Global Cooling For Next 20-30 Years

[UNTflyer]

Can we finally admit that this whole climate thing is a natural cycle that humans can do little to change?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/art...tarts-here.html

[yyz28]

Can we finally admit that this whole climate thing is a natural cycle that humans can do little to change?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/art...tarts-here.html

If we use logic, science and fact, then yes we can.

...so obviouslly the answer to your question is "NO!".

[HoustonEagle]

LOL

From the horse's mouth.

[KingDL1]

LOL

From the horse's mouth.

[FirefightnRick]

I've referenced this before because I remember it being taught in school and being scared $hitless that we were all about to freeze to death.

‘It just isn’t true to say this is a blip. We can expect colder winters for quite a while.’

He recalled that towards the end of the last cold mode, the world’s media were preoccupied by fears of freezing.

For example, in 1974, a Time magazine cover story predicted ‘Another Ice Age’, saying: ‘Man may be somewhat responsible – as a result of farming and fuel burning [which is] blocking more and more sunlight from reaching and heating the Earth.’

But I like the video. In the great debate of global warming you rarely hear anyone mentioning the sun and how it affects us.

Rick

[Censored by Laurie]

Can we finally admit that this whole climate thing is a natural cycle that humans can do little to change?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/art...tarts-here.html

Hmmm...all of this happening under Obama's watch...

I'm sure he'll accept all of your thank yous and apologies graciously.

[KRAM1]

This was interesting to me. Many have probably already seen this littl;e clip. It's a bit long, but the guy did start up the weather channel and has been around climate and climate study for some time. It was interesting to me...take a look if you want...gives one something to consider and "ponder" between football seasons.

http://www.kusi.com/home/78477082.html?video=pop&t=a

[FirefightnRick]

Water vapour is a major cause of global warming and cooling find scientists

The new research comes at a difficult time for climate scientists. The United Nations’ climate science panel the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) admitted last week that it made a mistake by claiming that the Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035.

It followed another row surrounding the science behind climate change, dubbed “Climategate”, when leaked emails appeared to suggest that scientists at the University of East Anglia had manipulated climate change data.

Interesting.

Rick

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

--- This brings us back to what many of us non-radicals have been saying... Has the warming [ which has happened some in the past 20 years or so-- there is less ice in many places despite what want to believe], is it just natural variation, or caused by man, or if so can we even do anything about it anyway or should we.. To me the craziness is that some just refuse to believe the amount of ice has declined (icecaps, glaciers, snow covered mountains etc.) Plus why makes you think this prediction is right and the others are wrong.???? Time will answer some of the questions. It may be decades before any real answer is known. Just need to kept our opinions and options open and don't go crazy in either direction..

[Guest GrayEagleOne]

http://www.iceagenow.com/Climatologists_Who_Disagree.htm

Progressives are not radicals?

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

http://www.iceagenow.com/Climatologists_Who_Disagree.htm

Progressives are not radicals?

---Not exactly, but maybe sometimes... were those who supported 18 as a voting age considered radicals. [ I couldn't vote at 18, but could be sent to Nam] We those who supported non-segregated college radicals? [the SWC was segregated when I graduated from HS] Were those who thought women should be allowed on juries radicals? [my Mom was over 55 before being allowed to serve(even if a woman was on trial)] and even older were those who decided women should be able to vote considered radicals..??..... Those who opposed slavery probably were progresssive but likely were considered radical by the conservatives. Conservatives opposed all of those ideas. Even the Revolution from Great Britian was a radical idea... [Conservatives aka Tories wanted to remain loyal to GB] Which ones of those do you now oppose?? Times changes and people's oppinion of right and wrong change. I suppose slow change that is not opposed too much is progressive ...and those with a lot of opposition and with very different changes are radical.

--That is progress and it will occur.... and some of them are rather smooth changes and some are considered rather radical changes. Most change occurs because it is needed.... but we all know some changes just don't work out.

Edited February 1, 2010 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[eulessismore]

http://www.iceagenow.com/Climatologists_Who_Disagree.htm

Progressives are not radicals?

It's interesting that the link you provided had a link to National Geographic front and center; to me, NG has provided the most coherent explanations of climate change in all this dialogue: of course some of climate change is due to natural cycles, but what is the evidence against what NG claims that it's about 50-50 at this point? Anyway, I got more out of clicking on the NG link than clicking on the one about fat loss; did anyone figure out how to make that work? I hate to say it, but some of the web sites presenting these anti climate change views could appear a little more credible without seeming to say that everything's a conspiracy.

Oh yes, some progressives are radicals. Aren't many of us glad that there were "Radical Republicans" around the time of the American Civil War advocating against slavery? Now that was a radical position.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

It's interesting that the link you provided had a link to National Geographic front and center; to me, NG has provided the most coherent explanations of climate change in all this dialogue: of course some of climate change is due to natural cycles, but what is the evidence against what NG claims that it's about 50-50 at this point? Anyway, I got more out of clicking on the NG link than clicking on the one about fat loss; did anyone figure out how to make that work? I hate to say it, but some of the web sites presenting these anti climate change views could appear a little more credible without seeming to say that everything's a conspiracy.

Oh yes, some progressives are radicals. Aren't many of us glad that there were "Radical Republicans" around the time of the American Civil War advocating against slavery? Now that was a radical position.

---I don't think those GOP guys are around anymore. In fact the current group isn't even much like they were 50+ years ago when Ike decided to change (modernize) America and build an interstate highway system. Most would now claim that was a radical socialist program and should be strictly a local deal. Also so many now tend to think religious groups should be able to control our government. They are the ones that should read the Constitution.... it was set up so "government could not control our religious beliefs and religious beliefs could not control government". There is nothing anti-Christian about that. Although I am very Christian, there are groups I would hate to see get control (remember Prohibition). The framers had just seen European religious fighting for 2-3 centuries [mostly Catholic vs. various Protestant groups ] and did not want the same to occur here. They were far from being considered conservative... they created what at the the time was the most radical government on Earth...no ruling family, no state religion as many European countries had, and people got to have a voice in national decisions by voting....

--I am lost... why is global warming even a political party issue?? It is a science issue and which party we vote in seems to not even be relavent... Is is because Gore was a figure in one party and the opposition party thinks no way someone in the opposition party might be right about anything?? To me it seems things have changed some (less ice) but have no idea why.. natural variation or man-caused is the question...and how is that political??

Edited February 1, 2010 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[hickoryhouse]

---I don't think those GOP guys are around anymore. In fact the current group isn't even much like they were 50+ years ago when Ike decided to change (modernize) America and build an interstate highway system. Most would now claim that was a radical socialist program and should be strictly a local deal. Also so many now tend to think religious groups should be able to control our government. They are the ones that should read the Constitution.... it was set up so "government could not control our religious beliefs and religious beliefs could not control government". There is nothing anti-Christian about that. Although I am very Christian, there are groups I would hate to see get control (remember Prohibition). The framers had just seen European religious fighting for 2-3 centuries [mostly Catholic vs. various Protestant groups ] and did not want the same to occur here. They were far from being considered conservative... they created what at the the time was the most radical government on Earth...no ruling family, no state religion as many European countries had, and people got to have a voice in national decisions by voting....

--I am lost... why is global warming even a political party issue?? It is a science issue and which party we vote in seems to not even be relavent... Is is because Gore was a figure in one party and the opposition party thinks no way someone in the opposition party might be right about anything?? To me it seems things have changed some (less ice) but have no idea why.. natural variation or man-caused is the question...and how is that political??

I would say that the issue of global warming by itself is not the political catalyst. That comes from different parties perspectives on how to deal with the problem. Cap and Trade vs. Market based solutions. those are the arguments the science being debated here is not political but the solutions are.

I think that people get tired of being told whats right when they disagree with the assumption, on either side.

[FirefightnRick]

--I am lost... why is global warming even a political party issue??

There's your sign!

Rick

[Quoner]

There's your sign!

Rick

OOOOO - is it 90s day?

TALK TO THE HAND!

DON'T GO THERE!

TWO SNAPS AND A Z TWIST!

I agree it shouldn't be a partisan issue -- NOT!

IT'S PIZZA TIME! COWABUNGA!

If you wanna be my lover, you gotta get with my friends!

Whoa!

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

Rick---I see you did not explain why one party should belief in global warming and the other one should not. It look like a scientific debate to me not political. I admit I don't understand why it should be political.. Maybe you have the genius to explain that to me. I am waiting and expecting an insightful explanation. I am sure you know and can do that....hope to see a quick response since you obviouly know since you responded as you did.

Edited February 1, 2010 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[UNTFan23]

Rick---I see you did not explain why one party should belief in global warming and the other one should not. It look like a scientific debate to me not political. I admit I don't understand why it should be political.. Maybe you have the genius to explain that to me. I am waiting and expecting an insightful explanation. I am sure you know and can do that....hope to see a quick response since you obviouly know since you responded as you did.

Can we switch gears to evolution versus creationism? It makes for more interesting reading (and tends to be less politicized).

[The Fake Lonnie Finch]

Good, I prefer global cooling.

[Censored by Laurie]

Can we switch gears to evolution versus creationism? It makes for more interesting reading (and tends to be less politicized).

I think you mean "EVILution."

[yyz28]

Rick---I see you did not explain why one party should belief in global warming and the other one should not. It look like a scientific debate to me not political. I admit I don't understand why it should be political.. Maybe you have the genius to explain that to me. I am waiting and expecting an insightful explanation. I am sure you know and can do that....hope to see a quick response since you obviouly know since you responded as you did.

When a political party turns a scientific debate into fact and the leader of that party makes statements like he did in the state of the union address about global warming and then a political party takes the opportunity of a huge majority to push legislation that will impact everyone in the country based on what you define as a "scientific debate" it becomes pretty political in a big hurry.

You keep hearing folks talk about the "overwhelming evidence that man-made climate change" exists, but as this thread has demonstrated, there isn't such a consensus. Climate change IS real, there is little doubt about that; its been happening since before man walked the planet... ...but what causes it and what impact we can have is certainly up for debate, and so long as the debate continues... it continues...

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

When a political party turns a scientific debate into fact and the leader of that party makes statements like he did in the state of the union address about global warming and then a political party takes the opportunity of a huge majority to push legislation that will impact everyone in the country based on what you define as a "scientific debate" it becomes pretty political in a big hurry.

You keep hearing folks talk about the "overwhelming evidence that man-made climate change" exists, but as this thread has demonstrated, there isn't such a consensus. Climate change IS real, there is little doubt about that; its been happening since before man walked the planet... ...but what causes it and what impact we can have is certainly up for debate, and so long as the debate continues... it continues...

--I did not hear all of the speech (working)...but I did hear some environmental items... Ever seen some of these old oil fields of West Texas....??? Salt water and chemicals poured everywhere and the land is damaged so bad that the water is ruined and the land is unproductive for even grass. There are some "creeks" damned up so that the polluted water can not go downstream to lakes and needed water for human and ag use. . If there were no regulations ...you and I both know what would be happening even now. Why would one party be any more environmental friendly than the other or even more concerned about the possibibilty of global warming. Better to err on the safe side than the other unless way too riculious. Plus our oil resourses will not later forever... our lifetime yes...but not forever.

Back to your original sentence... about overwheming evidence... are those people just members of one political party or even any political party??? Some of them aren't even American...

[The Fake Lonnie Finch]

People can eat lots of things - meat, vegetables, processed cheese. In some parts of the world, they eat dogs and cats. Others eat insects. The Cubans eat pigeons because their socialist economy is so great.

The thing is we've got all of this handwringing all the time about what will happen if this or that happens. What will happen is this - we'll all get up and eat something, then go to work.

Global warming has never been about science, anyway. It's always been about two things:

(1) making the United States fork over even more money to crappily run countries

(2) giving the leftists in America complete control of the government and economy all for the sake of their bogeyman.

Well guess what leftists? Suck it! You'll never pull the wool over our eyes - and, therefore, the money out of our pockets - to fund your chicken little theories to their fanatical end.

I'm waiting for the day when all of these environmentalists walk the walk of the talk they are talking and move away from the rest of society and cling to their beloved "Mother Earth" for their survival.

There's a whole lot of open land in Africa, environmentalists. Grab a plane tickets and go fight for your survival with the lions and hyenas. I'd love to see the results.

Boing. Boing. Boing. That's the sound of an ape bouncing your head all over the Serengeti. Meanwhile, I'm home in Frisco, Texas in my air conditioned home, drinking cold Pepsi Cola out of a can, microwaving a chicken pot pie, and commuting 44 miles a day back and forth in my own car, and remarking to my SUV-driving, child-bearing wife about how nice it is to turn on the news and not have hear from the environmentalists anymore.

[Censored by Laurie]

The Cubans eat pigeons because their socialist economy is so great.

I just deleted the rest of your post b/c it bored me, but Cubans...and hundreds of other nationalities and cultures including Americans who understand that the be all and end all of their cuisine isn't Appleby's, eat pigeon, or squab, because its delicious.

[BeanCounterGrad'03]

People can eat lots of things - meat, vegetables, processed cheese. In some parts of the world, they eat dogs and cats. Others eat insects. The Cubans eat pigeons because their socialist economy is so great.

The thing is we've got all of this handwringing all the time about what will happen if this or that happens. What will happen is this - we'll all get up and eat something, then go to work.

Global warming has never been about science, anyway. It's always been about two things:

(1) making the United States fork over even more money to crappily run countries

(2) giving the leftists in America complete control of the government and economy all for the sake of their bogeyman.

Well guess what leftists? Suck it! You'll never pull the wool over our eyes - and, therefore, the money out of our pockets - to fund your chicken little theories to their fanatical end.

I'm waiting for the day when all of these environmentalists walk the walk of the talk they are talking and move away from the rest of society and cling to their beloved "Mother Earth" for their survival.

There's a whole lot of open land in Africa, environmentalists. Grab a plane tickets and go fight for your survival with the lions and hyenas. I'd love to see the results.

Boing. Boing. Boing. That's the sound of an ape bouncing your head all over the Serengeti. Meanwhile, I'm home in Frisco, Texas in my air conditioned home, drinking cold Pepsi Cola out of a can, microwaving a chicken pot pie, and commuting 44 miles a day back and forth in my own car, and remarking to my SUV-driving, child-bearing wife about how nice it is to turn on the news and not have hear from the environmentalists anymore.

You drink Pepsi?