I don't think Global Warming necessarily means that the earth gets hotter in all places, at all times.

It doesn't. What the Utopians, who want to live in a fantasy world and pretend that nothing will ever harm us, don't understand is that this is about climate change. They like to hang their hat on the "warming" label, which really doesn't explain the effects that are occuring because of man's destruction of the environment. On that score there can be little debate. It's proven, and it's happening all around us.

 

If you don't believe it, just ask the folks in coastal Alaska, who are about to lose their homes. And soon, you'll be able to ask the folks in Miami Beach. Of course, you'll have to go to the newly-opened beaches of southern Orlando to speak to them.

What do all those scientists know about global warming any way? They said the same thing about Gore when tried to warn them about manbearpig, and you saw what happened there.

What do all those scientists know about global warming any way? They said the same thing about Gore when tried to warn them about manbearpig, and you saw what happened there.

Now come on--let's get totally serial here! :irked:

 

 

 

 

It doesn't. What the Utopians, who want to live in a fantasy world and pretend that nothing will ever harm us, don't understand is that this is about climate change. They like to hang their hat on the "warming" label, which really doesn't explain the effects that are occuring because of man's destruction of the environment. On that score there can be little debate. It's proven, and it's happening all around us.

 

If you don't believe it, just ask the folks in coastal Alaska, who are about to lose their homes. And soon, you'll be able to ask the folks in Miami Beach. Of course, you'll have to go to the newly-opened beaches of southern Orlando to speak to them.

The earth's climate has always been in a state of flux. The climate would be changing with or without our presence. To assume that man is changing the climate and to further assume that man has the power to prevent such climate change - all without scientific proof - is foolishness.

 

Whatever you want to call it - climate change, global cooling, or global warming - the whole Gore movement is about political power and personal greed.

It doesn't. What the Utopians, who want to live in a fantasy world and pretend that nothing will ever harm us, don't understand is that this is about climate change. They like to hang their hat on the "warming" label, which really doesn't explain the effects that are occuring because of man's destruction of the environment. On that score there can be little debate. It's proven, and it's happening all around us.

 

If you don't believe it, just ask the folks in coastal Alaska, who are about to lose their homes. And soon, you'll be able to ask the folks in Miami Beach. Of course, you'll have to go to the newly-opened beaches of southern Orlando to speak to them.

You realize that scientists are jumping off the global warming bandwagon in droves now? The more they study, the more they realize it's nothing but a cash cow and a total scam.

If you choose to buy into the scam, it's up to you. I choose to listen to the scientists that have seen the light. Surely you don't think they're Utopians as well.

 

This graph tell anyone anything.

 

 

One scientist on a list-serv replied:

 

Since Clinton's inauguration, summer Arctic sea ice has lost the equivalent of Alaska, California and Texas. The 10 hottest years on record have occurred since Clinton's second inauguration. Global warming is accelerating.

 

Rubbish. Global warming is not “accelerating”: global warming has stopped. There has been no statistically significant rise in mean global temperature (MGT) since 1995, and MGT has fallen since 1998.

 

The Earth has been warming for 300 years since the Little Ice Age (LIA) so, of course, the warmest years happened recently. But that warming from the LIA peaked in the El Niño year of 1998. MGT has been near but below that peak for the last ten years.

 

Arctic ice advances and recedes over decades. The year 2007 saw a minimum in Arctic ice cover in the short period that it has been monitored using satellites. But 2008 saw the most rapid growth in Arctic ice cover in that same period and Arctic ice cover is now back to the average it has had in the period. Also, 95 percent of polar ice is in the Antarctic, and Antarctic ice is increasing.

 

This graph tell anyone anything.

 

 

One scientist on a list-serv replied:

 

Since Clinton's inauguration, summer Arctic sea ice has lost the equivalent of Alaska, California and Texas. The 10 hottest years on record have occurred since Clinton's second inauguration. Global warming is accelerating.

 

Rubbish. Global warming is not “accelerating”: global warming has stopped. There has been no statistically significant rise in mean global temperature (MGT) since 1995, and MGT has fallen since 1998.

 

The Earth has been warming for 300 years since the Little Ice Age (LIA) so, of course, the warmest years happened recently. But that warming from the LIA peaked in the El Niño year of 1998. MGT has been near but below that peak for the last ten years.

 

Arctic ice advances and recedes over decades. The year 2007 saw a minimum in Arctic ice cover in the short period that it has been monitored using satellites. But 2008 saw the most rapid growth in Arctic ice cover in that same period and Arctic ice cover is now back to the average it has had in the period. Also, 95 percent of polar ice is in the Antarctic, and Antarctic ice is increasing.

You mean my ocean front propery in AZ is still worthless? I was really counting on those ice caps melting.

Sorry to burst the bubble RTS, but it's not called Global Warming anymore, it's call a Climate Crisis. This way environmental extremists don't have to actually show exactly what's wrong with the climate, just postulate that the climate is in trouble to advance their political agenda. If there is no climate crisis, there is no way to charge for, or tax, the mythical carbon points.

Sorry to burst the bubble RTS, but it's not called Global Warming anymore, it's call a Climate Crisis. This way environmental extremists...

Of course you meant to say, "environmental realists."

 

Honestly, all this anti-climate change nonsense reminds me of a guy at the top of a burning building saying, "Who cares if the buildings on fire. I didn't start it, so why should it matter to me?"

Sorry to burst the bubble RTS, but it's not called Global Warming anymore, it's call a Climate Crisis. This way environmental extremists don't have to actually show exactly what's wrong with the climate, just postulate that the climate is in trouble to advance their political agenda. If there is no climate crisis, there is no way to charge for, or tax, the mythical carbon points.

:thumb:

Of course you meant to say, "environmental realists."

 

Honestly, all this anti-climate change nonsense reminds me of a guy at the top of a burning building saying, "Who cares if the buildings on fire. I didn't start it, so why should it matter to me?"

No, not really what we are saying. All we mean, BF, is that there is still much to debate on this issue and nothing is settled science as the alarmists like Gore and his ilk want us to believe. That being said, I'm all for clean air and water, I just don't want more taxes to line the pockets of those like Gore and I don't want money wasted on a wild goose chase.

Even CNN meteorologists are now questioning manmade global warming. What lessons will liberals take from falling victim to this hoax?

 

CNN Meteorologist: Manmade Global Warming Theory 'Arrogant'

Network's second meteorologist to challenge notion man can alter climate.

 

Unprecedented snow in Las Vegas scratching their heads – how can there be global warming with this unusual cold and snowy weather?

CNN Meteorologist Chad Myers had never bought into the notion that man can alter the climate and the Vegas snowstorm didn’t impact his opinion. Myers, an American Meteorological Society certified meteorologist, explained on CNN’s Dec. 18 “Lou Dobbs Tonight” that the whole idea is arrogant and mankind was in danger of dying from other natural events more so than global warming.

“You know, to think that we could affect weather all that much is pretty arrogant,” Myers said. “Mother Nature is so big, the world is so big, the oceans are so big – I think we’re going to die from a lack of fresh water or we’re going to die from ocean acidification before we die from global warming, for sure.”

Please define "we". Things, per capita of companies, are better than they were, but there's still a lot that can be done and a lot of pollution going on. I'm not a proponant of 'stop global warming!', but that doesn't mean that the environment still is being mistreated by mankind as a whole.

So often I've heard people when they drive out to the country tell me how much they love to be able to see the stars at night. I only wonder how clear it was 300 years ago.

 

I've read about environmentalists talk about the environment being mistreated because of the release of methane gas by cattle and manure runoffs polluting streams. Way before the white man stepped foot on this continent herds of bison, elk and deer were releasing methane gas and polluting streams with manure runoff. Do you think those bison herds "held it" when they crossed rivers (which sometimes took days to get the whole herd across)? I think not. Environmentalists are well meaning people, but a lot of them just aren't very realistic or pragmatic.

 

One example: Environmentalists have done a "great" job stopping logging on federal lands out west. Well, trees eventually die or get knocked down in storms. If they aren't allowed to be removed (and in a lot of areas I'm told they are not because of the "natural" movement) or they aren't removed by the logging companies because it isn't cost efficient to just be able to remove downed trees, the down trees just lie there and become great fuel for fires. When lightning or some stupid human starts a fire, all that fuel generates a huge fire, which generates a lot of pollutants into the air, creating a lot more harm to the environment than the cutting of the trees would have created. That just doesn't seem pragmatic to me at all.

One example: Environmentalists have done a "great" job stopping logging on federal lands out west. Well, trees eventually die or get knocked down in storms. If they aren't allowed to be removed (and in a lot of areas I'm told they are not because of the "natural" movement) or they aren't removed by the logging companies because it isn't cost efficient to just be able to remove downed trees, the down trees just lie there and become great fuel for fires. When lightning or some stupid human starts a fire, all that fuel generates a huge fire, which generates a lot of pollutants into the air, creating a lot more harm to the environment than the cutting of the trees would have created. That just doesn't seem pragmatic to me at all.

There are a lot of different logging practices. Some are responsible...others are not. Some logging companies help to maintain the resource, but others just destroy it.

 

Some may think that environmentalists are "loonies"; but they have a point. There's something to be said for maintianing certain delicate habitats in their natural state. It's good for the both the plants and animals that depend on them. There has to be balance in everything, and both sides have their place in the discussion.

 

What's really scary is what's happening to the Amazon rainforst and other rainforests throughout the world. These vital forests are being cut down by hundreds of acres every day to facilitate farming and logging interests. By destroying these areas, we're literally choking off both our oxygen supply and the planet's natural "filter" system.