Global Warming/Climate Change Discussion Thread

[Sam48]

May I just state again that we cannot distinguish out own contribution from that of nearly ever other factor that plays into a change in climate (Discovered and undiscovered). I don't like repeating myself, but that statement alone should end the debate.

Could any AGW believers of any sort tell me why they disagree with that statement?

 

[Touring Mars]

Could any AGW believers of any sort tell me why they disagree with that statement?

Because it is just a statement. You've provided absolutely no evidence whatsoever to back it up, and therefore it is almost impossible not to disagree with it.

The fact that you seem to think that making trite statements like that - in spite of a vast wealth of scientific research that might contradict you - is enough to 'end the debate' is stunningly, stupifyingly arrogant.

How do you differentiate "good natural" CO2 & other hydrocarbons from "bad capitalist" CO2 & other hydrocarbons?

A revealing statement indeed. Is it too much to ask to treat the issue of climate change as a scientific one, without resorting to bringing politics and ideology into it? As a matter of fact, attribution of atmospheric CO2 is relatively straightforward. It is an incontrovertible fact that human activity ("capitalist" or otherwise) is atleast partially (and most likely mostly) responsible for the recent increase of CO2 levels in the atmosphere (and oceans)...

 

[homeforsummer]

I don't like repeating myself, but that statement alone should end the debate.

"And if I stick my fingers in my ears and repeat myself enough times, what I'm saying must be right"

For the record, note my selection in the poll. "Global warming is occurring, but the causes are not known". I think AGM is possible, but I can't say in what proportion and I certainly wouldn't be blinkered enough to say it's the only cause. Though that does rule me out from being blinkered enough to deny it has any impact.

 

[BrutherSuperior]

The only reason the alternate argument exists is because a lot of people are too bloody minded to accept an alternative, and too selfish to care.

That 50% number you tossed out has no bearing in reality. Who took inventory? Tough to say you've used 50% of something if you don't know what you started with.

Furthermore, this discounts man's ingenuity.

You've said before that EV technology will make everything less expensive in the future as batteries will become more advanced. Now why can't the same exist for petroleum just like it has for every other resource?

If there's a finite amount of oil, there isn't but let's pretend, why can't the same be said for the materials used in the manufacturing of electrical motors and batteries? Got an answer for that? Sure you do but for some cult-like reason it does not apply to oil or any other cheap form of energy.

Seriously, think this through and read about the Simon–Ehrlich wager.

The whole notion that "we're going to run out of XYZ" is really based on mysticism and completely disregards the individual as a rational and creative entity. The answer to any man made global oil/warming crisis is freedom and not governments doing what they think is for the greater good.

 

[Touring Mars]

For the record, note my selection in the poll. "Global warming is occurring, but the causes are not known". I think AGM is possible, but I can't say in what proportion and I certainly wouldn't be blinkered enough to say it's the only cause. Though that does rule me out from being blinkered enough to deny it has any impact.

I should also point out that I would have changed my vote to the last option...

I created the poll, but I realised some time later that the first option is probably a bit too strong and that 'human activity plays a significant role' reflects some people's opinions (including my own) more accurately.

 

[homeforsummer]

That 50% number you tossed out has no bearing in reality. Who took inventory? Tough to say you've used 50% of something if you don't know what you started with.

Which is why I repeatedly used terms like "theoretically". I used the 50% figure to illustrate a point.

Furthermore, this discounts man's ingenuity.

You've said before that EV technology will make everything less expensive in the future as batteries will become more advanced. Now why can't the same exist for petroleum just like it has for every other resource?

The issue is in finding solutions at a rate that allows us to consume at the same pace. I don't doubt that humankind will find better ways of extracting oil, but how long will that take, and what price will oil have reached in the meantime?

I'd like you to find where I've said that EV tech will make things less expensive, too. I don't believe I've ever alluded to anything of the sort. EV tech itself will get less expensive, but I've never claimed it will bring down the cost of living.

If there's a finite amount of oil, there isn't but let's pretend, why can't the same be said for the materials used in the manufacturing of electrical motors and batteries? Got an answer for that? Sure you do but for some cult-like reason it does not apply to oil or any other cheap form of energy.

Apart from anything else, rare earth metals are recyclable. Oil is not.

It amazes me that you think oil is an infinite resource. Really?

The whole notion that "we're going to run out of XYZ" is really based on mysticism and completely disregards the individual as a rational and creative entity. The answer to any man made global oil/warming crisis is freedom and not governments doing what they think is for the greater good.

The freedom argument daft. It's one used by people who believe that sustainability and reducing consumption is a by-word for having our privileges taken away. In other words, people who think it's their right to consume more than the next guy.

Aside from all of that, feel free to continue replying only if you're prepared to drop your political and ideological agenda and discuss actual science. So far you've proven yourself unable to separate the two.

 

[BrutherSuperior]

The freedom argument daft. It's one used by people who believe that sustainability and reducing consumption is a by-word for having our privileges taken away. In other words, people who think it's their right to consume more than the next guy.

I have a right to consume whatever I pay for...just like the next guy.

Aside from all of that, feel free to continue replying only if you're prepared to drop your political and ideological agenda and discuss actual science. So far you've proven yourself unable to separate the two.

Like your religious agenda? Yes, environmentalism is a religion, cult really, in which the following article and those involved with the science will be looked down upon as heretics;

CERN's 8,000 scientists may not be able to find the hypothetical Higgs boson, but they have made an important contribution to climate physics, prompting climate models to be revised.

The first results from the lab's CLOUD ("Cosmics Leaving OUtdoor Droplets") experiment published in Nature today confirm that cosmic rays spur the formation of clouds through ion-induced nucleation. Current thinking posits that half of the Earth's clouds are formed through nucleation. The paper is entitled Role of sulphuric acid, ammonia and galactic cosmic rays in atmospheric aerosol nucleation.

This has significant implications for climate science because water vapour and clouds play a large role in determining global temperatures. Tiny changes in overall cloud cover can result in relatively large temperature changes.

Unsurprisingly, it's a politically sensitive topic, as it provides support for a "heliocentric" rather than "anthropogenic" approach to climate change: the sun plays a large role in modulating the quantity of cosmic rays reaching the upper atmosphere of the Earth.

From here

 

[Sam48]

Because it is just a statement. You've provided absolutely no evidence whatsoever to back it up, and therefore it is almost impossible not to disagree with it.

My statement had no evidence because it fills the gap between current evidence and lack of it as it's practically general knowledge.

The fact that you seem to think that making trite statements like that - in spite of a vast wealth of scientific research that might contradict you - is enough to 'end the debate' is stunningly, stupifyingly arrogant.

And if I had claimed the earth was round several thousands of years ago, I would have been stoned to death. The fact is, science doesn't prove anything, as I've stated before. Plus, I didn't contradict anything in my statement. I simply implied that science has a very long way to go in terms of the theory of man-made global warming.

 

[homeforsummer]

I have a right to consume whatever I pay for...just like the next guy.

I don't dispute that, but there's a difference between consuming because you can afford to and consuming without regard for consequences.

If there was a pile of bread in front of you and a person starving to death to your side, you'd be well within your rights to buy the bread as you'd earned money to do so, but it wouldn't make it the right thing to do.

Same goes for any natural resource. If you can afford to fill your car then you have the right to the petrol you buy, but many people assume that absolves them of the right to other peoples' future.

Like your religious agenda? Yes, environmentalism is a religion, cult really, in which the following article and those involved with the science will be looked down upon as heretics;

You don't have to be a hemp-panted wet liberal leftie environmentalist (as I'm sure you believe I am, judging by the way in which you respond to me) to believe that there's a possibility that AGM could be real.

I wouldn't be on a car forum, nor would I be a motoring journalist, if I deplored the idea of the pollution they produce.

The difference between us is that you're unable to separate it from what you're prepared to believe scientifically, whereas I'm happy to admit that there is evidence both for and against, whilst ideologically I like the idea of living in a world where people don't needlessly consume.

 

[BrutherSuperior]

My statement had no evidence because it fills the gap between current evidence and lack of it as it's practically general knowledge.



And if I had claimed the earth was round several thousands of years ago, I would have been stoned to death. The fact is, science doesn't prove anything, as I've stated before. Plus, I didn't contradict anything in my statement. I simply implied that science has a very long way to go in terms of the theory of man-made global warming.

Euclid claimed the Earth was round several thousand years ago...he did alright and people have been taught from his book "Elements" ever since he penned it.

The problem with science is that it does not always correlate perfectly with the real world b/c of variables. Most engineers will tell you that there's a difference between what exists on paper and what occurs outside the lab. The devil is really in the details and some climate scientists accidentally on purpose omit them.

The difference between us is that you're unable to separate it from what you're prepared to believe scientifically, whereas I'm happy to admit that there is evidence both for and against, whilst ideologically I like the idea of living in a world where people don't needlessly consume.

That sounds a bit flaky.

Needless consumption by individuals does not and can not occur as individuals place value in different things & services. For instance, the benefit of charitable giving usually isn't a tangible good yet it has value to the giver otherwise they wouldn't open their pocketbook.

Likewise, someone buying a Ferrari may be seen as being wasteful. However, to the salesman, who received a commission, and the service technicians who will maintain that car for a wage; that's their livelihood. Is that purchase such a waste? I don't think so at all.

I can't think of 1 transaction in which both parties did not benefit in some way. With that, how can there be waste if there's a benefit?

 

[Sam48]

Euclid claimed the Earth was round several thousand years ago...he did alright and people have been taught from his book "Elements" ever since he penned it.

Yes, I know. It was a Jeremy Clarkson quote.

 

[homeforsummer]

That sounds a bit flaky.

Needless consumption by individuals does not and can not occur as individuals place value in different things & services. For instance, the benefit of charitable giving usually isn't a tangible good yet it has value to the giver otherwise they wouldn't open their pocketbook.

Likewise, someone buying a Ferrari may be seen as being wasteful. However, to the salesman, who received a commission, and the service technicians who will maintain that car for a wage; that's their livelihood. Is that purchase such a waste? I don't think so at all.

I can't think of 1 transaction in which both parties did not benefit in some way. With that, how can there be waste if there's a benefit?

I understand what you're saying but my take on it is if two things make you equally happy (say, two identical cars, or two identical houses) but one of each uses less energy, would you deliberately choose the less efficient one for any reason?

I personally wouldn't - if I had a choice between two cars with identical styling, equipment, performance etc but one did 10mpg better than the other and polluted 20% less, that'd be the one I'd choose. Apart from the fact it'd save me money to spend on other stuff (probably buying more cars, if I'm honest), I like the idea that I wouldn't be contributing more than necessary to pollution or the use of excess resources.

However, I get the feeling that people who exist would choose the higher consuming of the otherwise identical cars simply because they feel it's their right with no scruples for possible impact on future generations. Sure, the oil companies would see the benefit of the customer spending more on fuel, but then you've got the environmental argument of extra pollution, and the political argument of the fact that a lot of that money is going to countries who can't always be trusted.

As an aside, I rarely consider people who buy supercars to be wasteful. Apart from anything, they're rarely used daily and their factories are small so global impact tends to be low. I'd consider it much worse buying an econobox and using it to drive 100 yards down the road to a shop every day because the driver is too bone-idle to walk.

 

[Sam48]

I understand what you're saying but my take on it is if two things make you equally happy (say, two identical cars, or two identical houses) but one of each uses less energy, would you deliberately choose the less efficient one for any reason?

I'd choose the more efficient one because I could probably save money on my energy bills if I did so. However, I wouldn't do this because I believe I am actually "being green". In the end, it should be my choice.

I personally wouldn't - if I had a choice between two cars with identical styling, equipment, performance etc but one did 10mpg better than the other and polluted 20% less, that'd be the one I'd choose.

I've never heard of two cars with identical styling, equipment, performance etc, yet one's better in terms of mpg and "pollutes" less. This is because you left out the most important factor, the cost. If it costs more to drive what you claim to be the better one, I wouldn't pay up. The fact is, you're environmental impact, regardless of what you buy, is so extremely small it won't matter. Did you also consider that the more efficient car probably took more energy to build as well?

However, I get the feeling that people who exist would choose the higher consuming of the otherwise identical cars simply because they feel it's their right with no scruples for possible impact on future generations.

Maybe they have a different set of beliefs.

Sure, the oil companies would see the benefit of the customer spending more on fuel, but then you've got the environmental argument of extra pollution, and the political argument of the fact that a lot of that money is going to countries who can't always be trusted.

As an aside, I rarely consider people who buy supercars to be wasteful. Apart from anything, they're rarely used daily and their factories are small so global impact tends to be low. I'd consider it much worse buying an econobox and using it to drive 100 yards down the road to a shop every day because the driver is too bone-idle to walk.

Why are you concerned about our "impact"?

 

[homeforsummer]

I'd choose the more efficient one because I could probably save money on my energy bills if I did so. However, I wouldn't do this because I believe I am actually "being green". In the end, it should be my choice.

So you'd happy, everything else being equal, to pollute more given the choice?

I've never heard of two cars with identical styling, equipment, performance etc, yet one's better in terms of mpg and "pollutes" less. This is because you left out the most important factor, the cost. If it costs more to drive what you claim to be the better one, I wouldn't pay up. The fact is, you're environmental impact, regardless of what you buy, is so extremely small it won't matter. Did you also consider that the more efficient car probably took more energy to build as well?

I'm glad you understood I was talking hypothetically to illustrate a point

And you're right, individual impact does very little. Multiply that by a billion cars or a hundred thousand power stations and the impact becomes much greater. Problems only arise when everyone thinks "well, it won't make a difference if I don't do anything".

Individual effort = little effect.
Collective effort = large effect.

Unfortunately, we live in a society where people don't give a toss. Even if AGM was scientifically confirmed, the people who don't believe in it now wouldn't change their ways.

As for using more energy to create, studies have shown that after only about four or five years at 10k miles a year an average hybrid will have compensated for it's entire energy production over a regular car. I'm not saying everyone should start driving hybrids because not everyone wants to, but it certainly rubbishes the assumption that they're somehow worse than regular cars.

Maybe they have a different set of beliefs.

Wilfully choosing to pollute rather than choosing not to isn't a set of beliefs, it's cretinous. It's like dropping your soda can on the floor instead of in the trash can next to you simply because you can.

Pollution as an unavoidable by product of doing something? Can't be helped. Actually saying you'd rather pollute than not doing so is moronic.

Why are you concerned about our "impact"?

Why shouldn't I be?

Again, it comes back to the question of whether you'd wilfully create pollution rather than not doing so, all other things being equal. It's not about CO2, it's about everything.

A study by the European Commission a few years ago attributed over 310,00 premature deaths every year in Europe to air pollution, 32k in the UK every year. Even if that was literally the only way humankind was responsible for pollution, that's still quite a large figure.

On a personal note, I'm fascinated in the technology behind attempting to reduce our impact on the planet. It's human nature to try and improve things. Being happy to just keep things as they are are goes against the human characteristic of responding to challenges, advancing technology etc.

As I mentioned earlier, modern cars aren't just cleaner than their older counterparts, they're quicker, better equipped and safer too. Were it not for the push to improve engine efficiency to meet environmental regulations, would our cars be advanced today as they are? I doubt it.

 

[Sam48]

So you'd happy, everything else being equal, to pollute more given the choice?

I want what's most efficient and least expensive to run. If that means polluting more, than that's fine by me. I don't need other people, such as the government, sticking their noses into my life in regards to every action I take telling me what I can and can't buy due to the efficiency of a given product.

I'm glad you understood I was talking hypothetically to illustrate a point

And you're right, individual impact does very little. Multiply that by a billion cars or a hundred thousand power stations and the impact becomes much greater. Problems only arise when everyone thinks "well, it won't make a difference if I don't do anything".

Individual effort = little effect.
Collective effort = \large effect. larger effect

Sorry, but the environmental effects of every single mad-made contraption will not dent our climate, let alone change it. Trust me, the earth's been through much worse then us lot.

Unfortunately, we live in a society where people don't give a toss. Even if AGM was scientifically confirmed, the people who don't believe in it now wouldn't change their ways.

Nothing can be scientifically proven. Only suggested to an extent.

Wilfully choosing to pollute rather than choosing not to isn't a set of beliefs, it's cretinous. It's like dropping your soda can on the floor instead of in the trash can next to you simply because you can.

It's not as much willfully choosing to pollute as it is trying to live less expensively. Most people can't yet afford the best in terms of efficient.

Pollution as an unavoidable by product of doing something? Can't be helped. Actually saying you'd rather pollute than not doing so is moronic.

But at the expense of what?

Again, it comes back to the question of whether you'd wilfully create pollution rather than not doing so, all other things being equal. It's not about CO2, it's about everything.

A study by the European Commission a few years ago attributed over 310,00 premature deaths every year in Europe to air pollution, 32k in the UK every year. Even if that was literally the only way humankind was responsible for pollution, that's still quite a large figure.

Out of curiosity, may I see a link to this?

On a personal note, I'm fascinated in the technology behind attempting to reduce our impact on the planet. It's human nature to try and improve things. Being happy to just keep things as they are are goes against the human characteristic of responding to challenges, advancing technology etc.

As I mentioned earlier, modern cars aren't just cleaner than their older counterparts, they're quicker, better equipped and safer too. Were it not for the push to improve engine efficiency to meet environmental regulations, would our cars be advanced today as they are? I doubt it.

I agree, but only to a certain extent. Eventually, everything will nearly be pollution free, and that's good. However, you can't put the technology to work until everyone's ready, and can afford it. Forcing such measures upon us isn't going to work as of now.

 

[homeforsummer]

I want what's most efficient and least expensive to run. If that means polluting more, than that's fine by me. I don't need other people, such as the government, sticking their noses into my life in regards to every action I take telling me what I can and can't buy due to the efficiency of a given product.

The funny thing is with comments like that I think we're on the same page but a different paragraph.

The ultimate benefit of living a life less wasteful, buying something efficient and low polluting is that it'll also be cheaper. It isn't necessarily that way at the moment but the beauty of technology is that it can facilitate that.

Sorry, but the environmental effects of every single mad-made contraption will not dent our climate, let alone change it. Trust me, the earth's been through much worse then us lot.

Again, you appear to be concentrating solely on CO2. I know this is a global warming thread but CO2 isn't the only by-product of the modern age.

The fact we're able to attribute pollution to things like asthma is fairly clear evidence that what we're doing has an impact.

Nothing can be scientifically proven. Only suggested to an extent.

I was speaking hypothetically (once again). If you like, replace the words "scientifically confirmed" with "the dominant scientific theory".

The trouble is, people will still use the "theory doesn't mean definitely" however strongly the evidence points to something. Reluctance for people to accept evolution would be a good example of this.

It's not as much willfully choosing to pollute as it is trying to live less expensively. Most people can't yet afford the best in terms of efficient.

As above. Reducing pollution and saving money are for the most part, mutually complimentary. There comes a point where the purchase price of something like an ultra-economical car is offset by the savings you make in not spending a fortune fuelling it up.

But at the expense of what?

It doesn't necessarily have to be at the expense of anything. See my "dropping a coke can on the floor" example. The alternative, putting it in a bin, isn't in any way detrimental to the individual, it simply means choosing to drop litter on the floor is ignorant, selfish and lazy.

Out of curiosity, may I see a link to this?

European Commission, cited on the BBC. There are several other articles from other media groups on the same theme.

I agree, but only to a certain extent. Eventually, everything will nearly be pollution free, and that's good. However, you can't put the technology to work until everyone's ready, and can afford it. Forcing such measures upon us isn't going to work as of now.

👍 That seems utterly fair to me. I don't disagree, and I'm certainly not about forcing people to do something against their will.

As before. I think cars are great. It'd make me a massive hypocrite if I thought they were evil but decided it was my right to own one anyway. Doesn't mean I don't feel an obligation to minimise my impact on the environment though, whatever that entails.

 

[Sam48]

The funny thing is with comments like that I think we're on the same page but a different paragraph.

The ultimate benefit of living a life less wasteful, buying something efficient and low polluting is that it'll also be cheaper. It isn't necessarily that way at the moment but the beauty of technology is that it can facilitate that.

I can agree with that.

Again, you appear to be concentrating solely on CO2. I know this is a global warming thread but CO2 isn't the only by-product of the modern age.

The fact we're able to attribute pollution to things like asthma is fairly clear evidence that what we're doing has an impact.

So where I'm denying that pollution attributes to global warming, you're only simply suggesting it lowers our quality of living, which I can understand.

I was speaking hypothetically (once again). If you like, replace the words "scientifically confirmed" with "the dominant scientific theory".

The trouble is, people will still use the "theory doesn't mean definitely" however strongly the evidence points to something. Reluctance for people to accept evolution would be a good example of this.

In terms of global warming, not really. There is little to no evidence for man-made global warming, but I see your point nonetheless.

As above. Reducing pollution and saving money are for the most part, mutually complimentary.

Yes, but isn't that called buying nothing? In which case the trade off is your quality of life? (Not to mention the fact that the product you would have bought is still produced). I don't think we've yet to come upon the age in which you are referring.

It doesn't necessarily have to be at the expense of anything. See my "dropping a coke can on the floor" example. The alternative, putting it in a bin, isn't in any way detrimental to the individual, it simply means choosing to drop litter on the floor is ignorant, selfish and lazy.

As of now, it's at the expense of more money. Hopefully not for long though.

 

[homeforsummer]

So where I'm denying that pollution attributes to global warming, you're only simply suggesting it lowers our quality of living, which I can understand.

For the most part. Pollution and global warming aren't necessarily directly correlated. Even if AGM was proven not to exist, we'd still be creating other types of pollution.

In terms of global warming, not really. There is little to no evidence for man-made global warming, but I see your point nonetheless.

Little evidence, but not no evidence. I think we can all agree it's still an area that needs greater research for a solid decision to be made either way.

Yes, but isn't that called buying nothing? In which case the trade off is your quality of life? (Not to mention the fact that the product you would have bought is still produced). I don't think we've yet to come upon the age in which you are referring.

Not necessarily. I can buy a fridge/freezer that's more energy efficient than its competitor, for the same price, and it still cools/freezes my food. I've not lost anything from that transaction.

Likewise, I could swap my second-hand car today for another that out-performs it and saves me money on fuel for the same price. I wouldn't see myself losing out in that scenario either.

As of now, it's at the expense of more money. Hopefully not for long though.

Agreed.

 

[Sam48]

Is this for real?

http://www.prisonplanet.com/scienti...al-volcano-in-bid-to-geoengineer-climate.html

 

[Dotini]

It's worthy of note that, if Eyjafjalljokull leads to another eruption from neighbouring Katla - and Katla eruptions are always preceded by Eyjafjalljokull eruptions - it'll make Pinatubo look like a sunbed. Katla is a beast.

Not only is Katla shaping up for a new eruption, but there is something like an underwater caldera volcano possibly brewing in the Canary Islands.

http://theextinctionprotocol.wordpr...-katlas-october-eruption-anniversary-arrives/

http://theextinctionprotocol.wordpr...e-worrisome-turn-on-canarys-el-hierro-island/

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

 

[Keef]

Well at least I can pronounce this one.

They're making it sound as if the Gods are upset with us...

 

[homeforsummer]

Well at least I can pronounce this one.

They're making it sound as if the Gods are upset with us...

Quite.

It's interesting stuff but I can't help feeling we should have a dedicated thread for the natural disaster stuff as it's not really relevant to the global warming topic aside from the generic "OMG VOLCANOES MAKE CO2 AS WELL!!!1!ONE" type stuff.

Not like we'd not have a lot to discuss - you can barely turn on the TV without hearing about another earthquake/tsunami/volcano/typhoon etc at the moment.

 

[NEO_saffy_7]

Global warming is just another money making scheme.

 

[slims]

Global warming is just another money making scheme.

You've come to this conclusion how?

 

[homeforsummer]

Global warming is just another money making scheme.

Interesting conclusion to come to given that so many have voted that global warming is occurring - even if we don't know the main cause.

It's an interesting claim to make anyway, given that if we reduce our consumption of fossil fuels which are supposedly a contributing factor behind global warming, then both big business and governments would make less money from sales and taxes respectively, since oil is the most profitable commodity on Earth and also one of the most heavily taxed.

 

[Sam48]

It's an interesting claim to make anyway, given that if we reduce our consumption of fossil fuels which are supposedly a contributing factor behind global warming, then both big business and governments would make less money from sales and taxes respectively, since oil is the most profitable commodity on Earth and also one of the most heavily taxed.

I think NEO is being quite broad, but not the point. Technically, you could consider it a "money scheme", but only while it lasts. With Carbon taxation, carbon credits, and what have you, governments/government groups have generated over $75 billion (Which I think I may have stated earlier). It's a bit of a stretch, but I see what he means.

Also, do you notice that every time the whole "global warming" agenda wears off, they change the name?

1995- Global warming
2006- Climate Change
2010- Global climate disruption.

I kind of find it funny.

 

[arora]

lol, quick, change the buzz word to something scarrier smarter sounding.

http://isthereglobalcooling.com

Lots of stats, fun facts, and links. Creditable or not?

I enjoyed the perspective anyway.

 

[Dotini]

lol, quick, change the buzz word to something scarrier smarter sounding.

http://isthereglobalcooling.com

Lots of stats, fun facts, and links. Creditable or not?

I enjoyed the perspective anyway.

Credible.

I've read Calder and Svensmarks's book, "The Chilling Stars", and am aware of the CERN CLOUD experiments over the past several years.

It's become apparent to an objective physics student that the sun and our solar system's path through the galaxy and the cosmic rays produced by dying and birthing stars play a huge but so far generally unrecognized role in our climate. Unfortunately, objectivity and science often take a back seat to politics and commerce.

If we are not careful, our pols will soon start taxing us for mitigating both global cooling and global warming at the same time. Talk about getting the shaft both coming and going!!

Respectfully,
Steve

 

[Adamgp]

Also, do you notice that every time the whole "global warming" agenda wears off, they change the name?

1995- Global warming
2006- Climate Change
2010- Global climate disruption.

I kind of find it funny.

2015- Crazy Al's Climate Kerfluffle 💡

I personally put a more positive spin on it. It's not "global warming", it's "ice-age prevention"

 

[Keef]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't ice ages preceeded by periods of warming?