Why do some take belief in Global Warming as a political issue?

[grammahiker]

As you can see by some of the other posts, some people get a little animated about the issue. The global warming angle came about as another way for people concerned about pollution to help us all visualize what is happening to us all as one people on our earth. It was meant to unite us in one cause. Because people who own mines, factories and waste facilities don't want to spend the extra money to keep people and animals safe and to keep the water, air and land clean. They cry poor saying that cleanups and filters will drive them out of business and cost jobs, which is usually not the case, they just want ever higher and higher profits. But rates of cancers, asthma, autism, deformities and many other illnesses are skyrocketing due to all the pollution but generally republicans are pro corporate interest above the health of others. Funny how most republicans claim to be Christians. Not a very Christian way to think about other people's health. I am Christian and I don't believe in political parties because I can think for myself and consider each and every issue individually and educate myself with all the data available regardless where it comes from which is very freeing and I am much more informed than someone who is biased to believe everything they hear from politicians, radio hosts and others who have been paid to repeat things by lobbyists.

 

[Sweet Willy]

I totally understand the difference. Let me offer this as an overview and let it fall where it may since I am NOT a climatologist.

Ok, over the last 40 years I've been in 154 of the Earth's 166 nation states so far. In that time period, the biome seems to be in a warming period caused by natural events as the planet is a salt water, fresh water and biome sphere.

Examples first hand of localized warming is places like the Nazca Lines of Peru or the whole central section of the Sahara. In these locations, at very high elevation and very low, with monitor stations positioned at random here and there over the years, it shows the Earth is cooling, and that induces localized heating by the Earth's thermocouple.

So, if ask, I would say the Earth is warming in its 14th warming trend over millenia. It is normal.

Not much but an offering of something.

Robert

And you may be completely correct.

Or maybe not.

I don't know.

You don't know.

What we do know is that man has the ability to make large scale impacts on his environment. Perhaps you have seen photos of the previously "dark" side of the Earth from space lately? Perhaps you have seen the South American continent shrouded in smoke from the fires of piled and burned timber?

While I do not know if man has or is making a large scale impact on the Earths climate, I do know that he is capable of large scale impacts that just a few decades ago, people would have lined up to convince me that man wasn't capable of. I tend to keep in mind that man is the single most intelligent thing in the Universe we know of and we constantly have surprised ourselves with the things we have done, both intentionally and accidentally.

I don't know.

You don't know.

What exactly is the method man has to effect both the surface and thermocouple of the Earth's biome. Hint, there is only one.

Robert

First Robert, explain the meaning of "biome". That word does not register as an actual English word for me. I am sure it is some neato science term I am unaware of, but I'd hate to speak from ignorance.

But my first guess? From ignorance: There is more than one way, you and others have yet to discover more than one.

I'm taking the dog down to the river before it gets dark. Continue later.

 

[Robert_Stephens]

And you may be completely correct.

Or maybe not.

I don't know.

You don't know.

What we do know is that man has the ability to make large scale impacts on his environment. Perhaps you have seen photos of the previously "dark" side of the Earth from space lately? Perhaps you have seen the South American continent shrouded in smoke from the fires of piled and burned timber?

While I do not know if man has or is making a large scale impact on the Earths climate, I do know that he is capable of large scale impacts that just a few decades ago, people would have lined up to convince me that man wasn't capable of. I tend to keep in mind that man is the single most intelligent thing in the Universe we know of and we constantly have surprised ourselves with the things we have done, both intentionally and accidentally.

I don't know.

You don't know.

What exactly is the method man has to effect both the surface and thermocouple of the Earth's biome. Hint, there is only one.

Robert

First Robert, explain the meaning of "biome". That word does not register as an actual English word for me. I am sure it is some neato science term I am unaware of, but I'd hate to speak from ignorance.

But my first guess? From ignorance: There is more than one way, you and others have yet to discover more than one.

I'm taking the dog down to the river before it gets dark. Continue later.

Biome is the scientific term for the Earth surface, sky, oceans and everything in between and that resides on it and includes us, as the top of the food chain for life here.

There is only one: To effect the Earth's biome;

It is, 100 megaton, ground and air burted thermonuclear devices in and aroung the main European landmass or the South American land mass, and detonate multiple bursts over a period of 48 hours.

This would cause a negative impact on roughly 1/4 of the Earth, for a period of roughly 2000 years and there is a 20-70% the biome would not survive.

Hope that is helpful and great exchange with this and your points are all valid.

Fedora is tipped.

Robert

 

[Sweet Willy]

westwall, you're a resident troll. That's the only purpose you serve here.

Hunting prohibitions on the Polar Bear are likely the only thing that saved it from extinction. In fact, hunting prohibitions and regulations have likely saved many species from that fate. Go talk to someone who wants to hear you babble on with your nonsense.

Robert, I'm sure that nuclear detonations would be a horrible climatic event, but I am equally sure that there are those who will tell you that we could just count on the cold sun or some polar bears to counter act the event.

We just don't know much about these things. We can certainly cause short term climatic events like the dust bowl. Man's actions there did create dust storm conditions that likely contributed to the duration of the event and severity of the drought. Man most assuredly altered the soil conditions and it's future potential for vegetation, which starts a chain reaction of things that we can barely put our fingers on. When we clear the Earth to the bare sub soil, there is a likely climate effect simply by removing the canopy, absorption potential, shade and other factors. We can make a desert climate out of a plains climate.... we have done it. How significant is it to do this? It's an open question. Certainly it took away a vast swath of farm land that is no longer suitable to feed us.... that IS a serious effect of the climate and environmental conditions we changed.

Global warming? I go back to what I related earlier about the lemonade. I don't think we are currently making the huge contribution to the warming climate that some claim. I do however, recognize that a tiny bit of poison in your lemonade means that Robert goes away. And so it may be with larger and more fragile things, like the balance of the range of human existence. Perhaps there is a yet discovered effect or an unobserved threshold we have yet to cross.... maybe that 0.7% effect of ours causes one of these unforeseen things to occur.

We don't know. What we do know is that knowledge is a good thing. We don't stop looking because a political wagon or two has been hitched to these things.

 

[The T]

Willy? You've gone from silly to stupid to boorish. What's next on your agenda?

 

[Sweet Willy]

Willy? You've gone from silly to stupid to boorish. What's next on your agenda?

Having a conversation with another reasonable and educated person. Why don't you excuse yourself. I'm sure there is another conversation here more suited to you.

 

[westwall]

Willy? You've gone from silly to stupid to boorish. What's next on your agenda?

Having a conversation with another reasonable and educated person. Why don't you excuse yourself. I'm sure there is another conversation here more suited to you.

To have one of those, you need to be educated. Go to school boy! You need it!

 

[westwall]

What exactly is the method man has to effect both the surface and thermocouple of the Earth's biome. Hint, there is only one.

Robert

First Robert, explain the meaning of "biome". That word does not register as an actual English word for me. I am sure it is some neato science term I am unaware of, but I'd hate to speak from ignorance.

But my first guess? From ignorance: There is more than one way, you and others have yet to discover more than one.

I'm taking the dog down to the river before it gets dark. Continue later.

Biome is the scientific term for the Earth surface, sky, oceans and everything in between and that resides on it and includes us, as the top of the food chain for life here.

There is only one: To effect the Earth's biome;

It is, 100 megaton, ground and air burted thermonuclear devices in and aroung the main European landmass or the South American land mass, and detonate multiple bursts over a period of 48 hours.

This would cause a negative impact on roughly 1/4 of the Earth, for a period of roughly 2000 years and there is a 20-70% the biome would not survive.

Hope that is helpful and great exchange with this and your points are all valid.

Fedora is tipped.

Robert

Actually, it was a friend of mine who calculated that scenario several decades ago. He calculated a flash temp across the entire North American continent of 2,000 degrees if only FOUR 100 megaton bombs were detonated in a geometric pattern above the US and Canada.

That would pretty much suck.

 

[Sweet Willy]

First Robert, explain the meaning of "biome". That word does not register as an actual English word for me. I am sure it is some neato science term I am unaware of, but I'd hate to speak from ignorance.

But my first guess? From ignorance: There is more than one way, you and others have yet to discover more than one.

I'm taking the dog down to the river before it gets dark. Continue later.

Biome is the scientific term for the Earth surface, sky, oceans and everything in between and that resides on it and includes us, as the top of the food chain for life here.

There is only one: To effect the Earth's biome;

It is, 100 megaton, ground and air burted thermonuclear devices in and aroung the main European landmass or the South American land mass, and detonate multiple bursts over a period of 48 hours.

This would cause a negative impact on roughly 1/4 of the Earth, for a period of roughly 2000 years and there is a 20-70% the biome would not survive.

Hope that is helpful and great exchange with this and your points are all valid.

Fedora is tipped.

Robert

Actually, it was a friend of mine who calculated that scenario several decades ago. He calculated a flash temp across the entire North American continent of 2,000 degrees if only FOUR 100 megaton bombs were detonated in a geometric pattern above the US and Canada.

That would pretty much suck.

So man does have the capacity to alter the climate?

Or would the cold sun equalize the event?

 

[Robert_Stephens]

First Robert, explain the meaning of "biome". That word does not register as an actual English word for me. I am sure it is some neato science term I am unaware of, but I'd hate to speak from ignorance.

But my first guess? From ignorance: There is more than one way, you and others have yet to discover more than one.

I'm taking the dog down to the river before it gets dark. Continue later.

Biome is the scientific term for the Earth surface, sky, oceans and everything in between and that resides on it and includes us, as the top of the food chain for life here.

There is only one: To effect the Earth's biome;

It is, 100 megaton, ground and air burted thermonuclear devices in and aroung the main European landmass or the South American land mass, and detonate multiple bursts over a period of 48 hours.

This would cause a negative impact on roughly 1/4 of the Earth, for a period of roughly 2000 years and there is a 20-70% the biome would not survive.

Hope that is helpful and great exchange with this and your points are all valid.

Fedora is tipped.

Robert

Actually, it was a friend of mine who calculated that scenario several decades ago. He calculated a flash temp across the entire North American continent of 2,000 degrees if only FOUR 100 megaton bombs were detonated in a geometric pattern above the US and Canada.

That would pretty much suck.

Good post, c it is about 10,000+ Degrees out to about 220 miles with an air bursted 100 megaton Thermo nuclear device. That is not Fission, as was used on Japan, but fusion devices.

Your pattern example, however, is correct.

Good comeback and post.

Robert

 

[westwall]

Biome is the scientific term for the Earth surface, sky, oceans and everything in between and that resides on it and includes us, as the top of the food chain for life here.

There is only one: To effect the Earth's biome;

It is, 100 megaton, ground and air burted thermonuclear devices in and aroung the main European landmass or the South American land mass, and detonate multiple bursts over a period of 48 hours.

This would cause a negative impact on roughly 1/4 of the Earth, for a period of roughly 2000 years and there is a 20-70% the biome would not survive.

Hope that is helpful and great exchange with this and your points are all valid.

Fedora is tipped.

Robert

Actually, it was a friend of mine who calculated that scenario several decades ago. He calculated a flash temp across the entire North American continent of 2,000 degrees if only FOUR 100 megaton bombs were detonated in a geometric pattern above the US and Canada.

That would pretty much suck.

So man does have the capacity to alter the climate?

Or would the cold sun equalize the event?

You don't read too well do you. I said quite a while back that man could certainly COOL the planet. The previous statement says FLASH TEMPERATURE, that means it is of very short duration. it would however set fire to pretty much every plant on the continent and that would lead to a NUCLEAR WINTER.

You really must learn to read for comprehension. Really, you must!

 

[Sweet Willy]

Actually, it was a friend of mine who calculated that scenario several decades ago. He calculated a flash temp across the entire North American continent of 2,000 degrees if only FOUR 100 megaton bombs were detonated in a geometric pattern above the US and Canada.

That would pretty much suck.

So man does have the capacity to alter the climate?

Or would the cold sun equalize the event?

You don't read too well do you. I said quite a while back that man could certainly COOL the planet. The previous statement says FLASH TEMPERATURE, that means it is of very short duration. it would however set fire to pretty much every plant on the continent and that would lead to a NUCLEAR WINTER.

You really must learn to read for comprehension. Really, you must!

OK... you said:

However, man has nowhere near the ability to affect the global climate.

You didn't mean that?

You forgot your exception to the rule?

If man can cool the planet, can he cause a drought? Can he cause a flood? Can he make a desert?

When you say that "man has nowhere near the ability to affect global climate" and then I read the rest of your mumbo jumbo, it sounds like this: "I think man can affect all sorts of climate and environmental change.... except in the one instance where I take political exception to the notion of man affecting climate.... I then spout unreasonable absolutes and superlatives that I later contradict and have to try and explain away..."

So tell us westwall, why do you take these matters as a political issue?

 

[westwall]

So man does have the capacity to alter the climate?

Or would the cold sun equalize the event?

You don't read too well do you. I said quite a while back that man could certainly COOL the planet. The previous statement says FLASH TEMPERATURE, that means it is of very short duration. it would however set fire to pretty much every plant on the continent and that would lead to a NUCLEAR WINTER.

You really must learn to read for comprehension. Really, you must!

OK... you said:

However, man has nowhere near the ability to affect the global climate.

You didn't mean that?

You forgot your exception to the rule?

If man can cool the planet, can he cause a drought? Can he cause a flood? Can he make a desert?

When you say that "man has nowhere near the ability to affect global climate" and then I read the rest of your mumbo jumbo, it sounds like this: "I think man can affect all sorts of climate and environmental change.... except in the one instance where I take political exception to the notion of man affecting climate.... I then spout unreasonable absolutes and superlatives that I later contradict and have to try and explain away..."

So tell us westwall, why do you take these matters as a political issue?

Trying to redirect away from your polar bear fail I see. Nice try.

 

[Sweet Willy]

You don't read too well do you. I said quite a while back that man could certainly COOL the planet. The previous statement says FLASH TEMPERATURE, that means it is of very short duration. it would however set fire to pretty much every plant on the continent and that would lead to a NUCLEAR WINTER.

You really must learn to read for comprehension. Really, you must!

OK... you said:

However, man has nowhere near the ability to affect the global climate.

You didn't mean that?

You forgot your exception to the rule?

If man can cool the planet, can he cause a drought? Can he cause a flood? Can he make a desert?

When you say that "man has nowhere near the ability to affect global climate" and then I read the rest of your mumbo jumbo, it sounds like this: "I think man can affect all sorts of climate and environmental change.... except in the one instance where I take political exception to the notion of man affecting climate.... I then spout unreasonable absolutes and superlatives that I later contradict and have to try and explain away..."

So tell us westwall, why do you take these matters as a political issue?

Trying to redirect away from your polar bear fail I see. Nice try.

No, I am asking you a question.

you say this:

However, man has nowhere near the ability to affect the global climate.

then you say this:

I said quite a while back that man could certainly COOL the planet. The previous statement says FLASH TEMPERATURE, that means it is of very short duration. it would however set fire to pretty much every plant on the continent and that would lead to a NUCLEAR WINTER.

Can man change the climate or not?

 

[westwall]

OK... you said:



You didn't mean that?

You forgot your exception to the rule?

If man can cool the planet, can he cause a drought? Can he cause a flood? Can he make a desert?

When you say that "man has nowhere near the ability to affect global climate" and then I read the rest of your mumbo jumbo, it sounds like this: "I think man can affect all sorts of climate and environmental change.... except in the one instance where I take political exception to the notion of man affecting climate.... I then spout unreasonable absolutes and superlatives that I later contradict and have to try and explain away..."

So tell us westwall, why do you take these matters as a political issue?

Trying to redirect away from your polar bear fail I see. Nice try.

No, I am asking you a question.

you say this:

However, man has nowhere near the ability to affect the global climate.

then you say this:

I said quite a while back that man could certainly COOL the planet. The previous statement says FLASH TEMPERATURE, that means it is of very short duration. it would however set fire to pretty much every plant on the continent and that would lead to a NUCLEAR WINTER.

Can man change the climate or not?

Yes, in the process of destroying himself, man can certainly alter the climate for a short duration. He has the ability to make it cold, and to make it so for long enough that mans survival would be in question. The rest of the biosphere as well would be at risk. Not of outright extinction, but it would certainly kill off the majority.

However, the climatic effect would last a comparatively short time. Probably no more than 50 years or so. Then the natural cycles would take over again. And, please note. It would take a massive undertaking to do this. Man would have to really want to destroy himself to accomplish this.

To date, no bomb has ever been made that was that large The Tzar Bomba that the CCCP built decades ago was only around 50 megatons and weighd 60,000 pounds or so. I don't remember the exact length but it was over 25 feet long as well. In other words very few things could launch it. I don't know how much effort it would take to build a 100 megaton bomb but it would be very, very difficult. And I doubt anything short of a Saturn 5 could loft it into a sub orbital burst altitude.

So yes, man can alter the global climate. It would take a significant amount of the GDP of a very wealthy nation to accomplish, and that would be the sole purpose of that effort.

But heating up the atmosphere is still far beyond our capabilities, no matter how you try and twist our abilities.

 

[Sweet Willy]

Good enough. Man has the capacity to change the climate of the Earth.

End of discussion.

Feel free to pedal your politics outside of the facts now.

 

[daveman]

We protect critical habitat Dave. We do it for all sorts of wild life.

Boy, your say-so is totally insufficient.

What have we done to protect Arctic ice -- the polar bear's natural habitat?

Links. Provide them.

You are claiming arctic ice to be the bears "natural habitat"?

Prove it.

Okay.

The polar bear is often regarded as a marine mammal because it spends many months of the year at sea.[30] Its preferred habitat is the annual sea ice covering the waters over the continental shelf and the Arctic inter-island archipelagos. These areas, known as the "Arctic ring of life", have high biological productivity in comparison to the deep waters of the high Arctic.[24][31] The polar bear tends to frequent areas where sea ice meets water, such as polynyas and leads (temporary stretches of open water in Arctic ice), to hunt the seals that make up most of its diet.[32] Polar bears are therefore found primarily along the perimeter of the polar ice pack, rather than in the Polar Basin close to the North Pole where the density of seals is low.[33]​

Now what are we doing to protect Arctic ice?

Note: Posting on the internet (what the left likes to call "raising awareness" and pretend it's an actual accomplishment) is not doing anything.

 

[Sweet Willy]

Yes Dave, Polar Bears get their food on the sea ice. Good job.

Now read and learn about a very well known treaty, not only because it protected polar bears in their habitat, it was one of very few co operations between the US and the USSR during the cold war:

The International Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears was signed in Oslo, November 15, 1973 by the five nations with the largest polar bear populations including Canada, Denmark, Greenland, Norway, the United States, and the former U.S.S.R.[1] This legislation was brought about due to increased hunting of polar bears during the 1960s and 1970s which led to polar bears being under severe survival pressure from hunters.

The agreement prohibits random, unregulated sport hunting of polar bears and outlaws hunting of polar bears from aircraft and icebreakers which have been the most detrimental to the polar bear population. Additionally, the agreement holds member states accountable for taking appropriate actions to protect the ecosystems of which the polar bears dwell, paying special attention to places where polar bears create dens, do a majority of their feeding, and where they migrate.[2] States also must manage polar bear populations in accordance with proper conservation practices based on the best available scientific data.[3]

Yes Dave, we have specific laws and treaties in effect to protect Polar Bears and their habitat.

Weren;t you going to play in the street or something?

 

[westwall]

Yes Dave, Polar Bears get their food on the sea ice. Good job.

Now read and learn about a very well known treaty, not only because it protected polar bears in their habitat, it was one of very few co operations between the US and the USSR during the cold war:

The International Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears was signed in Oslo, November 15, 1973 by the five nations with the largest polar bear populations including Canada, Denmark, Greenland, Norway, the United States, and the former U.S.S.R.[1] This legislation was brought about due to increased hunting of polar bears during the 1960s and 1970s which led to polar bears being under severe survival pressure from hunters.

The agreement prohibits random, unregulated sport hunting of polar bears and outlaws hunting of polar bears from aircraft and icebreakers which have been the most detrimental to the polar bear population. Additionally, the agreement holds member states accountable for taking appropriate actions to protect the ecosystems of which the polar bears dwell, paying special attention to places where polar bears create dens, do a majority of their feeding, and where they migrate.[2] States also must manage polar bear populations in accordance with proper conservation practices based on the best available scientific data.[3]

Yes Dave, we have specific laws and treaties in effect to protect Polar Bears and their habitat.

Weren;t you going to play in the street or something?

Oh, so nowwwww you pay attention to the Treaty I told you about. What a 'tard. And surprise, surprise, both of US, knew more about the life cycle of the polar bear than the self proclaimed hunter and conservationist. What a maroon! As Bugs would say!

 

[daveman]

Yes Dave, Polar Bears get their food on the sea ice. Good job.

The sea ice which is their preferred habitat. Because that's where the food is.

Weren;t you going to play in the street or something?

Nope. Too busy working, going to school, and taking care of my family.

Speaking of school, you'd better get to bed. Your mom is going to be pissed if you miss the bus again and she has to take you to school.