I think what a lot of people have a problem with is the term "Global warming". We have and always will have climate change that takes place normally. The polar ice cap has been melted to this extent before and will be completely frozen and melted again as a normal course of climate change. We have CO2 in the air due to sea water evaporation, forest fires, volcanoes, man, and other causes. I think man has to clean up his act, but don't think that we are a cause of weather change. Global warming advocates would have you believe that no matter what happens, Global warming is the cause. Record snowfall, no snowfall, warm weather, cold weather, rain, drought, anything works. What bothers me the most is the lying, skewed information and misinformation used to promote global warming. Money, and only money is the reason.
Climate change
- Thread starter Pete
- Start date
Al,
Here is some reading for you. I saw James Lovelock in a intervue on TV a while back. He basicly said that the earth is going through changes constantly. What is happening now was always inevitable we are just helping it along. It will just come a bit sooner.
Dave
Gaia hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Here is some reading for you. I saw James Lovelock in a intervue on TV a while back. He basicly said that the earth is going through changes constantly. What is happening now was always inevitable we are just helping it along. It will just come a bit sooner.
Dave
Gaia hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Give it a rest... like no one made any references to Obama off topic... not that I care, I don't particularly like nor trust any politician. I do happen to be slightly left (I guess) - but that doesn't mean I can't make that point without someone from the right crying foul. Plenty of people from the right are making that same point NOW after the fact. And besides, it is on topic because my point is this: many people rise up when something affects their standard of living or pocket books. That by itself is normal and expected, but from my conversations with people and from what I read here on the internet, it seems that the people who seem to take the time to read into an issue like this, an issue who's root purpose is for the common good, seem to be far more silent when war comes up. One little spec of evidence is fine for that because the war isn't fought in their back yard. I was just taking an aside with that anyway. Seems I might have hit your political hot spot...
Al - don't think that everyone who argues in defense of climate change is ignorant of the natural cycles that take place. This is another example of this topic getting blown out of proportion. When this all started, no one was saying that we are completely causing something that never happened before. Scientists were simply doing due diligence for our possible amplification of those natural cycles. Personally, I hope they keep the research going because I think it is worth it for us. Like you, I don't want money to be spent needlessly. And I am fully aware of sources and sinks for CO2... not that I'm an expert, but I did do a paper back in engineering school for a thermodynamics course that focused on that very thing. Yes the earth needs CO2; just like we need water yet too much water can kill us - it's called toxicity.
Anyway, this will go on forever.....
Al - don't think that everyone who argues in defense of climate change is ignorant of the natural cycles that take place. This is another example of this topic getting blown out of proportion. When this all started, no one was saying that we are completely causing something that never happened before. Scientists were simply doing due diligence for our possible amplification of those natural cycles. Personally, I hope they keep the research going because I think it is worth it for us. Like you, I don't want money to be spent needlessly. And I am fully aware of sources and sinks for CO2... not that I'm an expert, but I did do a paper back in engineering school for a thermodynamics course that focused on that very thing. Yes the earth needs CO2; just like we need water yet too much water can kill us - it's called toxicity.
Anyway, this will go on forever.....[/QUOTE]
I believe in climate change too, it's global warming that I have a problem with. Al Gore is saying that we are completely causing something that never happened before. Scientist at Anglia were cooking info to support that theory, and we have an administration that is completely ignoring that fact. It's tunnel vision like health care. "We are going to bull through with this no matter what anyone thinks" I was not implying that you or anyone else was ignorant of the cycles.
Anyway, this will go on forever.....[/QUOTE]
I believe in climate change too, it's global warming that I have a problem with. Al Gore is saying that we are completely causing something that never happened before. Scientist at Anglia were cooking info to support that theory, and we have an administration that is completely ignoring that fact. It's tunnel vision like health care. "We are going to bull through with this no matter what anyone thinks" I was not implying that you or anyone else was ignorant of the cycles.
Chris,
Not that I want to get to far from the topic of Climate Change, but you said below:
"Chris, the point the climate change people wanted you to believe is that it is the new religion that would save the world. So, Brisc's comments are pretty much right on with your statement." No - I disagree. The problem is religion is based on FACTLESS faith, whereas science is based on facts which anyone can go out and find for themselves, and here's the really important difference - by doing their own experiment or finding another example of whatever was found. The difference is, science allows new facts to be found and change the current thinking on something (which some love to equate to faith and belief which is another fallacy), religion will never allow that because it is written and written for good. (Well, until King James or someone else comes along but that's yet another topic.)
Can I simply ask, you are correct that faith is based on a lack of facts, but if you can explain why people have followed faith (has to be fixed and firm to have any serious meaning) for so many years (and especially our Jewish brothers who have followed from Abraham's time, again based on faith with no facts, and built themselves into an intellectual powerhouse), and has literally changed our society from the primative, which man was before the Abraham experience, to a religion based on someone's experience of scientific evidence?
Let's face it, Climate Change is a religion for people who have none. I prefer my own religion and like to look at the facts surrounding Climate Change with a clear and objective head.
Not that I want to get to far from the topic of Climate Change, but you said below:
"Chris, the point the climate change people wanted you to believe is that it is the new religion that would save the world. So, Brisc's comments are pretty much right on with your statement." No - I disagree. The problem is religion is based on FACTLESS faith, whereas science is based on facts which anyone can go out and find for themselves, and here's the really important difference - by doing their own experiment or finding another example of whatever was found. The difference is, science allows new facts to be found and change the current thinking on something (which some love to equate to faith and belief which is another fallacy), religion will never allow that because it is written and written for good. (Well, until King James or someone else comes along but that's yet another topic.)
Can I simply ask, you are correct that faith is based on a lack of facts, but if you can explain why people have followed faith (has to be fixed and firm to have any serious meaning) for so many years (and especially our Jewish brothers who have followed from Abraham's time, again based on faith with no facts, and built themselves into an intellectual powerhouse), and has literally changed our society from the primative, which man was before the Abraham experience, to a religion based on someone's experience of scientific evidence?
Let's face it, Climate Change is a religion for people who have none. I prefer my own religion and like to look at the facts surrounding Climate Change with a clear and objective head.
Well, this year in Tucson, AZ we are about 10 degrees below normal for March. Still have feet of snow on the Catalina mountains, water has been running constantly in the washes for the last month, I haven't seen this in Tucson in the last 40 years. There may be climate change, but it sure as hell isn't warming!
A very strong El Nino, one of the strongest since recordings started in 1950. In N.Texas, the third wettest year since records have been kept...over 100 years. The climate is a strange thing indeed as well as earthquakes like the one in Chile that keeps on giving. The rotation of the earth was changed due to the mass shift. We humans are very limited in our knowledge of how climate changes over a millennia.
Thus, reasoned and scientific study and controlled experiments are the only way to resolve the issue, not by politicians and qwacks.
Garry
Thus, reasoned and scientific study and controlled experiments are the only way to resolve the issue, not by politicians and qwacks.
Garry
I'm not replying here in support of "global warming", just to point out that for every comment like this, there is one concerning another area where it is warmer than normal. This doesn't add any value. Hell, we have had a few weeks here in the Portland, OR area that have been downright beautiful! Our fruit trees started bursting buds in February...
What I'm afraid of is that all because the IPCC used poor data, all of the science world regarding this topic will be chastised. There may be those with an "agenda" in the science world, but there are plenty more with their own agendas outside the science world - namely those who don't care what repercussion their actions have.
domtoni - people have believed in gods since the beginning of man - and documented as such for thousands of years even before Christ. It's how humans operate. We had a god for everything and anything we couldn't explain. Once we found a rational explanation (due to observation and facts) those gods disappeared. Now we have one left because we can't explain where we came from. We explained away the volcanoes, wind, rain, fire, etc... we just don't have a handle on what or who we are. Once we do, that last god will also disappear. Some of us are comfortable with the fact that we just simply don't know and some of us need a god to fill that unknown. But that belief in god is based on a need, not a fact. That's the way humans are. Why have so many people followed that belief for all this time? Why have so many others NOT followed it? The one common thread between both groups is observable evidence and facts that affect our lives and for the most part better our lives. The interesting thing is that all creationist religions center around a martyr - something extremely powerful and at times dangerous (think islam) - but it's only powerful because of how people perceive it - not because of how powerful that martyr actually is or was.
To each his own.
Chris,
In the war of 1812, the British troops were burning Washington. They had burned the White House and the Library of Congress and were prepared to burn all of the public buildings to bring the great city and the symbol of our country to its knees. (Don't worry all of you fellows across the pond...this has another point). As the eye witnesses', both British and American, tell the story, a sudden storm arose, which they referred to as a 'hurricane'. Torrential winds, rain, and debris roaring about that crushed the British troops and forced a retreat. The troops were so shaken, that they marched back to the coast, boarded their ships, and left. The city was saved, since all of the fires were put out at the time of the storm.
Monroe and some members of his cabinet were about 5 miles away. As they looked back on the city from a hilltop, they saw a great funnel cloud wipe a swath through the area of the British camp. It was as they described the largest cloud of its type they had ever seen. Later, evidence of a 1/2 mile swath on destruction where the British camp was discovered. All of the cannon, wagons, tents, kitchens and ammunition had been lifted away and was either destroyed or missing, oddly with little loss of life but with a lot of debilitating injuries to the troops.
What are the odds that a tornado would hit Washington at that exact moment, in that exact place, do the damage, and then dissapear as quickly as it had arrived? In Washington,DC? As far as I know, it was the only recorded tornado in the city in recorded history.
Food for thought...could God have been protecting a country founded on the priciples of freedom of religion and the belief that all men were created equal in the eyes of the Creator?
Some things cannot be explained by science...the cooincidences are too extreme.
Garry
In the war of 1812, the British troops were burning Washington. They had burned the White House and the Library of Congress and were prepared to burn all of the public buildings to bring the great city and the symbol of our country to its knees. (Don't worry all of you fellows across the pond...this has another point). As the eye witnesses', both British and American, tell the story, a sudden storm arose, which they referred to as a 'hurricane'. Torrential winds, rain, and debris roaring about that crushed the British troops and forced a retreat. The troops were so shaken, that they marched back to the coast, boarded their ships, and left. The city was saved, since all of the fires were put out at the time of the storm.
Monroe and some members of his cabinet were about 5 miles away. As they looked back on the city from a hilltop, they saw a great funnel cloud wipe a swath through the area of the British camp. It was as they described the largest cloud of its type they had ever seen. Later, evidence of a 1/2 mile swath on destruction where the British camp was discovered. All of the cannon, wagons, tents, kitchens and ammunition had been lifted away and was either destroyed or missing, oddly with little loss of life but with a lot of debilitating injuries to the troops.
What are the odds that a tornado would hit Washington at that exact moment, in that exact place, do the damage, and then dissapear as quickly as it had arrived? In Washington,DC? As far as I know, it was the only recorded tornado in the city in recorded history.
Food for thought...could God have been protecting a country founded on the priciples of freedom of religion and the belief that all men were created equal in the eyes of the Creator?
Some things cannot be explained by science...the cooincidences are too extreme.
Garry
Chris, here is your quote.
domtoni - people have believed in gods since the beginning of man - and documented as such for thousands of years even before Christ. It's how humans operate. We had a god for everything and anything we couldn't explain. Once we found a rational explanation (due to observation and facts) those gods disappeared. Now we have one left because we can't explain where we came from. We explained away the volcanoes, wind, rain, fire, etc... we just don't have a handle on what or who we are. Once we do, that last god will also disappear. Some of us are comfortable with the fact that we just simply don't know and some of us need a god to fill that unknown. But that belief in god is based on a need, not a fact. That's the way humans are. Why have so many people followed that belief for all this time? Why have so many others NOT followed it? The one common thread between both groups is observable evidence and facts that affect our lives and for the most part better our lives. The interesting thing is that all creationist religions center around a martyr - something extremely powerful and at times dangerous (think islam) - but it's only powerful because of how people perceive it - not because of how powerful that martyr actually is or was.
To each his own.[/QUOTE]
My comments,
- belief is based on need - why then the communists tried to impose a belief system on a culture and it failed? The Nazis did the same and how many other groups (including the enviornmentalists) have tried the same without success?
- why is it that mankind in his best observable facts is unable to differentiate between good and evil (I don't need to go into examples here), and if this is the case, how did our legal system come about if those framing the laws didn't respond to a higher power and write the laws the way they did rather than in the pre-AD Roman empire?
- why is it some peoples' lives have changed, both their future direction and their past behaviour (I remember the song here of Amazing Grace, written by a slave owner) after an encounter with some mystical being or spirit?
And as Garry so rightly said natural events sometimes come to play in inexplicable ways that science cannot answer.
I am not a theologian, but one who has observed facts in life, and have seen how our lives have been changed by something inexplicable.
As you note, you are free (and I will fight for your right here) to believe what you wish.
domtoni - people have believed in gods since the beginning of man - and documented as such for thousands of years even before Christ. It's how humans operate. We had a god for everything and anything we couldn't explain. Once we found a rational explanation (due to observation and facts) those gods disappeared. Now we have one left because we can't explain where we came from. We explained away the volcanoes, wind, rain, fire, etc... we just don't have a handle on what or who we are. Once we do, that last god will also disappear. Some of us are comfortable with the fact that we just simply don't know and some of us need a god to fill that unknown. But that belief in god is based on a need, not a fact. That's the way humans are. Why have so many people followed that belief for all this time? Why have so many others NOT followed it? The one common thread between both groups is observable evidence and facts that affect our lives and for the most part better our lives. The interesting thing is that all creationist religions center around a martyr - something extremely powerful and at times dangerous (think islam) - but it's only powerful because of how people perceive it - not because of how powerful that martyr actually is or was.
To each his own.[/QUOTE]
My comments,
- belief is based on need - why then the communists tried to impose a belief system on a culture and it failed? The Nazis did the same and how many other groups (including the enviornmentalists) have tried the same without success?
- why is it that mankind in his best observable facts is unable to differentiate between good and evil (I don't need to go into examples here), and if this is the case, how did our legal system come about if those framing the laws didn't respond to a higher power and write the laws the way they did rather than in the pre-AD Roman empire?
- why is it some peoples' lives have changed, both their future direction and their past behaviour (I remember the song here of Amazing Grace, written by a slave owner) after an encounter with some mystical being or spirit?
And as Garry so rightly said natural events sometimes come to play in inexplicable ways that science cannot answer.
I am not a theologian, but one who has observed facts in life, and have seen how our lives have been changed by something inexplicable.
As you note, you are free (and I will fight for your right here) to believe what you wish.
Dom quote.
My comments,
- belief is based on need - why then the communists tried to impose a belief system on a culture and it failed? The Nazis did the same and how many other groups (including the enviornmentalists) have tried the same without success?
- why is it that mankind in his best observable facts is unable to differentiate between good and evil (I don't need to go into examples here), and if this is the case, how did our legal system come about if those framing the laws didn't respond to a higher power and write the laws the way they did rather than in the pre-AD Roman empire?
- why is it some peoples' lives have changed, both their future direction and their past behaviour (I remember the song here of Amazing Grace, written by a slave owner) after an encounter with some mystical being or spirit?
And as Garry so rightly said natural events sometimes come to play in inexplicable ways that science cannot answer.
I am not a theologian, but one who has observed facts in life, and have seen how our lives have been changed by something inexplicable.
As you note, you are free (and I will fight for your right here) to believe what you wish.[/QUOTE]
The thread is a bit off track, but I guess it could be said that Gore is the prophet of global warming. Where Mohammed was given the word by the angel Jibril, and Joseph Smith received his version from the angel Moroni, and Jesus told the appostles, Gore was approached in a dream late one winter eve by the angel Dollar.
No doubt there has been climate change going on way before humans ever roamed the earth. And that's all just fine except let's recognize that those climate changes dramatically affected how the species then in existence lived, or died. In some cases, where the climate change appears to have happened rapidly, entire species ceased to exist. Remember the dinosaurs? One well regarded theory is that they went out of existence within the span of just a few decades because of rapid climate change (associated with a large meteor strike). We should be doing all that we can to slow the pace of climate change - it's the pace of change that will be the cause of macro problems, not the fact of. If you don't think that we, as humans and technologists, can do anything about slowing the pace of change then go right ahead and keep doing what you're doing and say it's all just BS made up by a bunch of money grubbing self-interested politicians.
You watch, over the next 20-50 years, rapid climate change will bring about food shortages, revolution, isolationism, war, and nuclear terrorism. If we think our existence is any more stable or assured than the dinosaurs, then we overestimate ourselves.
You watch, over the next 20-50 years, rapid climate change will bring about food shortages, revolution, isolationism, war, and nuclear terrorism. If we think our existence is any more stable or assured than the dinosaurs, then we overestimate ourselves.
Last edited:
You watch, over the next 20-50 years, rapid climate change will bring about food shortages, revolution, isolationism, war, and nuclear terrorism. If we think our existence is any more stable or assured than the dinosaurs, then we overestimate ourselves.[/QUOTE]
I think that is the aim of the present administration!
I think that is the aim of the present administration!
That makes sense - there must be a reason why god creates all these tornados at the west coast of the US - or more recently in Hawaii. Maybe he wants to say that, in these days, if your country doesn't provide you with basic health insurance, you're miles away from equity in the eyes of the creator.
For those who don't want to put some effort into understanding science, nothing will ever be able explainable by science.
Just do me a favour people and don't teach this BS to your kids - you have the freedom to believe in whatever you want - Jesus's resurrection and his magical powers, the Flying Spaghetti Monster or that you will face a life in heaven with 7 virgins if you blow yourself up and sweep innocent citizens into their death, but please: don't teach this to our next generation. Let us do something for the future of our great country and read through some maths books. Let's make sure we don't miss out on the stochastics chapter.
I'm not sure if I should submit this post, as it sounds quite insulting. I appologise, I did not want to insult anybody. This post might not be very popular, but things need to be said.
Last edited:
With respect to global warming I'd like to say that there are many clues that the average temperature is rising due to the fact that the earth is still "recovering" from the last ice age.
but if that graph is too much of thinking, we could make circumstances a lot easier and blame it on pirates. It is a fact that global temperatures increased throughout the years while the number of pirates decreased. We have lost all of our pirates - and so have we lost the war against global warming. The end is near. May god be with us - bless you all!
but if that graph is too much of thinking, we could make circumstances a lot easier and blame it on pirates. It is a fact that global temperatures increased throughout the years while the number of pirates decreased. We have lost all of our pirates - and so have we lost the war against global warming. The end is near. May god be with us - bless you all!
Last edited:
Geeeez, I hope Al Gore doesn't see those graphs, he could get some serious mileage out of them and maybe even another nobel!
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
The CSIRO calls this proof?
<B><B>Andrew Bolt <!--X-->– Monday, March 15, 10 (10:26 am)<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com
‘’climate change is real‘’. <o
></o></I></I>
The State of the Climate snapshot, drawn together by CSIRO and the ffice:smarttags" /><?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com
Bur</st1ersonName>eau of Meteorology partly in response to recent attacks on the science underpinning climate change, shows that Australia’s mean temperature has increased 0.7 degrees since 1960. The statement also finds average daily maximum temperatures have increased every decade for the past 50 years. <o></o>
The report states that temperature observations, among others indicators, ‘’clearly demonstrate climate change is real’’, and says that CSIRO and the <st1ersonName w:st="on">Bur</st1ersonName>eau of Meteorology ‘’will continue to provide observations and research so <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1lace w:st="on">Australia</st1lace></st1:country-region>’s responses are underpinned by clear empirical data’’. <o></o>
The report also found that the 2000s were Australia’s warmest decade on record<st1ersonName w:st="on">;</st1ersonName> that sea levels rose between 1.5 and three millimetres a year in Australia’s south and east, and between seven and 10 millimetres in the north between 1993 and 2009<st1ersonName w:st="on">;</st1ersonName> and that sea surface temperatures have risen 0.4 degrees since 1960.<o></o>
Why is this surprisingly scanty propaganda pamphlet bizarre, and not quite honest? <o></o>
First, no one is doubting that “climate change is real”. Climate changes all the time. This is not the debate. <o></o>
Second, we’re talking about global warming, so why does the CSIRO and BOM’s pamphlet give only Australian temperatures? Is that because it knows that to show world temperatures stayed flat since 2001 actually casts doubt on just how much man’s gases are driving the post-mini-ice-age warming? <o></o>
Third, given the CSIRO praised the since-discredited An Inconvenient Truth, claiming ”its scientific basis is very sound”, can we really trust its advocacy science? <o></o>
Fourth, the CSIRO and BOM’s document does not address any of the recent challenges to the processes which produced the concensus that man is almost certainly to blame for most of the recent warming. Nor does it mention recent debate about adjustments made to Australian temperature records of the kind that increase the reported warming trend. <o></o>
Fifth, what’s most at issue (other than man’s contribution to any warming) is whether any warming will in fact be disastrous, and something we must spend billions to help avert. The record so far of alarmists such as Al Gore, Tim Flannery, Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, the IPCC and even the CSIRO itself is that the catastrophism is wildly exaggerated and we might often do better to keep our money in our pockets for the day that we’re called on to cope with whatever happens in the far-off future. But on this, again, this document adds zero to our understanding. <o></o>
<B><B>Andrew Bolt <!--X-->– Monday, March 15, 10 (10:26 am)<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com
></o></I></I>The State of the Climate snapshot, drawn together by CSIRO and the ffice:smarttags" /><?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com
ersonName>eau of Meteorology partly in response to recent attacks on the science underpinning climate change, shows that Australia’s mean temperature has increased 0.7 degrees since 1960. The statement also finds average daily maximum temperatures have increased every decade for the past 50 years. <o></o>The report states that temperature observations, among others indicators, ‘’clearly demonstrate climate change is real’’, and says that CSIRO and the <st1
ersonName w:st="on">Bur</st1ersonName>eau of Meteorology ‘’will continue to provide observations and research so <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1lace w:st="on">Australia</st1lace></st1:country-region>’s responses are underpinned by clear empirical data’’. <o></o>The report also found that the 2000s were Australia’s warmest decade on record<st1
ersonName w:st="on">;</st1ersonName> that sea levels rose between 1.5 and three millimetres a year in Australia’s south and east, and between seven and 10 millimetres in the north between 1993 and 2009<st1ersonName w:st="on">;</st1ersonName> and that sea surface temperatures have risen 0.4 degrees since 1960.<o></o>Why is this surprisingly scanty propaganda pamphlet bizarre, and not quite honest? <o
></o>First, no one is doubting that “climate change is real”. Climate changes all the time. This is not the debate. <o
></o>Second, we’re talking about global warming, so why does the CSIRO and BOM’s pamphlet give only Australian temperatures? Is that because it knows that to show world temperatures stayed flat since 2001 actually casts doubt on just how much man’s gases are driving the post-mini-ice-age warming? <o
></o>Third, given the CSIRO praised the since-discredited An Inconvenient Truth, claiming ”its scientific basis is very sound”, can we really trust its advocacy science? <o
></o>Fourth, the CSIRO and BOM’s document does not address any of the recent challenges to the processes which produced the concensus that man is almost certainly to blame for most of the recent warming. Nor does it mention recent debate about adjustments made to Australian temperature records of the kind that increase the reported warming trend. <o
></o>Fifth, what’s most at issue (other than man’s contribution to any warming) is whether any warming will in fact be disastrous, and something we must spend billions to help avert. The record so far of alarmists such as Al Gore, Tim Flannery, Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, the IPCC and even the CSIRO itself is that the catastrophism is wildly exaggerated and we might often do better to keep our money in our pockets for the day that we’re called on to cope with whatever happens in the far-off future. But on this, again, this document adds zero to our understanding. <o
></o>
Last edited:
Pete, Smoke and mirrors, they throw some crap against the wall and see what sticks!
