| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/31/2009 03:32:28 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
it has already been proven that weather patterns and global temp is on a cycle. |
It has NOT been proven that the current warming trend is part of that cycle. Evidence points strongly to the contrary.
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
The earth as a whole is actually due for another iceage. The question is can we keep one from happening by reducing the carbon footprint of every living thing on the planet. |
That doesn't even make sense. Preventing an ice age would require increasing carbon emissions. |
As ironic as it seems, global warming is needed to create an ice age (change in the underwater currents, changes in the water cycle, etc) |
|
|
|
08/31/2009 03:57:02 PM · #27 |
That is exactly what I was trying to explain...You have to have warming before cooling.....Even though that does sound slightly wrong..
|
|
|
|
08/31/2009 04:06:13 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
That is exactly what I was trying to explain...You have to have warming before cooling.....Even though that does sound slightly wrong.. |
That's true in a sense (and equally true in reverse), but suggesting that reducing our carbon footprint to prevent an ice age within the context of reducing our carbon footprint to stop warming is confusing at best, and contradictory at worst. Both fall under the heading of minimizing our impact on the climate, and there's no need to add confusion when there are still people who can't grasp that we even HAVE an impact on climate. |
|
|
|
08/31/2009 05:05:10 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by frisca:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by frisca:
What i don't understand is why anyone is so desparate to establish that the change we all have been observing in the climate is not caused by man. What is to gain, and who is to gain by such a premise? Ahh! Now we see it. It allows those who live excessively and without regard for the earth to continue to do so without having to think about the harm they are causing. And it allows those who destroy the earth for their own monetary gain to continue to do so without objection. Think about THAT when you think about how to attribute global warming. There is never a good reason to NOT be environmentally conscious in all our daily decisions. |
Some pretty large suppositions.
1. What is your monthly vehicle fuel bill? Mine is less than $150.00 (for 5 vehicles/motors combined - H3, CTS, Road King, lawn tractor and 40hp outboard).
2. What is your monthly energy bill? Mine is $200 and has been for a decade.
The point is, there are many ways to reduce a carbon footprint. Living close to where you work is one of them. Having modest living quarters is another. Quote There is never a good reason to NOT be environmentally conscious in all our daily decisions.
Is one who lives 40 miles from work less enviornmentaly conscious than one who chooses to live 1 mile away? Is one who chooses to live in a LARGE house/mansion (think AG) less enviornmentally conscious than someone who chooses to live in a 1200 sq ft home? Is one who decides to live in an older turn of the century farm house less enviornmentally conscious that someone who builds an energy efficient dwelling with brick and stone, orients the home to best take advantage of the sun's path and places the garage strategically to block the NW winter winds?
Posts like yours are the ones that immediately make me think of a large government panel that will one day dictate what vehicle a person can drive, what size house they must live in and how many children they can have. There are many factors impacting a person's carbon footprint and they are not necessarily mandated by their vehicle or housing choice. A person who drives an "evil" vehicle yet enjoys outdoor pursuits (hiking, bicycle riding, canoeing) can have a smaller carbon footprint than another who preaches GW alarmism but commutes 100 miles a day, takes vacations via airlines, lives in a 4000 sq foot home, and has 5 drivers in the household. |
I think you've completely misunderstood what I was saying. I am not advocating any "standards", simply saying we can all think of ways to care for the environment as we carry on with our daily activities. I never ONCE mentioned homes or vehicles. I don't know where you are getting that from, but its not me.
My point: What has happened cannot be changed, whether caused by us or by "act of nature", but why are there so many who are hell-bent on establishing that the damage to the earth was not caused by us? I say it is because they have other, monetary interests they are serving and not the truth nor the earth. That's all. |
I believe what triggered my response was your line "those who live excessively". I am a bit zealous in regards to that direct line of thinking as it presumes that there is some standard that is not excessive. If so, then what is the standard that is not excessive so that I can measure myself. More importantly, what is the standard you judge me by. Is it my car/truck? My house? My vacation destinations? My willingness to recycle? My fuel usage? Energy usage? Water usage? Or is it my buy in to the alarmist campaign? |
|
|
|
08/31/2009 05:30:52 PM · #30 |
The thing I don't like about the "alarmist" word, is that scientist have been warning us about global warming for at least 30 years, no oe ever listened to them until they got "alarmist".
It's like someone telling you that there is smoke comming from the kitchen for an hour, and then, when they try to push you out the door, you call them alarmist.
If people would paid attention when the problem was still minor, we wouldn't be in such an "alarmist" state. |
|
|
|
09/04/2009 09:44:10 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by merchillio:
The thing I don't like about the "alarmist" word, is that scientist have been warning us about global warming for at least 30 years, no oe ever listened to them until they got "alarmist".
It's like someone telling you that there is smoke comming from the kitchen for an hour, and then, when they try to push you out the door, you call them alarmist.
If people would paid attention when the problem was still minor, we wouldn't be in such an "alarmist" state. |
Well, i find that GW alarmists often love to give me examples of situations with immediate danger and compare it to global warming. Earth is not going to suddenly burst into flames like your kitchen example, that's why most people would call your example an "Alarmist" one. You've significantly reduced the time frame in people's mind and incited alarm over something that should be looked at and studied slowly, carefully, objectively, prudently, and WITHOUT POLITICAL INFLUENCE and rubbish data gathering from the likes of the IPCC.
30 years ago scientists were warning about global cooling by the way, not warming, that's only a recent fad. Also the last 8 years have witnessed no change in temps, i really hope temps fall even more so that the treehuggers can eat their shoes.
SADDAM HUSSAIN'S GOT WMD'S POINTED AT OUR FREEDOM LOVING HOMES LETS BOMB HIM FIRST AND THINK LATER <- Alarmism
IRAN HAVEN'T STARTED NUCLEAR ANYTHING YET BUT THEY'RE GOING TO SOMEDAY THAT'S WHY WE SHOULD BOMB THEM <- Alarmism
|
|
|
|
09/04/2009 09:59:41 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by Timosaby:
Originally posted by merchillio:
The thing I don't like about the "alarmist" word, is that scientist have been warning us about global warming for at least 30 years, no oe ever listened to them until they got "alarmist".
It's like someone telling you that there is smoke comming from the kitchen for an hour, and then, when they try to push you out the door, you call them alarmist.
If people would paid attention when the problem was still minor, we wouldn't be in such an "alarmist" state. |
Well, i find that GW alarmists often love to give me examples of situations with immediate danger and compare it to global warming. Earth is not going to suddenly burst into flames like your kitchen example, that's why most people would call your example an "Alarmist" one. You've significantly reduced the time frame in people's mind and incited alarm over something that should be looked at and studied slowly, carefully, objectively, prudently, and WITHOUT POLITICAL INFLUENCE and rubbish data gathering from the likes of the IPCC.
30 years ago scientists were warning about global cooling by the way, not warming, that's only a recent fad. Also the last 8 years have witnessed no change in temps, i really hope temps fall even more so that the treehuggers can eat their shoes.
SADDAM HUSSAIN'S GOT WMD'S POINTED AT OUR FREEDOM LOVING HOMES LETS BOMB HIM FIRST AND THINK LATER <- Alarmism
IRAN HAVEN'T STARTED NUCLEAR ANYTHING YET BUT THEY'RE GOING TO SOMEDAY THAT'S WHY WE SHOULD BOMB THEM <- Alarmism |
I see your point.
It is still sad that scientist warned us about our effect on the planet for a long time and one ever listened until they saw that some money could be made out of it (all this "green" marketing)
Are you sure about taht cooling thing? I remember when I was little, all that talk about that hole in the ozone layer that was going to turn us all in well done steaks... then again, I'm not 30yo.. |
|
|
|
09/04/2009 10:02:50 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by Timosaby:
30 years ago scientists were warning about global cooling by the way, not warming, that's only a recent fad. |
No, they weren't.
Originally posted by Timosaby:
Also the last 8 years have witnessed no change in temps, i really hope temps fall even more so that the treehuggers can eat their shoes. |
Also not true. Seven of the eight warmest years on record have occurred since 2001, and no model predicts year over year increases. |
|
|
|
09/04/2009 10:15:37 AM · #34 |
Yes, they were. People just love denying that fact because it undermines the modern global warming agenda.
Originally posted by scalvert:
Also not true. Seven of the eight warmest years on record have occurred since 2001, and no model predicts year over year increases. |
Right, you just feed the models garbage data and they tell everyone else to start panicking. And what records are you referring to, surely not the NASA records that got totally fudged after Y2k? Or surely not the "reliable" data collected from weather nodes that are constantly moved around for convenience?
|
|
|
|
09/04/2009 10:32:56 AM · #35 |
Originally posted by Timosaby:
Yes, they were. People just love denying that fact because it undermines the modern global warming agenda. |
Newsweek isn't "scientists." You obviously didn't read the link.
Originally posted by scalvert:
Also not true. Seven of the eight warmest years on record have occurred since 2001, and no model predicts year over year increases. |
Originally posted by Timosaby:
Right, you just feed the models garbage data and they tell everyone else to start panicking. And what records are you referring to, surely not the NASA records that got totally fudged after Y2k? Or surely not the "reliable" data collected from weather nodes that are constantly moved around for convenience? |
What garbage data? You seem to believe anything but the people who actually study this field. The Y2K thing is a non-issue, and so are the moving "weather nodes." Speaking of garbage data... so far that's the only thing you've posted! |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/26/2025 06:42:17 PM EDT.
