Ooops! Everyone re-do your costs for Global "Warming"

Quote from Stok:

Stopping of acid rain? HOW did you stop the acid rain?? Magically it stopped overnight? All the fish came back in a few years?

You are a shell....Quit spreading the global warming, man-made shit!

How does acid rain kill fish, then within a few months they come back (where did they restock from....CA lakes??)...THINK about it.

Our ecosystem is way more complicated than we can ever grasp. It has been through ice ages, floods, dark sky's, volcanoes (Which emit the most CO2 of all)

Keep your shit in Canada, and leave the best Country alone with ur france shit!!
More...

Hey here is "propaganda" from your own government. REad it and understand.

http://www.epa.gov/airmarkt/progsregs/usca/acid_2008.html

and

mmsh://ms.radio-canada.ca/archives_new/2003/en/wmv/acidrain19791015et1.wmv?MSWMExt=.asf

http://archives.cbc.ca/environment/pollution/topics/584/

Sure there is still acid rain, but nowhere near the levels that we had back in the 80s. BTW I never talked about global warming. I attacked your lies on acid rain.

The fish came back by the stopping of the major pollution and the restocking of the fish. It did not go overnight. It took years, but the fish are back.

The reality is that acid rain is/was real, was acted upon and the environment became better. Do your research and you will see there are no lies on acid rain...
 
Quote from truehawk:

I beg to disagree.
The solution (scrubbers) were applied and were effective.

We engineered our way out of the problem, and we can do it again if the hysterical ostriches will get out of the way.
More...

THANK-YOU...

We made changes in our lifestyle and it worked out for the better.
 
Quote from truehawk:

It is the nature of trying to get the public's attention.
For part of the last centruy there were miles of bare earth and gullies around smelting operations in Sudberry, Ont and Copper Hill, NC. BS, before scrubbers. Now the vegetation has grown back. I am pretty sure we could engineer ourselves out of global warming if we try.

About global warming.
It is all very emotional.
I see the ski season in Western North Carolina getting shorter and shorter. I personally observe the drought and the succession of climate zones in the Serria Nevada with cactus moving further and further up the mountains.
I see that my acquaintance in Australia is loosing his orange orchard to water restrictions. (He does not blame global warming he blames the water authority because they are trying to keep some water in the river so the fish do not become extinct. ) Meanwhile the rest of Australia burns. I am surprised that he does not blame the water authority for that.
The Netherlands and Denmark are seeing rising sea levels, not to mention the Seshells. The great tropical glaciers that are at the headwaters of the major rivers of India, China and North Africa are in major retreat and will be gone within the next 10-20 years at this rate. Meanwhile Canada and Russia are looking at milder winters and an extended growing seasons.

All e-mails aside, global warming is fact observable in the guest book of lodges around the world. There is no doubt that that global warming is happening and that there are going to be winners and loosers.
The biggest winners are going to potentially be Russia and Canada. The biggest losers look to be cold adapted tundra species and those in North Africa and Asia dependent on tropical glaciers for water reservoirs, and shipping companies. If we warm the oceans and the methane hydrate really starts to bubble out, we are looking at horrible hazards to ocean traffic over the tropical continental shelves.
More...



So you want be to believe global warming exists because of cacti?


What should the temperature be? The earth is an extremely dynamic planet that we have barely scratched the surface of explaining or even understanding. Millions of years ago glaciers stood where I live now, does that tell you anything at all?
 
Quote from Mnphats:

So you want be to believe global warming exists because of cacti?


What should the temperature be? The earth is an extremely dynamic planet that we have barely scratched the surface of explaining or even understanding. Millions of years ago glaciers stood where I live now, does that tell you anything at all?
More...

That and all the other personally observed factors I wrote about.

I agree it is complicated.

The last time the carbon was this high was (about 14 million years ago ) we had an extinction event, but the high carbon was probably caused by a meteor that hit Germany and caused widespread burning of the forests.

But
It is an observable, repeatable, reproducible fact of physics that CO2 gas absorbs infared, and thus traps heat.

And of course this is not all that is going on.

Add to that the changes in the energy from the sun because of changes in the orbit of the Earth and the precession of the axis over time, and changes in the solar wind, and the output of the sun itself. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/milankovitch.html

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=25149

And then there are the changes in the amount of energy that is absorbed by the earth's system and how much is reflected back into space, which is influenced by the amount and type of particulate in the air, the gases that comprise the atmosphere, the type of rock weathering, the type of vegetation and the amount and kind of clouds etc.

If the energy balance that translates into average temperature at a given locality on the Earth is written as a Taylor series, the series would have 20 or so significant terms. The system is certainly complicated enough that every point on earth is not going to follow the same trend line.

We can give up because it is complicated, or we can learn to control our own climate destiny. I am not for giving up.
 
so let me get this right A.G.W.er's:

1) Are you saying man pumping an extra few billion tons of Co2 into the atmosphere every year makes NO difference at all to the average temperatures?

So if we doubled, trebled, 100X that Co2 into our atmosphere this will have no effect? Is that what you are trying to say? I wonder why they are called "greenhouse gases..." or is that somethiong Al Gore made up?

What proof do you have thet co2 has ZERO effect on the climate? Because I have not seen any yet.

2) Do you actually admit our climate is changing.....and no it's not natural. It's so fast anyone with an ounce of common sense would think "what has changed so much in the past 50 years...to cause this?) Or are you saying there has been no real change?

I guess when ealry scientest tried to convicne people the earth was round most simply demanded it was "flat" and would not look into anything else.. Same here.

So I'd like to know what your stance is.
 
Quote from chipmunk:

so let me get this right A.G.W.er's:

1) Are you saying man pumping an extra few billion tons of Co2 into the atmosphere every year makes NO difference at all to the average temperatures?

So if we doubled, trebled, 100X that Co2 into our atmosphere this will have no effect? Is that what you are trying to say? I wonder why they are called "greenhouse gases..." or is that somethiong Al Gore made up?

What proof do you have thet co2 has ZERO effect on the climate? Because I have not seen any yet.

2) Do you actually admit our climate is changing.....and no it's not natural. It's so fast anyone with an ounce of common sense would think "what has changed so much in the past 50 years...to cause this?) Or are you saying there has been no real change?

I guess when ealry scientest tried to convicne people the earth was round most simply demanded it was "flat" and would not look into anything else.. Same here.

So I'd like to know what your stance is.
More...

My stance is very simple. I am not qualified to offer an opinion as to whether the earth is in danger and if so why and is there anything we can do about it.

My point as Op is that such serious issues demand open transparent debate where everyone has access to the data. Also when thousands of doctorates in this field sign a petition that man is not the problem but can't get any media attention, then I smell something fishy going on.

When it appear the figures are massaged it's too dangerous to railroad any agreements on what to do.

The implications of unnecessary caps are not just heavy tax burdens and wealth transfer, but many scientists say we will cause more climate instability.

As a father I want what is best for my kids, but if you are not in the GW camp you are not getting government funding and that is certain to result in bias.

Personally I think it has more to do with sunspot activity producing warm and cooler cycles, but we need a few thousand years of data to be sure and what do I know?
 
Another important consideration that some countries don't want to talk about...

In 2007, The Daily Express reported --following the release and declassification of British government papers from the National Archives-- that:

"The [declassified] documents reveal that both the US, which led the field, and the Soviet Union had secret military programmes with the goal of controlling the world's climate. "By the year 2025 the United States will own the weather, " one scientist is said to have boasted.

The possibility of climatic or environmental manipulations as part of a military agenda, while formally acknowledged by official government documents and the US military, has never been considered relevant to the Climate debate. Military analysts are mute on the subject. Meteorologists are not investigating the matter, and environmentalists are strung on global warming and the Kyoto protocol.

An analysis of statements emanating from the US Air Force points to the unthinkable: the covert manipulation of weather patterns, communications systems and electric power as a weapon of global warfare, enabling the US to disrupt and dominate entire regions of the World. According to an official US Air force report

"Weather-modification offers the war fighter a wide-range of possible options to defeat or coerce an adversary... In the United States, weather-modification will likely become a part of national security policy with both domestic and international applications. Our government will pursue such a policy, depending on its interests, at various levels." (US Air Force, emphasis added. Air University of the US Air Force, AF 2025 Final Report, http://www.au.af.mil/au/2025/ emphasis added)

Copenhagen CO15

The manipulation of climate for military use is potentially a greater threat to humanity than CO2 emissions.

Why has it been excluded from the debate under COP15, when the UN 1977 Convention states quite explicitly that "military or any other hostile use of such techniques could have effects extremely harmful to human welfare"? (Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques United Nations, Geneva, 1977)

Why the camouflage?

Why are environmental modification techniques (ENMOD) not being debated by the civil society and environmentalist organizations under the auspices of the Alternative Forum KlimaForum09?

Global Research
 
Quote from Xspurt:


"The [declassified] documents reveal that both the US, which led the field, and the Soviet Union had secret military programmes with the goal of controlling the world's climate. "By the year 2025 the United States will own the weather, " one scientist is said to have boasted.

... Meteorologists are not investigating the matter, and environmentalists are strung on global warming and the Kyoto protocol.

...

An analysis of statements emanating from the US Air Force points to the unthinkable: the covert manipulation of weather patterns, communications systems and electric power as a weapon of global warfare, enabling the US to disrupt and dominate entire regions of the World. According to an official US Air force report

...

Why the camouflage?

Why are environmental modification techniques (ENMOD) not being debated by the civil society and environmentalist organizations under the auspices of the Alternative Forum KlimaForum09?

Global Research
More...

Hello Xpurt,

I really like your way of thinking and the way you put al the data in to perspectives...

However we need to teach this fact :

"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." ( A. Einstein )

And I don't have the response to your question, however I am sure the answer can be founded as always... by following the money :cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top