel present-day guilt.

[Villages PL]

Just in today NBC news;


Scientists More Certain Than Ever on Climate Change, Report Says


Clear evidence and uncertainty

Concentrations of carbon dioxide, the document notes, increased by 40 percent between 1880 and 2012 and are now higher than at any time in at least 800,000 years. As a result, global temperatures are 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than in 1900, Arctic sea ice is shrinking, sea levels are 8 inches higher, ocean acidity is on the rise, and the geographical ranges of many plants and animals are shifting.

"The evidence is clear," reads the report.

Is NBC an unbiased source? Isn't that like calling the Pope to find out if God exists?

[Bucco]

I agree with you, Bucco, but would add one thing. Yes, I grew up knowing nothing of this and do not feel guilty about my prior practices, but now that I know some things, I feel a responsibility to change my ways, and when I slip I feel present-day guilt.

I would go one step further and say you are not near alone !!!!

The premise being brought here about how conscious and aware the younger generation is...to me is pure bunk...TOTALLY !

It is shown daily in so many ways our younger folks, in a general sense do not have a clue. That is general for sure, but once you cross the poli...cal threshold, and you really get into the under employment, etc in this country, you find that jobs are available....we have nobody remotely qualified to fill those jobs except for the older generation. A lot of time is being spent on this subject....I try to stay away from the popular cable channels and when I watch tv, and not sports, I watch the business channel and today that subject was broached not for the first time.

We need to wake up the general population of young folks......THIS IS, OF COURSE, a very general statment...but the comment you took offense to in RUBICONS post has merit. There are demonstrations to raise the minimum wage, nobody demonstrates to get into school.....folks will scream for a job but take offense at training. It IS a problem.

But, and also....climate change enters into this as one of the subjects that most young folks could care about at all. AGAIN, this does not apply to all young folks for sure.

To stay on subject, I think most responsible adults are like you, not only with climate change but with anything we are made aware of....we take greater care in those areas.

[Polar Bear]

Let's get back on track. The planet is getting warmer. What can we or should we as concerned citizens do to help curb this effect.

Will this pass the test as OK?

Sorry, but even your attempt to get it back to an even discussion is full of bias toward your opinions...

Overall the planet may well be warming a bit. But many who are suffering through this winter might argue otherwise. And even if it is, science still hasn't proven that it's not largely due to natural events and cycles...not exclusively due to man's influence. Does everybody think it's best to curb this effect, or, in other words, fool with Mother Nature?

[rubicon]

Quote from Rubicon: "You reference the lack of people being willing to work two jobs, etc. I agree. Growing up in my American-Italian neighborhood it was an act of shame to take a handout. Our government has made handouts fashionable."

Rubicon... how is this not a political statement? I had a post removed in another thread for saying who the Koch brothers are, and I wasn't making a political statement. But your statement seems political to me. I thought we were not supposed to put political statements into this argument.

I'm having trouble knowing what's a political statement and what's not.

As for the climate change issue, I think you are painting with a broad brush as well. How do you know those taking the lead have a larger footprint than those people with the same amount of wealth who aren't taking the lead?

As far as a blanket statement that "The climate change advocates have been continually caught in so many lies and half truths that they have lost credibility," thatg too is too broad of a brush. Some have, most have not.

Hi CFrance: Apparently you did not read my post in detail. Your response to my comments amounts to one sentence you view as political. I will report myself to the moderator when I finish this post and the one I am going to send to Artic Fox.

Personal Best Regards:

[rubicon]

I had an earlier post removed for quoting Rubicon's "$$$$$" statement in his first post in this thread - see post #2.

If his post wasn't political, how come my quoting it was?

I guess some people just lead charmed lives!

Hi Artic Fox I also alerted CFrance. I am going to report myself to the moderator regarding post about government enccouraging handouts
Shame on me

[rubicon]

I am done with this silly thread

[Arctic Fox]

I am going to report myself to the moderator regarding post about government encouraging handouts

I have already told the Moderator that I have no interest in seeing anyone's posts deleted - I don't care how political people get, as I can easily ignore it.

But I would like to know what constitutes "political" so that I can avoid having my posts removed.

I think I was fair in assuming that if your post, which had been up there for eight hours, was not removed for being political, then my post merely referencing it would be deemed non-political also. Apparently not, as it was removed within minutes.

Post away - I am happy to read everyone's opinion. It may not tally with mine, but that's exactly what makes TOTV an interesting place to hang out.

[gomoho]

This is getting way off track and I would just like to remind everyone "It's not nice to fool Mother Nature"!

[graciegirl]

My grandchildren taught us how to recycle. We taught them how to reuse and repurpose and care for what we have.

[Bucco]

Cautiously applauding JP's post .... :duck:

A word of caution.....most, if not all, reports and studies I have read use words like "appears", "may have", "tends to mean", "strong possibly".

We, in todays age, seem to want to make this entire thing absolute. We have means to go back a long long time and make "assumptions", and show "strong possiblities"....NOT facts and I cannot believe that the strongest advocate for climate change would state it any other way.

Just keep that in mind when you talk of this....of course there is no ABSOLUTE for that many years ago.....that is what makes this entire debate very difficult.

[billethkid]

Post away - I am happy to read everyone's opinion. It may not tally with mine, but that's exactly what makes TOTV an interesting place to hang out.

I have isolated part of Arctic Fox's quote to make my point. I agree 100% having no problem reading other's opinions/beliefs. And there will always be on any given subject those who agree or disagree or have a totally different view/belief/opinion.

The majority of posters on TOTV respect other positions/views. I also believe that political, real, perceived or other can in fact be discussed with the same respect for other's posts.

The problem, just as it was in the political forum, leading to it's demise......is when some few combat ANY non alignment or acceptance of their position.
A civil majority over time usually outweighs the bias.

I personally have enjoyed this thread. I always learn something from other viewpoints. And have learned a long time ago to ignore the labeling and name assignments (most of the time anyway).

[2BNTV]

Lou Lou Lou, I've had my morning coffee so here goes.

I believe there is a global warming, but it is so far away, we will be all gone. Each generation has been practicing recycling, etc, and is taking this seriously.

I am not the prophet of doom, or cyncical enough, to think it just around the corner but that's just me. :smiley:

Someone likes to stir the pot.

Don't worry, be happy. :smiley:

[B&C47]

The Earth Has Been Changing Since The Beginning. Nothing remains the same.

[Arctic Fox]

Just to clarify the "800,000 years ago" issue:

The current atmospheric level of carbon dioxide is 400 parts per million, and climbing.

The furthest back that scientists have currently gone, using ice cores, is 800,000 years, at which time the level was 300 ppm.

So today's level is not only the highest in 800,000 years, but is also considerably higher than it was 800,000 years ago.

In fact, it is believed that the last time the level was at 400 ppm was more than three million years ago.


May not change your thinking, but thought you should know.

[JP]

Just to clarify the "800,000 years ago" issue:

The current atmospheric level of carbon dioxide is 400 parts per million, and climbing.

The furthest back that scientists have currently gone, using ice cores, is 800,000 years, at which time the level was 300 ppm.

So today's level is not only the highest in 800,000 years, but is also considerably higher than it was 800,000 years ago.

In fact, it is believed that the last time the level was at 400 ppm was more than three million years ago.


May not change your thinking, but thought you should know.

This doesn't really change my opinion.

Ok. Why was CO2 at such 'high' levels 3 million years ago and man wasn't even around to "cause" it?

I know. The Earth caused it.

[eweissenbach]

I'm afraid you totally missed the point of my post. I am not talking about bonafide ecological issues, clean water and such. No one that I know is opposed to that. I would also disagree that corporations are inherently the bad guys as you seem to imply. State it more clearly if I have misconstrued what you said.

What I am saying is there is a certain faddishness, largely on the left, to "climate change" ... it was originally global cooling years ago, then global warming and now climate change. That word seems to sell better. Do you deny that "fixing" climate change will require a much more intrusive government intervention? Do you deny that there is a huge political agenda that goes with it?

I also note that the latest technique is to dismiss all counter arguments by saying climate change is now settled science. It is not.

The hypocrisy also is bothersome. The leading proponents (well know politicians) of this movement tend to live in huge mansions, burn electricity by the bundle, fly around the world in private jets, make gazillions off the credulous, and then lecture the common man/woman about how they should cut back. It's beyond a joke ... it's a racket.

Methinks your political slip is showing. I never said or implied that corporations are the "bad guys". Corporations are in the business of making profit for their shareholders and are not charged with an interest in the greater good of mankind. Democracies have elected and appointed representatives that are charged with the authority and responsibility to look after the greater good of the people they represent. When corporations use their resources to influence those representatives in their favor it is not the corporations that are the bad guys - they are simply doing what they are chartered to do, it is the representatives who allow themselves to be bought who are the "bad guys".

[TexaninVA]

Methinks your political slip is showing. I never said or implied that corporations are the "bad guys". Corporations are in the business of making profit for their shareholders and are not charged with an interest in the greater good of mankind. Democracies have elected and appointed representatives that are charged with the authority and responsibility to look after the greater good of the people they represent. When corporations use their resources to influence those representatives in their favor it is not the corporations that are the bad guys - they are simply doing what they are chartered to do, it is the representatives who allow themselves to be bought who are the "bad guys".


"... makes me believe the right wing propoganda machine is working. ...The same goes for air pollution, and asbestos and any number of pesky problems that corporations fought because they didn't want to have to spend any money to fix them, despite the human cost."

Uh, I would say you are showing more than a bit of leg of your own.

[Bonanza]

Is NBC an unbiased source? Isn't that like calling the Pope to find out if God exists?

Regardless of whether NBC is biased or not,
some things are based on substantiated facts and evidence and some things are based on blind faith.

[Bonanza]

Okay -- just a couple of questions . . . . .

The icebergs are melting and seriously threaten the future of the polar bears (and I fear many other things). If it isn't climate change, global warming, or whatever you want to call it, then what is the cause???

All the bombings from all the wars, going back to WWI, all bomb testing, etc. While I am not a scientist, do the nay sayers really believe that the gasses emitted from all this really don't affect the atmosphere and don't really create long range (bad) issues?

Do people really think that you can really fool around with Mother Nature and NOT pay the price?

[Golfingnut]

Lou Lou Lou, I've had my morning coffee so here goes.

I believe there is a global warming, but it is so far away, we will be all gone. Each generation has been practicing recycling, etc, and is taking this seriously.

I am not the prophet of doom, or cyncical enough, to think it just around the corner but that's just me. :smiley:

Someone likes to stir the pot.

Don't worry, be happy. :smiley:

Me too, folgers classic. I trimmed my bushes yesterday and still was able to hold my coffee cup this morning without pain. Can artheritus be reversed with age? For my blood preasure, I will try to accept what I presceive as sarcastic attacks as an attempt to help educate me. Nothing wrong with getting smarter. I will start a controversial thread this moring and sincerely view all posts as well meaning to see how it affects my BP.
:crap2:

[graciegirl]

Me too, folgers classic. I trimmed my bushes yesterday and still was able to hold my coffee cup this morning without pain. Can artheritus be reversed with age? For my blood preasure, I will try to accept what I presceive as sarcastic attacks as an attempt to help educate me. Nothing wrong with getting smarter. I will start a controversial thread this moring and sincerely view all posts as well meaning to see how it affects my BP.
:crap2:


PLEASE don't start a controversial thread and then be hurt by folks.


I hate when people hurt each other ONLY because they each passionately believe a certain thing. We can't all agree and we can't get hurt or mad if someone doesn't agree with us. We are the sum total of all of the things that have happened to us over time. We all can't have had the same experiences.


I am writing this to YOU and need to take my own advice.


Unfortunately or fortunately we are all humans with very deep feelings and sensitive hearts.


I just can't resist to add my two cents when things get political and sometimes I get all mad. BUT I have few redeeming features and one of them is that I don't stay mad long and am almost always sorry and ashamed I said something in the heat of the moment that probably hurt someone or made them mad.


I have had my mind changed on this forum over time with diplomatic people and excellent arguments. So there is hope for the most stubborn...like me.

[Golfingnut]

PLEASE don't start a controversial thread and then be hurt by folks.


I hate when people hurt each other ONLY because they each passionately believe a certain thing. We can't all agree and we can't get hurt or mad if someone doesn't agree with us. We are the sum total of all of the things that have happened to us over time. We all can't have had the same experiences.


I am writing this to YOU and need to take my own advice.


Unfortunately or fortunately we are all humans with very deep feelings and sensitive hearts.


I just can't resist to add my two cents when things get political and sometimes I get all mad. BUT I have few redeeming features and one of them is that I don't stay mad long and am almost always sorry and ashamed I said something in the heat of the moment that probably hurt someone or made them mad.


I have had my mind changed on this forum over time with diplomatic people and excellent arguments. So there is hope for the most stubborn...like me.

I know and you are so wise. I find sincerity as a wonderful thing yet I have such a problem with mean spirited sarcasm. I have already started a new thread with the utmost sincerity. I am going to ignore sarcasm and look for the good on every post. Read my link in the thread and I feel it us right up your alley. I too have changed my opinions on issues through conversation on this site, but my mind closes to Shakespeare style of writing when it is laced with sarcasm and insults. Have a blessed day Gracie.

[Arctic Fox]

Why was CO2 at such 'high' levels 3 million years ago and man wasn't even around to "cause" it? I know. The Earth caused it.

Indeed, the Earth did cause it. And if you go back 500 million years you might find CO2 levels at ten times today's concentration, but you wouldn't want to live in that climate.

For virtually the whole time that Homo Sapiens has been in existence, CO2 has varied between 200 and 300 ppm.

In the mid-18th century (the start of the Industrial Revolution) the level was 280 ppm, and in the past 260 years it has increased to 400 ppm. In the past fifty years alone it has increased 25% (from 320 to 400 ppm).

Apart from cataclysmic events (which tend to cause mass extinctions) the Earth has never before witnessed such a rapid increase. So, while no-one is denying that Earth contributes to the CO2 cycle, it seems more than likely that Man is now playing a significant role.

Even if he is not, and the Earth has suddenly decided to ramp up CO2 concentrations by itself, it is in Man's interest to try to keep the increase as small as possible. Aside from the damage from more violent storms and rising sea levels, plants cannot adapt to rapid changes in their environment. Think crop failure and the death of native forests.

It may take decades for such problems to truly manifest themselves (although the evidence is already out there) but it will take many more decades to slow the increase and, hopefully, get the concentration back below the desired maximum of 350 ppm.

That is if we don't pass a tipping point beyond which Earth just cannot cope. It is comforting to think of Gaia - Earth taking care of itself and compensating for anything Man throws at it - but the reality is proving otherwise. Earth really doesn't care whether Mankind is here or not.

[TOTV Team]

We have posted in the site guidelines what a political post is. The site rules are available in the upper left navigation box.

Best Regards,

[JP]

Indeed, the Earth did cause it. And if you go back 500 million years you might find CO2 levels at ten times today's concentration, but you wouldn't want to live in that climate.

For virtually the whole time that Homo Sapiens has been in existence, CO2 has varied between 200 and 300 ppm.

In the mid-18th century (the start of the Industrial Revolution) the level was 280 ppm, and in the past 260 years it has increased to 400 ppm. In the past fifty years alone it has increased 25% (from 320 to 400 ppm).

Apart from cataclysmic events (which tend to cause mass extinctions) the Earth has never before witnessed such a rapid increase. So, while no-one is denying that Earth contributes to the CO2 cycle, it seems more than likely that Man is now playing a significant role.

Even if he is not, and the Earth has suddenly decided to ramp up CO2 concentrations by itself, it is in Man's interest to try to keep the increase as small as possible. Aside from the damage from more violent storms and rising sea levels, plants cannot adapt to rapid changes in their environment. Think crop failure and the death of native forests.

It may take decades for such problems to truly manifest themselves (although the evidence is already out there) but it will take many more decades to slow the increase and, hopefully, get the concentration back below the desired maximum of 350 ppm.

That is if we don't pass a tipping point beyond which Earth just cannot cope. It is comforting to think of Gaia - Earth taking care of itself and compensating for anything Man throws at it - but the reality is proving otherwise. Earth really doesn't care whether Mankind is here or not.

The percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is 0.039%.

The predominate element in the atmosphere is Nitrogen at 78.09% followed by Oxygen at 20.95%.

Does the change in CO2 from 300ppm to 400ppm still seem that significant when you consider what a small percentage CO2 is in our atmosphere?

[Arctic Fox]

Does the change in CO2 from 300ppm to 400ppm still seem that significant when you consider what a small percentage CO2 is in our atmosphere?

Yes

Ozone is just 0.000007% of our atmosphere, yet reducing that had a negative effect on our well-being. Thank goodness people realized in time, limited the use of chlorofluorocarbons and the ozone hole is now (slowly) closing.

Any increase in concentration of CO2 causes the average global temperature to rise. This melts the ice caps (raising sea levels) and makes it easier for more-powerful hurricanes to form. It also stresses plants, and enables tropical insects such as mosquitoes to survive further north.

It matters not that CO2 is such a small component of the atmosphere. After all, one ounce of botulinum toxin could kill 200 million people, so things don't need to be large in order to be dangerous.

[Bavarian]

Then why is the polar ice caps bigger then before?
The Earth's Climate has changed often, it is a natural cycle. The Ice Ages went down to what are now considered temperate areas. Travel around the US and you will see evidence of the Ice age everywhere. The climate changes with or without human intervention. Just be prepared. And enjoy our Earth now.

[Arctic Fox]

Then why is the polar ice caps bigger then before?

Not on Earth they aren't.

Ice coverage in the Arctic is the lowest on record.

While there is an increase in sea ice cover in Antarctica, the vast majority of ice down there is on land and that is getting less, so there is a large net loss.

The one you really need to worry about - Greenland - is losing its glaciers at an alarming rate. If Greenland loses all of its ice, the sea level will be 24 feet higher than it is now.

[eweissenbach]

Not on Earth they aren't.

Ice coverage in the Arctic is the lowest on record.

While there is an increase in sea ice cover in Antarctica, the vast majority of ice down there is on land and that is getting less, so there is a large net loss.

The one you really need to worry about - Greenland - is losing its glaciers at an alarming rate. If Greenland loses all of its ice, the sea level will be 24 feet higher than it is now.
Don't confuse the issue with those pesky facts! :loco:

[manaboutown]

Solar activity (or the lack thereof), the earth's axial tilt (obliquity), it's precession, orbital eccentricity and external celestial forces as well as any ongoing volcanic activity all play roles in climate change over time. Obviously the percentages of the various elements and compounds composing the atmosphere play a part although the role of variations in carbon dioxide concentrations is not yet understood. At present sheer speculations about such changes are running rampant and being utilized to advance and attack various interests.

Solar and celestial effects on climate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_and_celestial_effects_on_climate)

[Bucco]

Solar activity (or the lack thereof), the earth's axial tilt (obliquity), it's precession, orbital eccentricity and external celestial forces as well as any ongoing volcanic activity all play roles in climate change over time. Obviously the percentages of the various elements and compounds composing the atmosphere play a part although the role of variations in carbon dioxide concentrations is not yet understood. At present sheer speculations about such changes are running rampant and being utilized to advance and attack various interests.

Solar and celestial effects on climate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_and_celestial_effects_on_climate)

I am having difficulty in tracking this down. Your post appears to be a quote, but none exist. Going to your link, I am unable to find the words you attribute to that link.

Perhaps you can be a bit more specific on how to get this in context.

Thanks

[manaboutown]

My last post is not a quote. I listed the contributing factors to the earth's climate described within the wiki site. I added volcanic activity - such as Krakatoa. BTW, I found the information on the site succinctly written and readily understandable.

"Obviously...interests." is MHO gleaned from what I have read in various sources.

[Bucco]

My last post is not a quote although I listed the contributing factors to the earth's climate described within the wiki site I linked (plus volcanic activity). BTW, the link worked for me. I just checked. I found the information on the site succinctly written and readily understandable. Good luck on another try!

Oh I could get the link and did read it.

My question, I suppose, is whose words are those in the post ?

I ask for two reasons. First, I began this discussion thinking there was NO climate change. I, subsequently, read a link from a poster (eweissenbach) on here to Stanford which says......."Solar Influences on Climate
(Latest research determines Sun is not the cause of global warming) "

This is the link to that statement and there are pages and pages of charts, etc to validate their premise (which I did not read in their entirety because frankly, I aint smart enough).

Global Warming -- Research Issues (http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html)

After reading as much as I could I changed my mind, agreed their IS climate change, but I did not see it as serious as others.

When I saw your post, I remembered what Stanford had said.

I was not doubting the veracity, but it was very confusing and it is also very difficult to determine the source on a Wikipedia link (for me at least).

If you have another link to what, if they are YOUR words, to validate it, would be appreciated !

Thanks again

[mrfixit]

Ok...the climate is warming...:doh:

....does anyone besides me think this may be
correlated to the "Milankovitch Cycles"...??? :wave:...
...which perhaps could also be correlated with "The Mayan Calendar".

This Mayan Long Count Calendar covers 5125.36 years.
This the Mayan referred to as "The Great Cycle".
At end of this Cycle ...the greatest number of Planets are in alignment.
There is nothing we can do about this.
The last ending of "The Great Cycle" occured on 21-Dec-2012.

The earths axis completes one FULL cycle of precission...
.................................................. ..........."approximately" every 26,000 years.
......SURPRISE... SURPRISE and GOLLY !!!.......
.......FIVE Great Cycles of The Mayan Calendar IS "approximately" 26,000 years.

Could it be that Mother Nature simply doing her work. ? :shocked:

How about the "Natural" shifting of Magnetic North Pole?.

Tampa International Airport and the London Airports...:plane:
...and many other airports "re-numbered" N/S "Runways"
due to the Magnetic shift of 2011.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am not responsible for the consequences of action taken based on the opinion stated.
No guarantees regarding validity, accuracy or applicibility
of information stated is expressed or implied.
...All rights are reserved.

[manaboutown]

The following sources are merely exemplary. Many others exist.


CO2 Nears 400 ppm (http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/05/14/co2-nears-400-ppm-relax-its-not-global-warming-end-times-but-only-a-big-yawn-climate-depot-special-report/)

CO2 Is Not Causing Global Warming (http://drtimball.com/2011/co2-is-not-causing-global-warming/)

[eweissenbach]

The following sources are merely exemplary. Many others exist.


CO2 Nears 400 ppm (http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/05/14/co2-nears-400-ppm-relax-its-not-global-warming-end-times-but-only-a-big-yawn-climate-depot-special-report/)

CO2 Is Not Causing Global Warming (http://drtimball.com/2011/co2-is-not-causing-global-warming/)

If you are interested you may want to research the author of the second linked article dr. Tim ball. The first is from a right wing funded "climate depot". I prefer my sources un affiliated such as Stanford University.

[JP]

If you are interested you may want to research the author of the second linked article dr. Tim ball. The first is from a right wing funded "climate depot". I prefer my sources un affiliated such as Stanford University.

Oh, you mean left wing and government funded Stanford. I know them.

[Bucco]

Oh, you mean left wing and government funded Stanford. I know them.

As EWEISSENBACH well knows, we do not agree politically on most things and have exchanged differing views over the years, HOWEVER you should take time before lashing out.

The funding for this Stanford program is from NASA and US meteorology and not left wing sites.

I challenged some of the research, but if you actually visit, you will see no political agenda.

[Topspinmo]

O My! It turned cold today and now it raining, Seen private Jet fly over and limo go by Must be the Climate change police! :crap2: "O" wait what's that white stuff and hard rock pellets falling from the sky . WOW last year it was Sunny and warm in March. Geezzz, The climate is changing. :bowdown:
Can't wait till it changes back to CLEAR and Sunny. :pray: If you think the climate has problems wait till the IOU's are called in due to all the reckless spending when they come for your bank account.:beer3:

[eweissenbach]

Oh, you mean left wing and government funded Stanford. I know them.

:a20:

[Polar Bear]

...I prefer my sources un affiliated such as Stanford University.

Heheh...that's a good one. Almost spit out my coffee.

[eweissenbach]

Persons who scoff at research from sources such as Stanford, but believe everything they hear or read from obviously biased sources would make me laugh if it weren't so sad.

[Don H]

Something that many haven't thought of is that the very beginnings of climate change began with the beginning of the industrial revolution. Specifically from the time that industry switched from water power to coal fired steam power. Added to that was the advent of the automobile and by then the ball was rolling. Fire based power generation and locomotion (of any kind) had never occurred before throughout the entire history of the planet. This is an event that only began less than 200 years ago. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that this event which continues to grow at an exponential rate has effected this planet and it's atmosphere. Anyone who denies that possibility is merely sticking their head in the sand.

[JP]

From what I have seen and read, "research" is frequently biased toward an outcome the funding source desires.

[eweissenbach]

From what I have seen and read, "research" is frequently biased toward an outcome the funding source desires.

We agree 100% on this statement. The problem is what a given person considers bias. Stanford University for example, is a privately funded research institute and relies on neither the state nor federal government for funding.

[Polar Bear]

Persons who scoff at research from sources such as Stanford, but believe everything they hear or read from obviously biased sources would make me laugh if it weren't so sad.

I for one said nothing about believing everything I read from any source. But to think that Stanford has no bias is laughable and/or sad also.

[blueash]

There is a difference between science and belief or if you prefer science and faith. Science involves continuous study and testing. It involves both description and discovery It is testable. Belief is not testable. You believe in God, or you don't. There is not any experimental evidence involved. You believe your wife loves you. That is based certainly on observation and some testing, but you also understand that if a situation changed, so could her love. Scientific truths do not change, they just have not been fully elucidated.

Many scoff at science when they hear of a study that seems to refute a previous study. However that is a misunderstanding of how science works. Newton offered brilliant observations of physics. But later testing and observation showed that his formulations and equations were wrong in some situations. We don't throw out Newtonian physics, instead there have been further adjustments and theories to improve on his foundation. Thank you Einstein, Bohr et al.

A previous poster mentioned Semmelweis and the failure of medicine to accept his observation immediately. This is a favorite anti-science tact to discredit scientists as it proves the majority is wrong. Well it doesn't. He presented an observation. He had no theory to explain his observation. That waited until Pasteur and the germ theory of disease. A mechanism was now understood to explain sepsis. And with this new information the practice of medicine changed. This is an example not of the resistance of science to change, but of the requirement for additional research and a theoretical basis for altering practice. It should be testable and verifiable.

Climate science is not weather forecasting. Weather is not climate. Whether it is cold or hot this week in London is not evidence for climate change. Those who say, oh it is cold this winter fail to discriminate between weather and climate. Climate science has produced a number of predictions over a period longer than the time between Semelweis's book and Pasteur. Those predictions are based on a theory of the impact of the accumulation of man made alterations in our environment on climate. They have been very accurate so far.

Yes the climate has always changed. No one has said otherwise. This issue is whether humans are having an impact that is significant and threatens the stability of nations and people. One of the salient parts of the theory is that the longer we wait to change our practices, the more serious those consequences will be.

Taking lead out of the fuel in my car made no difference to the amount of lead poisoning in children. But taking the lead out of everyone's car, and out of the paint has nearly eliminated it in America. When I trained a blood level of under 30 was normal. Now just 35 years later, any level over 5 is considered toxicity. Little changes by everyone can have a huge impact on children, on sea level, on global climate.

[eweissenbach]

I for one said nothing about believing everything I read from any source. But to think that Stanford has no bias is laughable and/or sad also.

We will have to agree to disagree.

[TexaninVA]

Persons who scoff at research from sources such as Stanford, but believe everything they hear or read from obviously biased sources would make me laugh if it weren't so sad.

I marvel at those who are so clearly gifted and enlightened ... along with their sense of compassion for the unwashed masses who are not

[CFrance]

I marvel at those who are so clearly gifted and enlightened ... along with their sense of compassion for the unwashed masses who are not
wow.