Sci Fi Forums
Adds should no longer Appear for members. Only guests.


scifi Forums
 
HomePortalCalendarPublicationsFAQSearchMemberlistUsergroupsRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 Global Warming.

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
AuthorMessage
Bandit

avatar

Posts : 720
Join date : 2012-11-14

PostSubject: Re: Global Warming.   Tue Mar 26, 2013 8:09 pm

Annoyed wrote:
Bandit wrote:
Annoyed,
To be blunt, if you have sexual fantasies about female cartoon characters, don't expect me to take you seriously, regardless what links you provide.

What the hell are you talking about?

Apologies old friend, but I thought you knew. Look at the signature of the person we are debating at skiffy.

Quote :
my favoraite play ground is waiting for me to come and play on her.

Click on the link to see who he is talking about. We thought he was joking. He wasn't.

To each their own, but if we're going to have a serious discussion, In my mind, he's already at a significant disadvantage, because he's freaking nuts.

And since I am restricted from pointing out these facts because they are considered a personal attack at skiffy, I thought I'd mention them here.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Annoyed



Posts : 583
Join date : 2010-07-14
Location : an utterly insignificant little blue-green planet

PostSubject: Re: Global Warming.   Tue Mar 26, 2013 9:43 pm

I wasn't even seeing his sig. There's a preference checkbox marked
"Ignore all signatures when reading topics" which I have selected.
I don't see anyone's sigs.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
eber322

avatar

Posts : 2745
Join date : 2009-10-10
Location : Michigan

PostSubject: Re: Global Warming.   Mon Apr 01, 2013 12:20 am

Economist Admits 'Mismatch' Between Greenhouse Gases and 'Not-Rising Temperatures'


The Economist has been fairly consistent in its stand that carbon dioxide emissions from man-made sources are the chief cause of global warming. But in an editorial this week, it sounds less certain.

Global warming predictions haven’t panned out as predicted in the past decade, but the why is a bit fuzzy, the magazine admits.

Greenhouse gas emissions have soared during the past 15 years, the magazine notes, with 100 billion tons of carbon having been added to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. Still, both air and ground temperatures during that time have remained virtually unchanged.

In fact, the editorial notes, surface temperatures have been at the bottom of the projected range of various models since 2005. If they remain flat, they will actually begin to fall below projections shortly.

“The mismatch between rising greenhouse-gas emissions and not-rising temperatures is among the biggest puzzles in climate science just now,” The Economist said.

But with global temperatures up by almost 1 degree Celsius in the last century, the magazine says, “the puzzle does need explaining.”

The Economist posits several theories that might explain why temperatures have leveled off.

Among them: a temporary lag between more carbon dioxide and rising temperatures between 2000 and 2010; the rising temperatures in the 1990s might have been an anomaly; or the climate is responding to higher CO2 levels in ways that scientists haven’t understood.

If the last possibility is true, the editorial notes, it “could have profound significance both for climate science and for environmental and social policy.” In other words, less drastic action would need to be taken to reduce carbon dioxide emissions than has previously been sought.

But The Economist does not give up on the fact that global warming is happening. Deep ocean temperatures are rising, and may explain where the predicted extra heat is going, the magazine says.

Buried deep in the highly technical piece, the magazine admits that evidence suggests something that global warming skeptics have long maintained: Natural variations in the earth’s climate likely play a bigger role than scientific models have said.

http://www.newsmax.com/SciTech/Economist-Mismatch-Greenhouse-Gases/2013/03/30/id/497052?s=al&promo_code=12FBD-1

_________________
...the only part of the criminal law that doesn't apply to reporters is the death penalty, at least since 2002, when the Supreme Court decided in Atkins v. Virginia that it's "cruel and unusual punishment" to execute the retarded. - Ann Coulter


Last edited by eber322 on Tue May 27, 2014 10:53 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Annoyed



Posts : 583
Join date : 2010-07-14
Location : an utterly insignificant little blue-green planet

PostSubject: Re: Global Warming.   Mon Apr 01, 2013 6:45 am

Translation:

Whatever is happening, as long as our drivel can be used as justification to extract more money from the U.S., it's all good.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Skycastle

avatar

Posts : 1003
Join date : 2011-08-05
Location : Colorado Springs

PostSubject: Re: Global Warming.   Mon Apr 01, 2013 1:00 pm

Good post, eber. I like it when reason returns to the left, even a little.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
eber322

avatar

Posts : 2745
Join date : 2009-10-10
Location : Michigan

PostSubject: Re: Global Warming.   Sun Jun 23, 2013 12:08 pm

Climate Expert von Storch: Why Is Global Warming Stagnating?

Climate experts have long predicted that temperatures would rise in parallel with greenhouse gas emissions. But, for 15 years, they haven't. In a SPIEGEL interview, meteorologist Hans von Storch discusses how this "puzzle" might force scientists to alter what could be "fundamentally wrong" models.


SPIEGEL: Mr. Storch, Germany has recently seen major flooding. Is global warming the culprit?

Storch: I'm not aware of any studies showing that floods happen more often today than in the past. I also just attended a hydrologists' conference in Koblenz, and none of the scientists there described such a finding.

SPIEGEL: But don't climate simulations for Germany's latitudes predict that, as temperatures rise, there will be less, not more, rain in the summers?

Storch: That only appears to be contradictory. We actually do expect there to be less total precipitation during the summer months. But there may be more extreme weather events, in which a great deal of rain falls from the sky within a short span of time. But since there has been only moderate global warming so far, climate change shouldn't be playing a major role in any case yet.

SPIEGEL: Would you say that people no longer reflexively attribute every severe weather event to global warming as much as they once did?

Storch: Yes, my impression is that there is less hysteria over the climate. There are certainly still people who almost ritualistically cry, "Stop thief! Climate change is at fault!" over any natural disaster. But people are now talking much more about the likely causes of flooding, such as land being paved over or the disappearance of natural flood zones -- and that's a good thing.

SPIEGEL: Will the greenhouse effect be an issue in the upcoming German parliamentary elections? Singer Marius Müller-Westernhagen is leading a celebrity initiative calling for the addition of climate protection as a national policy objective in the German constitution.

Storch: It's a strange idea. What state of the Earth's atmosphere do we want to protect, and in what way? And what might happen as a result? Are we going to declare war on China if the country emits too much CO2 into the air and thereby violates our constitution?
SPIEGEL: Yet it was climate researchers, with their apocalyptic warnings, who gave people these ideas in the first place.

Storch: Unfortunately, some scientists behave like preachers, delivering sermons to people. What this approach ignores is the fact that there are many threats in our world that must be weighed against one another. If I'm driving my car and find myself speeding toward an obstacle, I can't simple yank the wheel to the side without first checking to see if I'll instead be driving straight into a crowd of people. Climate researchers cannot and should not take this process of weighing different factors out of the hands of politics and society.

SPIEGEL: Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, outside Berlin, is currently Chancellor Angela Merkel's climate adviser. Why does she need one?

Storch: I've never been chancellor myself. But I do think it would be unwise of Merkel to listen to just a single scientist. Climate research is made up of far too many different voices for that. Personally, though, I don't believe the chancellor has delved deeply into the subject. If she had, she would know that there are other perspectives besides those held by her environmental policy administrators.

SPIEGEL: Just since the turn of the millennium, humanity has emitted another 400 billion metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, yet temperatures haven't risen in nearly 15 years. What can explain this?

Storch: So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break. We're facing a puzzle. Recent CO2 emissions have actually risen even more steeply than we feared. As a result, according to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years. That hasn't happened. In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) -- a value very close to zero. This is a serious scientific problem that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will have to confront when it presents its next Assessment Report late next year.

SPIEGEL: Do the computer models with which physicists simulate the future climate ever show the sort of long standstill in temperature change that we're observing right now?

Storch: Yes, but only extremely rarely. At my institute, we analyzed how often such a 15-year stagnation in global warming occurred in the simulations. The answer was: in under 2 percent of all the times we ran the simulation. In other words, over 98 percent of forecasts show CO2 emissions as high as we have had in recent years leading to more of a temperature increase.
SPIEGEL: How long will it still be possible to reconcile such a pause in global warming with established climate forecasts?

Storch: If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models. A 20-year pause in global warming does not occur in a single modeled scenario. But even today, we are finding it very difficult to reconcile actual temperature trends with our expectations.

SPIEGEL: What could be wrong with the models?

Storch: There are two conceivable explanations -- and neither is very pleasant for us. The first possibility is that less global warming is occurring than expected because greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have less of an effect than we have assumed. This wouldn't mean that there is no man-made greenhouse effect, but simply that our effect on climate events is not as great as we have believed. The other possibility is that, in our simulations, we have underestimated how much the climate fluctuates owing to natural causes.

SPIEGEL: That sounds quite embarrassing for your profession, if you have to go back and adjust your models to fit with reality…

Storch: Why? That's how the process of scientific discovery works. There is no last word in research, and that includes climate research. It's never the truth that we offer, but only our best possible approximation of reality. But that often gets forgotten in the way the public perceives and describes our work.

SPIEGEL: But it has been climate researchers themselves who have feigned a degree of certainty even though it doesn't actually exist. For example, the IPCC announced with 95 percent certainty that humans contribute to climate change.

Storch: And there are good reasons for that statement. We could no longer explain the considerable rise in global temperatures observed between the early 1970s and the late 1990s with natural causes. My team at the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, in Hamburg, was able to provide evidence in 1995 of humans' influence on climate events. Of course, that evidence presupposed that we had correctly assessed the amount of natural climate fluctuation. Now that we have a new development, we may need to make adjustments.

SPIEGEL: In which areas do you need to improve the models?

Storch: Among other things, there is evidence that the oceans have absorbed more heat than we initially calculated. Temperatures at depths greater than 700 meters (2,300 feet) appear to have increased more than ever before. The only unfortunate thing is that our simulations failed to predict this effect.

SPIEGEL: That doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

Storch: Certainly the greatest mistake of climate researchers has been giving the impression that they are declaring the definitive truth. The end result is foolishness along the lines of the climate protection brochures recently published by Germany's Federal Environmental Agency under the title "Sie erwärmt sich doch" ("The Earth is getting warmer"). Pamphlets like that aren't going to convince any skeptics. It's not a bad thing to make mistakes and have to correct them. The only thing that was bad was acting beforehand as if we were infallible. By doing so, we have gambled away the most important asset we have as scientists: the public's trust. We went through something similar with deforestation, too -- and then we didn't hear much about the topic for a long time.

SPIEGEL: Does this throw the entire theory of global warming into doubt?

Storch: I don't believe so. We still have compelling evidence of a man-made greenhouse effect. There is very little doubt about it. But if global warming continues to stagnate, doubts will obviously grow stronger.

SPIEGEL: Do scientists still predict that sea levels will rise?

Storch: In principle, yes. Unfortunately, though, our simulations aren't yet capable of showing whether and how fast ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica will melt -- and that is a very significant factor in how much sea levels will actually rise. For this reason, the IPCC's predictions have been conservative. And, considering the uncertainties, I think this is correct.

SPIEGEL: And how good are the long-term forecasts concerning temperature and precipitation?

Storch: Those are also still difficult. For example, according to the models, the Mediterranean region will grow drier all year round. At the moment, however, there is actually more rain there in the fall months than there used to be. We will need to observe further developments closely in the coming years. Temperature increases are also very much dependent on clouds, which can both amplify and mitigate the greenhouse effect. For as long as I've been working in this field, for over 30 years, there has unfortunately been very little progress made in the simulation of clouds.

SPIEGEL: Despite all these problem areas, do you still believe global warming will continue?

Storch: Yes, we are certainly going to see an increase of 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) or more -- and by the end of this century, mind you. That's what my instinct tells me, since I don't know exactly how emission levels will develop. Other climate researchers might have a different instinct. Our models certainly include a great number of highly subjective assumptions. Natural science is also a social process, and one far more influenced by the spirit of the times than non-scientists can imagine. You can expect many more surprises.

SPIEGEL: What exactly are politicians supposed to do with such vague predictions?

Storch: Whether it ends up being one, two or three degrees, the exact figure is ultimately not the important thing. Quite apart from our climate simulations, there is a general societal consensus that we should be more conservative with fossil fuels. Also, the more serious effects of climate change won't affect us for at least 30 years. We have enough time to prepare ourselves.

SPIEGEL: In a SPIEGEL interview 10 years ago, you said, "We need to allay people's fear of climate change." You also said, "We'll manage this." At the time, you were harshly criticized for these comments. Do you still take such a laidback stance toward global warming?

Storch: Yes, I do. I was accused of believing it was unnecessary to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This is not the case. I simply meant that it is no longer possible in any case to completely prevent further warming, and thus it would be wise of us to prepare for the inevitable, for example by building higher ocean dikes. And I have the impression that I'm no longer quite as alone in having this opinion as I was then. The climate debate is no longer an all-or-nothing debate -- except perhaps in the case of colleagues such as a certain employee of Schellnhuber's, whose verbal attacks against anyone who expresses doubt continue to breathe new life into the climate change denial camp.

SPIEGEL: Are there findings related to global warming that worry you?

Storch: The potential acidification of the oceans due to CO2 entering them from the atmosphere. This is a phenomenon that seems sinister to me, perhaps in part because I understand too little about it. But if marine animals are no longer able to form shells and skeletons well, it will affect nutrient cycles in the oceans. And that certainly makes me nervous.

SPIEGEL: Mr. Storch, thank you for this interview.
Interview conducted by Olaf Stampf and Gerald Traufetter
Translated from the German by Ella Ornstein

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/interview-hans-von-storch-on-problems-with-climate-change-models-a-906721.html

_________________
...the only part of the criminal law that doesn't apply to reporters is the death penalty, at least since 2002, when the Supreme Court decided in Atkins v. Virginia that it's "cruel and unusual punishment" to execute the retarded. - Ann Coulter
Back to top Go down
View user profile
ilaugh



Posts : 335
Join date : 2012-11-07

PostSubject: Re: Global Warming.   Thu Jun 27, 2013 2:49 pm

That last one really isn't an argument against climate change. Raising ocean temperatures from CO2 emissions could release large amounts of methane, which in turn could rise global temperatures further.

Quote :
A changing Gulf Stream off the East Coast has destabilized frozen methane deposits trapped under nearly 4,000 square miles of seafloor, scientists reported Wednesday. And since methane is even more potent than carbon dioxide as a global warming gas, the researchers said, any large-scale release could have significant climate impacts.

Temperature changes in the Gulf Stream are "rapidly destabilizing methane hydrate along a broad swathe of the North American margin," the experts said in a study published Wednesday in the peer-reviewed journal Nature.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/24/14670511-climate-changing-methane-rapidly-destabilizing-off-east-coast-study-finds?lite
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Pissedoffvulcan
Admin
avatar

Posts : 4337
Join date : 2009-10-07

PostSubject: Re: Global Warming.   Thu Jun 27, 2013 5:10 pm

Carbon Dioxide the vitamin C for plants.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://sciencefictionforums.forumotion.com
Pissedoffvulcan
Admin
avatar

Posts : 4337
Join date : 2009-10-07

PostSubject: Re: Global Warming.   Tue Apr 29, 2014 6:52 pm

So the latest is the Tornados that have killed many people the last few days are caused by global warming. Although this is not the first time it has happened this way.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://sciencefictionforums.forumotion.com
Annoyed



Posts : 583
Join date : 2010-07-14
Location : an utterly insignificant little blue-green planet

PostSubject: Re: Global Warming.   Wed Apr 30, 2014 2:57 pm

More and more people are wisely choosing to ignore anything spewed forth by the environuts as they have come to realize that it's all horse manure.

Granted, the idiots running the media outlets keep going on about it, but that's mostly 'cause they're trying to say anything that keeps eyeballs on their channel for more time. Such as "The sky is falling".
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Pissedoffvulcan
Admin
avatar

Posts : 4337
Join date : 2009-10-07

PostSubject: Re: Global Warming.   Wed Apr 30, 2014 6:07 pm

Annoyed wrote:
More and more people are wisely choosing to ignore anything spewed forth by the environuts as they have come to realize that it's all horse manure.

Granted, the idiots running the media outlets keep going on about it, but that's mostly 'cause they're trying to say anything that keeps eyeballs on their channel for more time. Such as "The sky is falling".
I agree this has lost it's steam. We have already done so much for the environment.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://sciencefictionforums.forumotion.com
ford plasko

avatar

Posts : 437
Join date : 2009-10-13
Location : Central Florida

PostSubject: Re: Global Warming.   Tue May 27, 2014 1:23 pm

It may have lost it's steam but I believe now you will see the Gov. blackmailing us into submission like in California. They will basically withhold water(California) or call your property a flood plain or wetland (Florida).
But we all know what is behind it all.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/26/sponsors-of-pentagons-alarm-raising-climate-study-/
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Pissedoffvulcan
Admin
avatar

Posts : 4337
Join date : 2009-10-07

PostSubject: Re: Global Warming.   Wed May 28, 2014 4:21 pm

ford plasko wrote:
It may have lost it's steam but I believe now you will see the Gov. blackmailing us into submission like in California. They will basically withhold water(California) or call your property a flood plain or wetland (Florida).
But we all know what is behind it all.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/26/sponsors-of-pentagons-alarm-raising-climate-study-/
Nope they are trying to make anti global warming people out to be mentally ill. Along with pro gun people.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://sciencefictionforums.forumotion.com
eber322

avatar

Posts : 2745
Join date : 2009-10-10
Location : Michigan

PostSubject: Re: Global Warming.   Sun Jun 22, 2014 9:06 am

Professor Axed for Calling Climate Change 'Unproved Science'

Dr. Caleb Rossiter was removed from his post as an Associate Fellow at the progressive Institute for Policy Studies days after a newspaper published his opinion piece calling man-made global warming an "unproved science."

Rossiter is an adjunct professor at American University in Washington, D.C. He has taught courses on climate statistics, and holds a Ph.D. in policy analysis and a master's degree in mathematics.

In a Wall Street Journal article published on May 4, he urged an expansion of carbon-based energy in Africa.

"I started to suspect that the climate-change data were dubious a decade ago while teaching statistics," he wrote. "Computer models used by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to determine the cause of the six-tenths of one degree Fahrenheit rise in global temperatures from 1980 to 2000 could not statistically separate fossil-fueled and natural trends.

"The left wants to stop industrialization — even if the hypothesis of catastrophic man-made global warming is false.

"We are not rationing our electricity. Why should Africa?"

He concludes that it would be "terrible to think that so many people in the West" would block carbon-based energy in Africa "in the name of unproved science."

On May 7, Rossiter received an email from the Institute for Policy Studies, which describes itself as "a community of public scholars and organizers linking peace, justice, and the environment" in the United States and globally.

It began: "Dear Caleb, We would like to inform you that we are terminating your position as an Associate Fellow.

"Unfortunately, we now feel that your views on key issues, including climate science, climate justice, and many aspects of U.S. policy to Africa, diverge so significantly from ours that a productive working relationship is untenable."

In an exclusive interview with the Climate Depot website, Rossiter said: "If people ever say that fears of censorship from 'climate change' views are overblown, have them take a look at this: Just days after I published a piece in The Wall Street Journal calling for Africa to be allowed the 'all of the above' energy strategy we have in the U.S., the Institute for Policy Studies terminated my 23-year relationship with them.

"I have tried to get [IPS] to discuss and explain their rejection of my analysis," he said. "When I countered a claim of 'rapidly accelerating' temperature change with the IPCC's own data, showing the nearly 20-year temperature pause, the best response I ever got was 'Caleb, I don't have time for this.'"

On May 13, Rossiter wrote a blog on his own website headlined "The debate is finally over on 'global warming' — because nobody will debate."

He wrote: "My blood simply boils too hot when I read the blather, daily, about climate catastrophe.

"Obama has long been delusional on this issue, speaking of a coming catastrophe. But he really went off the chain in his State of the Union address this year: 'For the sake of our children and our future.'"

newsmax.com

_________________
...the only part of the criminal law that doesn't apply to reporters is the death penalty, at least since 2002, when the Supreme Court decided in Atkins v. Virginia that it's "cruel and unusual punishment" to execute the retarded. - Ann Coulter
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Annoyed



Posts : 583
Join date : 2010-07-14
Location : an utterly insignificant little blue-green planet

PostSubject: Re: Global Warming.   Sun Jun 22, 2014 5:03 pm

Again and again and again. The true agenda of these people has nothing to do with the environment and everything to do with lowering the standard of living in the United States and transferring wealth that is generated in the U.S. to more deserving countries and organizations, such as the U.N.

If you attempt to understand them from any other perspective, your battle is lost before it begins.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
eber322

avatar

Posts : 2745
Join date : 2009-10-10
Location : Michigan

PostSubject: Re: Global Warming.   Mon Jun 30, 2014 10:00 am

Antarctic Sea Ice Growing Despite Global Warming Warnings

The sea ice coverage around Antarctica over the weekend marked a record high, with the ice surrounding the continent measuring at 2.07 million square kilometers, according to an environmentalist and author who says the ice there has actually been increasing since 1979 despite continued warnings of global warming.

The new record was posted for the first time by the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign’s online record, The Cryosphere Today, early Sunday morning.

It's not apparent if the record actually occurred on Friday or Saturday, says Harold Ambler on his blog, Talking About the Weather.

Ambler is a journalist and author of the book "Don't Sell Your Coat: Surprising Truths About Climate Change."

"The previous record anomaly for Southern Hemisphere sea ice area was 1.840 million square kilometers and occurred on December 20, 2007," said Ambler. Meanwhile, he pointed out, global sea ice area on Sunday was standing at 0.991 million square kilometers above average, a figure he arrived at by adding anomalies for the North and South hemispheres.

While early models predicted the sea ice would decrease because of global warming, other models are showing that the opposite is happening around Antarctica, where sea ice growth is increasing.

"A freshening of the waters surrounding the southernmost continent as well as the strengthening of the winds circling it were both theorized as explanations for the steady growth of Antarctica’s sea ice during the period of satellite measurement," said Ambler.

However, he pointed out that climatologists have discounted the importance and growth of the Antarctic sea ice.

According to Walt Meier, formerly of the National Snow and Ice Data Center and currently of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, most of the Antarctic sea ice does not survive between years, and it's less significant to the Earth's climate than is the ice around the Arctic.

Meanwhile, Ambler said that the growth of the Antarctic sea ice is providing "a public relations problem, at a minimum, for those warning of global warming’s menace."

During the past 18 months, global sea ice "has seen its most robust 18-month period of the last 13 years, maintaining, on average, a positive anomaly for an 18-month period for the first time since 2001," he wrote.

In addition, Ambler said, the South Pole's temperature has been dropping over the past 40 years.

Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/antarctic-sea-ice-growing/2014/06/29/id/579853#ixzz368BAyobt

_________________
...the only part of the criminal law that doesn't apply to reporters is the death penalty, at least since 2002, when the Supreme Court decided in Atkins v. Virginia that it's "cruel and unusual punishment" to execute the retarded. - Ann Coulter
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Annoyed



Posts : 583
Join date : 2010-07-14
Location : an utterly insignificant little blue-green planet

PostSubject: Re: Global Warming.   Mon Jun 30, 2014 10:36 am

None of this has anything to do with the necessity to transfer wealth to those that the environuts deem more deserving than those that created it in the first place.

Back to top Go down
View user profile
Bandit

avatar

Posts : 720
Join date : 2012-11-14

PostSubject: Re: Global Warming.   Sat Feb 21, 2015 2:25 am

Across the nation, we have been smashing cold temp records this winter. If they're lucky, the northeast will have dug out of the snow before next winter hits!
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Annoyed



Posts : 583
Join date : 2010-07-14
Location : an utterly insignificant little blue-green planet

PostSubject: Re: Global Warming.   Sat Feb 21, 2015 1:01 pm

Bandit wrote:
Across the nation, we have been smashing cold temp records this winter. If they're lucky, the northeast will have dug out of the snow before next winter hits!
It would be easy to reply with a wisecrack about "so much for global warming", but in reality this year is just part of a natural cycle. I've been living in Western NY for more than 50 years, and we have easy winters, and we have hard winters. This one is a little harder than usual. No big deal.
It doesn't mean the sky is falling, or any of the claptrap espoused by the enviros is accurate. Just part of Earth's natural behavior. Nothing mankind can do about it either way. We're not causing it, nor can we alter it, even if we wished to.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Pissedoffvulcan
Admin
avatar

Posts : 4337
Join date : 2009-10-07

PostSubject: Re: Global Warming.   Sat Feb 21, 2015 2:09 pm

Annoyed wrote:
Bandit wrote:
Across the nation, we have been smashing cold temp records this winter. If they're lucky, the northeast will have dug out of the snow before next winter hits!
It would be easy to reply with a wisecrack about "so much for global warming", but in reality this year is just part of a natural cycle. I've been living in Western NY for more than 50 years, and we have easy winters, and we have hard winters. This one is a little harder than usual. No big deal.
It doesn't mean the sky is falling, or any of the claptrap espoused by the enviros is accurate. Just part of Earth's natural behavior. Nothing mankind can do about it either way. We're not causing it, nor can we alter it, even if we wished to.
I think leftanistas do not realize that the weather has patterns and that some years are cold and others are not. They cannot say how the weather is going to be next week. But can say in 30 years we will be dead because of global warming.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://sciencefictionforums.forumotion.com
Annoyed



Posts : 583
Join date : 2010-07-14
Location : an utterly insignificant little blue-green planet

PostSubject: Re: Global Warming.   Sun Feb 22, 2015 1:55 am

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:
I think leftanistas do not realize that the weather has patterns and that some years are cold and others are not. They cannot say how the weather is going to be next week. But can say in 30 years we will be dead because of global warming.
Facts and reason don't bother the enviros in the slightest because their goal is not and has never been about the environment. Their goal is the taking of wealth from those who create it and handing it to various ne'er do wells whom they deem to be more deserving of it.
Once you understand that basic fact, their behavior makes sense.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Global Warming.   

Back to top Go down
 
Global Warming.
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 6 of 6Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
 Similar topics
-
» So will speaking out against global warming be illegal?
» This is the proof of the REAL agenda behind global warming!!!
» warming pies?
» Global Online Motorsports Association
» Nick and Nina Clooney attend Global Citizen Forum 2015 Monaco October 10 2015

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Sci Fi Forums :: Science Fiction TV Shows. :: The Basement General Discussion, Politics, Pet Peeves. :: Politics 101-
Jump to: