http://youtu.be/T2J8zEJHIg8
So you mean we are not changing our environment?
Every time I hear a politician mention man-made climate change, all I hear are WMD in Iraq and if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. It's always BS and lies designed to benefit the few at the expense of the many. And for some reason, the people who are telling us all we need to consume less, are always the people who consume the most.
I don't give a damn what politicians says.
Science itself isn't foolproof but the best you can follow what we have and they say climate change is real.
I rather listen to them and be wrong then to politicians.
I dont know either way.
I think for sure we are not treating the world very well over all, and there is sure to be negative consequences for that.
But what really worries me is that, the only solutions the proponents of global warming offer is to make me poor(er).
I mean really, look at the environmentalist community and you will see some real bipolar disorder. First we need to get rid of all oil and use solar and wind (so I pay nearly 4 dollars a gallon). But then we can't use wind because it kills birds (which is hilarious because most environmentalist love cats).
Then we cant use solar because it takes up too much space and also kills animals. Also making solar panels is really really bad for the environment. (Nuclear works but is scary)
Of course its a problem when its cloudy or there is little to no wind.
Anyway, the only fix seems to be to heat my house in the winter by burning my paycheck. Which is fine, because it pays in dollars and those are worthless anyway...So maybe everything will work out after all? :o
Better be sure than sorry, I'd say, no matter how vague the scientific 'evidence'. Before you know there might be an unforeseen pivot point and things turn dramatic.
By the way; you US citizens are lucky with your (subsidized) gas price, we pay nearly 9 dollars per gallon :(
Quote from: Kadri on May 18, 2014, 01:59:11 AM
I don't give a damn what politicians says.
Science itself isn't foolproof but the best you can follow what we have and they say climate change is real.
I rather listen to them and be wrong then to politicians.
I'm not sure what science you're referring to, at least one scientist, Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric physics at MIT, seems not to think so. But even if you accept that climate-change is real (and I don't [the very word "climate", itself, means change]), is it the cause of humans or, rather, the sun cycles, or something else. The world has been much, much hotter, on average, than it is now. It was hotter when dinosaurs roamed the earth. It was even hotter during the middle ages, long before the industrial revolution.
Besides which, when I was growing up, the big threat hanging over our heads was that we were headed to a new ice age, that was going to wipe out humanity. So, did we avoid the ice age? It's no longer a threat? Of course, nobody ever talks about that anymore.
Also, the entire rain forest in Brazil wasn't going to exist by the year 2000. And today, the rain forest is still going strong. There are even tribes that live there that have yet to have contact with civilization.
I'm all for reducing my impact on the environment around me, just as long as I'm not forced to do so with a gun to my head collecting taxes for Al Gore and his church of pseudo-climatology, by the same people who exploded all those nuclear bombs in the upper atmosphere.
But I do hope that everyone who buys into this stuff are vegetarians (I am, BTW), as the largest single producer of "green house gases" is the meat and cattle industry.
I'm just thankful science doesn't work by either consensus or democracy. Otherwise, the world would still be flat.
You're right. The main problem we face now (as opposed to the Middle Ages or Dino-Age) that we have so many people roaming our planet. They all want food and cars and luxury. The latter is keeping the economy going (production, production, production, growth, growth, growth, making more junk and plastic toys, more offices, more factories, more trains, more lorries, more ships, more flying....), but is it the best way to organize a sustainable world society, I think not. But what is?
I just read about insects being a very efficient protein supplier, and immediately got the vision of giant flies in paddocks, with steak-shaped thoraxes :P
We had here in Denmark couple of years ago a conference about Global warming...etc. Well on the same day we had a huge amount of snow and some -10C degree. Since then it just colder and colder here :o
Sounds like this global warming is just crap...it is just another way to tell people that how dangerous is the environment...etc. If you have enough of this you will render people to be inactive and quiet. And sure there are groups out there who want this...
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence
Archonforest please look here where the
"Do a few extra cold or snowy winters in your hometown mean that climate change is not happening?" question is answered.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/basics/facts.html
It is interesting that the naysayers are from the opposite politic side.
This isn't about politics or how cheap or expensive we live.
It is a fundamental problem if we continue to live at all in the form we know today.
If you want to believe what the lobby of companies like BP want you to believe go on.
This subject isn't an easy one in that you 20-30 years later can say "sorry i was wrong".
But as Ulco said differently if we are wrong you would only loose some money.
It reminds me every time about evolution.
The only ones who oppose it are the religious and-or ignorant ones.
Most people don't know still what science is and how it works unfortunately.
"Do a few extra cold or snowy winters in your hometown mean that climate change is not happening?" question is answered.
It was a meeting about Global warming...and since then it is just colder. It is a climate change for sure but here where I live the Global warming is just out of reality. I would expect something warmer than we have now. I remember the ice cold air coming from the North-pole...therefore I said the Global warming is not that real here...
But Kadri,
If we spend hundreds of billions of dollars (perhaps even trillions) and still cant solve the problem. Then it is better to not spend the money. Better to loose coast line and still be able to afford a boat, than to loose coastline and drown.
I still have have not heard one idea that will *fix the problem* other than massive depopulation that is.
To get all cars running on water engines or electric...etc might help but we got some people(with serious money from the oil business) on the way to do this...
Btw I forgot to mention the Tesla Coil...that is a solution for all the planet. It can create free electricity for all for free but some people did not liked the idea. Therefore his lab was burned to the ground and he died as a very poor man almost unknown.
So there are solutions but they are suppressed to the max. There is an old maxim I really like. If you try to handle something and it going nowhere then u handling the wrong thing. The shit we see here are created purposely and kept like that. We got many many amazing inventions on this planet but where they are? Wish to ask some Governments and way above but guess they won;t answer me hehehe...
Michael i don't know what the best solution is but not listening to science and denying it only because of a politician you don't like is absurd.
Screw all of the politicians go and read further. Nearly all scientist says the same today.
I could make a website in that i would say " I don't like the electrons in the atom. Chemistry should be explained differently"
I could even make a foolish "Free chemistry from the electrons" Radio.
And the funny thing is i actually really believe that there are some wrong things regarding electrons in science.
But why don't i say that and make such a website?
Because i have no proof and everything what is known says the opposite.
So until i have or see somewhere proofing what i think i will shut my mouth and wait.
Otherwise i would be like the other fools around the web.
The internet made knowledge very accessible to people.
But unfortunately it made many stupid people accessible too.
That guy in the video lost me when he said that simulation isn't science for example.
It is used in many ways and to variable results.
It is another powerful new tool for science.
And how to use it , or the results it gives are debated already in science and philosophy.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/simulations-science/ for example.
Of course you have to see if the simulation shows resemblance to our real world.
But what he says in the video is something like
"Mathematics isn't science you have to test it on reality"
he actually don't know what science is...DOH!
The interesting thing is we use Terragen.
Not a simulation in that way per see but i think you know what i mean.
Quote from: Kadri on May 18, 2014, 06:43:13 AMMichael i don't know what the best solution is but not listening to science and denying it only because of a politician you don't like is absurd.Screw all of the politicians go and read further. Nearly all scientist says the same today.
I am all for quality of life for humans. So it is the quantity of human life that is the ultimate cause of almost all of the major problems in the world. Solve this problem and you solve most of the problems in the world today. No matter what individuals do to be more conservative and efficient, the savings will be gobbled up with more and more humans arriving on the scene. The only way to solve the problem is to curb population growth. To find the cause of this problem look no further than to those who have too many babies. So we need to stop admiring those who have ten kids and look at them as the selfish people they are. Furthermore, charities like "feed the children" are making the problem worse. Its like putting out a fire with gasoline (petrol). If people won't do it intelligently by voluntary action, then nature will with famine, drought, disease and war.
I agree totally, Pablo, but then there are people who say; less children... so who's gonna work for us (our pensions)? Must be very gradual, I guess.
Quote from: Dune on May 18, 2014, 09:19:20 AMMust be very gradual, I guess.
Yes. Any other way will cause more problems.
I think China had this rule already. Like max 1-2 kid per family...
In my Home country the usual is 1 or 2 kid since almost nobody can afford more due to high tax low pay...etc.(These days people thinking over there think over twice if they want a kid whatsoever :(
Only the gypsy people got 6-10 kids but they doing it only as the Government issues them money after the kids.
lol. I can see from the ideas in this thread that I am right not to trust environmentalists/government. Better things get warmer than ideas like are here become the law.
Quote from: archonforest on May 18, 2014, 11:30:45 AMI think China had this rule already. Like max 1-2 kid per family...
I heard on the news recently that they rescinded that law.
Quote from: archonforest on May 18, 2014, 11:30:45 AMOnly the gypsy people got 6-10 kids but they doing it only as the Government issues them money after the kids.
Gasp!
Quote from: TheBadger on May 18, 2014, 11:42:11 AMlol. I can see from the ideas in this thread that I am right not to trust environmentalists/government. Better things get warmer than ideas like are here become the law.
I am just recognizing the problem and not trying to put Band-Aids on them. By "voluntary" I don't mean passing coercive laws. But people just don't talk about human overpopulation very much. They talk all around the problem and get the government involved to forcibly do things that often times make the problem worse. By "voluntary" I mean that individuals understand what is causing the problem and talk about it like we are doing now. People who have too many babies should understand that this problem and all of its consequences are their fault and no one else's.
OK, but why pick on kids? There are far more old people than children. Maybe we should get rid of everyone over 50? I mean, old people use up far more resources than kids. I think one 50 year old human uses as much resources as like 20 kids or something like that. Also old people can often smell bad.
I saw an episode of Star Trek NG, where on a certain planet no one was allowed to age past 54 years. At that age for the benefit of their planet, they killed them selves in a really pretentious ceremony. And I thought well, I guess their kids don't have to worry about paying for the retirements of their parents.
Look, the only thing that will fix any of these problems that we have *now* is nuclear power. Hopefully in the relatively near future, cold Fusion and hydrogen. What I remember being told was that the only problem with Hydrogen is that its difficult to produce in the way we need it. But we already know how. Those hydro engines generated only water as waste, and the claim was that, that water could even be consumed safely.
So rather than worrying about what other people do with their lives and how much they need to consume, why don't people actually just fix the problems?.. Cheap renewable, clean energy... Oh yeah I forgot, because none of this is actually about solving problems, its about control and power and dollars and politics. Silly me.
I mean why talk about people as the problem rather than the tech as the solution? I guess every interest needs an enemy? Of course we can logically see that getting rid of "some people" wont solve any problems (that is a band aid also really sick darwinian thinking). The only thing that will solve the problem is real energy solutions, all of which the green lobby opposes. So...
I am with Pablo on this.
The problem will get only worse in time with the growing population.
Because water and food is already a problem.
You will have to bring new solutions to those problems too beside the climate change.
Why not solve all those problems together?
I wouldn't be surprised if we see more articles about this in the near future.
George Carlin's thoughts on the topic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BB0aFPXr4n4&noredirect=1
Personally, I'll get worried when Al Gore moves out of his beachfront mansion.
Quote from: TheBadger on May 18, 2014, 01:56:36 PMOK, but why pick on kids? There are far more old people than children. Maybe we should get rid of everyone over 50?...
It is a blessing to have a quiet mind. Like when someone says that the room is too crowded I don't have a demon on my shoulder translating what they said into "Hey let's kill some of these people". Badger, you worry me.
*
I am not very optimistic about controlling anything. A lot of words and ideas, but since society is all about money, that will dictate any change. So change should come from the financial system first; shift in what is taxed and what not, etc.
Quote from: Dune on May 18, 2014, 09:19:20 AM
I agree totally, Pablo, but then there are people who say; less children... so who's gonna work for us (our pensions)? Must be very gradual, I guess.
When I realized I was gonna be a musician for life in a not well paying style(my own) I made a decision to not have kids and at 65 seems a bit
hasty a decision when my sidewalk needed shoveling and my back wouldn't do it...so I don't know as overpopulation a age 18 seemed a very big problem. As it turns out it's not that we can't make enough to feed every soul on this planet it's simply greed that starves folks most times it seems....
There is no problem with food, water and so on.
Our global economy is based on dept and especially scarcity, in order to make profit.
Ulco already said that the first change needed is a change of the financial system.
Everyone can have geothermal, solar and wind energy at home, but virtually no one has more than one of these at home, if at all.
Food is abundant (obesity becoming #1 disorder in developed countries), but keeping parts of the world poor and hungry allows for cheap labor, cheap production and high profits for multinationals.
4% of the water is fresh and suitable for drinking. That's a mother motherload of water we won't be able to consume in thousands of years.
There's a wealth of resources for food and water, but it's key to divide those carefully to keep the global financial system going.
Governments spend >100 billion dollars each year on false flag wars to support this financial system and the military industrial complex.
All these parties have NO interest in getting global warming fixed or to let everyone have cheap energy and plenty food.
However, these parties do pull the strings.
Instead, we fund nuclear fusion research with a staggering 8 billion dollars over 10 years or so.
How do you mean it's not of priority to the people in charge?
That's not supporting, it's keeping it just alive enough for everyone to believe there's genuine interest in developing it and to pretend the intention is there.
I think it couldn't be more obvious that they just don't care...
Dune, I agree action is unlikely to materialize at a meaningful level, because everyone likes to point fingers at others and nobody wants to bear the financial burden. This is on both the national and individual level. Rather, I hope that technology will get us out of this path towards environmental destruction. That's where R&D funding comes in, and I hope our 'leaders' are smart enough to recognize that. Renewable energy IS the future. Plastics are terrible polluters, with a very long half-life. Recycling IS imperative. There is a host of other issues, water quality is a big one. There are solutions for many of these issues, often times they are not quite mature yet, however. Immediate cost is not always a barrier. It would be cheaper to continue heating a house with wood and coal, yet industrialized nations have mostly graduated from that practice.
Someone mentioned the Brazilian rainforest. Please have a look at maps comparing the size of the forested area over time. Then think again whether the forest is 'still there' and how much of it will remain in a couple of decades. Good animation: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/landsat/news/40th-top10-amazon.html If that is not man-made desolation I don't know what is. The loss of biodiversity is proven and irreversible.
Quote from: Tangled-Universe on May 19, 2014, 02:04:21 PM
There is no problem with food, water and so on.
...
but keeping parts of the world poor and hungry allows for cheap labor, cheap production and high profits for multinationals.
4% of the water is fresh and suitable for drinking...but it's key to divide those carefully to keep the global financial system going.
...
So there is still a problem Martin. Yes you are right of course.
I just don't wanted to go to that route you mentioned.
Everybody does have his own views and no one changes his view reading some posts easily.
Mostly it ends with mutual blaming etc.
It was about if climate change is real or not.
The surrounding debate around this and how to do anything about it is a problem with capitalism-emperialism itself.
The corporations, the puppets and stooges of them who we see us ruling (!) etc.
If you go this route you will loose many supporters.
Like some of our friends here.
They don't like anything the opposing party-ideology (that aren't much different as they look anyway) says.
The system works so good for profit and production i don't see change in the near future except really great problems who will arise in the end.
They are the system that dictates what to do and how to respond.
If peace , changing global warming etc. would be suddenly more profitable then today
some of you would be surprised how fast your loved senators , governments changed his view.
Global warming itself is all related to that unfortunately.
Probably only the answer if global warming is real or not is only pure science.
And if we go to the route how science works in this system it get's a little more complicated.
I do agree with Martin to a large extent. I think that his words have truth to them and could explain why the "green lobby" is so bi polar. But that again proves that you can't really just blame people on the "right". The green lobby is run by the left.
@ Kadri
I understand very well your idea that I should study. But Im not a scientist. Im one person with only so much time on my hands. How can I study all the science and still live my life? I can't! I have to trust scientists. And for the most part I don't anymore.
Science has been corupted just like government, school, religion, heath care,art, culture, everything. Everything is lost in the haze of bullshit. Truth is buried under an ocean of meaningless facts.
So while I do think there will be negative consequences for how we treat the earth, I think the consequences of all the corruption will be far worse... the environment just one small part. And that is the scary part! Because if its as bad as people claim (warming/cooling/whatever) then for everything else to be worse, it would have to be very bad indeed... And I think it will be/is worse.
@ Pablo
I was not speaking directly to you, or only to you. I was speaking to the general idea that people are the source of all problems, and then only certain people; "other" people. And the fact is, that children are thrown away in the world just like garbage. Forced abortion as in china, is something that was on my mind in connection to what people say about population controls.
To a large extent, there is little conversation on this topic that does not bring up the issue of population reduction. Including this thread.
And while Im sure that you feel very blessed, even superior. You should not make the mistake of thinking others see you as you see your self. Don't worry about me.
Quote from: TheBadger on May 19, 2014, 05:28:21 PM
...
I understand very well your idea that I should study. But Im not a scientist.
Im one person with only so much time on my hands.
How can I study all the science and still live my life? I can't!
I have to trust scientists. And for the most part I don't anymore...
...
The wording is bad in my post you mention Michael.
What i meant was more on the line that we should more listen what the science circles does say
and not the politicians and the ordinary media in general.
But if you look who are opposing global warming like
"American Association of
Petroleum Geologists" shouldn't ring there some bells?
And they are divided in itself too etc...
QuoteBut if you look who are opposing global warming like
"American Association of Petroleum Geologists" shouldn't ring there some bells?
Yes!
But it also troubles me that the groups who promote the idea as fact are all on the left. Shouldn't science be A//political? But its not. Not here anyway. Its as I already said. It does not matter if its true (warming) no one will fix it. So why spend the money? They'll just use the billions to create more control over people, and the ice will still melt.
They cant even fix the schools here. You think they can save the world?
Quote from: TheBadger on May 19, 2014, 08:08:10 PM
...
They cant even fix the schools here. You think they can save the world?
You are lucky ours are just trying to destroy what works, and that wasn't much to begin with :)
Quote from: TheBadger on May 19, 2014, 08:08:10 PMThey'll just use the billions to create more control over people, and the ice will still melt.
I can see them now. They'll send a huge team to the glaciers and take tons of samples. Their stomping around will cause them to melt faster then they'll go to Congress and say "Yep. It's melting faster. 10 Billion Dollars please. We'll take them in small bills. We need you to cut the rainforest down to make more paper so you can print all those inflated dollars up for us."
Quote from: Kadri on May 19, 2014, 03:21:41 PM
Quote from: Tangled-Universe on May 19, 2014, 02:04:21 PM
There is no problem with food, water and so on.
...
but keeping parts of the world poor and hungry allows for cheap labor, cheap production and high profits for multinationals.
4% of the water is fresh and suitable for drinking...but it's key to divide those carefully to keep the global financial system going.
...
So there is still a problem Martin. Yes you are right of course.
I just don't wanted to go to that route you mentioned.
Everybody does have his own views and no one changes his view reading some posts easily.
Mostly it ends with mutual blaming etc.
It was about if climate change is real or not.
etc.
I think you're absolutely right Kadri by saying that we we should try to stick to the original question.
The reason I'm saying this is because I think you can't answer this question without knowing what the driving force is behind the global warming question.
To me(!) it is without question that the information on this question is very, very...very(!) coloured.
There's big money involved with the global warming issue. Either industries who see opportunities to make money and industries who may loose money.
We need to put faith in scientists, but because of money they are more restricted than ever to publish their objective findings.
Research is either funded by the industry which is pro- or anti-global warming or by a government which is also under the influence of those same industries because of lobbies. Even then, although some here try to look away from it, there's definitely politics involved as well.
There are clearly political parties pro- or anti-global warming.
Long story short; it's very hard to be completely objective as a scientist as they are being paid to deliver an already chosen conclusion.
The volume of this kind is much larger than the volume of true objective scientific research.
We will never know the truth and another simlpe reason for that is that we don't have a second or even more earths to really scientifically compare how the climate would evolve without our interference.
I believe the climate is changing, to some extent, but even that conclusion is already pretty subjective. How long is the human race profound with science? On a geological time-scale we're just studying this for a mere second or minute at most.
To then even say that there's climate change AND that it is induced by humans is quite bold.
Of course there are correlations, but these definitely do not mean a causal relation between the two.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/kjh2110/the-10-most-bizarre-correlations
We know very very little and we extrapolate all of that to a conclusion which serves our needs or the needs of the paying party.
Personally I think it's very hard to imagine that climate change is NOT because of us and that is what I personally believe myself too, but there are also things to consider to make you believe otherwise edit: or at least make you think twice on some things you read in some places:
- the atmosphere volume of our planet is insane, do we really pump that much CO2 into it that it really changes?
- the Amazon is NOT the lungs of our planet, the russian taiga/woods and canadian forests convert a multitude of CO2 compared to the Amazon.
- plankton/krill converts the most CO2
- the volume of the sea is also insane, can we really change the composition of all that water? Non-degradable chemicals are an issue though.
And like I said in my previous post; how can we proof that all these changes are truly man-induced?
I think the strongest evidence of global warming is the ozone vs CFK relation and the CO2 levels vs. history of industrial revolution/development.
These are quite strong cases.
I have not much to add Martin.
I know how science works only from an theoretic standpoint -to an extend at least-
that it isn't an island in itself and how much more complicated it is like you wrote for example.
But you know it much better from a theoretic and practical standpoint -if i remember right- .
Only years later will we know better probably-hopefully if at all.
I think about the environment where i live and how it changed in the past 40 years in the worst way.
Thus i think nearly as you wrote and choose the safest approach about this subject :
"Personally I think it's very hard to imagine that climate change is NOT because of us,"
Actually global warming isn't the worst i fear.
For example genetic research in this or that form could bring an end to us and global warming much faster maybe.
Quote from: Tangled-Universe on May 20, 2014, 08:17:57 AM- the atmosphere volume of our planet is insane, do we really pump that much CO2 into it that it really changes?
You do understand that the atmosphere is made up of gas, not solids nor liquids. Our atmosphere has a mass that is equivalent to 33 ft. (10 meters) of water. That is why the pressure doubles when SCUBA divers dive to that depth. And CO2 is only 1/30th of one percent of the atmosphere. That means that, if you condensed all of the CO2 in the atmosphere it would settle at a depth of only 3.33 mm...That is slightly over three millimeters. Now scientists tell us that doubling that would have profound effects on global warming. So you should re-think what you were thinking when you wrote what you wrote.
Quote from: Tangled-Universe on May 20, 2014, 08:17:57 AM- the Amazon is NOT the lungs of our planet, the russian taiga/woods and canadian forests convert a multitude of CO2 compared to the Amazon.
Lungs consume O2 and produce CO2 so not a good expresssion. The gross amount that is converted doesn't matter. It is the net difference in production to consumption that matters. If plankton fix most of the carbon in CO2 then are soon eaten by fish and turned back into atmospheric CO2 then there is no net change through time. But oil that is burned is not returning carbon back to the atmosphere that was recently removed. This causes a net increase in atmospheric CO2.
Quote from: PabloMack on May 20, 2014, 11:49:39 AM
Quote from: Tangled-Universe on May 20, 2014, 08:17:57 AM- the atmosphere volume of our planet is insane, do we really pump that much CO2 into it that it really changes?
You do understand that the atmosphere is made up of gas, not solids nor liquids.
*sigh*
Why, dude?
Yes we're snorkling, actually. But we think it is air, because we're all crazy.
When there's something in your noise and you want to pick it out, it's actually the atmosphere you're nose picking ;)
Quote from: PabloMack on May 20, 2014, 11:49:39 AM
Quote from: Tangled-Universe on May 20, 2014, 08:17:57 AM- the Amazon is NOT the lungs of our planet, the russian taiga/woods and canadian forests convert a multitude of CO2 compared to the Amazon.
Lungs consume O2 and produce CO2 so not a good expresssion.
*sigh*
Why again, dude?
It is an analogy the vast majority of people know and understand. They also know that we breath O2 and that plants use CO2 to produce energy and produce O2 (also).
It's fine if you disagree, I don't mind and I will just ignore it, but it's making this discussion needlessly complicated and above all....very annoying and frustrating if you behave like this!
What's your problem,
really!???
Quote from: Tangled-Universe on May 20, 2014, 12:45:25 PMvery annoying and frustrating if you behave like this!
What's your problem, really!???
You seem to have the most easily bruised ego of anyone on this forum. All I did was to state facts and you chose to take offense.
;D Welcome back Martin! No place like home. :)
Keep it civil guys. It's pretty good to make it to page 3 before this kind of thread starts getting personal, but if it continues down this road we'll have to lock the topic.
Thanks,
Oshyan
LOL. Eleven official inquiries from all manner of bodies, and all clear all scientists of scientific malfeasance. Ewww, must be a conspiracy. On the other hand, look up Okkam's Razor.
What your sources are not telling you: http://www.jamespowell.org/ (http://www.jamespowell.org/)
And this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change)
It's 19th Century physics and chemistry folks. Used every day in every scientific field. Older than relativity. Buy a boat.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/05/140515090934.htm (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/05/140515090934.htm)
Still not a single workable solution though. IF the US stopped ALL carbon output today, the effect would be almost nothing.
So until you convince China and India and some others, working on us conspiracy nuts wont get you squat.
Anyway Im much more worried about the Asian carp working its way to the great lakes.
Quote from: JimB on June 03, 2014, 06:29:57 AM
LOL. Eleven official inquiries from all manner of bodies, and all clear all scientists of scientific malfeasance. Ewww, must be a conspiracy. On the other hand, look up Okkam's Razor.
What your sources are not telling you: http://www.jamespowell.org/ (http://www.jamespowell.org/)
And this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change)
It's 19th Century physics and chemistry folks. Used every day in every scientific field. Older than relativity. Buy a boat.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/05/140515090934.htm (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/05/140515090934.htm)
Does this mean no new ice age to wipe out civilization? ::)
Personaly I would wory more about the likely upcoming iceage.
http://www.paulmacrae.com/?p=62 (http://www.paulmacrae.com/?p=62)
(http://www.paulmacrae.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/warming-in-cycles-carter1.jpg)
(http://www.paulmacrae.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/450000-with-green-line.jpg)
This is all you need to know about "Climate change" which was once global warming. This is from a Club Of Rome document. I think it's from the early 90s but I'm not sure about the date. The Club Of Rome is headed up by population control fanatics like the British Queen who recently agreed to a new law that allows fracking under your property except it isn't your property at all, it's owned by the British Crown or the bankers depending on where you live. Fracking is of course an environmental disaster but there's money in it if you're the British Crown and such like real land owners:
"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill....All these dangers are caused by human intervention....and thus the "real enemy, then, is humanity itself....believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is "a real one or....one invented for the purpose."
Of course the Climate Change agenda hasn't quite succeeded and the fake Al-Qaeda enemy has run out of steam so that's why you're getting the new propoganda onslaught of Russia is the new enemy. Without countries to invade and loot and without a new wars the western financial system will collapse because it's almost entirely based on fraud and theft run mainly out of the City Of London. While David Cameron drums up anti Russian lies to turn the US against Russia he is doing deals with them for gas and other stuff. France is selling Russia arms but the US is too stupid to see how they are the fall guys. The British Empire never died. It's the biggest power in the world all run through the City Of London, the British Crown and Wall Street (which is all the same thing) but nobody wakes up to this. The US doesn't need Wall Street at all.
Quote from: Upon Infinity on June 04, 2014, 03:24:49 PM
Does this mean no new ice age to wipe out civilization? ::)
Nope.
A movable trigger: Fossil fuel CO2 and the onset of the next glaciation
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/reprints/archer.2005.trigger.pdf (http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/reprints/archer.2005.trigger.pdf)
Quote from: JimB on June 24, 2014, 04:44:46 PM
Quote from: Upon Infinity on June 04, 2014, 03:24:49 PM
Does this mean no new ice age to wipe out civilization? ::)
Nope.
A movable trigger: Fossil fuel CO2 and the onset of the next glaciation
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/reprints/archer.2005.trigger.pdf (http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/reprints/archer.2005.trigger.pdf)
Whew! Crisis averted. 8)