Global Warming?

Global Warming/Climate Change is....

  • Real and man-made

    Votes: 11 12.6%
  • Real but not mans' fault

    Votes: 31 35.6%
  • A complete load of hooey

    Votes: 45 51.7%

  • Total voters
    87
  • Poll closed .
LOL, I love some of the replies in the thread. Entertaining...

Yes, climate change exists. There are periods of warming, and periods of cooling. We are now starting to enter a period of cooling.

Of course that was caused by the previous period of supposed warming though. It's all about the warming when you boil it down.
 
in my opinion it doesn't matter if it is man made or not, we should still be working to stop pumping out so much carbon dioxide because that shit is making the oceans acidic

Ya, that's what I'm worried about.. CO2 is fine for the atmosphere, it's great for trees, but the ocean and it's creatures seem to not be liking it so much, based on what I've read.
 
in my opinion it doesn't matter if it is man made or not, we should still be working to stop pumping out so much carbon dioxide because that shit is making the oceans acidic

WTF
, :confused::eek:

OMG , that is so ridiculous I don't even know where to begin.

I vote for Hooey
 
Global Warming?

89_winter_driveway.jpeg


Looking forward to it. :cool:
 
There's another option that wasn't included in the poll: Real, but only partially man's fault.
 
A new theory has been developed that is more acurately predicting global warming and cooling periods and deals primarily with the solar activity of the sun. In short the more solar activity the warmer it gets and the less solar activity the cooler it gets. Currently more research is being done by CERN in an experiment that looks at cosmic rays, clouds and climate. In the past it has been found that cosmic rays consisting of charged particles react with the atmosphere causing aerosols (tiny particles suspended in the air that seed cloud droplets). These cloud droplets formed by the reaction of cosmic charged particles and the atmosphere increase the amount of global cloud coverage. As a result of the increased global cloud coverage the mean temperature of the Earth decreases causing global cooling. However during times of high solar activity the amount of cosmic rays entering Earth's atmosphere dramatically reduces which in turn causes less cloud coverage and as a result global warming. Here is the CERN article on the experiment.

http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/spotlight/SpotlightCloud-en.html.

In order to see the cosmic rays react you must look into a cloud chamber, which is just a container filled with a cloud,
here is a video link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kuzWNOUqLmQ.

The lines that form in the clouds are actually cosmic particles which oddly enough are tiny enough to pass straight through the Earth and consist of protons, alpha particles and beta minus particles.


This theory has been proven to be more accurate as it explains why carbon dioxide levels increase only after temperature has increased and decrease only after temperature has decreased, a time chart plotting the two will show this. This is because at higher temperatures more carbon dioxide can diffuse out of bodies of water and at cooler temperatures more carbon dioxide can diffuse back into water. (Side note 2/3 of the Earth is covered in oceans) Just as all of the cells of our body produce carbon dioxide which is carried out through veins and then diffuses out of the blood in the lungs as we begin to exhale. The theory also explains why the temperature of the troposphere is much lower than would be predicted by the theory of carbon dioxide driven global warming. Also it is important to note that temperature increases on Earth happen after increased solar activity and temperature decreases on Earth occur after decreased solar activity, a chart plotting the two with respect to time will show this.

Of course carbon dioxide is a green house gas but only 3-4 % is man made.
The list of green house gasses include:
Water vapor (H2O)
Carbon dioxide (CO2)
Methane (CH4)
Nitrous oxide (N2O)
Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6)
Chlorinated fluorocarbons (CFC's)

It is important to note that Methane is as much as 10 times more effective in trapping in heat within the atmosphere as carbon dioxide and the large abundance of methane is produced by natural animal emissions (so stop farting (lol)). It is also important to understand that cosmic ray induced global warming and carbon dioxide induced global warming are simply theories and will only last until a better theory comes about. Remember a theory can never be proven 100% but only disproven when better theories come about and as one theory is decidedly more accurate in making predictions than another it becomes adopted by society and the cycle continues forever (in theory (lol)).

However too many seem to take the prevention of global warming to extreme measures even the UN imposes sanctions on third world nations urging them not to develop however this causes an area of extreme controversity. The price of third world nations not being allowed to develop causes high death rates in children as well as a lower expected age of death in adults. The libertarian side of me already wants out of the UN and this just furthers my frustration with global organizations. What right is it of first world nations telling third world nations not to develop, not to use your resources, not to have running water or electricity, it utterly sickens me. Further whether or not global warming is man made how can any government attempt to regulate the emmisions of carbon dioxide or methane for that matter without taking the form of a tyrannical nanny state. Recently an article in the British Medical Journal suggests that a limit of two children per family should be adopted to combat global warming.

Link
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/245...-two-children-'to-combat-climate-change'.html

In closing arguments, everyone should understand both theories and decide for yourself. I have made the conclusion that cosmic ray induced global warming makes more sense to me but that may not be the case for you (so as libertarians believe) do, say, or believe in whatever you want.


For referenence on the two theories watch

-The Great Global Warming Swindle
which can be seen in a video at the bottom of the below link
http://www.global-warming-and-the-climate.com/

or watch

-An Inconvenient Truth
 
global warming is actually an incorrect way to label this issue, industry based climate change would be more accurate.


This is the only issue with Ron Paul, IMO, his system of ideals really does not favor an environmental perspective. Capatalism and our marketplace does not care about the environment, only marginal gain. For states rights and individual liberties, Dr. Paul is dead on... but what one must not forget is that when our founding fathers wrote the constitution, there was zero consideration for the natural environment and lets face it, we live in a time where industry has almost reached its carrying capacity and we do need become more sustainable. Sustainable refering to the entire spectrum, the environment, the economy, public policies, state policies, etc. .... in order to continue our lifestyle and preserve the systematic freedoms for future genrations, we allocate the market from solely relaying on finite resources.


Its a hard issue because the earth has been going through cycles and a lot worse things than the overall temperature going up 1.5' F. This is true and I can see how easy it is to take that side to a) avoid feeling responsibility or b) actually change. But it is naive on our part to think that we don't affect the planet.

Cheers
 
global warming is actually an incorrect way to label this issue, industry based climate change would be more accurate.


This is the only issue with Ron Paul, IMO, his system of ideals really does not favor an environmental perspective. Capatalism and our marketplace does not care about the environment, only marginal gain. For states rights and individual liberties, Dr. Paul is dead on... but what one must not forget is that when our founding fathers wrote the constitution, there was zero consideration for the natural environment and lets face it, we live in a time where industry has almost reached its carrying capacity and we do need become more sustainable. Sustainable refering to the entire spectrum, the environment, the economy, public policies, state policies, etc. .... in order to continue our lifestyle and preserve the systematic freedoms for future genrations, we allocate the market from solely relaying on finite resources.


Its a hard issue because the earth has been going through cycles and a lot worse things than the overall temperature going up 1.5' F. This is true and I can see how easy it is to take that side to a) avoid feeling responsibility or b) actually change. But it is naive on our part to think that we don't affect the planet.

Cheers

I am guessing that you have been brainwashed by the UN Agenda 21 Global Government Propaganda.
Your post is laced with repeatable "buzz" words.
Sustainable Development= One World Govt. run by the "enlightened" few.
 
Last edited:
global warming is actually an incorrect way to label this issue, industry based climate change would be more accurate.


This is the only issue with Ron Paul, IMO, his system of ideals really does not favor an environmental perspective. Capatalism and our marketplace does not care about the environment, only marginal gain. For states rights and individual liberties, Dr. Paul is dead on... but what one must not forget is that when our founding fathers wrote the constitution, there was zero consideration for the natural environment and lets face it, we live in a time where industry has almost reached its carrying capacity and we do need become more sustainable. Sustainable refering to the entire spectrum, the environment, the economy, public policies, state policies, etc. .... in order to continue our lifestyle and preserve the systematic freedoms for future genrations, we allocate the market from solely relaying on finite resources.


Its a hard issue because the earth has been going through cycles and a lot worse things than the overall temperature going up 1.5' F. This is true and I can see how easy it is to take that side to a) avoid feeling responsibility or b) actually change. But it is naive on our part to think that we don't affect the planet.

http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/5205.aspx

Watch this series of videos, please. :)
 
no you idiot... lets break this down

sus·tain·a·ble (s-stn-bl)
adj.
1. Capable of being sustained.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sustainable



first off, I'm not talking about a global government, but now that your bring it up, you can't even have a global government without the environment.


but I am talking about our economy and policies... and about the last 10 years, wow, the earth has been around billions of years, humans for thousands of years, if that were the case, which it is not, that is not enough time to determine anything. Actually, if you look at data from the last 100 years, it is more obvious that the temperature is increasing at such a rate that coincides with the growth of the global economy.
 
no you idiot... lets break this down

sus·tain·a·ble (s-stn-bl)
adj.
1. Capable of being sustained.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sustainable



first off, I'm not talking about a global government, but now that your bring it up, you can't even have a global government without the environment.


but I am talking about our economy and policies... and about the last 10 years, wow, the earth has been around billions of years, humans for thousands of years, if that were the case, which it is not, that is not enough time to determine anything. Actually, if you look at data from the last 100 years, it is more obvious that the temperature is increasing at such a rate that coincides with the growth of the global economy.

Bullshit, and more bullshit.

It may look true from a view form the inner city, and some writing by "so called" experts.
I have traveled this land from coast to coast, up and down. and have seen some ( a small part) of the larger world.

Bullshit

2 posts and I'm an idiot? Yeah OK.
 
Last edited:
ok ok ...

sorry i called you an idiot. but it is too easy to just to say bullshit.

I don't know where you have this inner city idea from, but I live in Vermont and have seen this country up and down, and seeing the country is exactly why I am worried.

this is not a matter of government controlling our lives, this is about us being responsible for our actions and understanding that we actually impact the natural environment.
 
Some more information to consider.
http://www.amerikanexpose.com/agenda21/
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1335656/posts

I keep waiting, and waiting, and waiting for Bill O’Reilly or Shaun Hannity or Oprah Winfrey or somebody…..anybody, who has daily access to the multitudes, to say the words, “Agenda 21.” I’m still waiting, and for the life of me, I don’t understand the refusal to talk about the greatest threat to America that has ever existed. However, it dawns on me that wrapping a brain around Agenda 21 requires time, effort, interest, and a lot diligence. No one told me about Agenda 21. I found it by accident on the Internet. Then I went to the U.N.’s website and read Agenda 21. From there I went to Buenos Aires, The President’s Commission of Sustainable Development, my local sustainable development commissions and planners, to local visioning commissions, ecology conglomerates, and then back to the U.N.. After about six months of reading about a whole lot of global, national, and philanthropic organizations, I started documenting and keeping running lists because, I discovered, Agenda 21 was huge, highly developed, and a done deal. “How is it,” I asked myself, “that in 50 years, I never heard of any of this before? Where were my trusted newscasters? And why hasn’t my President, or the previous Presidents, ever talked about Agenda 21, the meetings in Buenos Aires, and Agenda 21’s connections to the World Trade Organization, World Bank, and a thousand other global organizations?”

So, I kept researching the Net. And lo and behold, I finally realized that Agenda 21 would never be publicized to Americans. It really can’t be.

There is so much information available and so many sites that go into the Junk science of Global warming theories that I am not going to start posting links here. They are posted elsewhere in a hundred threads on the subject.
It is Junk science at best. In a word Bullshit.
 
show me


please...


i can give just as many that will show you the other perspective.
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cU-bVSAhw8

http://www.chrisjordan.com/


.... America consumes 5,000,000 plastic bottles every 5 minutes EVERY DAY!!!

I have no idea if Global Cilmate Change is real or not, but I do know that we over consume to the most extreme degree and industry is extremly inefficient and dirty.


believe what you want about global warming, but you idealistic views are naive to think our actions have no consequences.
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cU-bVSAhw8

http://www.chrisjordan.com/


.... America consumes 5,000,000 plastic bottles every 5 minutes EVERY DAY!!!

I have no idea if Global Cilmate Change is real or not, but I do know that we over consume to the most extreme degree and industry is extremly inefficient and dirty.


believe what you want about global warming, but you idealistic views are naive to think our actions have no consequences.

Umm...you do realise that Plastic is merely a polymer of Hydrocarbons, don't you? Its ORGANIC. Basically its the same stuff as we are (we are organic because we are a CARBON-based lifeform). This shit exists inside the Earth in a slightly different form, but its still essentially carbon.
 
Back
Top