 |
bigdavediode
Registered: Mar 2007
Posts: 2863 |
08-17-08 05:49 PM
Quote from TraderZones:
On the other hand, we are neither likely to stop nor slow this
The IPCC says different. Who to choose, who to choose...
|
| |
|
Edit/Delete • Quote • Complain |
wjk
Registered: Nov 2007
Posts: 1647 |
08-17-08 05:54 PM
Quote from bigdavediode:
Good point, I bet climatologists, the IPCC, the IAC, International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences, the EASA, the NRC, the European Science Foundation, the AAAS, the Federation of American Scientists, World Meteorological Organization and the Royal Meteorological Society never thought of that.
You should forward this new information to them immediately. [/B]
And do all these agencies believe that our pollution will have more impact on climate then these natural occuring events? And how will they prevent these events? And aren't some of these the same agencies that 30 years ago predicted the opposite because of the same? (Ice age coming because of pollution.) Are they blaming humans or stating the obvious. By the way, lastest I've heard, planet cooled in the last 10 years.
And how many of these agencies are NOT gov funded? I've heard that prof Gray and other dissenters have lost funding because they wouldn't get on board (not to mention those individuals who get death threats against them for having a differing opinion about it). So fight the hype, lose your funds.
You missed my point. I'm not saying man can't influence the climate in some ways. Man contributed to the Great Dust Bowl with farming techniqes, for example. I'm saying it won't matter. That's what they arent telling you. Maybe 50 years from now, when you're sitting around wondering why winters are so long and cold, you can ponder the other side of the equation. The side given by scientists who have been effectively silenced. How bout a real two sided debate on the issue before imposing draconian measures? Is that too much to ask?
Actually, when you think about it, the pollution should stop eventually. The side pushing global warming as man made also claims fossil fuels will eventually run out.
Problem solved.
|
| |
|
Edit/Delete • Quote • Complain |
AAAintheBeltway
Registered: Oct 2001
Posts: 14532 |
08-17-08 05:55 PM
Global warming alarmism could turn out to be the communism of the 21st century, a man-made religion that captures the attention of the liberal elites but leads to terrible suffering.
It should be clear to those who have not been indoctrinated that it represents a clever attempt to use environmental guilt to gain control over national economies.
|
| |
|
Edit/Delete • Quote • Complain |
wjk
Registered: Nov 2007
Posts: 1647 |
08-17-08 06:27 PM
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:
It should be clear to those who have not been indoctrinated that it represents a clever attempt to use environmental guilt to gain control over national economies.
It would appear that the indoctrination runs deep, and the attempt to impose guilt very effective.
|
| |
|
Edit/Delete • Quote • Complain |
bigdavediode
Registered: Mar 2007
Posts: 2863 |
08-17-08 06:28 PM
Quote from wjk:
And do all these agencies believe that our pollution will have more impact on climate then these natural occuring events?
That depends on what events when, but over time, yes.
And how will they prevent these events?
They won't.
And aren't some of these the same agencies that 30 years ago predicted the opposite because of the same?
Nope.
(Ice age coming because of pollution.) Are they blaming humans or stating the obvious. By the way, lastest I've heard, planet cooled in the last 10 years.
And you heard wrong. Here's what NASA says:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/t...GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
And how many of these agencies are NOT gov funded?
Tell me.
I've heard that prof Gray and other dissenters have lost funding because they wouldn't get on board (not to mention those individuals who get death threats against them for having a differing opinion about it). So fight the hype, lose your funds.
Yeah, but you also heard that global mean average temperatures had gone down the last ten years, so you're probably just wrong again.
You missed my point.
I'd love to know what it is.
I'm not saying man can't influence the climate in some ways. Man contributed to the Great Dust Bowl with farming techniqes, for example. I'm saying it won't matter.
Ah, so we're influencing temperatures, but it "doesn't matter." But volcanoes do?
That's what they arent telling you.
Darn "them!" Probably liberals!
Maybe 50 years from now, when you're sitting around wondering why winters are so long and cold, you can ponder the other side of the equation. The side given by scientists who have been effectively silenced. How bout a real two sided debate on the issue before imposing draconian measures? Is that too much to ask?
What climatology journal are you reading that doesn't have debate, I wonder.
Actually, when you think about it, the pollution should stop eventually. The side pushing global warming as man made also claims fossil fuels will eventually run out.
Is it? I hadn't read anything about fossil fuels "running out" in any climatology journals, actually.
|
| |
|
Edit/Delete • Quote • Complain |
| Receive
an email whenever a new post is added to this thread by subscribing
to it. |
|
|
|
|
