But the earth isn't warming. The temps have been falling for the last 5 years or so. And except for a single uptick in 2003 (give or take), it's been falling since 2000.
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
"95% Certainty of Global Warming"
- Thread starter Magneto
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
eldirector
Grandmaster
But only 70% of the time.
MisterChester
Master
[video=youtube_share;HF9LNuH3IpU]http://youtu.be/HF9LNuH3IpU[/video]
To me it's all irrelevant. Technology exists to have cleaner and cheaper energy (cheaper in the long term) and unlimited. Why SHOULDN'T we pursue these technologies if it'd make electricity cost something like $.000000000000000000000000000000000000001/kWh? Why shouldn't we exploit wind, sun, nuclear, and hydrogen energies? No one can debate that there is a limited supply of natural gas, coal, and oil. It just is limited and it takes far longer to make any of this **** in any sort of meaningful amount than it does to use it. Eventually we WILL run out of those things.
Secondly usage of these technologies means ending reliance on other countries for energy. It can be made safe, it can be made to be cheap (especially in the long game).
Why worry about pollution and global warming at that point? Why not concentrate that it's economically intelligent to invest in this **** now, that it's technologically superior to what we have now?
But not only that, what if we can make **** that biodegrades or that we can recycle with efficiency? If we can make it cheaper to recycle then to extract raw materials then the price of goods decreases. If we can make it biodegradable we can decrease the amount of landfills and replace them with **** that is useful for other purposes (like more energy).
Why not? I want to drive my car from here to Cali and back 200 times and pay $50 for the entire trip...it's not outside the realm of possibility. Personally I don't give a **** about global warming or pollution, I care about the logic of making things cheaper, more productive, and smarter. It just makes more sense economically, socially, and technologically.
Secondly usage of these technologies means ending reliance on other countries for energy. It can be made safe, it can be made to be cheap (especially in the long game).
Why worry about pollution and global warming at that point? Why not concentrate that it's economically intelligent to invest in this **** now, that it's technologically superior to what we have now?
But not only that, what if we can make **** that biodegrades or that we can recycle with efficiency? If we can make it cheaper to recycle then to extract raw materials then the price of goods decreases. If we can make it biodegradable we can decrease the amount of landfills and replace them with **** that is useful for other purposes (like more energy).
Why not? I want to drive my car from here to Cali and back 200 times and pay $50 for the entire trip...it's not outside the realm of possibility. Personally I don't give a **** about global warming or pollution, I care about the logic of making things cheaper, more productive, and smarter. It just makes more sense economically, socially, and technologically.
I have a scientific background and education but I don't know much of anything about climate science. What I do know is that, of the science that I do know a lot about, most people seem to be surprisingly ignorant. So, I make the assumption that it's the same with climate science and, although there'd be no way to prove it one way or the other, I'd bet you a bucket full of 9mm ammo that most Americans who would argue about climate science don't know any more about it than I do.
draketungsten
Sharpshooter
Did anyone read the report that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change put out that all of the media is pushing out? I did. There's actually a difference between their press release and the actual report. In the press release that all of the media is quoting is that humans are the dominant contributing factor to climate change. If you read the report, it no where states this. It does state that human are "very likely" or "likely" contributing or influencing the change, but does not go as far as saying how much influence we have on the change. Just shows you that you should always ask questions and go look for the answers for yourself.
As Eldirector showed, these are part of the climate cycles and are to be expected. Humans may be having an impact on it but we aren't the cause. If you ever look at NASA's data, even they demonstrate that these are a natural part of the Earth's cycle going as far back as 800,000 years.
As Eldirector showed, these are part of the climate cycles and are to be expected. Humans may be having an impact on it but we aren't the cause. If you ever look at NASA's data, even they demonstrate that these are a natural part of the Earth's cycle going as far back as 800,000 years.
Agreed with what you are saying except it hasnt gotten warmer, no warming it admitted by these idiots over the last 15 years, less "killer storms" than they predicted, everything they said is a complete lie, i wont even come that close to giving them an inch of this topic, they are wrong, flat out liars, they are caught fudging their own numbers, putting thermometers in parking lots in arizona, the lies are never ending.
This whole lie is cooked up as a revenue stream.
The global warmers have missed an opportunity here. Rather than insist their models were correct and fabricate excuses for missed expectations, they should have claimed victory over the absence of warming over the last few years. They could be claiming that if only more people rode the bus to work or if congress would make more energy guzzling conveniences illegal, there might have even a return to previous global temperatures.
The global warming fantasy is junk science. The agenda is more power to the governments and more control. Google "climategate" for a glimpse into how this is all contrived. Selectively deciding on which sensors to use data from to skew the results is just one of the tricks.
People express "opinions" about global warming in this thread -- an opinion on a matter of science is irrelevant. For what it is worth, my irrelevant opinion is that man would have to be excessively arrogant to think that our activities can affect such a huge and complex, self-correcting biosphere.
People express "opinions" about global warming in this thread -- an opinion on a matter of science is irrelevant. For what it is worth, my irrelevant opinion is that man would have to be excessively arrogant to think that our activities can affect such a huge and complex, self-correcting biosphere.
Said the bacterium of the host.
I've worked with plenty of university researchers that would sell their grandmother for government grant money. If climate change is the new "buzzword" in research funding (and it is), researchers will definitely jump onto that bandwagon - hence the majority of "scientists" believe in anthropogenic global warming. If you want the money you can't be caught acknowledging it is bunk. It's amazing the contortions these guys will go through to tie their field of study, however tenuously, to global warming - i.e. The Effect Of Global Climate Change On Cross-linked Structure Of Quarter-sawn Spruce And It's Impact On The Tonal Qualities Of Violin String Bridges.
A couple more points:
1: Climatologists can't accurately predict the weather for the day after tomorrow, how can they expect us to believe their long term climate models (which surprisingly haven't been right).
2: The glaciers and polar ice they panic about are just remnants of the last ice age. Melting away is what they do. Nothing new or surprising here.
3: CO2 is a greenhouse gas like .22 is a round for deer hunting. Methane and water vapor are several orders of magnitude higher in greenhouse effect. Both are naturally occuring (as is the majority of CO2).
A couple more points:
1: Climatologists can't accurately predict the weather for the day after tomorrow, how can they expect us to believe their long term climate models (which surprisingly haven't been right).
2: The glaciers and polar ice they panic about are just remnants of the last ice age. Melting away is what they do. Nothing new or surprising here.
3: CO2 is a greenhouse gas like .22 is a round for deer hunting. Methane and water vapor are several orders of magnitude higher in greenhouse effect. Both are naturally occuring (as is the majority of CO2).
Last edited:
