General discussion

Locked

PROOF of climate change & Planet Destruction - WE'VE GONE TOO FAR

By maxwell edison ·
.
Okay, now they've done it! I'm now on-board with the save-the-planet-from-destruction zealots. You now have me on your side. You converted me. I just can't take this anymore.

Now those villainous Republicans, LED BY THAT NO-GOOD, PLANET DESTROYING, GEORGE W. BUSH - are exporting, or should I say out-sourcing, our planet destruction.

MARS IS EXPERIENCING CLIMATE CHANGE!

Destroying the earth is one thing, but now we've started to DESTROY MARS with our climate changing, planet destroying life-styles. It's just the Americans, however, so the rest of the earth's population is free from blame. We are destroying Mars all by ourselves, undoubtedly another result of those status-symbol seeking, planet destroying, SUV owners.

Now we've really done it. I hope the Martians don't get pissed off and invade Earth over this.

http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/newsroom/20050920a.html

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

162 total posts (Page 5 of 17)   Prev   03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07   Next
| Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

A Question for the NOAA

by maxwell edison In reply to pollution reform...global ...

.
Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968.

And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.

-- From The Cooling World in 1975 warning of global cooling

And:

?The world?s food-producing system,? warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA?s Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, ?is much more sensitive to the weather variable (global cooling) than it was even five years ago.?

Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change (global cooling), or even to allay its effects.

.....some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers......

In 1975 NOAA scientists wanted to MELT THE ICE CAP to fight-off the effects of global cooling.

In 2005 NOAA scientists warn of a MELTING ICE CAP because of the effects of global warming.

Now to my questions on the NOAA.

Were they wrong then, or are they wrong now? Or perhaps, they just have a way of being wrong?

Were they off-the-wall in the 1970s, or are they off-the-wall today?

How about just off-the-wall, and perhaps searching for reasons to keep getting their government grants?

(This answer should be fun to hear.)

You've been DUPED, jck, DUPED, I say ..... by fund-seeking "scientists"!

Collapse -

greed or scientific advancement

by jck In reply to A Question for the NOAA

I think you're just quick to find an answer of your own that promotes your own philosophy.

Science advances, and things are found to have been wrong in the past. That happens. It's called progress.

60 years ago, we only knew there were 3 dimensions. Now, science and math show there are at least 11 (10 spatial and 1 time).

60 years ago, space flight was still a fantasy for comic books. Now, space flight is reality in our lives.

60 years ago, black holes were just theory. Now, Hubble and Chandra show us evidence of them through radio-spectrometry.

I understand your pessimism toward the variation in data. Completely understandable. However, I think that pessimism would be best reserved in its majority for those who (more often than not) are trying to pull the wool over your eyes with legal rangling and slickly-worded dialogue rather than those who would present you with hard, scientific research data.

Again, I'd point you to the article from the non-partisan group that points out the more-than-obvious tie between the incredible amounts of money donated to political campaigns by big polluters to politicians who have voted for relaxed sanctions against those who would pollute.

Besides, I would rather trust a scientist over a politician any day.

I thought perhaps data from both NOAA and a member of an international climatological committee would be a sufficient pool of data to back my argument.

I would be glad to find you more, collaborating data from other countries, if you like.

Collapse -

Trusting scientists versus politicians

by maxwell edison In reply to greed or scientific advan ...

.
On your trusting scientists versus politicians comments, I suppose I agree with that, generally speaking. And ironically enough, that illustrates the reasons for my skepticism.

I don't see scientists crawling out of the woodwork in droves, and in concert, publicly warning about global warming. To the contrary, it's always some politician (or political activist) citing some unnamed scientist who's sounding the alarm bell. If you had to name one person in the USA who is leading the global warming scare movement, it could arguably be Al Gore. And he's no scientist. And Greenpeace, a leading environmental group also leading the global warming scare band-wagon, is filled with political activists, not scientists. And to make it even worse, the whole movement, for the most part, has its roots, its trunk, and its branches on the left of the political spectrum, another reason to be skeptical -- very skeptical.

So scientists AREN'T sounding the alarm bells in droves, but rather it's the politicians (or political activist). And if you compare this to other issues, you have to wonder, where are the independent global warming think-tanks?

Sorry, you believe the sky is falling if you want, but until it hits me square on the head, color me skeptical.

Here's a link to a site that provides an interesting look at BOTH sides of the argument. It's based on the "follow the money" sentiment.

http://www.moneyfiles.org/weather.html

It includes a link to a petition named, "18,000 scientists say no global warming".

So at this point in time, I'll choose to believe those 18,000 scientists, and you can choose to believe Al Gore, the politician.

Collapse -

you support scientists?

by jck In reply to greed or scientific advan ...

You were just attacking their work. I was defending the scientists. What a waffle job you just did.

You keep defending the politicians as you have been.

I have taken the side of defending the scientists, their published works and provided proof that despite the government having funded a lot of the work, that elected politicians ignore it in favor of soft money and PAC/special interest contributor's wishes.

Either provide current contrary scientific data and/or defend the facts about political vote purchasing.

Nice attempt at overexaggeration as well...again. I never said we're going to die next week or sided with Al Gore. Your allusion that I'm being fanatical is again way out of proportion. I think you would be best served by re-examining your analysis of my commentary and the data that I provided. If you had looked at it in the first place, you'd have seen there were some lifetimes that will go past the life expectancy of your grandchildren...if you have any.

As for your 18,000...why kind of scientists are those again?

The IPCC is an internationally recognized organization whose membership is primarily scientists and specialists in global climatology and its study, and the research done by their authors is done according to specific expertise.

I'll stick with listening to experts.

btw...more information backing what I say is available also in report from scientists in Norway and Sweden.

http://www.cicero.uio.no/research/index_e.asp
http://www.internat.naturvardsverket.se/index.php3?main=/documents/issues/climate/climate.htm

There is climate change happening. And, the earth isn't going to fall apart tomorrow or next week. But, we're sure not doing anything to improve it taking the stances like yours.

Let me know if you want to plant a tree. I'll buy you one you'll be able to hug in 30 years when neilb wins your bet.

Collapse -

jck - I agree with the 18,000 (plus) scientists who claim it's a farce

by maxwell edison In reply to greed or scientific advan ...

.
I'm not waffling on anything.

You find your scientists that you'll choose to believe, and I'll find mine. You cite your studies, and I'll cite mine. And as far as politicians, the Democrats are fanatical zealots sounding the alarm and falsely (in my opinion) advancing doom-and-gloom scenarios. The Republicans, in the very least, are paying it lip-service, and some of them have even bought into the silly notion as well, even if only for political expediency. On this particular issue, I think they're all full of crap, regardless of the party.

In a nutshell, it's a bunch of alarmist crap, pure and simple. It's a big con-job. And I don't care who agrees and/or disagrees with me, or vice-versa, politician, scientist, or otherwise. Is that a clear enough position for your feeble mind to comprehend?

Collapse -

Also...on 18,000 scientists...

by jck In reply to greed or scientific advan ...

I'd like to say...the technical accuracy of your quoting a petition drive from La Jolla, CA...that's hard core scientific research.

That's really convincing proof that my referenced scientific research from 3 countries and a representative of the most respected climatological research body in the world...must be totally wrong!

yeah...my references must all be wrong. Your 17,800 independently-confirmed anonymous card submissions...way more scientific credibility.

I'm going home to have a beer.

You have a nice day...and keep siding with 17,800 signatures.

Collapse -

Extremism is disliked by most people

by TonytheTiger In reply to I honestly don't understa ...

It's not like I go out of my way to make more pollution. I try to economize wherever possible... turning off unused electricals, buying products with less packaging, walking to and from work when the weather permits, etc.

I disliked having my car egged because it gets only 24 mpg rather than 44. I disliked the burning of SUVs by gangs of roving thugs.

There is nothing wrong with environmentalism, but there is a lot wrong with many environmental-ISTS.

Collapse -

adunlap is a voice of reason

by Montgomery Gator In reply to Extremism is disliked by ...

I commend you on your posts. I am not in favor of environmental destruction just to do it, and I do economize, recycle, and save energy when reasonable. However, too many environmentalists are Luddites who do not want us to advance technologically and make use of the Earth's resources. There is oil in ANWR and off the coasts of Florida and California, we might as well use it, along with increasing refinery capacity. At the same time, develop more efficient engines and alternative energy sources. They are not mutually exclusive.

Collapse -

er...

by jck In reply to Extremism is disliked by ...

environmental-ISTS are the people who promote environmental-ISM.

I think you meant to add RADICAL or EXTREME in front to...or at least implied it, in reference to those who want radical action.

I'm an advocate for progression toward environmentally-beneficial global processes.

anyways...I understood what you're saying...but, to paint all environmentalists as the "bad guy" is as bad as painting all people of any labelled group as "bad".

Kinda like saying: "Food sucks...so I won't eat anymore." because you didn't like broccoli and asparagus.

Or as my father used to say it..."cutting off your nose to spite your face".

I got your drift tho...and I agree. But, radical groups that take drastic actions to solve issues deserve no more respect than those who'd sit back and take no or improper action.

Collapse -

That's one place where we differ.

by TonytheTiger In reply to er...

"I'm an advocate for progression toward environmentally-beneficial global processes."

I'm an advocate for progression toward HUMANity-beneficial global processes.

Sometimes we'll agree, sometimes we won't

And I didn't paint all environmentalists as bad. Just the ones who destroy and deface property that wasn't theirs.

There's an old saying "You can attract more flies with honey than you can with vinegar". Maybe some environtaliats could take a different tack. Maybe pushing the other benefits of conservation will appeal to more people.

Back to Community Forum
162 total posts (Page 5 of 17)   Prev   03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07   Next

Related Discussions

Related Forums