I understand and believe in global warming, but...

[Dekster]

Until global warming knocks out the internet, what does it matter really.

Yep, Dekster! I have an analogy. I'm from Michigan. Years back when the NE canneries closed due to European products, I didn't pay attention. And when the textile mills of the Carolinas closed as businesses moved off-shore, it mattered little to me. But when Lee Iaccoca traveled to Japan because of the Toyota car sales in the USA, I did sit up and take notice. And it was already too late! I still chuckle at the news report, by Frank Reynolds I think, when he said Iaccoca was upset because Japan sold over 100,000 cars in the USA in the last year (I forget what year). Anyway I remember thinking.."No, 100,000 Americans BOUGHT Japanese cars last year!" They couldn't sell them if we didn't buy them. So with this in mind..this link is for the nayy-sayers. I think the deniers think this stuff happens overnight or something.

Flooding of Coast, Caused by Global Warming, Has Already Begun

The textile mills closed in no small part to the facts that "Made in the USA" wasn't enough of a motivator to get people to pay twice as much for towels, and that the Mills were old using old technology and unable to compete with new mills with high speed looms that were far less labor intensive than the American looms and produced far more yards of cloth an hour than the American looms. Textiles could possibly have been saved in a much different form, but the writing was on the wall, One of the few areas of textile manufacturing that was still profitable were custom design fabrics like used to make Disney "Little Mermaid" sheets and the like as American textiles finishing was still much better than the weaving and people were willing to pay a premium for kids' merchandising products. I think I read somewhere that Disney, Martha Stewart, and a hand-full of very high-end interior designers were the only ones who required their products be finished in the US because of the superior American quality control in that last step. .

And the problem with Global Warming isn't that there is global warming. It is that the theory that man caused it and man can stop it is where the folly lies.

Dekster, I didn't know that about our lost mills, but I know the Michigan plants were growing old and outdated, so the story is similar for autos. It is cheaper to build anew than to upgrade, and the plants were used up. New and robotic became the future...elsewhere. But I would nuance your statement about the folly of the theory that man caused it and can stop it. Seems like the pressure is to quit exacerbating it. There is irrefutable evidence that these cycles have happened Earthwide for millennia and recovered naturally. But this time, the balance is more in our hands. The Earth always heals. And it will heal itself after we are gone. The trick is to keep us here and healthy enough to be able to keep it habitable for our kind.

It isn't cheaper necessarily to build new. It makes sense. If you shut a plant down to refurb/renovate, then the plant is not making anything at all and you are hemorrhaging cash and workers are going other places, and your competition is eating up your market share and taking over your contracts.. Instead, you build a new factory while keeping the old one running, and then move your production into the new factory and close the old one you don't need any more. The 100 year old factory then can be either sold to someone else, or in the case of our mill, it was disassembled and recycled. The old machinery went into metals recycling, and the bricks and old wood were reclaimed for construction projects. In our case, it got worse because the new factory in Mexico was a failure, the company went bankrupt, and someone bought up the name and the intellectual property of the company and it continues on in Pakastani mills. As for Global Warming, it favors humans. If the temps were going the other way, that is when we would have to worry, but we wouldn't be able to do anything about that either.

Very good points to ponder, dekster. But the problem with the warming favoring humans IMHO is WHERE it favors humans, and where the water is. The Sahara is an example. It is said the area was once a garden. And it is rumored the Oglalla aquifer is about 50% deleted again after recovering from the overuse of the early 20th century. I also read that the coast of California was once a good 375' further into the Pacific not too long ago (about 9500 years or so) until the so-called 'alti-thermal' epoch hit re-arranged the shoreline further inland. I fear I have that 'little bit of knowledge' and am mostly ignorant....but I DO recycle and try to use energy wisely.

Humans weren't driving cars for most of those 9500 years so if you want to blame coastal erosion on human activity, then you would be hard pressed to do it, specifically the use of fossil fuels which is the crux of the AGW argument. As for the rest, I grow as much food as I can, eat not a lot of red meat, recycle the items for which there is a market based on what the local government says does not end up in the landfill anyway, reusue, repurporse. I have a clothesline I use instead of the dryer on fair weather days. My house, car, most of my furniture, many of my clothes, and even my dog are used. I have high efficiency appliances and use low wattage bulbs--most being LED's.. I turn off lights when not in the room, unplug my chargers when not in use, I arrange my errands and such that I only need to fill up a 14 gal gas tank about twice a month. When I cut down trees, I use them for landscaping borders or for erosion control barriers; I compost; I harvest my own seeds; I harvest rainwater; and control run off; I use high density planting to reduce water loss and the need for herbicides in my garden; most of my landscaping is propagated plants or salvaged from other properties. Most of my tools that would be gas powered except the riding mower are electric--hedgetrimmers, weedeater, blower, and chainsaw. None of this, however, has anything to do with Global Warming. It means I inherited a lot of crap from dead relatives and am a cheapskate who happens to want to be a good steward for their property; do so on a very tight budget; and think it is wasteful to throw out things that are still perfectly usable. These are the reason I am buying a house in my early 20's when most of my friends are living cramped in apartments or off their parents. Yes my family helps me along, but I also help them along in different ways. I dare say I do more for the environment than most of the people I encounter on the internet bemoaning global warming.

 

[bullwinkle]

Yep, Dekster! I have an analogy. I'm from Michigan. Years back when the NE canneries closed due to European products, I didn't pay attention. And when the textile mills of the Carolinas closed as businesses moved off-shore, it mattered little to me. But when Lee Iaccoca traveled to Japan because of the Toyota car sales in the USA, I did sit up and take notice. And it was already too late! I still chuckle at the news report, by Frank Reynolds I think, when he said Iaccoca was upset because Japan sold over 100,000 cars in the USA in the last year (I forget what year). Anyway I remember thinking.."No, 100,000 Americans BOUGHT Japanese cars last year!" They couldn't sell them if we didn't buy them. So with this in mind..this link is for the nayy-sayers. I think the deniers think this stuff happens overnight or something.

Flooding of Coast, Caused by Global Warming, Has Already Begun

The textile mills closed in no small part to the facts that "Made in the USA" wasn't enough of a motivator to get people to pay twice as much for towels, and that the Mills were old using old technology and unable to compete with new mills with high speed looms that were far less labor intensive than the American looms and produced far more yards of cloth an hour than the American looms. Textiles could possibly have been saved in a much different form, but the writing was on the wall, One of the few areas of textile manufacturing that was still profitable were custom design fabrics like used to make Disney "Little Mermaid" sheets and the like as American textiles finishing was still much better than the weaving and people were willing to pay a premium for kids' merchandising products. I think I read somewhere that Disney, Martha Stewart, and a hand-full of very high-end interior designers were the only ones who required their products be finished in the US because of the superior American quality control in that last step. .

And the problem with Global Warming isn't that there is global warming. It is that the theory that man caused it and man can stop it is where the folly lies.

Dekster, I didn't know that about our lost mills, but I know the Michigan plants were growing old and outdated, so the story is similar for autos. It is cheaper to build anew than to upgrade, and the plants were used up. New and robotic became the future...elsewhere. But I would nuance your statement about the folly of the theory that man caused it and can stop it. Seems like the pressure is to quit exacerbating it. There is irrefutable evidence that these cycles have happened Earthwide for millennia and recovered naturally. But this time, the balance is more in our hands. The Earth always heals. And it will heal itself after we are gone. The trick is to keep us here and healthy enough to be able to keep it habitable for our kind.

It isn't cheaper necessarily to build new. It makes sense. If you shut a plant down to refurb/renovate, then the plant is not making anything at all and you are hemorrhaging cash and workers are going other places, and your competition is eating up your market share and taking over your contracts.. Instead, you build a new factory while keeping the old one running, and then move your production into the new factory and close the old one you don't need any more. The 100 year old factory then can be either sold to someone else, or in the case of our mill, it was disassembled and recycled. The old machinery went into metals recycling, and the bricks and old wood were reclaimed for construction projects. In our case, it got worse because the new factory in Mexico was a failure, the company went bankrupt, and someone bought up the name and the intellectual property of the company and it continues on in Pakastani mills. As for Global Warming, it favors humans. If the temps were going the other way, that is when we would have to worry, but we wouldn't be able to do anything about that either.

Very good points to ponder, dekster. But the problem with the warming favoring humans IMHO is WHERE it favors humans, and where the water is. The Sahara is an example. It is said the area was once a garden. And it is rumored the Oglalla aquifer is about 50% deleted again after recovering from the overuse of the early 20th century. I also read that the coast of California was once a good 375' further into the Pacific not too long ago (about 9500 years or so) until the so-called 'alti-thermal' epoch hit re-arranged the shoreline further inland. I fear I have that 'little bit of knowledge' and am mostly ignorant....but I DO recycle and try to use energy wisely.

Humans weren't driving cars for most of those 9500 years so if you want to blame coastal erosion on human activity, then you would be hard pressed to do it, specifically the use of fossil fuels which is the crux of the AGW argument. As for the rest, I grow as much food as I can, eat not a lot of red meat, recycle the items for which there is a market based on what the local government says does not end up in the landfill anyway, reusue, repurporse. I have a clothesline I use instead of the dryer on fair weather days. My house, car, most of my furniture, many of my clothes, and even my dog are used. I have high efficiency appliances and use low wattage bulbs--most being LED's.. I turn off lights when not in the room, unplug my chargers when not in use, I arrange my errands and such that I only need to fill up a 14 gal gas tank about twice a month. When I cut down trees, I use them for landscaping borders or for erosion control barriers; I compost; I harvest my own seeds; I harvest rainwater; and control run off; I use high density planting to reduce water loss and the need for herbicides in my garden; most of my landscaping is propagated plants or salvaged from other properties. Most of my tools that would be gas powered except the riding mower are electric--hedgetrimmers, weedeater, blower, and chainsaw. None of this, however, has anything to do with Global Warming. It means I inherited a lot of crap from dead relatives and am a cheapskate who happens to want to be a good steward for their property; do so on a very tight budget; and think it is wasteful to throw out things that are still perfectly usable. These are the reason I am buying a house in my early 20's when most of my friends are living cramped in apartments or off their parents. Yes my family helps me along, but I also help them along in different ways. I dare say I do more for the environment than most of the people I encounter on the internet bemoaning global warming.

Well said, dekster! You are doing as much as you can. Can't ask for more, even if you don't agree humans can ease the problem. Not eliminate it, but take out some of the horror. Kudos!

 

[Dekster]

The textile mills closed in no small part to the facts that "Made in the USA" wasn't enough of a motivator to get people to pay twice as much for towels, and that the Mills were old using old technology and unable to compete with new mills with high speed looms that were far less labor intensive than the American looms and produced far more yards of cloth an hour than the American looms. Textiles could possibly have been saved in a much different form, but the writing was on the wall, One of the few areas of textile manufacturing that was still profitable were custom design fabrics like used to make Disney "Little Mermaid" sheets and the like as American textiles finishing was still much better than the weaving and people were willing to pay a premium for kids' merchandising products. I think I read somewhere that Disney, Martha Stewart, and a hand-full of very high-end interior designers were the only ones who required their products be finished in the US because of the superior American quality control in that last step. .

And the problem with Global Warming isn't that there is global warming. It is that the theory that man caused it and man can stop it is where the folly lies.

Dekster, I didn't know that about our lost mills, but I know the Michigan plants were growing old and outdated, so the story is similar for autos. It is cheaper to build anew than to upgrade, and the plants were used up. New and robotic became the future...elsewhere. But I would nuance your statement about the folly of the theory that man caused it and can stop it. Seems like the pressure is to quit exacerbating it. There is irrefutable evidence that these cycles have happened Earthwide for millennia and recovered naturally. But this time, the balance is more in our hands. The Earth always heals. And it will heal itself after we are gone. The trick is to keep us here and healthy enough to be able to keep it habitable for our kind.

It isn't cheaper necessarily to build new. It makes sense. If you shut a plant down to refurb/renovate, then the plant is not making anything at all and you are hemorrhaging cash and workers are going other places, and your competition is eating up your market share and taking over your contracts.. Instead, you build a new factory while keeping the old one running, and then move your production into the new factory and close the old one you don't need any more. The 100 year old factory then can be either sold to someone else, or in the case of our mill, it was disassembled and recycled. The old machinery went into metals recycling, and the bricks and old wood were reclaimed for construction projects. In our case, it got worse because the new factory in Mexico was a failure, the company went bankrupt, and someone bought up the name and the intellectual property of the company and it continues on in Pakastani mills. As for Global Warming, it favors humans. If the temps were going the other way, that is when we would have to worry, but we wouldn't be able to do anything about that either.

Very good points to ponder, dekster. But the problem with the warming favoring humans IMHO is WHERE it favors humans, and where the water is. The Sahara is an example. It is said the area was once a garden. And it is rumored the Oglalla aquifer is about 50% deleted again after recovering from the overuse of the early 20th century. I also read that the coast of California was once a good 375' further into the Pacific not too long ago (about 9500 years or so) until the so-called 'alti-thermal' epoch hit re-arranged the shoreline further inland. I fear I have that 'little bit of knowledge' and am mostly ignorant....but I DO recycle and try to use energy wisely.

Humans weren't driving cars for most of those 9500 years so if you want to blame coastal erosion on human activity, then you would be hard pressed to do it, specifically the use of fossil fuels which is the crux of the AGW argument. As for the rest, I grow as much food as I can, eat not a lot of red meat, recycle the items for which there is a market based on what the local government says does not end up in the landfill anyway, reusue, repurporse. I have a clothesline I use instead of the dryer on fair weather days. My house, car, most of my furniture, many of my clothes, and even my dog are used. I have high efficiency appliances and use low wattage bulbs--most being LED's.. I turn off lights when not in the room, unplug my chargers when not in use, I arrange my errands and such that I only need to fill up a 14 gal gas tank about twice a month. When I cut down trees, I use them for landscaping borders or for erosion control barriers; I compost; I harvest my own seeds; I harvest rainwater; and control run off; I use high density planting to reduce water loss and the need for herbicides in my garden; most of my landscaping is propagated plants or salvaged from other properties. Most of my tools that would be gas powered except the riding mower are electric--hedgetrimmers, weedeater, blower, and chainsaw. None of this, however, has anything to do with Global Warming. It means I inherited a lot of crap from dead relatives and am a cheapskate who happens to want to be a good steward for their property; do so on a very tight budget; and think it is wasteful to throw out things that are still perfectly usable. These are the reason I am buying a house in my early 20's when most of my friends are living cramped in apartments or off their parents. Yes my family helps me along, but I also help them along in different ways. I dare say I do more for the environment than most of the people I encounter on the internet bemoaning global warming.

Well said, dekster! You are doing as much as you can. Can't ask for more, even if you don't agree humans can ease the problem. Not eliminate it, but take out some of the horror. Kudos!

Thank you. Don't just assume that because people disagree with you that they are out making moonshine in their rubber-tire fired stills while leaving the truck engine running all day so they can listen to Lynard Skynard on the 8-track tape player or are running around starting forest fires just for shits and giggles.

 

[Crick]

I'd wager a significant portion of the blame for the tone of your greeting here is the resemblance of your name to an only slightly less new poster here, LaDexter. If you haven't read his stuff, open up the Search Engine and enjoy yourself.

As to the OP: You can have any opinion you want on any topic you want. What you can't have is your own set of facts. Global warming is going to hurt the human race deeply. We will spend trillions on dealing with its effects and many, many people are going to go broke, many will lose their jobss and many going to suffer, sicken and die, all from the effects of global warming.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Trump can immediately shave $2.5B from the budget by zeroing out climatic "research", which has no experiment, but pays people to say "Consensus" and them post about it on the Internet.

Even IPCC admitted that "Climate change" is a wealth redistribution scheme

 

[Crick]

Anything new Frank?

 

[jc456]

I'd wager a significant portion of the blame for the tone of your greeting here is the resemblance of your name to an only slightly less new poster here, LaDexter. If you haven't read his stuff, open up the Search Engine and enjoy yourself.

As to the OP: You can have any opinion you want on any topic you want. What you can't have is your own set of facts. Global warming is going to hurt the human race deeply. We will spend trillions on dealing with its effects and many, many people are going to go broke, many will lose their jobss and many going to suffer, sicken and die, all from the effects of global warming.

so when will you post up a fact? I've been waiting a long time. hey same thing to you I gave to Ian,

take an ice cube and put it on a table top and time how long it takes to melt. Now take two ice cubes and put them next to each other and time their melt time. More, less, same? which is it?

 

[IanC]

I'd wager a significant portion of the blame for the tone of your greeting here is the resemblance of your name to an only slightly less new poster here, LaDexter. If you haven't read his stuff, open up the Search Engine and enjoy yourself.

As to the OP: You can have any opinion you want on any topic you want. What you can't have is your own set of facts. Global warming is going to hurt the human race deeply. We will spend trillions on dealing with its effects and many, many people are going to go broke, many will lose their jobss and many going to suffer, sicken and die, all from the effects of global warming.

so when will you post up a fact? I've been waiting a long time. hey same thing to you I gave to Ian,

take an ice cube and put it on a table top and time how long it takes to melt. Now take two ice cubes and put them next to each other and time their melt time. More, less, same? which is it?

I'd wager a significant portion of the blame for the tone of your greeting here is the resemblance of your name to an only slightly less new poster here, LaDexter. If you haven't read his stuff, open up the Search Engine and enjoy yourself.

As to the OP: You can have any opinion you want on any topic you want. What you can't have is your own set of facts. Global warming is going to hurt the human race deeply. We will spend trillions on dealing with its effects and many, many people are going to go broke, many will lose their jobss and many going to suffer, sicken and die, all from the effects of global warming.

so when will you post up a fact? I've been waiting a long time. hey same thing to you I gave to Ian,

take an ice cube and put it on a table top and time how long it takes to melt. Now take two ice cubes and put them next to each other and time their melt time. More, less, same? which is it?

Square ice cubes? Next to each other? Obviously the two ice cubes will take longer.

It may be easier to visualize the reason if you stacked the ice cubes. They would each have one face that gained little or no energy from the environment because the temperature gradient is close to zero.

Was that the explanation you were looking for?

 

[jc456]

I'd wager a significant portion of the blame for the tone of your greeting here is the resemblance of your name to an only slightly less new poster here, LaDexter. If you haven't read his stuff, open up the Search Engine and enjoy yourself.

As to the OP: You can have any opinion you want on any topic you want. What you can't have is your own set of facts. Global warming is going to hurt the human race deeply. We will spend trillions on dealing with its effects and many, many people are going to go broke, many will lose their jobss and many going to suffer, sicken and die, all from the effects of global warming.

so when will you post up a fact? I've been waiting a long time. hey same thing to you I gave to Ian,

take an ice cube and put it on a table top and time how long it takes to melt. Now take two ice cubes and put them next to each other and time their melt time. More, less, same? which is it?

I'd wager a significant portion of the blame for the tone of your greeting here is the resemblance of your name to an only slightly less new poster here, LaDexter. If you haven't read his stuff, open up the Search Engine and enjoy yourself.

As to the OP: You can have any opinion you want on any topic you want. What you can't have is your own set of facts. Global warming is going to hurt the human race deeply. We will spend trillions on dealing with its effects and many, many people are going to go broke, many will lose their jobss and many going to suffer, sicken and die, all from the effects of global warming.

so when will you post up a fact? I've been waiting a long time. hey same thing to you I gave to Ian,

take an ice cube and put it on a table top and time how long it takes to melt. Now take two ice cubes and put them next to each other and time their melt time. More, less, same? which is it?

Square ice cubes? Next to each other? Obviously the two ice cubes will take longer.

It may be easier to visualize the reason if you stacked the ice cubes. They would each have one face that gained little or no energy from the environment because the temperature gradient is close to zero.

Was that the explanation you were looking for?

Yes, cause you have no idea on them touching. You missed the entire IR meaning. Doesn't surprise me. You probably didn't ask your mentor.

 

[SSDD]

Survival is a deep and powerful motivator.

Cold being the far more efficient and effective killer...why then would you fear warming?

 

[SSDD]

I trust the raw data that shows that it has been warmer than it is now, and I understand correlation does not equal causation. I trust the historical information that the little Ice Age existed and that we have been warming since then.

Rocks believes that as well...but then he completely makes up the idea that the "rate of warming" we are seeing is beyond all natural boundaries...unprecedented in the history of the earth...completely terrifying...and what does he use to justify his claim of an unprecedented rate of warming?....an ice core where the best resolution possible is 800 years....he is basing claiming a 100 year rate of change is unprecedented according to an ice core study that can be used to make no claims regarding rate of change during a particular time less than 800 years.

That's the state of climate pseudoscience...and of the people who believe in it.

 

[Crick]

You need to think of a mechanism that would cause the world to warm as quickly as it has been warming the last 150 years and then turn around and cool off just as quickly, all within a span smaller than your claimed chronological resolution.

Do you HAVE such a mechanism? What are the odds that it has taken place in the last 800,000 years? Is there any evidence that such a thing has taken place? The world has proxy records besides ice cores. Anything?

 

[jc456]

You need to think of a mechanism that would cause the world to warm as quickly as it has been warming the last 150 years and then turn around and cool off just as quickly, all within a span smaller than your claimed chronological resolution.

Do you HAVE such a mechanism? What are the odds that it has taken place in the last 800,000 years? Is there any evidence that such a thing has taken place? The world has proxy records besides ice cores. Anything?

um, the Sun warms the earth. I'm surprised you don't know this. oh well, doesn't surprise me.

 

[Crick]

What would the sun do that would create a rise similar to the one we're experiencing now and then stop doing that and allow temperatures to drop just as quickly? Do you understand the problem? You folks keep talking about the temporal resolution being inadequate to rule out the possibility for some natural process to have created an analogous 'pulse' of high temperatures that would not be seen. But, to do so, it has to come and go within the window of that resolution. Unfortunately for you, no natural process will do such a thing - certainly without leaving other evidence.

 

[jc456]

What would the sun do that would create a rise similar to the one we're experiencing now and then stop doing that and allow temperatures to drop just as quickly? Do you understand the problem? You folks keep talking about the temporal resolution being inadequate to rule out the possibility for some natural process to have created an analogous 'pulse' of high temperatures that would not be seen. But, to do so, it has to come and go within the window of that resolution. Unfortunately for you, no natural process will do such a thing - certainly without leaving other evidence.

what rise?

Do you think the urban heat islands are causing increases? hahahaahhahahhaha

 

[Crick]

This rise

Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP)

 

[SSDD]

You need to think of a mechanism that would cause the world to warm as quickly as it has been warming the last 150 years and then turn around and cool off just as quickly, all within a span smaller than your claimed chronological resolution.

Do you HAVE such a mechanism? What are the odds that it has taken place in the last 800,000 years? Is there any evidence that such a thing has taken place? The world has proxy records besides ice cores. Anything?

Idiot...since the resolution of all known proxies is so low...how can you possibly say with any sort of certainty that what we are seeing isn't just business as usual? We are seeing nothing that even approaches the bounds of natural variability...and proxy studies don't lend you any support...so upon what...exactly are you making your claim of imminent doom?

 

[SSDD]

This rise

Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP)

Which revision of the data is that...it changes so much, that I lose track.

 

[Crick]

It's the most correct data available and it's an argument that doesn't require the paranoid fantasy that every climate scientist on the planet be in on a massive and perfectly executed conspiracy.

Why can't you find us any reputable, degreed scientists who agree with your conspiracy theories?

 

[jc456]

It's the most correct data available and it's an argument that doesn't require the paranoid fantasy that every climate scientist on the planet be in on a massive and perfectly executed conspiracy.

Why can't you find us any reputable, degreed scientists who agree with your conspiracy theories?

Why, so you can merely discredit them? What a waste of time. Again, why adjusting historical records? Fraud. It's what it becomes. Just a fact