Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt (1 Viewer)

[clwill]

The answer, IMO, is, THEY JUST DON'T KNOW.

How can any rational person look at the fact that, in just the last 150-years, the human population has increased at least 6-fold, the burning of carbon with industrialization has increased many thousand times, and the impact of each individual on the earth has multiplied many times and not think this has an effect on the environment?

I understand how you might debate what effect this human activity might have (although the scientific community has no such debate -- if you control for the nut-jobs, the same kind of folks who think smoking has no health effects). But to imagine that this vast change we humans have had in the last century or so has NO effect is just ridiculous.

In geological time periods (at least thousands of years) no one species' population has dominated and impacted the way humans have in just the last 150 years. Talking about ice ages is meaningless since the human population was 0.00001% of today during the last one.

But in light of this imagined debate about whether humans impact the environment, some people would rather just trip along merrily as if nothing has happened and pretend it's all good. Amazing.

 

[Mike]

Gore is a former politician -90%

Which makes him a lying thief.

 

[Al smith]

this thread begs the question.


who gives a s*** about ahhhs.

 

[Nitrohaulic]

How can any rational person look at the fact that, in just the last 150-years, the human population has increased at least 6-fold, the burning of carbon with industrialization has increased many thousand times, and the impact of each individual on the earth has multiplied many times and not think this has an effect on the environment?

I understand how you might debate what effect this human activity might have (although the scientific community has no such debate -- if you control for the nut-jobs, the same kind of folks who think smoking has no health effects). But to imagine that this vast change we humans have had in the last century or so has NO effect is just ridiculous.

In geological time periods (at least thousands of years) no one species' population has dominated and impacted the way humans have in just the last 150 years. Talking about ice ages is meaningless since the human population was 0.00001% of today during the last one.

But in light of this imagined debate about whether humans impact the environment, some people would rather just trip along merrily as if nothing has happened and pretend it's all good. Amazing.

I didn't realize carbon could be burned. Scientists may agree that there IS global warming. The same scientists who were pushing the global cooling scare in the 70s? I think the disagreement is whether it's caused by man. I've heard that there should be global warming since we're still coming off of an ice age.

Someone can't automatically be trusted just because they're a scientist. I remember hearing a few years ago about environmental activists in the northwest being financially backed by scientific organizations to protest logging, etc. The media gives them attention. The public turns around and supports tax dollars being spent to study the problem. Where do the tax dollars go? To the scientific organizations that start the whole thing! I forget the ratio but, there was a certain average, dollars invested to dollars returned.

It's about as innocent as the railroads backing organizations that lobby Congress to give the trucking industry tighter regulations, such as hours that a driver's allowed to drive. All in the interest of "safety", of course. It's one way they "compete."

Welcome to the Truck Safety Coalition

Like a conservative social studies teacher I was lucky enough to have in the 7th grade taught us. "If you ever want to know why anything happens, follow the money."

 

[Eddie]

How can any rational person look at the fact that, in just the last 150-years, the human population has increased at least 6-fold, the burning of carbon with industrialization has increased many thousand times, and the impact of each individual on the earth has multiplied many times and not think this has an effect on the environment?

I understand how you might debate what effect this human activity might have (although the scientific community has no such debate -- if you control for the nut-jobs, the same kind of folks who think smoking has no health effects). But to imagine that this vast change we humans have had in the last century or so has NO effect is just ridiculous.

In geological time periods (at least thousands of years) no one species' population has dominated and impacted the way humans have in just the last 150 years. Talking about ice ages is meaningless since the human population was 0.00001% of today during the last one.

But in light of this imagined debate about whether humans impact the environment, some people would rather just trip along merrily as if nothing has happened and pretend it's all good. Amazing.

I AM rational. What I am NOT is a jump-on-the-bandwagon alarmist, tree-hugging, environmentalist whacko who believes that in the next half century or so the shoreline is going to move hundreds of miles inland and the remaining dry land is going to be uninhabitable because of "global climate change". I also don't believe in documentaries produced by Michael Moore or Al Gore types, that have been shown to contain many instances of errors and outright untruths, whether those "movies" won grammies or not. Anyone who does is completely IRRATIONAL IMO.

For the record, I also didn't stockpile food, fuel, batteries and withdraw all my cash from the bank in prepartation for the end of civilized society that was going to be brought about by the Y2K phenomenon either.

Also, for the record, I have NEVER stated or implied that human activity has no effect on the planet. To even suggest otherwise is flagrantly wrong and ludicrous. You ever hear of Love Canal or Chernobyl? I have.

Talking about past ice ages is ESPECIALLY meaningFUL because, as you point out, "human population was 0.00001% of what it is today...". Obviously, then, human population didn't bring about the "global warming" that ended the last one. So what did? Is perhaps the cyclical warming/cooling/warming/cooling of the earth a natural and normal phenomenon?

And, lastly, about the "imagined debate about whether humans impact the environment": I don't believe that there is any thing at all imaginary about the debate. I think that what's "imagined" is, as I've said before, that scientists/climatologists/politicians can't say with any degree of certainty what is going to be going on here on this planet in even the next ten years, let alone 50.

 

[G'ginna]

I didn't realize carbon could be burned.

Coal is a form of carbon... and diamonds (carborundum) are just compressed & heated carbon.

Someone can't automatically be trusted just because they're a scientist. I remember hearing a few years ago about environmental activists in the northwest being financially backed by scientific organizations to protest logging, etc. The media gives them attention. The public turns around and supports tax dollars being spent to study the problem. Where do the tax dollars go? To the scientific organizations that start the whole thing! I forget the ratio but, there was a certain average, dollars invested to dollars returned.

Funny you should mention that... there is a book I am reading right now titled "Corrupted Science: Fraud, Ideology and Politics in Science" by John Grant. Its about faked findings by scientific greats and fraudulent "finds" or discoveries. The names are familiar to everyone that has every taken a grade school science course; Ptolemy, Galileo, Isaac Newton and some names not so familiar; John Dalton, Robert Hooke & Reiner Protsch as some examples.

 

[clwill]

I don't believe that there is any thing at all imaginary about the debate. I think that what's "imagined" is, as I've said before, that scientists/climatologists/politicians can't say with any degree of certainty what is going to be going on here on this planet in even the next ten years, let alone 50.

So let's do nothing. Sounds good.

 

[Larry]

For all but a few million years of the estimated 4 billion years the Earth has been around there were no ice caps on the poles nor Glaciers on the continents .

The definition of Ice Age is Ice at the poles and Glaciers on the Continents.
I guess by definition we are currently in an Ice age.

It's kinda like saying because everything the country is dead in the winter that's it no more living Earth .
Spring comes around just about every year and off to the races with the flowers once again.
Just as sure as it's going to get hot it will get cold and the Polar Bears will be griping about too much Ice and no open water.

Speaking of which I just cruised around South Texas and yep the Bluebonnets and wildflowers are poping out everywhere.

Put the top down and enjoy!

 

[Bob]

How can any rational person look at the fact that, in just the last 150-years, the human population has increased at least 6-fold, the burning of carbon with industrialization has increased many thousand times, and the impact of each individual on the earth has multiplied many times and not think this has an effect on the environment?

I understand how you might debate what effect this human activity might have (although the scientific community has no such debate -- if you control for the nut-jobs, the same kind of folks who think smoking has no health effects). But to imagine that this vast change we humans have had in the last century or so has NO effect is just ridiculous.

In geological time periods (at least thousands of years) no one species' population has dominated and impacted the way humans have in just the last 150 years. Talking about ice ages is meaningless since the human population was 0.00001% of today during the last one.

But in light of this imagined debate about whether humans impact the environment, some people would rather just trip along merrily as if nothing has happened and pretend it's all good. Amazing.

I'd find it amazing if 100% of scientists didn't acknowledge climate change. That is and always has been the nature of the rock we call earth. What you won't find is a large percentage of scientists who will agree as to its cause and our ability to affect any change of the process. There are documented admissions by at least one of the most vocal "Global Warming" radical scientists that his statements were not only exaggerated, they had to be exaggerated to get people's attention. Al Gore followed his lead, and continues to do so today.

Solar activity has more affect on this planet's climate than anything we could possibly have. I've heard recent scientific reports indicating that the rising temps peaked several years ago, and we are actually back into a cooling period due to solar activity. I'm sure that won't stop Gore and the rest of those whose agenda isn't climate based, but based in seeing the US economy greatly weakened to fuel the economies of countries that would be exempt from the actions called for by extremists and such documents as the Kyoto Treaty.

 

[clwill]

I'm sure that won't stop Gore and the rest of those whose agenda isn't climate based, but based in seeing the US economy greatly weakened to fuel the economies of countries that would be exempt from the actions called for by extremists and such documents as the Kyoto Treaty.

I'm sure you're correct, the real agenda of Al Gore and others who are concerned about human impact on the environment is to destroy the US economy in favor of other countries. Yep, I'm sure that's it...

 

["Dr. Dirt"]

I'm sure you're correct, the real agenda of Al Gore and others who are concerned about human impact on the environment is to destroy the US economy in favor of other countries. Yep, I'm sure that's it...

You missed one phrase:
Destroy all the people who are causing this problem or global warming, whoops, global climate change (I forgot it was getting cooler again.)
Al Gore's agenda is as exact a science as darts with blindfolds.

 

[Eddie]

I'm sure you're correct, the real agenda of Al Gore and others who are concerned about human impact on the environment is to destroy the US economy in favor of other countries. Yep, I'm sure that's it...

I think the REAL agenda of Al Gore, while he jets about the country on his pollution spewing jet, is lining his pockets with as much cash as possible.

 

[mick]

I think the REAL agenda of Al Gore, while he jets about the country on his pollution spewing jet, is lining his pockets with as much cash as possible.

do a little research on the founding president of Occidental Oil, industrialist
Armand Hammer and his relationship with the Gore family.
depending on which article you find, make sure it hits on the Elk Hills naval
petroleum reserve.
note: the corruption of the clinton administration/gore family is not
partisan; this is how washington d.c. behaves lately; it is HUGELY a
bi-partisan problem.

oh yes, the topic.
i do not agree with global warming........i mean global climate.
the new show on history channel, the ax men.
i'm sure they dig spikes out of trees routinely and it's a major safety
hazard to the loggers, but IMO they will not bring up this topic on their
show and will instead focus on the falling and harvesting of timber
(the green people must hate this show)

 

[Eddie]

do a little research on the founding president of Occidental Oil, industrialist
Armand Hammer and his relationship with the Gore family.
depending on which article you find, make sure it hits on the Elk Hills naval
petroleum reserve.
note: the corruption of the clinton administration/gore family is not
partisan; this is how washington d.c. behaves lately; it is HUGELY a
bi-partisan problem.

oh yes, the topic.
i do not agree with global warming........i mean global climate.
the new show on history channel, the ax men.
i'm sure they dig spikes out of trees routinely and it's a major safety
hazard to the loggers, but IMO they will not bring up this topic on their
show and will instead focus on the falling and harvesting of timber
(the green people must hate this show)

I agree about the corruption....very widespread with party lines being just a blur.

I like that show (Ax Men) and you're right; It would be WAY too politically INCORRECT to show the spikes in the trees. BTW, if you believe the "public service announcements" about how many square miles per day the forests are disappearing globally, then the planet should be completely devoid of trees some time next week. Any one who believes that nonsense should do the math. Doesn't take an advanced degree to see that the numbers just don't add up.

 

[mick]

I agree about the corruption....very widespread with party lines being just a blur.

I like that show (Ax Men) and you're right; It would be WAY too politically INCORRECT to show the spikes in the trees. BTW, if you believe the "public service announcements" about how many square miles per day the forests are disappearing globally, then the planet should be completely devoid of trees some time next week. Any one who believes that nonsense should do the math. Doesn't take an advanced degree to see that the numbers just don't add up.

yes, i think the producers of the show have made a conscious decision to
not give the earth-firsters any free publicity........so far in series anyways.
and i applaud them.

 

[clwill]

I like that show (Ax Men) and you're right; It would be WAY too politically INCORRECT to show the spikes in the trees.

It certainly is true that the vast majority of commercial timbering is done in a completely sustainable way. People who don't see that just haven't bothered to research the issue. It simply doesn't make economic sense for a timber company with miles of productive land to destroy it for one harvest when, if they simply manage it right, they can have repeated harvests ad infinitum. Some of the ELF and those folks just aren't thinking clearly.

 

[Toejam]

It certainly is true that the vast majority of commercial timbering is done in a completely sustainable way. People who don't see that just haven't bothered to research the issue. It simply doesn't make economic sense for a timber company with miles of productive land to destroy it for one harvest when, if they simply manage it right, they can have repeated harvests ad infinitum. Some of the ELF and those folks just aren't thinking clearly.

I have visited the Paper mills of Georgia Pacific the largest Paper mill in the world. I asked one of their reps about the logging issue, GP cuts down their own trees nobody elses. GP needs trees to produce it's products, which means they plant and replant on Millions of Acres! Trees are a renewable source.

 

[clwill]

GP needs trees to produce it's products, which means they plant and replant on Millions of Acres! Trees are a renewable source.

Up here in the Pacific Northwest timber is one of the core industries (along with commercial airplanes and software). Huge numbers of families make their living off this resource. All anyone has to do is even cursory research and they'll see that Weyerhauser, GP, Simpson, and all the others are some of the best stewards of their land you could want. Sure they cut down trees, and that process isn't pretty, but without exception they plant many times what they cut as investment in the future. It's a fascinating business and I'm hoping Ax Men will finally give it the credit it deserves.

 

[Don]

I'm sure you're correct, the real agenda of Al Gore and others who are concerned about human impact on the environment is to destroy the US economy in favor of other countries. Yep, I'm sure that's it...

If you're talking the Koyto Treaty...yes you are correct. If the goal was to clean the air, stop global warming and NOT to destroy the economy of the US, then please explain why China, Mexico, India..among others did not have to reduce anything?

 

[G'ginna]

When I was a kid in school in Washington we had a field trip to a Georgia Pacific tree farm/research facility. The emphasis was on clean water, clean environment and healthy tree growth and healthy harvests. The trees are not planted in farm rows & they are not planted in a mono-crop either. Mono-cropping would benefit a company that was just looking for bottom dollar, best & fastest wood to harvest. They planted a variety of trees that were native to the area, fully aware of the fact that some would never be harvested and some would take more than a lifetime to mature.

*edit: Oh yeah, and it looked like real woods not manufactured housing. I also forgot, they studied the wildlife that lived there too to make sure things like Owl populations were healthy. That is not a short-sighted, profit only company.