Liberal fantasies & the new global warming report

Discussion in 'Politics' started by ScreamingEagle, Feb 1, 2007.

  1. ScreamingEagle
    Offline

    ScreamingEagle Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2004
    Messages:
    12,887
    Thanks Received:
    1,610
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,159
    Heh. Rush joke: What do global warming, synthetic fuel, embryonic stem cells, and Hillary for President all have in common?

    answer: they are all liberal fantasies.

    Re the ongoing (never-ending) and recent global warming hoopla:

     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. Bern80
    Offline

    Bern80 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,094
    Thanks Received:
    720
    Trophy Points:
    138
    Ratings:
    +726
    I know the global warming debate is pretty much split into believers on the left and non-believers on the right. But as a person on the right I have to say I'm a believer. Is the Earth getting warmer. Yes. Naked Science on the National Geographic channel as well as other programs have made for pretty convinceing arguments in my opinion.

    The real question at this point is, is it really a bad thing? The program focused on the melting of glaciers and ice in the arctic regions. If all of that ice melts, sea level will rise and there would be significant coastal flooding. I don't think the above is an opinion, it's just what would happen. On the upside we would have longer growing seasons at least.

    The other question is what reason is there to make this stuff up? Get rid of fossil fuel use which proportadly puts CO2 into the air which creates a greenhouse effect? Well then logically if it is made up then CO2 is not a problem and thus there is no reason to clean it up. Doesn't make much sense.
     
  3. Darwins Friend
    Offline

    Darwins Friend Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2007
    Messages:
    181
    Thanks Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +17
    Do drowning polar bears believe in Global Warming?:eusa_wall:
     
  4. ScreamingEagle
    Offline

    ScreamingEagle Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2004
    Messages:
    12,887
    Thanks Received:
    1,610
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,159

    The whole thing makes sense but only if you really understand liberals.

    First you need to ask yourself how did the Ice Ages end? What made the vast sheets of ice melt? By natural global warming, of course. There weren't any cars back in those days. CO2 (and other gases) and the greenhouse effect were caused naturally. Man and his cars and his factories were not even in existence but the earth still had global warming. The Ice Ages came and went several times. The sea levels have been much higher than today. Ice has covered the earth and ice has melted and receded. We've had global warming (and global freezing) many times in our earth's history. Perhaps we are going through another warming phase now.

    Why can't liberals accept that global warming today may also be a natural phenomenon, just as before? Seems highly likely. Instead, liberals will tell you that man-made emissions are causing global warming. They blame it all on the evils of civilization (for which they have the answers, of course). The more honest ones will say that mankind is causing extra warming. Can they tell you how much extra warming, if any? No. Scientists are in total disagreement on the subject. That in itself tells you that there is no definitive proof.

    Another key question to ask is how much will it cost us if we follow the Kyoto accords like the liberals want? Why is it liberals wish to hamper the advancement of western civilization? How much will mankind suffer as a result of closing down factories, stop using our cars, turning away from modernization? Al Gore (the high priest of environmental hysteria) and other leftists of the world seem to be just fine with bringing modernization and progress to a screeching halt or at least to the point of suppressing it. How many new rules and regulations and strangleholds on us will be instigated as a result of this? Of course, the Chinese (who produce probably the greatest emissions) are not amenable to following the Kyoto accords, yet the liberals don't seem to have a problem with that. Wonder why not?

    This whole hysterical issue of "global warming" is nothing more than a racket and a political trojan horse. If you understand liberals you will realize that anything they do or support (from abortion to homosexuality to higher taxes to protesting nuclear power plants to man-made global warming) is to destroy our advanced civilization and free democratic country and to replace it with their version of socialism/communism.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  5. CTRLALTDEL
    Offline

    CTRLALTDEL Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Messages:
    221
    Thanks Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Bay Area
    Ratings:
    +40
    Global Warming is a fact. The main argument basically is, WHO/WHAT IS CAUSING IT.
     
  6. Bern80
    Offline

    Bern80 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,094
    Thanks Received:
    720
    Trophy Points:
    138
    Ratings:
    +726
    I'll clarify my position a little and basically it agrees with the above. Is the Earth getting warmer? No doubt about it. Is it bad? Hard to say. The worst I can see is that it's gonna be a major inconvenience for people on the coast in that they'll be under water. How much of it is us? Like you say reports very. I would like to know what percentage of CO2 from all sources is actually man made.
     
  7. Hamiltonian
    Offline

    Hamiltonian Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Messages:
    263
    Thanks Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    PRC
    Ratings:
    +13
    Global warming and cooling is a natural process. It follows a sinusoidal curve in fact. CO2 emissions also follow a sinusoidal curve, as do man aspects of the planet. The problem is that we're going quite a bit outside the normal curve due to activities caused by man.


    Release emissions credits, where firms are only allowed to release a certain amount of pollution dependent on how many credits they own. Allow the firms to sell the credits between each other, so that the companies that develop new technologies will profit more since they don't have the added cost of the credits. Fossil fuels are the past, not modernization. Finding new sources of fuel and energy is the future, not the past.

    Did you infiltrate one of their secret meetings to find this out?
     
  8. Bullypulpit
    Offline

    Bullypulpit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    5,849
    Thanks Received:
    378
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    Ratings:
    +379
    You can throw facts at this boob (<i>ScreamingEagle</i>) all day, and he will still deny it. There are nearly 1,000 peer-reviewed papers attesting to the influence of human activity and the emission of greenhouse gases on global warming. The UN report is but the latest and most comprehensive of those reports. And golly, Exxon/Mobil is offering a $10,000 bounty to any scientist willing to undermine the UN report.

    The Bush administration stands not only accused of, but testimony has been provided before Congress that it did order the works of government scientists redacted and/or edited to minimize the threat of global warming and human influence upon that process. Even in the face of this latest report they still express a desire to stall rather than act. But that's sadly typical of the Bush administration in every area of policy they touch on, not just environmental policy.
     
  9. red states rule
    Offline

    red states rule Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    16,011
    Thanks Received:
    571
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +572
    Global cooling
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Jump to: navigation, search
    This article is about the climatological theory of global cooling. For the obsolete geophysical theory about the formation of natural features, see Geophysical Global cooling.
    Global cooling in general can refer to a cooling of the Earth; more specifically, it is a theory positing an overall cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere along with a posited commencement of glaciation. This theory gained temporary popular attention due to press reporting following a better understanding of ice age cycles and a temporary downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s. At present, the dominant theory amongst scientists is that Earth as a whole is not cooling, but rather is in a period of global warming attributed to human activity.[1]

    Introduction: general awareness and concern
    In the 1970s, there was increasing awareness that estimates of global temperatures showed cooling since 1945. The general public had little awareness about carbon dioxide's effects: at the time garbage, chemical disposal, smog, particulate pollution, and acid rain were the focus of public concern, although Paul R. Ehrlich mentions climate change from the greenhouse gases in 1968.[2] Not long after the idea of global cooling reached the public press in the mid-1970s, the temperature trend stopped going down. Even by the early 1970s, there was concern in the climatological community about carbon dioxide's effects,[3] and it was known that both natural and man-made effects caused variations in global climate.

    Environmental messages included smog levels, reports of smoke sources and effects, public service messages against littering and poison disposal, and reports of trees damaged by acid rain. Many people had backyard trash burning barrels, and concerns began about the amount of smoke from burning leaves in the fall. Many places instituted burning restrictions in the late 1960s.[4][5]

    Currently, there are some concerns about the possible cooling effects of a slowdown or shutdown of the thermohaline circulation, which might be provoked by an increase of fresh water mixing into the North Atlantic due to glacial melting. The probability of this occurring is generally considered to be low, and the IPCC notes, "However, even in models where the THC weakens, there is still a warming over Europe. For example, in all AOGCM integrations where the radiative forcing is increasing, the sign of the temperature change over north-west Europe is positive."[6] However, the idea intrigues the public mind and is often over-hyped; it formed the basis of the scientifically inaccurate film The Day After Tomorrow.


    [edit] Physical mechanisms
    The cooling period is well reproduced by current (1999 on) Global Climate Models (GCMs) that include the effect of sulphate aerosol cooling, so it (now) seems likely that this was the dominant cause. However, at the time there were two physical mechanisms that were most frequently advanced to cause cooling: aerosols and orbital forcing.


    [edit] Aerosols
    Human activity &#8212; mostly as a by-product of fossil fuel combustion, partly by land-use changes &#8212; increases the number of tiny particles (aerosols) in the atmosphere. These have a direct effect: they effectively increase the planetary albedo, thus cooling the planet by reducing the sunshine reaching the surface; and an indirect effect: they can affect the properties of clouds by acting as cloud condensation nuclei. In the early 1970s some speculated that this cooling effect might dominate over the warming effect of the CO2 release: see discussion of Rasool and Schneider (1971), below. As a result of observations (aerosol concentrations may have increased, but not enormously) and a switch to cleaner fuel burning, this no longer seems likely; the overwhelming bulk of current scientific work concentrates on the forcing, prediction and understanding of possible global warming. Although the temperature drops foreseen by this mechanism have now been discarded in light of better theory and the observed warming, aerosols are believed to have contributed a cooling tendency (outweighted by increases in greenhouse gases) and also have contributed to "Global Dimming".


    [edit] Orbital forcing
    The other mechanism was orbital forcing (Milankovitch cycles): slow changes in the tilt of the planets axis and shape of the orbit change the total amount of sunlight reaching the earth by a small amount and the seasonality of the sunshine by rather more. This mechanism is believed to be responsible for the timing of the ice age cycles, and understanding of it happened to be increasing rapidly in the mid-1970s.

    The idea that ice ages cycles were predictable appears to have become conflated with the idea that another one was due "soon" - perhaps because much of this study was done by geologists, who use "soon" to refer to periods of centuries to tens of millennia or more. A strict application of the Milankovitch theory does not allow the prediction of a "rapid" ice age (rapid being anything under a century or two) since the fastest orbital period is about 20,000 years. Some creative ways around this were found, notably Nigel Calder's "snowblitz" theory, but these ideas did not gain wide acceptance.


    CO2, temperature, and dust concentration measured from Vostok ice core at Antarctica.It is common to see it asserted that the length of the current interglacial temperature peak is similar to the length of the preceding interglacial peak (Sangamon/Eem), and from this conclude that we might be nearing the end of this warm period. However, this conclusion is mistaken. Firstly, because the lengths of previous interglacials were not particularly regular; see appended figure. Petit et al. note that interglacials 5.5 and 9.3 are different from the Holocene, but similar to each other in duration, shape and amplitude.[7] During each of these two events, there is a warm period of 4 kyr followed by a relatively rapid cooling. Secondly, future orbital variations will not closely resemble those of the past.



    When will libs libs get thier lies straight?
     
  10. red states rule
    Offline

    red states rule Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    16,011
    Thanks Received:
    571
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +572
    It will not be long before some crackpot Bush hater in the liberal media, blames Pres Bush's enviro policies for the tornado that destroyed parts of Fl.
     

Share This Page