Quote: I've never known an environmentalist to get rich from being an environmentalist.
They don't get rich, they get power. Locally (Wisconsin/Minnesota) environmenalists have blocked the replacement of an over-burdend bridge for around 50 years.
images wrote: Fact #1 - Climate change is a fact, it has always been and always will be. There is nothing now and never will be anything we can do about it.
Fact #2 - There will always be hucksters who will try to use climate change to rip off everyone else, and it will work, for awhile.
Fact #3 - There is a incredible absence of common sense in the world today.
I have been searching for a good way to say how I feel about promoters of global warming and their tactics but I always get too emotional because it is very frustrating for me.
Your response was perfect. Thank you..........
Why do people pay to go up tall buildings and then put money in binoculars to look at things on the ground?
Skid Row Joe wrote: Nothing can be done one way or the other to effect the earth's climate. --There's better things to do with your time. Like making money, and enjoying life.
The big questions in global climate change research are more or less:
1. Is man's output of global warming gasses significantly contributing to the current climate change?
2. Is the current climate change more rapid than in times past?
3. Is there anything that we can do (short of stopping all industrial activity) to stop climate change?
4. Are the current climate changes outside of normal variation?
5. Are most climate change parameters producing positive or negative feedback?
A secret of climate change is that carbon is actually a very minor player in the greenhouse effect. The big parameter is water vapor. The reason there is such a 'strong' link between carbon output and global warming is most climate models assume that carbon and water vapor track each other. There is some recent research that indicates they may not. If that bit of data turns out to be true, most all climate models may be totally wrong in their predictions of what the effects on the climate are due to man made carbon.
I have read some studies (by well respected climatologists) that seem to indicate that the atmospheric carbon dioxide levels FOLLOW temperature increases. If that is true, then the carbon dioxide level can NOT be causing the temperature increase, it might be more accurate to say the temperature increase is causing the increase in carbon dioxide.
All I can say for sure is "I just don't know!"
Wouldn't warming and increased carbon dioxide levels mean a longer and better growing season for food plants? If the ice melts, won't some of those ice covered areas become available for agriculture? As the ice melts, won't the increased water mean better irrigation and more yield per acre? How much of Siberia will become wheat fields?
Or, will the increased water vapor become heavier cloud cover, cooling the land, making for more precipitation, much of which will be in the form of snow, which will compact into ice, triggering a new ice age, which will mean that all of the Earth from about 30 degrees North and South of the Equator to the Poles will be ice covered. All humanity and animals will have only that 60 degree band in which to live.
I like the warming scenario better.
CM1, USN (RET)
'94 Dodge 3500 4X2 CTD, Std. cab, LB, 5 speed, 4.10 LS diff., Jacobs Rambrake, 273,000 Miles
'99 Monaco McKenzie 32' triple slide
'95 Tioga 29H Ford-based Class C
Daily driver: '06 Jeep Liberty CRD
Towed: '06 Jeep Rubicon Unlimited
Even the climate change alarmists have given away the fact that their computer models are completely inaccurate. I just saw a news story about how the ice in the north is already as thin as the models had projected would happen in 20 to 40 years. That doesn't bode well for any arguments based on computer models. A thinking person would soon recognize that we're still at the beginning stages of even figuring out what kind of data to grab and where and how often to get it in order to build a very simplistic model of the worldwide climate.
As for a website, you'll find both sides, but you won't find one that isn't debunked by the other side. Since there has been a great deal of collusion on the subject, the vast majority of information is on the man-caused side. A true scientist is always skeptical and questioning the "knowledge" of the day, but the great scientists are never very popular in their time.
My own take? I remember in grade school learning that animals inhale oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide while plants inhale carbon dioxide and exhale oxygen. To "demonize" carbon dioxide is an attack against virtually every living thing on earth.
We should be focusing our time and energy on things we can do something about - not on things we can't do something about. In the meantime, let true scientist continue to try to better understand the many interactions involved - there's a long way yet to go.
Tim -
wife Beverly & 2 boys who love camping 2002 K2500 Suburban 8.1L 4.10 Prodigy 2005 Sunnybrook 30FKS HP Dual Cam Replaced 2000 Sunnybrook 26FK on 8/6/04
mowermech wrote: Wouldn't warming and increased carbon dioxide levels mean a longer and better growing season for food plants? If the ice melts, won't some of those ice covered areas become available for agriculture? As the ice melts, won't the increased water mean better irrigation and more yield per acre? How much of Siberia will become wheat fields?
Or, will the increased water vapor become heavier cloud cover, cooling the land, making for more precipitation, much of which will be in the form of snow, which will compact into ice, triggering a new ice age, which will mean that all of the Earth from about 30 degrees North and South of the Equator to the Poles will be ice cover...
That's the big issue about positive or negative feedback mechanisms.
mowermech wrote: Wouldn't warming and increased carbon dioxide levels mean a longer and better growing season for food plants? If the ice melts, won't some of those ice covered areas become available for agriculture? As the ice melts, won't the increased water mean better irrigation and more yield per acre? How much of Siberia will become wheat fields?
Or, will the increased water vapor become heavier cloud cover, cooling the land, making for more precipitation, much of which will be in the form of snow, which will compact into ice, triggering a new ice age, which will mean that all of the Earth from about 30 degrees North and South of the Equator to the Poles will be ice cover...
That's the big issue about positive or negative feedback mechanisms.
Oh, goody, it's a BIG ISSUE!
That begs the question, which is the most likely scenario?
AND
What should we be doing to cope with it, since it is highly unlikely we can stop it?
AND
WHY isn't the United Nations doing whatever it is the world should be doing?
AND
If "science" is so darn precise, WHY is there so much argument about the issue?
On another note, how many TONS of carbon dioxide are the fires in Canada and California putting into the atmosphere? What about the particulates from those fires? Right now we have so much smoke in the air visibility is limited to 3 to 9 miles, and there are no fires in Montana or Wyoming.
Most of these fires are "natural", by the way, NOT man caused!
Skid Row Joe wrote: Nothing can be done one way or the other to effect the earth's climate. --There's better things to do with your time. Like making money, and enjoying life.
I agree.
My thinking? Whatever will be, will be.
2001 Chev. 3500 CC Duallie, D/A, 20.5 Pullrite Super 5th, Roll n Lock, StarBoards, Firestone Air Bags, TTT Mirrors, BrakeSmart.
2004 HitchHiker Discover America 33 1/2 CKQG, Disc Brakes, Mor/Ryde IS
Garmin Nuvi 350
Online
Offline
