here is another with lot of pesky facts.. As a young boy, my seventh-grade science teacher said that we are entering in a global cooling phase. It is that statement that stuck in my mind. It wasn't until the year 2000, global warming became a hot issue. Without conclusive evidence, society became engross to kill carbon dioxide emission. Currently, the narrative from the global warming mongers are saying as global temperatures have warmed (due to CO2) and as Arctic sea ice has melted over the past two and a half decades, more moisture has become available to fall as snow over the continents. That statement is true, but the global warming idiots forgot a very important fact. Greenhouse gases make up no more than 2 percent of the Earth’s atmosphere. Of that 2 percent, 3.64% of the Greenhouse Gases in the Atmosphere is Carbon Dioxide (CO2). Humans are responsible for about one-quarter of 1 percent of the greenhouse effect. Therefore, if carbon dioxide was the cause of global warming, it can be safe to assume that the cause was of natural source of CO2 (degradation of organic materials) than man-made. (Investor Business Daily) Climate: Nothing makes fools of more people than trying to predict the weather. Whether in Los Angeles or London, recent predictions have gone crazily awry. Global warming? How about mini ice age? A cautionary tale? You bet. Prognosticators who wrote the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, global warming report in 2007 predicted an inevitable, century-long rise in global temperatures of two degrees or more. Only higher temperatures were foreseen. Moderate or even lower temperatures, as we're experiencing now, weren't even listed as a possibility. Since at least 1998, however, no significant warming trend has been noticeable. Unfortunately, none of the 24 models used by the IPCC views that as possible. They are at odds with reality. Unfortunately, the prophets of climate doom violate this idea. No matter what happens, it always confirms their basic premise that the world is getting hotter. The weather turns cold and wet? It's global warming, they say. Weather turns hot? Global warming. No change? Global warming. More hurricanes? Global warming. No hurricanes? You guessed it. Got that? No matter what the weather, it's all due to warming. This isn't science; it's a kind of faith. Scientists go along and even stifle dissent because, frankly, hundreds of millions of dollars in research grants are at stake. But for the believers, global warming is the god that failed. This is what global warming is really about — wealth redistribution by people whose beliefs are basically socialist. It has little or nothing to do with climate. If it did, we might pay more attention to Piers Corbyn, a little-known British meteorologist and astrophysicist who has a knack for correctly predicting weather changes. Indeed, as London's Mayor Boris Johnson recently noted, "He seems to get it right about 85% of the time." How does he do it? Unlike the U.N. and government forecasters, Corbyn pays close attention to solar cycles that, as it turns out, correlate very closely to changes in climate. Not only are we not headed for global warming, Corbyn says, we may be entering a "mini ice age" similar to the one that took place from 1450 A.D. to 1850 A.D. Conservative Views for the Grassroots: Its not Global Warming, We are Entering in a Mini Ice Age
remember science is not always right it often contradicts it's self when new information comes to light... as in what was once an absolute is proven to be incorrect, it happens all the time and has been happening all through human history, and will continue from now on..
the last link I posted was full of sources easily searched.... I will add this global warming at least a little bit of warming is far more desirable then global cooling, long term cooling would be far more disastrous to our food sources ..
I would like to see some scientific evidence of what you are trying to argue. Reading 15 paragraphs of text from a conservative website does nothing in this argument. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think the biggest proponent against global warming is the repeated observation of warming and cooling back and forth since they started monitoring it. We had a few decades of cooling not long after major countries became industrialized. If all that unregulated CO2 emission was flat out new and multiplied exponentially for 20-30 years yet we ended up going into a cooling for 20 years it's kind of hard to argue since we've already observed it before. Of course that's not to dismiss anything, we should all be stewards of the earth and learn to make sure we are taking care of it.
It's been cold as hell the last two years in Michigan. What does this mean? I have no idea, it's just cold.
What about it...? And the Nat Geo wasn't trying to prove or disprove anything. It was an article about people. Not science.
Oh we do we recycle much more than we did in the past, we subsidize the collection of materials we mandate recycling. Then China buys up all the materials and burns it as a fuel source.
That is part of the problem and using "facts" from the internet. Depending how you word your search you can find "facts" to support either side of the argument you want to believe.
I wasn't limiting it to just recycling. If we find that there's a better method to drill oil or extract resources, etc., that doesn't cause earthly harm then we should do it that way. I'm no tree-hugger but I certainly don't want this earth shoulder to shoulder with people and covered in concrete, so I am against this recent trend of building sub-divisions and over-sized buildings at the expense of forest and wildlife when they aren't even filled. These houses sit empty for years. A company goes out of business and instead of another company moving in, they build a brand new building next to a completely vacant one. It's ridiculous and a waste of resources.
I generally will take any scientific article seriously if it provides links and/or sites actual scientific studies or peer reviewed articles.
Hooker, while I agree that we should study the issue and ensure that we are making the correct decisions, I know you are aware that we have spent millions if not billions studying this already. The reason there is so much controversy is the, as you correctly say, the "politicizing" of the issue which I think Germ was attempting to make the same argument. The old adage of "figures don't lie but liars figure" probably applies here. Any side can take the data and manipulate and interpolate the data to match a desired outcome. Does the climate change, sure it does. It is inevitable and has been an historical fact since the worlds existance. The real question is man damaging or harming the climate to an extent that it is going to cause a global catastrophe. In my opinion the answer to that is a resounding NO. As I have already demonstrated these claims of doom and gloom have never been correct, carbon dioxide emmissions from one volcanic eruption does more than all the coal fired plants emit in decades if not centuries. Don't get me wrong, I think that emmissions controls that we have initiated in the past with these plants have reduced smog, improved the air clarity and improved the quality of the air but the incremental change for new controls and the cost of those changes are not cost effective nor will they be particularly beneficial for their intended purpose and they have the intended political purpose of choosing a much more expensive form of energy than what we are currently utilizing which I feel is not in the best interest of our society. Climate change is naturally occurring and will continue no matter what mankind does. There is a great deal of hubris involved in thinking that we, after only 7,000 years, have the ability to change patterns that have been occurring for millions of years. If you believe the science, 1 asteroid and we don't have to worry about it anyway.
Facts we can see The Glaciers in Glacier Park are disappearing. The Polar Ice Caps cover less area than 50 years ago. The earth is warmer than it was 50 years ago, are we part of the problem or is this climates natural up's and downs. I am not smart enough to know, Hooker does have great insight IMO. I have enjoyed his post on the matter.
