Jump to content

New Facebook Pages

Ford Mach E

Ford Thunder

  • Custom Search


napfirst

Global warming stopped 16 years ago

Recommended Posts

But what about those island nations that are going to be flooded by a 4 inch rise in sea level?

 

I'll put them up in a hotel if that happens in the next 5 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys need to stop mixing pollution with carbon dioxide. We should take all reasonable means to stop pollution - especially water pollution.

 

Carbon dioxide isn't toxic. In fact it's necessary for life. It's not a pollutant and it doesn't endanger plants or animals.

 

Since there is a chance that carbon dioxide is contributing to global warming then I'm ok with taking reasonable means to reduce it just like we reduce other emissions.

 

What we're saying is not ok is to go off and spend billions of dollars on some scheme that *might* make some slight difference in global temps.

Especially when the people raising the alarm are the ones who stand to receive the billions that might be spent.

 

I'll be more of a believer when someone can explain how the Earth managed to warm up after the ice age without SUVs or industrialization to blame for it. If we're having any effect at all it's incremental and insignificant compared to the effects of the sun and other factors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imagine that there was a train that consisted of nothing but large box cars. Each box car would be 10' wide, 10' tall and 50' long. Now imagine that the train had 200 of these box cars all in a row. This would be a train 2 miles long. The train is filled with air, the stuff we breathe every day. Now if we were to separate out the CO2, how many box cars would it fill?

 

Not even one. It would all fit in a box of just over 7' on each side. The part of the CO2 attributed to mankind, since the industrial revolution is about 1/10th of that.

 

If you have a million pennies in your pocket, ($10,000.00) and $3.85 of it were really hot, how much effect would it have on the temperature of the rest of the $9996.15?

Edited by xr7g428

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imagine that there was a train that consisted of nothing but large box cars. Each box car would be 10' wide, 10' tall and 50' long. Now imagine that the train had 200 of these box cars all in a row. This would be a train 2 miles long. The train is filled with air, the stuff we breathe every day. Now if we were to separate out the CO2, how many box cars would it fill?

 

Not even one. It would all fit in a box of just over 7' on each side. The part of the CO2 attributed to mankind, since the industrial revolution is about 1/10th of that.

 

If you have a million pennies in your pocket, ($10,000.00) and $3.85 of it were really hot, how much effect would it have on the temperature of the rest of the $9996.15?

 

How dare you use logic you earth hater you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those are fine and admirable goals and it is something we should strive for long-term, but the question then becomes how do we get there? You don't do it by crushing the economy through some dim-witted, short-sighted "cap-and-trade" scheme that does nothing but make a select few richer while really making little global impact at all. In the meantime, the earth isn't going to melt in the next 5 years because we didn't do something drastic today.

 

No. You don't. You do it by leaving the solar panels on the roof of the white house in the early 80's and you resolve to make some serious continuous changes from that point on. But that's not what happened and even Free Market economists understand that the market will correct itself, but like what started in 2007 and we are just getting out of, those corrections are nasty. No one wants to keep enduring market corrections or Shock continuously but that's the energy policy of the GOP.

 

What is happening now is merely the unintended consequences of lousy energy policy that the GOP continues to promote. Drill here, Drill now is only a means to push the shock off on to our children and their children while we fail to innovate because their is no incentive.

 

We needed to expand our investment in renewables 30 years ago not now. Now is a little late but better than never.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imagine that there was a train that consisted of nothing but large box cars. Each box car would be 10' wide, 10' tall and 50' long. Now imagine that the train had 200 of these box cars all in a row. This would be a train 2 miles long. The train is filled with air, the stuff we breathe every day. Now if we were to separate out the CO2, how many box cars would it fill?

 

Not even one. It would all fit in a box of just over 7' on each side. The part of the CO2 attributed to mankind, since the industrial revolution is about 1/10th of that.

 

If you have a million pennies in your pocket, ($10,000.00) and $3.85 of it were really hot, how much effect would it have on the temperature of the rest of the $9996.15?

 

Hmmm, that is interesting because we all know, or should know that our Oceans and plants sequester much of the carbon dioxide that would be released and that there are problems with the slight increase of Carbon dioxide such as ocean acidification. We've seen how little fertilizer actually has to make it into our water ways to cause algae issues and yet you continue to use oversimplifications and denial to act like we have no effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Langdad, does the math really challenge you that badly? Is the issue global warming caused by CO2 in the atmosphere? Or is it global warming caused by the sequestration of CO2 by plants? Use you own words, Try to stay away from talking points. What do the CO2 crowd really want?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Langdad, does the math really challenge you that badly? Is the issue global warming caused by CO2 in the atmosphere? Or is it global warming caused by the sequestration of CO2 by plants? Use you own words, Try to stay away from talking points. What do the CO2 crowd really want?

 

Please tell me what your conspiracy theory talking points suggest as that would just save time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cell phones...were they only invented or made widespead by the government restriction or outlawing of dial phones? Or were they a progression of an in-use product already? This green bullshit is akin to the gov stepping in one day and saying "as of Jan 2013, dial phones are illegal" but the cell phone hasn't been invented yet or is in it's infancy...say the bag phone for example. (this is their lightbulb stategy)

 

Microwave ovens...were they brought it as a competitor to regular ovens? Or did the gov say "as of Jan 2013 use of regular ovens must decrease by 50%" (because microwaves are more efficient) Regardless of the massive cash outlay a family would of had to spend when microwaves first came out.

 

The biggest "joke" is that the mandate requiring decrease of 50% of "regular oven use" is only for rich western countries! Everybody else can "cook over burning cow dung" (emitting 1000X the CO2) but only in rich western countries must we cook on "magic stoves" that only emit sunshine and lollypops and cost us 4X the cost of a regular oven!

 

There is an agenda here by the left, and it's not saving the earth from man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But what about those island nations that are going to be flooded by a 4 inch rise in sea level?

 

I am buying property 50 miles inland to sell as "oceanfront" property when that happens. ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We needed to expand our investment in renewables 30 years ago not now. Now is a little late but better than never.

 

We've come a long way over the past 30 years if you haven't noticed. Perhaps we should go back to carburetors and no catalytic converters, since nothing we're doing now makes any difference anyway, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've come a long way over the past 30 years if you haven't noticed. Perhaps we should go back to carburetors and no catalytic converters, since nothing we're doing now makes any difference anyway, right?

 

Really, is that the take your offering? Lets look at that.

 

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/cert/mpg/fetrends/2012/420r12001a.pdf

 

According to this report the auto industry made great strides under government pressure during the late 70's into the 80's and then stagnated for years because gas and oil was cheap (relative to inflation). Now they are moving heavily on it as guess what, SHOCK happened. Just like i suggested.

 

If government including the Democrats had pursued a steady continuation of CAFE standards we would have avoided the 4 dollar gas market driven move to better gas mileage. The Free Market is inefficient and responds only to crisis. I don't like living in a world of crisis management and prefer to do continuous preventative maintenance on future problems that we know will repeat itself. As history always does.

 

So your comment that we've come a long way since 1982 doesn't really ring true. We've come a long way since 1975 but very little of that was during the cheap oil days the past 20. And I should think that we might want to consider Goingbrokes #3 scenerio a little more often as applying funding and human capital to problems of the future by our government before they come along might just be a great idea. Or we could just drill here, drill now till we run out or supplies diminish and then let the market do it's thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was so conflicted. Whether I should post this here or

The "Thrill Is Gone"-The Collapse Of Obama-mania

 

 

But, I decided this was best.

 

 

Obama's Organizing for America can't pull in ONE SINGLE "WARM" BODY to show up for a Climate Change Rally. Not even Al Gore had time to make an appearance.

 

OFA Gets Zero Attendance for Climate Change Rally Edited by FiredMotorCompany

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw this one today:

 

As The Economy Recesses, Obama's Global Warming Delusions Are Truly Cruel

 

It seems many of the pro-MMGW crowd are re-thinking their position.

 

That global temperature record has been flat lining for 16 years now. As the website Climate Depot reported in response to Obama, “The halt in global temperatures has shown up in multiple data sets and peer-reviewed literature.” Even NASA’s James Hansen, the bureaucratic godfather of global warming hysterics, admits that the global temperature standstill is real, according to the Global Warming Policy Foundation. “The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade,” Hansen said on January 15.

 

Professor Werner Kirstein of the Institute for Geography at the University of Leipzig told MDR German Public Radio that sensational PR claims of the hottest year or hottest decade on record are just political spin, because they are based on year-to-year temperature data that differs by only a few hundredths of a degree. As Hansen told reporters on January 13, “2010 differed from 2005 by less than 2 hundredths of a degree F (that’s 0.018F).” And those are global averages reflecting a composite of hundreds of local weather station observations worldwide, a concoction that borders on alchemy.

Top Swedish climate scientist Dr. Lennart Bengtsson, who has served on the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the official global warming advocacy body, was also quoted publicly on February 3 as saying,

“We are creating great anxiety without it being justified…there are no indications that the warming is so severe that we need to panic. The warming we have had the last a 100 years is so small that if we didn’t have meteorologists and climatologists to measure it we wouldn’t have noticed it at all. The Earth appears to have cooling properties that exceed the previously thought ones, and computer models are inadequate to try to foretell a chaotic object like the climate, where actual observations are the only way to go.”

 

The award winning Bengtsson, highly decorated by scientific bodies across the globe, also pointed out that the heating effect of carbon dioxide (CO2) is logarithmic, which means the higher the concentration is, the smaller the effect of a further increase. That is why historical proxy data going back millennia show much greater concentrations of CO2 — 10, 20 or 30 times today’s levels – with no associated catastrophic global temperatures. That lack of association between temperature trends and CO2 has continued over the last century, as the up and down pattern of global temperatures over the past 100 years does not follow the upward climb of CO2 as the industrial revolution has expanded globally. It follows instead the pattern of natural causes, such as sunspot cycles, and ocean temperature cycles.

Bengtsson reported as well, “The sea level has risen fairly evenly for a hundred years by 2-3 millimeters per year. The pitch has not accelerated.” That is because the sea level has been rising as the Earth has been recovering from the freezing period of the Little Ice Age. It is not due to man-caused global warming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, only gun control? Yeah, that's weird, not just a gun nut but a denier too. Looking more and more conservative to me than you say.

 

While i certainly don't accept the current models on climate change, It's no worse than linking to a hack denier like Peter Ferrara, who uses Bengtsson quotes that he likes and ignores the overall point of statements like this.

 

However, the observational records are clear and the global warming is proceeding much slower than generally is anticipated.

 

Now, I notice that Ferrara who has had a "Cooling not warming" article published this year again as he did in the past few years did not include this, because to suggest that Warming is going more slowly is to damage his own claims that the earth is not warming.

 

Since in the authors view the work and observations of Dr. Bengtsson are credible I guess we have to accept that global warming is real.

 

And the phrase as the economy recesses is bullshit too. The economy has slowed but is still growing. The whole thing is more conservative propaganda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, only gun control? Yeah, that's weird, not just a gun nut but a denier too. Looking more and more conservative to me than you say.

 

While i certainly don't accept the current models on climate change, It's no worse than linking to a hack denier like Peter Ferrara, who uses Bengtsson quotes that he likes and ignores the overall point of statements like this.

 

 

Now, I notice that Ferrara who has had a "Cooling not warming" article published this year again as he did in the past few years did not include this, because to suggest that Warming is going more slowly is to damage his own claims that the earth is not warming.

 

Since in the authors view the work and observations of Dr. Bengtsson are credible I guess we have to accept that global warming is real.

 

And the phrase as the economy recesses is bullshit too. The economy has slowed but is still growing. The whole thing is more conservative propaganda

 

I didn't say "gun control only". I said "primarily gun control". I have posted many times in the past on the fallacious MMGW "science" so this is another one of your big, fat FAILS.

 

I wear the denier moniker as a badge of honor. I deny the bogus claims and "cooked" data. MMGW is a religion not science. If you refute the dogma, you're an infidel. It pisses me off that science gets twisted to fit a political agenda. The truth is finally bubbling to the surface and I look forward to seeing all the "believers" with egg on their faces.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I didn't say "gun control only". I said "primarily gun control". I have posted many times in the past on the fallacious MMGW "science" so this is another one of your big, fat FAILS.

 

I wear the denier moniker as a badge of honor. I deny the bogus claims and "cooked" data. MMGW is a religion not science. If you refute the dogma, you're an infidel. It pisses me off that science gets twisted to fit a political agenda. The truth is finally bubbling to the surface and I look forward to seeing all the "believers" with egg on their faces.

 

I believe that you are a victim to fallacious science also, just like the extreme warmers. Your denier beliefs are based on bogus claims and cooked data also.

 

Just look at the bullshit article you posted. Global warming isn't happening because a leading scientist says it's going slower than some are suggesting? That's fucking stupid. I mean seriously stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that you are a victim to fallacious science also, just like the extreme warmers. Your denier beliefs are based on bogus claims and cooked data also.

 

Just look at the bullshit article you posted. Global warming isn't happening because a leading scientist says it's going slower than some are suggesting? That's fucking stupid. I mean seriously stupid.

The article has much more than that concerning the false claims MMGW doomsayers. The fact that you try to boil it down to that one part is what is seriously stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The article has much more than that concerning the false claims MMGW doomsayers. The fact that you try to boil it down to that one part is what is seriously stupid.

 

The author cherry picked things that agree with his agenda and left out the fact that the people he's using believe in warming. That make is his article bullshit and stupid to buy into. You want to buy into it, then that's your choice, but understand that it's bullshit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The author cherry picked things that agree with his agenda and left out the fact that the people he's using believe in warming. That make is his article bullshit and stupid to buy into. You want to buy into it, then that's your choice, but understand that it's bullshit.

 

:hysterical: The only cherry picking of facts is from the MMGW evangalists. Like how they ignore that the hottest years on record actually occurred in the 1930s and we've been cooling ever since. Or that CO2 levels cannot be corroborated to temperature change. Even the Godfather of climate change, James Lovelock, has publicly admitted he was wrong. Why can't you? Oh that's right, you don't dare question the dogma. Now, go back to being a good little minion and wallow in your stupidity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:hysterical: The only cherry picking of facts is from the MMGW evangalists. Like how they ignore that the hottest years on record actually occurred in the 1930s and we've been cooling ever since. Or that CO2 levels cannot be corroborated to temperature change. Even the Godfather of climate change, James Lovelock, has publicly admitted he was wrong. Why can't you? Oh that's right, you don't dare question the dogma. Now, go back to being a good little minion and wallow in your stupidity.

 

Strange, James Lovelock has not publicly admitted that there is no Global warming.

 

James Lovelock, the maverick scientist who became a guru to the environmental movement with his “Gaia” theory of the Earth as a single organism, has admitted to being “alarmist” about climate change and says other environmental commentators, such as Al Gore, were too.

Lovelock, 92, is writing a new book in which he will say climate change is still happening, but not as quickly as he once feared

 

And even more laughable is that you ignore that a once prominent denier admitted he was wrong and that climate change is real.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.

 

You might not recall this as it happened right at the time of Lovelock's non-change of heart, but Mueller's change of heart did happen and it happened with a 150,000 of Koch brothers money.

 

So keep buying into the lies of the deniers. I'll keep taking the moderate view of climate change, that it's happening and that we are having some effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Strange, James Lovelock has not publicly admitted that there is no Global warming.

 

 

And even more laughable is that you ignore that a once prominent denier admitted he was wrong and that climate change is real.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

 

You might not recall this as it happened right at the time of Lovelock's non-change of heart, but Mueller's change of heart did happen and it happened with a 150,000 of Koch brothers money.

 

So keep buying into the lies of the deniers. I'll keep taking the moderate view of climate change, that it's happening and that we are having some effect.

 

Get ready for another huge FAIL for LH. This a quote from an NBC News interview with Lovelock:

 

 

It will also reflect his new opinion that global warming has not occurred as he had expected.

 

“The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened,” Lovelock said.
“The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now,” he said.
“The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time… it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising -- carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that,” he added.

 

So what he's saying is all that peer-reviewed "science" is completely wrong and they really have no idea what is going with the climate.
If Mueller changed his mind then he's as much of a fool as you are for believing the MMGW charlatans.
Edited by TomServo92

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More from Lovelock:

 

"Who knows? Everybody might be wrong," he says. "I may be wrong. Climate change may not happen as fast as we thought, and we may have 1,000 years to sort it out."

 

Source: http://www.theguardian.com/books/2010/may/31/hay-festival-climate-change-debates

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×