Climate Change The New Catalyst For Globalists/Communist Utopia

by Perry 372 Replies latest members politics

  • JWoods
    JWoods

    Here is a link which shows that church is still in session on the climate issues: It postulates that if the artic ice did melt, it might very well trigger an ice age. It does not attempt to explain WHY the ice shelf did melt 12,000 years ago to cause that ice age (if in fact it did).

    Yes, I know - climate change (note - warming is now "change") enthusiasts will take this as yet another reason for Kyoto. But please - let's just plainly admit that even the best climatologists simply do not know what is going to happen next. Lets also just plainly admit that we are simply in no position to be sending trillions of dollars to third world countries for whatever reason - as if that is going to solve some weather trend.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34242705/?GT1=43001

  • SixofNine
    SixofNine

    You're quite the pissant little dominatrix there, JWoods. Now scientist and others can't even make hypothesis, or for that matter simply have a scientific discussion, w/o being chastised by emotional thinkers such as yourself with comments like "church is still in session"?

  • journey-on
    journey-on

    The length of time man has been taking climate measurements is like a hair's length against a mile. Since a gazillion things can and have caused climate change throughout the eons, the fluctuations within that "hair's length" are impossible to measure against the "mile" with any kind of real accuracy.

    Let's all take a breath, become more environmentally conscious as an individual and a people, but do we really have to change the world economy and break the backs of developed nations to redistribute wealth to undeveloped and developing nations because of it?! I smell a rotten fish in Denmark, here, people! Really....follow the money!!

  • JWoods
    JWoods

    Six of Nine, my point was that there is nothing certain about these conjectures.

    With nothing certain, spending trillions of dollars on schemes that only transfer American and Western European wealth overseas to the third world would be pretty unthinkable. Note that nobody is seriously claiming that any of these protocol agreements would actually reduce CO2 levels in our lifetime anyway, and nobody knows if reducing CO2 to say the level of 1950 would really do the climate any good anyway.

    BTW, I hope everyone has noticed that I have refused to engage in childish name-calling such as -

    pissant little dominatrix there

    ESAD.

  • SixofNine
    SixofNine

    My "pissant little dominatrix" comment comes because you act like a pissant little dominatrix, JWoods. You say your point was "there is nothing certain", but your point obviously was to ridicule scientist for making informed observations on what climate change might bring.

    "Nothing is certain" ever in science. Doesn't mean you don't act on good information.

    You've never said, JWoods, why you don't believe that adding massive amounts of greenhouse gasses into the earth's atmosphere wouldn't increase the greenhouse gas effect?

    Obviously it should; why are you so completely convinced it will not?

  • JWoods
    JWoods

    For one thing, I never said I was sure that increased CO2 would not tend to increase temperature to some slight degree.

    What I did say is that none of the proposed "solutions" will actually have a global effect to reduce the amount of CO2. Further, that even if they did reduce the amount of CO2, nobody can be sure this would cool global temperature by a degree or two anyway.

    Thus, the enormous cost of these programs has to be viewed as a political agenda rather than a scientific one.

    I have further stated that there are many excellent reasons to try to economize on fossil fuels as much as possible other than the climate.

    I also find it ironic that you accuse me of being an "emotionalist" for using the common colloquilism "church is still in session" while in the same post you called me names such as the above. Who really then, is the "emotionalist"?

    BTW, Did you know that church is not over until the fat lady sings?

  • Robdar
    Robdar

    The Milky Way Galaxy is on a collision course with the Andromeda Galaxy. In 3 billion years we will all be dead--unless we act now. For a small donation, you can help me find a way to prevent the coming catastrophe.

  • HappyGuy
    HappyGuy

    THe people behind this global warming nonsense are just using this to further their wealth transfer scheme, our wealth transferred to them and their allies. Enron is the one that originated this selling carbon credits.

    Two things could be done today with off the shelf technology for a fraction of the trillions that the global warming nutjobs want to steal from us:

    1. Solar hot water heaters - heating water uses 22% of residential power consumption. It is much more in industry.

    2. Solar lighting - lighting uses 15% of residential and commercial power consumption. It is even more in retail and industry.

    We could easily add solar hot water heating and solar lighitng to every building in the country for a fraction of the cost of the schemes the global warming nutjobs are proposing, and the result would be an immediate reduction in power consumption of greater than 37%.

  • SixofNine
    SixofNine
    Who really then, is the "emotionalist"?

    That would be you, JWoods; the guy who just now finally, only after being asked the most direct, basic question on global warming I could come up with; finally admitted that yeah, there might just be something to the idea that pumping massive amounts of carbon and methane into the atmosphere just might "tend to increase temperature to some slight degree".

    But god forbid anyone try to make an informed attempt to figure out what that increased temperature would bring for humans, animals, and plants that currently live (and have for tens of thousands of years) on an earth without those increased temperatures, or make plans to deal with or mitigate those problems. No, anyone who would try to do that must be a religous zealot!

  • Satanus
    Satanus

    A little coppipasta, here, garnished:

    'William Patterson, from the University of Saskatchewan in Canada, and his colleagues have shown that switching off the North Atlantic circulation can force the Northern hemisphere into a mini 'ice age' in a matter of months. Previous work has indicated that this process would take tens of years.

    Around 12,800 years ago the northern hemisphere was hit by a mini ice-age, known by scientists as the Younger Dryas, and nicknamed the 'Big Freeze', which lasted around 1300 years. Geological evidence shows that the Big Freeze was brought about by a sudden influx of freshwater, when the glacial Lake Agassiz in North America burst its banks and poured into the North Atlantic and Arctic Oceans. This vast pulse, a greater volume than all of North America's Great Lakes combined, diluted the North Atlantic conveyor belt and brought it to a halt.

    Without the warming influence of this ocean circulation temperatures across the Northern hemisphere plummeted, ice sheets grew and human civilisation fell apart.

    Previous evidence from Greenland ice cores has indicated that this sudden change in climate occurred over the space of a decade or so. Now new data shows that the change was amazingly abrupt, taking place over the course of a few months, or a year or two at most.

    Patterson and his colleagues have created the highest resolution record of the 'Big Freeze' event to date, from a mud core taken from an ancient lake, Lough Monreach, in Ireland. Using a scalpel layers were sliced from the core, just 0.5mm thick, representing a time period of one to three months.

    Carbon isotopes in each slice reveal how productive the lake was, while oxygen isotopes give a picture of temperature and rainfall. At the start of the 'Big Freeze' their new record shows that temperatures plummeted and lake productivity stopped over the course of just a few years. "It would be like taking Ireland today and moving it up to Svalbard, creating icy conditions in a very short period of time," says Patterson, who presented the findings at the European Science Foundation BOREAS conference on humans in the Arctic, in Rovaniemi, Finland.

    Meanwhile, their isotope record from the end of the Big Freeze shows that it took around two centuries for the lake and climate to recover, rather than the abrupt decade or so that ice cores indicate. "This makes sense because it would take time for the ocean and atmospheric circulation to turn on again," says Patterson.

    Looking ahead to the future Patterson says there is no reason why a 'Big Freeze' shouldn't happen again. "If the Greenland ice sheet melted suddenly it would be catastrophic," he says.'

    S

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit