Weather-End Times?

[Calm]

I do wish people would just focus on pollution itself. Perhaps it was because I was younger and less informed, but it seemed to me there was greater success in getting stuff done when the issue was just about cleaning stuff up and didn't get complicated. Keeping things simple just seems more effective IMO.

[thesometimesaint]

At first it was global warning but when that didn't quite work it became climate change.  It is somebody trying to make money off of normal weather cycles.  In the fifty's to the seventies we were getting dire warnings about a new coming ice age then as the cycle progressed it became global warming.

 

The earth is undeniably warmer.

 

That is really a misnomer. http://climatecrocks.com/2013/06/07/the-1970s-ice-age-myth-and-time-magazine-covers-by-david-kirtley/comment-page-1/

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I have to disagree.

Cool story bro. No pun intended. I have nothing to gain or lose and I think it is all a crock in terms of the alarmism that is going on. Ugh I am not going to get sucked into this again.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I do wish people would just focus on pollution itself. Perhaps it was because I was younger and less informed, but it seemed to me there was greater success in getting stuff done when the issue was just about cleaning stuff up and didn't get complicated. Keeping things simple just seems more effective IMO.

Cal if it were really all about the pollution  I am on board. But it's not. There is a political agenda associated with this movement  How does raising taxes solve the problem of pollution? Ugh I am getting sucked in again.

 

 

I agree keep things simple. But that again is not the point of this "movement".

[thesometimesaint]

I don't think anyone denies "climate change" or that the climate does change. I don't think that anyone even disputes that there are green house gases. And that those can indeed increase the over all temperature. But I think the issues are how much does it actually affect the weather. Is what is really being talked about really over concern or is it about a convenient way to push a political agenda? Right now I think it is safe to say that there has been no warming since 1998. In fact it seems to be getting colder. That is why it went from global warming to "climate change". I knew the gig was up when that happened. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Green house gases cause warming. Sure. But they also cause cooling? OK. I just don't buy that.

 

If we want to have a discussion on pollution I am ready to have that conversation. But doing all of that under the guise of "Global Warming" or "Global Climate Change" just is not the way to do it. I recently heard that on a list of "burning issues" for the US (in terms of politics), global warming was dead last right behind amnesty or immigration reform. Anyway I really don't care to get into this again for the 20th time.

 

Queue music for the TSS to come in and rebut me.

 

Queue the music all you want.

 

Weather is not climate. Weather is the clothes you put on today. Climate is the clothes in your closet. There is a reason for Eskimo's to not have many short sleeved shirts in their closets.

 

The terms Global Warming and Weather Change has been used interchangeably since the 1950's.

 

The simple fact is that the earth has been getting warmer.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/global-average-temperatures-are-close-to-11000-year-peak/

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/decadaltemp.php

[Freedom]

Cal if it were really all about the pollution  I am on board. But it's not. There is a political agenda associated with this movement  How does raising taxes solve the problem of pollution? Ugh I am getting sucked in again.

 

 

I agree keep things simple. But that again is not the point of this "movement".

I understand your complaint but there is some sound reasoning behind it. Charge higher taxes to industries that pollute more. This is how road tolls work. Charge a tax to those who use the roads. It is a user pay system. Does it work? Not so long as China and India get away polluting; but of course, they are polluting to produce products for our market; in other words, those corporations that are being taxed because of their polluting are simply moving their operations off shore. So, we could tax products that are coming into the country but that boarders on tariffs.

 

Also, just because something becomes political does not make it bad. Human rights became political, allowing women to vote became political. Getting political means that the government is taking action. Has the green tax worked? I would argue that whenever the government gets involved in creating a marketable product it never ends well. There are numerous examples of poor green energy investments. Nevertheless, what other solution is there? If the government does not set the standard nobody else will.

 

A simple law of economics is, the more something costs, the fewer people will use it. If you make environmentally harmful sources of energy too expensive, people will turn to alternative fuel sources, or lean to use less of it. Clearly, raising the standards of living has not caused the destruction of the American economy that the union busters predicted. 

[Buzzard]

Just my .02, before this whole thread gets shut down for being political. Weather and climate have been with us for a long time, and every time it snows harder than it has for a decade, or a tornado hits, or we have an epic heatwave, we are likely to ascribe it to the end times. 

Well, the end times are a comin' but not because it's snowing-or not snowing. 

[ERayR]

I am rather mystified by the unwillingness to accept climate change and global warming when the causes, or if you like the alleged causes, are so patently and obviously bad. I find the rejection of the science behind climate change to be on the same intellectual level of the rejection of evolution. Obviously, pollution is a bad thing. obviously it has a very negative affect on our planet. Yes, temperature changes are cyclical, but to suggest that we are not harming the planet is irresponsible. 

 

Nobody is arguing that pollution isn't bad, just that it isn't doing what is claimed.  In days of old when when wood and coal were the primary energy source pollution was much worse.

[The Nehor]

The earth is undeniably warmer.

 

That is really a misnomer. http://climatecrocks.com/2013/06/07/the-1970s-ice-age-myth-and-time-magazine-covers-by-david-kirtley/comment-page-1/

 

[thesometimesaint]

Nobody is arguing that pollution isn't bad, just that it isn't doing what is claimed.  In days of old when when wood and coal were the primary energy source pollution was much worse.

 

Its been a while since I burned coal in my car.

 

Wood, Coal, Gasoline and Methane(Natural Gas) release CO2 when burned. We humans have been conducting a grand experiment to see how much CO2 we can dump into our atmosphere before it has really bad side effects.

 

Too much CO2 is a pollutant to animals including man. CO2 is also what plants use along with water to produce sugars, and other carbohydrates. Too much CO2 and plants either don't use enough of it to remain viable or just don't use enough of it to make oxygen for the use of animals. Either outcome isn't really a very good for us humans. Also; We're now experiencing CO2 levels not seen in millions of years. The polar ice caps are melting, The glaciers are melting( A good chunk of the worlds population depends of glacier waters). The oceans are getting warmer and more acidic(Not good for life as we know it.).

 

Here is a challenge for you to answer.

1. Assume Global Warming is false, but spend some money anyway. What is the most likely outcome? We get a little cleaner environment, and maybe even save some money in the long run because of increased efficiency.

2. Assume that Global Warming is false. So we don't spend any money on it. What is the most likely outcome? Everything stays pretty the same. Not real good. The earth gets dirtier, and even a less desirable place to live. But it is still manageable.

3. Assume Global Warming is real, and spend some money anyway. What is the most likely outcome? Disaster avoided.

4. Assume Global Warming is real, and we don't spend any money on it. What is the most likely outcome? DISASTER.

 

Given what we've already seen happen. What is your choice?

[thesometimesaint]

Just my .02, before this whole thread gets shut down for being political. Weather and climate have been with us for a long time, and every time it snows harder than it has for a decade, or a tornado hits, or we have an epic heatwave, we are likely to ascribe it to the end times. 

Well, the end times are a comin' but not because it's snowing-or not snowing. 

 

As James G. Watt used to say. After the last tree is felled, Christ will come back.

[Freedom]

Nobody is arguing that pollution isn't bad, just that it isn't doing what is claimed.  In days of old when when wood and coal were the primary energy source pollution was much worse.

This is the point. The science is difficult to refute. Those who are saying it isn't doing what it is claiming have no scientific training and refuse to examine the evidence because there is this false impression that the research is all tainted by political zealots. 

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

  refuse to examine the evidence because there is this false impression that the research is all tainted by political zealots. 

...

Edited January 30, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[ERayR]

Its been a while since I burned coal in my car.

 

Wood, Coal, Gasoline and Methane(Natural Gas) release CO2 when burned. We humans have been conducting a grand experiment to see how much CO2 we can dump into our atmosphere before it has really bad side effects.

 

Too much CO2 is a pollutant to animals including man. CO2 is also what plants use along with water to produce sugars, and other carbohydrates. Too much CO2 and plants either don't use enough of it to remain viable or just don't use enough of it to make oxygen for the use of animals. Either outcome isn't really a very good for us humans. Also; We're now experiencing CO2 levels not seen in millions of years. The polar ice caps are melting, The glaciers are melting( A good chunk of the worlds population depends of glacier waters). The oceans are getting warmer and more acidic(Not good for life as we know it.).

 

Here is a challenge for you to answer.

1. Assume Global Warming is false, but spend some money anyway. What is the most likely outcome? We get a little cleaner environment, and maybe even save some money in the long run because of increased efficiency.

2. Assume that Global Warming is false. So we don't spend any money on it. What is the most likely outcome? Everything stays pretty the same. Not real good. The earth gets dirtier, and even a less desirable place to live. But it is still manageable.

3. Assume Global Warming is real, and spend some money anyway. What is the most likely outcome? Disaster avoided.

4. Assume Global Warming is real, and we don't spend any money on it. What is the most likely outcome? DISASTER.

 

Given what we've already seen happen. What is your choice?

 

You missed the point entirely.  Air and water pollution used to be much worse.  Efforts to improve the environment are good and laudable providing they are reasonable.  What is not reasonable IMNSHO is the large expenditures and restrictions on personal liberties engendered by the fashionable pseudoscience which does nothing but to funnel money to the Al Gores of the world.

[PtolemyGlenn]

I'm still waiting for the disappearance of polar ice caps by 2014 that Al Gore and his coven of climate change scarers predicted. Lol

So little ice that ice breakers somehow got stuck in the Southern Hemisphere. Anything to get people handing over their cash.

[JLHPROF]

Don't even mention that stupid Al Gore slideshow...

 

[Robert F. Smith]

At first it was global warning but when that didn't quite work it became climate change.  It is somebody trying to make money off of normal weather cycles.  In the fifty's to the seventies we were getting dire warnings about a new coming ice age then as the cycle progressed it became global warming.

I know of no factual data which negates the scientific conclusions of climate scientists that global warming is a fact and has been produced through industrial human activity.  Even Exxon now admits the risk of climate change.*  The only holdouts are non-scientists who want to continue polluting and making money by causing more global warming.  And the whole matter is now going to court in a major libel suit brought by climate scientist Michael Mann of Penn State:

http://libertyunyielding.com/2014/01/30/defamation-suit-brought-michael-mann-may-sink-national-review/ .

 

*  http://breakingenergy.com/2013/05/29/exxon-ceo-climate-change-poses-significant-risk-but-outcome-is-uncertain/ .

[Robert F. Smith]

....................................  

2. Assume that Global Warming is false. So we don't spend any money on it. What is the most likely outcome? Everything stays pretty the same. Not real good. The earth gets dirtier, and even a less desirable place to live. But it is still manageable.

3. Assume Global Warming is real, and spend some money anyway. What is the most likely outcome? Disaster avoided.

4. Assume Global Warming is real, and we don't spend any money on it. What is the most likely outcome? DISASTER.

 

Given what we've already seen happen. What is your choice?

I gave you a rep point for the spirit of your statements.

However, that doesn't really help anything.  Why?  Because we have already passed the point of no return.  Such a load of greenhouse gasses has been put into our atmosphere already that nothing we do now (or don't do) makes any difference.  Oceans are already rising slightly, and by end of century we will have ocean levels at around 1 meter higher than now.  This inundates all ports worldwide (which must be rebuilt on higher ground), eliminates many South Sea islands, much of Florida, most of Bangladesh, all of Holland, and low coastlines worldwide.  The great rivers coming from the Himalayas will run much lower, thus leading to Malthusian famine in India, Pakistan, China, and Indochina.  The same will apply to the rivers of Europe which are dependent on Alpine snow-pack.  Social and political dislocations will take place worldwide, quite aside from the deaths of millions.

 

Had we sought to arrest this problem some 30 or 40 years ago, a difference might have been made.  Now it is too late.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 

 

Had we sought to arrest this problem some 30 or 40 years ago, a difference might have been made.  Now it is too late.

They sky is falling the sky is falling.

[The Nehor]

They sky is falling the sky is falling.

The reason Chicken Little was a fool was that in his case the sky was not falling. If it was falling the course of action he chose was both sensible and compassionate.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The reason Chicken Little was a fool was that in his case the sky was not falling. If it was falling the course of action he chose was both sensible and compassionate.

Quick do something Nehor. It's too late for all of us. We are doomed. Soon Utah will have beach front property. Pass some tax increases will ya!

[The Nehor]

Quick do something Nehor. It's too late for all of us. We are doomed. Soon Utah will have beach front property. Pass some tax increases will ya!

Who am I to stand. Between the vengeance of God against the greedy Right and their idol gods of trust funds and investment accounts?

If you are going to cast me as a socialist nut I can play the part.

[strappinglad]

As has already been mentioned , 40 years ago we were being warned of a new ice age.

Note the recent reenactment mission at Antarctica. They went in the summer when in 1911 the waters were clear. They and other ice breakers got stuck in serious ice. All that ice came from the polar ice caps melting.

But Robert is correct when he says that there is nothing to be done. The swings will happen and climate will change. We humans will continue to mess the place up. There is /are islands of plastic etc. floating around the ocean. The activists claim that it will pollute more to clean up the islands so don't do it.

A couple of decades ago there was a monster used tire farm. There was a proposal to use the tires as fuel in big cement kilns where 99.9% of the tires would be consumed. Activists raise alarms about the polluting of the air so the project was scrapped. A few months later the tire farm had a fire and millions of tires went up in dense black smoke for weeks. The best laid plans...

Edited January 31, 2014 by strappinglad

[strappinglad]

Don't get me wrong. There have been many successes in cleaning the place. Reference the Love Canal. The Thames river in London is WAY better now than even in Shakespeare's time. The air around big cities is better. Autos produce much less pollutants. But there are the big problems of China and India who want the prosperity of the West and are not yet prepared to protect themselves from the environmental disasters they create.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Who am I to stand. Between the vengeance of God against the greedy Right and their idol gods of trust funds and investment accounts?

If you are going to cast me as a socialist nut I can play the part.

Your so funny Nehor. So this warming is really God's punishment on the right for their greed? ..   Really that is your argument. It holds about as much water as Pat Robertson thinking that the hurricanes is a punishment against gays sent by God.

 

Sad thing is that you turn a blind eye on your own party and their greed and crony capitalism. Greed transcends party lines. Time for you to wake up. BTW the GOP is not right wing.