More Global Cooling/Warming/Change hoax.

“1) Glaciers have been retreating since the 18thC

Glaciologists are absolutely clear that Alaskan glaciers have been receding since the late 18thC, as the Earth began to claw its way out of the Little Ice Age. For instance, the USGS have put together this map of how the Glacier Bay glaciers have gradually retreated.

The vast majority of the glacial retreat was in the 19thC, long before SUV emissions.”

More Alarmist Nonsense About Glaciers | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
 
There's always some alternate view out there, with data as well, trying to advance the contrarian view. So it's no surprise someone can point to what looks like authoritative data and credible opinion.

The fact of the matter however is that the debate is over. Long over. Years ago. Credible authorities....in other words, the vast, vast, vast majority of scientists who study climate weather patterns (and their effect)....agreed and concluded years ago that the rapid acceleration of climate change in recent years is a direct result of environmental pollution caused by man. The data and evidence is overwhelming. That's all there is to it.
 

Larry L.

Lifetime Premier Supporter
There's always some alternate view out there, with data as well, trying to advance the contrarian view. So it's no surprise someone can point to what looks like authoritative data and credible opinion.
Exactly. And that applies to "global warming/climate change" data as well, does it not? But, with regard to that, it's been proven time and again that "global warming/climate change" data used to establish/"prove" global warming is being caused by man has often been altered/falsified/"corrected" in order to prove/back that side of the argument. That actually is inarguable.


The fact of the matter however is that the debate is over. Long over. Years ago.
Credible authorities...agreed and concluded years ago that the rapid acceleration of climate change in recent years is a direct result of environmental pollution caused by man. The data and evidence is overwhelming. That's all there is to it.
Just another 'claim' by G.W./C.C. proponents to stifle debate. True scientists always w-e-l-c-o-m-e debate on any scientific topic/theory/problem/issue in either support or opposition thereof in order to test the validity of supposedly valid "scientific conclusions" already in the books (so to speak). They don't try to stifle it. They would prefer to be proven wrong if in fact they truly are rather than continue to follow/believe/act upon a false premise.


One thing is certainly very clear. Spending t-r-i-l-l-i-o-n-s of dollars on world-wide, gov't mandated EPA rules, regs, fines and penalties to maybe - MAYBE - lower the temperature of the Earth's atmosphere 1/4 of a degree or so in about 100 years is absolute madness. A few nasty, long-lasting volcano eruptions could, in a geological heartbeat, instantly wipe out whatever 'success' those EPA mandates might have netted in that 100 years.
 
Last edited:
There's nobody trying to stifle debate. I'm just making the simple point that the debate among scientists over whether the effect of man's pollution is causing rapid acceleration of global climate change is over. Long over. The vast, vast, vast majority of scientists agree that it is.

The collective knowledge of the scientific community on this point far exceeds the non-scientific view. I trust what the scientists say over what hacks on gt40s.com (including myself) think is going on with climate change. There's no corporate conspiracy, there's no governmental conspiracy, there's no alien conspiracy. The scientific facts are in, and conclusive.
 
I am not a tree hugger or far left progressive, but I am convinced that no one has the right to fowl/poison the water, ground or the air. We are approaching 8 billion people crawling over the surface of this large blue oval. I think that some people/countries are attempting to reduce pollution and reduce and stop the effects of these pollutions. However, these efforts are being blunted by far too many areas on the planet that are continuing to pollute at abysmal levels. Whether its "we can't afford to do it right" or "we don't care to do it right", the damage continues.

When we try to regionalize corrective actions, the overall result is negated, if not overwhelmed. I'm not going to try to name the guilty, but we need to stop kidding ourselves that regional efforts are going to stop this problem. I'll leave it to others to argue/debate global warming, and continue to witness the pollution. The problem has a chance to be turned around when everyone agrees that any and all pollution is wrong.
 

Larry L.

Lifetime Premier Supporter
Well said, Tom.
Regulating and fining the crap out of wealthy countries while letting "emerging" countries SKATE pollution-wise is like believing 'no peeing zones' in swimming pools will ensure the whole pool will be urine-free.
'Stupid...stupid...stupid.
 

Nick

Bronze Supporter
Well said, Tom.
Regulating and fining the crap out of wealthy countries while letting "emerging" countries SKATE pollution-wise is like believing 'no peeing zones' in swimming pools will ensure the whole pool will be urine-free.
'Stupid...stupid...stupid.
So lucky for them, that the wealthy countries managed to emerge and get rich "SKATE pollution-wise" whilst avoiding regulation and fines before deciding it is now important for emerging countries to do as they say not what they did.
 

Larry L.

Lifetime Premier Supporter
ISN'T IT though.

'Great rationalization, Nick...but you're passing judgment on how "wealthy countries" avoided EPA regulations during THEIR industrial "emergence" as though the environmental standards/concerns of today should have applied back then, and therefore TODAY'S industries should be forced to be placed at a 'cost' disadvantage to make up for it ex post facto! NONE of today's EPA mandates were even on a-n-y-b-o-d-y'-s radar back then.

That same sort of 'thinking/logic' is behind the condemnation of the USA for allowing slavery back in the day and demanding that TODAY'S taxpayers pay REPARATIONS to the offspring of former slaves when, back THEN, slavery was also a widely accepted practice. 'Taxing' DESCENDANTS of slave owners who've never owned slaves to pay reparations to people who've never BEEN slaves is just plain N-U-T-S.

But, TODAY pollution is pollution (real or imagined) and it ought not make any diff WHO'S doing it. No country should get a 'mulligan' legal consequences-wise simply because it's "late to the party". (Pollution aside: at a very MINIMUM one of the economic consequences of doing that would be to hand the industries in "emerging countries" a h-u-g-e competitive advantage production cost-wise. And what might that prompt our domestic industries to do in 'self-defense'? Riiiiight. Find a way to locate offshore.)

Thus spoke Zarathustra...
 
Last edited:

Nick

Bronze Supporter
That same sort of 'thinking/logic' is behind the condemnation of the USA for allowing slavery back in the day and demanding that TODAY'S taxpayers pay REPARATIONS to the offspring of former slaves when, back THEN, slavery was also a widely accepted practice. 'Taxing' DESCENDANTS of slave owners who've never owned slaves to pay reparations to people who've never BEEN slaves is just plain N-U-T-S.


Thus spoke Zarathustra...
No not really the same at all, you are comparing apples with oranges and saying they are the same in my opinion.

Leaving CO2 omissions aside as you don't believe they are a problem omissions of which the US is second to China, I believe the USA is still one of the main polluters on the planet and has been for decades. Whats more as I discovered when I ran my business like many of the rich countries they pay to export their pollution to the developing countries.
 
Last edited:

Larry L.

Lifetime Premier Supporter
No not really the same at all, you are comparing apples with oranges and saying they are the same in my opinion.
Obviously I disagree. BOTH positions are born of 20/20 hindsight and demand that punitive ex post facto 'remedies' be applied to current people/businesses to 'make amends'.

Leaving CO2 omissions aside as you don't believe they are a problem omissions of which the US is second to China, I believe the USA is still one of the main polluters on the planet and has been for decades. Whats more as I discovered when I ran my business like many of the rich countries they pay to export their pollution to the developing countries.
Have you seen photos of factory towns in G.B. during the Industrial Revolution, Nick...'pollution so thick one couldn't see across the street ('slight exaggeration to illustrate a point)? Get out your wallet...


1533909910033.jpeg

1533910038759.jpeg

 
Last edited:
It's interesting that we spend so much time re-hashing history and either justifying/condemning current conditions. I'm very interested in historical facts but have long abdicated the necessity to prosecute those in contemporary times. Again, I reiterate that today no one has the right to pollute. Those of you who continue to hold the sons of fathers who have committed offenses will remain unsatisfied and unwilling to address the real problems of today. Don't care who did what to whom, if you don't bring a solution, then you are part of the problem.
 

Nick

Bronze Supporter
It's interesting that we spend so much time re-hashing history and either justifying/condemning current conditions. I'm very interested in historical facts but have long abdicated the necessity to prosecute those in contemporary times. Again, I reiterate that today no one has the right to pollute. Those of you who continue to hold the sons of fathers who have committed offenses will remain unsatisfied and unwilling to address the real problems of today. Don't care who did what to whom, if you don't bring a solution, then you are part of the problem.
I actually agree, I was playing devils advocate to a certain extent and trying to show that when you point your finger at someone else there are 3 fingers pointing back at you, Physician, heal thyself?
 
Top