I have posters remorse as well. I let myself get sucked into this crap when the bottom line is this is a fishing board and no one is changing anyone’s minds. There is a wall and there are people on both sides banging there heads against it.
The Rest of this Post Deleted BY Exhaustion
Quote:
Oil companies bank off “global warming” who do you think powers the generators that run the windmills…
Umm, wind powers the generators in windmills.
And when the wind isn’t blowing? How do they get the parts and people to the wind farm? Sailcars?
There is nothing prettier than an Iowa sunrise when the sun rays strobing through the rotating blades of a windmill.
Quote:
And when the wind isn’t blowing? How do they get the parts and people to the wind farm? Sailcars?
What’s the price of tea in China? Focus.
from the sounds of things, it evidently now pales in comparison to the price of scrap metal in China
Quote:
What’s the price of tea in China? Focus.
I’m done focusing. I’m on to short, sarcastic remarks. They have the same affect as a 4 paragraph response with less effort and time.
I find this chart interesting. Google Searches Over Time.
No need to analyze it, I am not making a point. I just find it funny that the interest appears to be waning.
I will repeat this again…
What is the temperature of the Earth supposed to be?
Honestly people.
What is it supposed to be?
Nobody Knows.
Man Made Global warming is a Political position. That’s It.
Let’s use some common sense now, Shall we?
I dont mean to be a Dad, but someone has to. 
Quote:
What is the temperature of the Earth supposed to be?
That question is a classic strawman and really has nothing to do with the conversation. That’s probably why nobody has addressed it. The question of concern is what is the rate and magnitude of change that will/not cause major disruptions to complex social systems? Unfortunately, we’re already seeing disruptions as result of our contributions to climate change and those disruptions are very likely to get much worse. http://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/
Everything you need to know about “global warming” is in the monetary investments of those perpetuating the myth.
Quote:
Quote:
What is the temperature of the Earth supposed to be?
That question is a classic strawman and really has nothing to do with the conversation. That’s probably why nobody has addressed it. The question of concern is what is the rate and magnitude of change that will/not cause major disruptions to complex social systems? Unfortunately, we’re already seeing disruptions as result of our contributions to climate change and those disruptions are very likely to get much worse. http://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/
That’s odd. You called his question a strawman argument and answered it with a strawman argument.
So then is it ok to ask what the “normal” rate and magnitude of change is? Has the velocity slowed enough in the last 10-15 years to an acceptable level? Is there a acceptable level to climate change proponents?
Quote:
So then is it ok to ask what the “normal” rate and magnitude of change is? Has the velocity slowed enough in the last 10-15 years to an acceptable level? Is there a acceptable level to climate change proponents?
Your confusing natural with ‘normal’. The velocity of change has not slowed in the last 15 years. Surface temperature is only one manifestation of the many changes we’re influencing and it’s highly likely that the rate of change surface temperatures will again increase in the near future. Sea levels continue to rise, Arctic sea ice continues to melt, oceans continue to acidify, precipitation patterns continue to change, for a few examples. An acceptable level of change would be one where change could be adapted to without significant biological, economic, or social disruption.
Can you prove this has no effect on our globe?
Quote:
Can you prove this has no effect on our globe?
Can you PROVE it does… A real live instance not some computer model some scientist dreamt up? Since all plant life depends on CO2 to survive and without it we would not have growing plants which does photosynthesis which creates oxygen.
And as far as the ice goes better do some checking the Artic is growing ice faster then any recorded time in history.
Lets see here back when the sky was falling again when scientists said the refrigerant R12 was going to destroy the Earth we were all going to die after spending billions of dollars only here in the US now they say R12 HAS NO EFFECT ON THE ATMMOSPERE 
No… and I don’t intend to. My whole point is that the main argument against climate change on this thread is that “no one can prove that without a doubt we are causing climate change”. TRUE Yet the opposite argument can be made. No one can prove that without a doubt we AREN’t causing climate change.
As with most arguments, the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle. But in an extremely partisan age, any concession to the other side is a loss so we argue instead of proactively seeking a solution.
Farmboy said it best I think… climate change and its cause… who cares. Most of us are on this site because we like to fish for something or enjoy the outdoors. A cleaner, healthier, more resilient environment benefits everyone, climate change aside.
First, ‘prove’ is not a word that belongs in a conversation about science. Proof is for mathematics and whiskey, not science. Science is characterized by probabilities. The evidence is clear that there is an extremely high likelihood that the current change is influenced primarily by human activities. There is substantial physical, observational evidence that don’t involve computer models.
Second, I’m not sure what planet you’re talking about but here on Earth the Arctic Sea Ice is declining:
https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
Quote:
I have posters remorse as well. I let myself get sucked into this crap when the bottom line is this is a fishing board and no one is changing anyone’s minds. There is a wall and there are people on both sides banging there heads against it.
maybe you should listen to your posters remorse more often and give the key board a rest..what where you saying about ego ?
The Rest of this Post Deleted BY Exhaustion
I posted the below a while back. If you think CO2 is causing rising temperatures you are dead wrong.
we are really coming out of the last ice age…yes still. We have been quite a bit warmer in the past than we are right now. CO2 is a green houses gas and will raise temperatures to a point. At a certain saturation level the temperature stops rising. We are way above the saturation point in which CO2 has any impact. way way above. If you look at CO2 vs. Temp rise it is opposite of what you hear on the news. Historically, Temperature rises first. Then CO2 rises after that. It is based on ICE Core samples taken around the globe.
Another inconvenient fact is that the earth is more productive when it is warmer. Warmer than the last 100 years. Cold climate kills. Warm produces.
But But But Mt. Kilimanjar used to have Snow on top of it!!! Yes true, But it was also surrounded by a rich forest before it was dessimated by people causing an arid environment warming the region. Honestly. What make more sense? Dont get me started on Volcanoes
I thought the loss of arctic sea Ice would kill the polar bears! Not True.
It also appears that the Antartic sea Ice has grown quite a bit as well. The time frame of 1970’s to the present is a blink in time. I remember we were supposed to be going in an Ice age in the 1970’s. Don’t let a good crisis go to waste.
Dont get me started on ethanol, wind, and solar…
Quote:
CO2 is a green houses gas and will raise temperatures to a point. At a certain saturation level the temperature stops rising. We are way above the saturation point in which CO2 has any impact.
That’s false. More than 70 years ago scientists realized you also have to consider altitude (atmospheric pressure).
Kaplan, Lewis D. (1952). “On the Pressure Dependence of Radiative Heat Transfer in the Atmosphere.” J. Meteorology 9: 1-12.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0469%281952%29009<0001%3AOTPDOR>2.0.CO%3B2
There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age. Indeed, the possibility of anthropogenic warming dominated the peer-reviewed literature even then.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1
This is not directed at anyone or at everyone. I honestly believe that any stance on anything can be backed up by some blurb on the net. There are millions of tidbits of “scientific” data out there.
Much like the discussion on the state of the fishery on Mille Lacs trying to prevail on this topic is like trying to pick up a turd by the clean end.
That’s absolutely true. That’s why people need to have information literacy and good critical thinking skills to analyze and use information in an appropriate manner. Unfortunately, as many on this thread exhibit, too many people are unable to distinguish between actual science and some douchie blogger.
Quote:
maybe you should listen to your posters remorse more often and give the key board a rest..what where you saying about ego ?
Ask anyone who knows me offline if I have an ego.
Quote:
That’s absolutely true. That’s why people need to have information literacy and good critical thinking skills to analyze and use information in an appropriate manner. Unfortunately, as many on this thread exhibit, too many people are unable to distinguish between actual science and some douchie blogger.
If only we were all so blessed.
Dwhale… Reality has passed you by my friend. Polar bears? Seriously, what is your ‘argument’ there? Sources?
this…
The old appeal to emotion argument.
Here’s a critical thinking skill
When (during a time of rising temps) someone says a rising temperature pattern proves his theory and then (during a subsequent period of falling temps) says a falling temperature pattern further proves the same theory, that alone is reason enough to be skeptical
Skeptical is just fine. Being dismissive and close minded fosters ignorance…..
There will always be climate change. There has always been climate change. If there’s one thing that certain from our measly 200 or so years of data, it’s that the earth’s climate in not constant and will always change. What makes people so certain man is creating it? I remember a photo my late Grandfather showed me back in 1981, when he was (aprx) 92. It was a picture of him (and his brother)taking the laundry off the clothes line and putting it into baskets. There was a huge plume of black smoke coming from a neighbors house in the background. I asked him if the house was on fire. He chuckled and said “no, that’s why we were taking the clothes in” “The Robins started heating their house that day”. I asked him what that had to do with the thick black smoke. “That’s from the coal”. “You should have seen it around here in the heating season”. “You could barely breath because of all the smoke & soot in the air” “Everyone house in the city burned coal or wood for heat & if you left your clothes out on the line, they’d turn black and you’d have to wash them again”…. I suppose if man was capable of releasing enough pollution to destroy the earth, it would have been during that era.
The US National Academy of Sciences and The Royal Society “Climate Change: Evidence & Causes”
http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/exec-office-other/climate-change-full.pdf
and believing every thing you hear makes you____________?
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
