Global Warming scientists stranded by ........ICE

[Moveon]

Anyone who thinks that Al is a Oaf is wrong. He speaks the truth about many thing and gets a lot of heat for his views. I doubt that what you say about him matters to him very much. He's big enough to take the heat and still tell the truth.

Why would I deny that it's an industry to try and solve Global Warming Problems. There is nothing wrong with what they are doing to solve the problem of Global Warming. Turning to greener energy energy is a good thing and I"m all for getting off fossil fuels as soon as we can.

You brought up the point of Cow farts in your first post. So why did you focus on that instead of the CO2 emission coming from fossil fuels? I just pointed out this fact that you focused on cow farts instead of the CO2 emissions. Nothing wrong with my doing that. It tells me where you are coming from.

I not pounding any drums. I don't even own a drum set. And I'm not being indigent, I'm telling the truth.

The bottom line is that you didn't deny that global warming was real and that it's happening. That's all I'm really saying. The rest of my comments were simply defensive.

Al Gore is the messenger and not the devil. There is a big difference.

Climate change scientists came up with bovine flatulence, not me. Are you calling them silly?

Most in this thread agree trends indicate global warming, we can read as well as you. I admit I didn't read your reference on wiki, too lazy.

Pound the drum and be indignant all you want, like many others, I don't buy man being the cause of GW. I've seen just too many 'legitimate' experts be dead wrong too many times on issues far less complex than this.

You can also ridicule and pretend higher ground till the cows come home, and you can't deny the multi billion dollar industry this issue has become.

BTW, Al Gore is not the messenger, he is a freakin hypocrite and an oaf.

[roadrunner]

Al Gorge is not an oaf because he has fooled a lot of people and made millions from his crap. He is a huge hypocrite he owned seven houses and jets all over the world on private jets and drives suv's. If he was a true believer he would change his life style. Al Gore has an enormous carbon foot print.

[Devils Horse]

Anyone who thinks that Al is a Oaf is wrong. He speaks the truth about many thing and gets a lot of heat for his views. I doubt that what you say about him matters to him very much. He's big enough to take the heat and still tell the truth.

Why would I deny that it's an industry to try and solve Global Warming Problems. There is nothing wrong with what they are doing to solve the problem of Global Warming. Turning to greener energy energy is a good thing and I"m all for getting off fossil fuels as soon as we can.

You brought up the point of Cow farts in your first post. So why did you focus on that instead of the CO2 emission coming from fossil fuels? I just pointed out this fact that you focused on cow farts instead of the CO2 emissions. Nothing wrong with my doing that. It tells me where you are coming from.

I not pounding any drums. I don't even own a drum set. And I'm not being indigent, I'm telling the truth.

The bottom line is that you didn't deny that global warming was real and that it's happening. That's all I'm really saying. The rest of my comments were simply defensive.

Al Gore is the messenger and not the devil. There is a big difference.

I focused on the last news story I heard about GW on the radio in my truck...cow farts. I found it amusing and indicative of who makes up the foundation of the GW brigade. For the last time, your people have brought it up as a serious issue...several times. Try as you might you can't hang cow farts message on me, I'm only the messenger.

You, on the other hand focus on carbon emissions because the likes of Al Gore says you should.

I agree we should convert to green energy, but not because the GW crowd says so, because we will eventually run out of non replenishable (not sure that's a word) energy.

There is a lot wrong with how they're going about solving GW. So much so, I could type all day. Big Al trots his giant ass carbon footprint about the world taking money and carrying the message. Global GW conferences are held and those absolutely brilliant Europeans come up with great ideas like carbon taxes and other ways for them to get money.

And after all that jet fuel is pissed away, money collected, and great ideas hatched, what has been accomplished? Not a **** thing, because the earth's climate is cyclic. Always was, always will be.

See. We agree on almost everything.

Al Gore is an opportunist not a messenger. There is a VERY BIG difference.

[Moveon]

You, on the other hand focus on carbon emissions because the likes of Al Gore says you should.

I don't follow Al Gore. I was focused on Carbon Emissions long before AL Gore became involved in Green House Gases. So you might say that Al is just giving the message to you and the others. He is just a messenger not really the guy who figured that Global Warming was an issue. But he did listen to the Climate Scientist and was smart enough to understand the long term implications of Global Warming. If he invested in things related to solving the problem of Global Warming then he was smart to do that. But he is not the problem. Too many people and industrial revolution is the problem.

Here is something to think about if you have kids and they plan on having kids and a future on this planet. If the problem of Global Warming is not caused by mankind and only by God or nature then how are your grandkids going to survive if WE humans are powerless to fix or reverse Global Warming? Think about that for a while. What if we can't do any thing about it? We are screwed then if we can't fix or reverse in in the future. while it may be a few hundred years before it gets too serious or bad it will happen if our populations continue to double every 30 years and we burn more and more fossil fuels.

On the other hand it it's caused or exasperated by mankind then we can do something to stop the problem. We could switch to alternative fuels someday in the future and wean ourselves off the fossil fuels that we believe are adding to the amount of CO2 and other green house gases in the atmosphere. We do know for sure that too much CO2 in the atmosphere keeps the heat waves from radiating back into space. Just like the glass windows in a car keep the heat inside the car on a sunny day. That's the green house effect. Again I'm talking about AVERAGE temperature over long periods of time and over large expanses of the earth. I'm not talking about a specific point on the Earth and one specific time. Winter time in our Northern Hemisphere can't be soled out to say that Global Warming is not a problem. Nor can we say that a hot summer day in our Northern Hemisphere in the middle of July is indicative of the Worlds Average Temperatures.

I guess what really matters if you think about it is the average temperature where we now have ice. Because that ice if it melts will flow to the sea and add to the sea level and the energy levels (temps) of the oceans. But then again we need to be concerned with our average temps in the middle latitudes when it comes to food production. (farming) And the same thing can be said about the Southern Hemisphere middle lattitudes as well. They grow produce and food down there too.

Katrina was a result of the land around New Orleans sinking. Less sediment is being deposited in the delta due to the damming up of the rivers that flow down to the Gulf of Mexico. The dams slow down the river and allow the sediment to fall out and settle onto the bottom of the river before it gets to the Gulf. And then the ocean levels have risen over the years so that New Orleans is closer to the ocean's level today vs a few hundred years ago. Which is why when you walk along the levee in New Orleans you look up at the River level.



I vote for the latter and hope for mankind's sake that we can figure out a solution before the oceans get too high and the glacial ice all melts. The rate of melting can speed up if too much dark earth is exposed at the polar regions.

Finally Al Gore is the messenger and a very good one at that! Smart people listen to what he has to say about the problems of Global Warming and take heed to try to fix the problem before it becomes worse.

Like I said before the US Supreme Court agreed that CO2 is a pollutant and that the USEPA should regulate it. And that's exactly what's going to happen IMHO. I'm really not so sure that it will help but they are going to try.

I'll leave it to the climate scientists at the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Agency to figure this out. They are smarter than you and I and all the rest who posted opinions on this issue.



There is a lot wrong with how they're going about solving GW. So much so, I could type all day. Big Al trots his giant ass carbon footprint about the world taking money and carrying the message. Global GW conferences are held and those absolutely brilliant Europeans come up with great ideas like carbon taxes and other ways for them to get money.

And after all that jet fuel is pissed away, money collected, and great ideas hatched, what has been accomplished? Not a **** thing, because the earth's climate is cyclic. Always was, always will be.

See. We agree on almost everything.

Al Gore is an opportunist not a messenger. There is a VERY BIG difference.[/QUOTE]

[roadrunner]

Move on I am going to type this real slow so maybe you can understand it In 1967 or there about we were told we were entering another ice age then because weather patterns are cyclic in nature, it switched to a warming pattern and now I think it is beginning a cooling pattern and you are working to reverse a warming trend. I think we would all be better off if we stayed out of trying to change mother nature, she is very resourceful and can adapt if given a chance. I think God created her that way.

Second Katrina was a hurricane like Bob had nothing to do with New Orleans sinking New Orleans has always been below water level and the dam pump broke and the corp had not maintained the levy. Before man started farming there was almost no sediment deposited in the delta and New Orleans did not sink.

[Moveon]

Global Warming contributes to excessive energy in the Earth's atmosphere and oceans. More energy means that bigger storms and more storms are created. The connection is similar to a baseball player taking steroids and then hitting more home runs. The connection is easy to see if you open your eyes.

Katrian was not ordinary hurricane. It was bigger and more destructive. And it's a well know fact that New Orleans is below sea level. People have been predicting the flooding of New Orleans for years now. Everyone knew that if a hurricane hit in the New Orleans area it would flood the city if it was a big hurricane. The disaster of Katrina was predicted years before it happened. Why do you think that they build all those levees around the city. They were built to protect if from a storm of magnitude 3 not 5. Katrina has much more energy and was bigger than what the levees were built to handle.

And the subways in New York City were flooded by Sandy. That's never happened before. Why? Because there is more energy in the environment and bigger storms than in the past. And the ocean levels are higher today than in the past. We have been warming for a long time since the last ice age but the rate of warming has increased dramatically since the industrial revolution.

Back when mankind didn't farm most of the USA like today we didn't have 7.2 billion people on this earth needing to be feed and sheltered and kept warm. And we didn't have all the Corp of Engineer Dams on the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers trapping more sediment.

The barrier islands are receding as the ocean level rises and the ground washes away and is not replaced by more sediment.

I'm well aware that the earth undergoes natural cooling and warming trends. But in years past we didn't have 7.2 billion humans walking the earth like we have today. We didn't have millions of automobiles putting out emissions along with all the power plants that burn coal, oil and gas thought out the world. Things have changed a lot in the last 200 years and we need to think about the next few hundred years in the future.

The coal won't last forever and it will run out. Then what do you propose our grandkids use for heating their homes and lighting the streets?

At some point in time we will have to develop alternative fuels or power sources to support the expected increase in the number of humans living in the future.

That's what I think about. No one said its going to happen tomorrow or the next day but it going to happen some time. Running out of fossil fuels will happen sooner or later.

I say develop the alternatives now before we run out of the fossil fuels so we can test them and get them ready to use for the future.

We spent millions on going to the moon why not spend a few more on making sure that we have reliable energy sources in the future?

Move on I am going to type this real slow so maybe you can understand it In 1967 or there about we were told we were entering another ice age then because weather patterns are cyclic in nature, it switched to a warming pattern and now I think it is beginning a cooling pattern and you are working to reverse a warming trend. I think we would all be better off if we stayed out of trying to change mother nature, she is very resourceful and can adapt if given a chance. I think God created her that way.

Second Katrina was a hurricane like Bob had nothing to do with New Orleans sinking New Orleans has always been below water level and the dam pump broke and the corp had not maintained the levy. Before man started farming there was almost no sediment deposited in the delta and New Orleans did not sink.

[Devils Horse]

You, on the other hand focus on carbon emissions because the likes of Al Gore says you should.

I don't follow Al Gore. I was focused on Carbon Emissions long before AL Gore became involved in Green House Gases. So you might say that Al is just giving the message to you and the others. He is just a messenger not really the guy who figured that Global Warming was an issue. But he did listen to the Climate Scientist and was smart enough to understand the long term implications of Global Warming. If he invested in things related to solving the problem of Global Warming then he was smart to do that. But he is not the problem. Too many people and industrial revolution is the problem.

Here is something to think about if you have kids and they plan on having kids and a future on this planet. If the problem of Global Warming is not caused by mankind and only by God or nature then how are your grandkids going to survive if WE humans are powerless to fix or reverse Global Warming? Think about that for a while. What if we can't do any thing about it? We are screwed then if we can't fix or reverse in in the future. while it may be a few hundred years before it gets too serious or bad it will happen if our populations continue to double every 30 years and we burn more and more fossil fuels.

On the other hand it it's caused or exasperated by mankind then we can do something to stop the problem. We could switch to alternative fuels someday in the future and wean ourselves off the fossil fuels that we believe are adding to the amount of CO2 and other green house gases in the atmosphere. We do know for sure that too much CO2 in the atmosphere keeps the heat waves from radiating back into space. Just like the glass windows in a car keep the heat inside the car on a sunny day. That's the green house effect. Again I'm talking about AVERAGE temperature over long periods of time and over large expanses of the earth. I'm not talking about a specific point on the Earth and one specific time. Winter time in our Northern Hemisphere can't be soled out to say that Global Warming is not a problem. Nor can we say that a hot summer day in our Northern Hemisphere in the middle of July is indicative of the Worlds Average Temperatures.

I guess what really matters if you think about it is the average temperature where we now have ice. Because that ice if it melts will flow to the sea and add to the sea level and the energy levels (temps) of the oceans. But then again we need to be concerned with our average temps in the middle latitudes when it comes to food production. (farming) And the same thing can be said about the Southern Hemisphere middle lattitudes as well. They grow produce and food down there too.

Katrina was a result of the land around New Orleans sinking. Less sediment is being deposited in the delta due to the damming up of the rivers that flow down to the Gulf of Mexico. The dams slow down the river and allow the sediment to fall out and settle onto the bottom of the river before it gets to the Gulf. And then the ocean levels have risen over the years so that New Orleans is closer to the ocean's level today vs a few hundred years ago. Which is why when you walk along the levee in New Orleans you look up at the River level.



I vote for the latter and hope for mankind's sake that we can figure out a solution before the oceans get too high and the glacial ice all melts. The rate of melting can speed up if too much dark earth is exposed at the polar regions.

Finally Al Gore is the messenger and a very good one at that! Smart people listen to what he has to say about the problems of Global Warming and take heed to try to fix the problem before it becomes worse.

Like I said before the US Supreme Court agreed that CO2 is a pollutant and that the USEPA should regulate it. And that's exactly what's going to happen IMHO. I'm really not so sure that it will help but they are going to try.

I'll leave it to the climate scientists at the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Agency to figure this out. They are smarter than you and I and all the rest who posted opinions on this issue.



There is a lot wrong with how they're going about solving GW. So much so, I could type all day. Big Al trots his giant ass carbon footprint about the world taking money and carrying the message. Global GW conferences are held and those absolutely brilliant Europeans come up with great ideas like carbon taxes and other ways for them to get money.

And after all that jet fuel is pissed away, money collected, and great ideas hatched, what has been accomplished? Not a **** thing, because the earth's climate is cyclic. Always was, always will be.

See. We agree on almost everything.

Al Gore is an opportunist not a messenger. There is a VERY BIG difference.

[/QUOTE]

From the length of your posts, this is an important issue to you, and to a point I respect that.

You are far more trusting of the government and global warming scientists than myself, so I agree to disagree.

You clearly hold Al Gore in much higher esteem than I do, so I agree to strongly disagree.

We are also on opposite ends of the political spectrum, you want more government and regulation; I don't. I agree to disagree.

All things considered we will doubtless butt heads again. Until then, read what roadrunner has to say in the previous post and have a good one.

[DJD]

Had to add this......Anyone else reads about a group of democrats in the House claiming that Global Warming can cause some women to resort to prostitution? This is the stuff that hurts the argument of Global Warming. These idiots draw a fuzzy line from point A to point Z to try and justify some action ( taxpayer money) toward helping these unfortunate whores errrr victims of Global Warming.

Naturally, these are minority, poor and black (that covers about everyone anymore) they are talking about. It has nothing to do with the fact that generations of poor who cling to every democrat word and promise about the evil repubs and independents who think the liberal ways of keeping poor people poor is a crime in itself. Failed promises, policies and trillions of dollars tossed at programs have nothing to do with this!!

These crooks errr politicians can't admit they don't know what to do so they find the best vehicle to ride toward their goal of getting funds for another lame liberal cause.

I will find the link and post it when I have time...unless someone finds it first. I read it last week as a link on Facebook. Funny thing is.....it's so outlandish that I believe it without looking it up to see if it's real.....just sounds like typical Liberal rubbish.

[DJD]

Had to add this......Anyone else reads about a group of democrats in the House claiming that Global Warming can cause some women to resort to prostitution? This is the stuff that hurts the argument of Global Warming. These idiots draw a fuzzy line from point A to point Z to try and justify some action ( taxpayer money) toward helping these unfortunate whores errrr victims of Global Warming.

Naturally, these are minority, poor and black (that covers about everyone anymore) they are talking about. It has nothing to do with the fact that generations of poor who cling to every democrat word and promise about the evil repubs and independents who think the liberal ways of keeping poor people poor is a crime in itself. Failed promises, policies and trillions of dollars tossed at programs have nothing to do with this!!

These crooks errr politicians can't admit they don't know what to do so they find the best vehicle to ride toward their goal of getting funds for another lame liberal cause.

I will find the link and post it when I have time...unless someone finds it first. I read it last week as a link on Facebook. Funny thing is.....it's so outlandish that I believe it without looking it up to see if it's real.....just sounds like typical Liberal rubbish.

As promised....

http://www.ijreview.com/2014/01/1075...n-prostitutes/


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3194779.html

[Moveon]

As promised....

http://www.ijreview.com/2014/01/1075...n-prostitutes/


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3194779.html

Not sure what that congresswoman is doing but that's sort of crazy talk IMHO. I would not go at far as to link women's poor econocmics to the effects of global warming.

But I disagree with the writer in the first link in that we can't do anything to slow down climate change. sure there have been natural disasters over the years and that we can't prevent Earth Quakes or Volcanic Eruptions ...yet? Probably never will either but who knows. But saying that we can't stop natural disasters is not the same as saying we can't control our own pollution which leads to increases in the climate's average global temperatures.

It's easy for me to see that man kind is adding to the pollution (CO2) and that we can reduce it.

Now the argument goes to how much should we reduce the CO2 output to make the Temperature rises dues to the green house effect lower.

So yes Volcanoes put out CO2 and Sulfur but that doesn't mean that just because we can't control those point sources of pollution that we should not control the other man made point sources of pollution. The same argument was made with the SO2 Pollutant many years ago in the 1970.s Cap and trade emission regulations and SO2 scrubbers resulted in much less Sulfuric Acid and Sulfates in the atmosphere.

[Hlleonard]

Not sure what that congresswoman is doing but that's sort of crazy talk IMHO. I would not go at far as to link women's poor econocmics to the effects of global warming.

But I disagree with the writer in the first link in that we can't do anything to slow down climate change. sure there have been natural disasters over the years and that we can't prevent Earth Quakes or Volcanic Eruptions ...yet? Probably never will either but who knows. But saying that we can't stop natural disasters is not the same as saying we can't control our own pollution which leads to increases in the climate's average global temperatures.

It's easy for me to see that man kind is adding to the pollution (CO2) and that we can reduce it.

Now the argument goes to how much should we reduce the CO2 output to make the Temperature rises dues to the green house effect lower.

So yes Volcanoes put out CO2 and Sulfur but that doesn't mean that just because we can't control those point sources of pollution that we should not control the other man made point sources of pollution. The same argument was made with the SO2 Pollutant many years ago in the 1970.s Cap and trade emission regulations and SO2 scrubbers resulted in much less Sulfuric Acid and Sulfates in the atmosphere.

--
You can't discuss history with these guys because they don't believe in history.. I don't believe we can have much effect on climate change but I do believe we can have a major effect on air quality which makes our time here better for us... Look at earlier years and judge if we changed the smog that use to affect the air we breathed, thats history also so I guess that didn't happen either.

[DJD]

--
You can't discuss history with these guys because they don't believe in history.. I don't believe we can have much effect on climate change but I do believe we can have a major effect on air quality which makes our time here better for us... Look at earlier years and judge if we changed the smog that use to affect the air we breathed, thats history also so I guess that didn't happen either.

I guess your not able to understand opinions that differ from your own. Most including myself agree with taking care of what we have. The opinion differs on so called data from GW alarmists. Don't you get that?? I also think the simple fact of us being outdoorsmen means we have a deeper desire to have clean water and air we just don't see the need to keep tossing trillions at this with such a cavalier attitude. Conservation is a huge part of bass fishing, hunting and being outdoors. We have been on that track for years!!!

Your party leaders and alot of liberals think the only way to get results is to toss money at it. Your parties war on dealing with the poor is a good example of how they fix these terrible things. The dems own that war on poverty and they have all the data they need but how's that working for you??

If historical data and new age electronics was so awesome then why did that ship get stuck??? I also have a theory about New Orleans. If your gonna build a city below sea level and it gets flooded from a major hurricane on the coast why can't we place the majority of the blame of flooding on the Corp of engineers or whoever was responsible for that levee? I remember hearing it was a money issue for years and that was the reason that levees around Lake P. were not managed better so the weaker levees gave in. So blame the politicians who prolly decided to take money they could have used for maintaining the levee and funded some GW adventure. Instead to GW alarmist A direct hit from a major Hurricane means a hurricane was only that strong and did that damage due to GW?

Im not gonna just jump on that bandwagon without questioning why. Maybe you and the other liberals that voted for Obama should have used that tact?? You know ask questions....Instead you guys just jumped on his magic carpet ride and ate all he was feeding the country as fact and look where we are. You have a terrible track record of questioning information as a voter for Obama. Of course you use the tact of most liberals and that is if someone doesn't agree 100% with you and no questions asked they are not able to keep up with your intellect and superior powers of being right. Yeah right....hahahaha. Please refer to the links posted on this thread and tell me they help the case of GW. I guess they poured over all that data and formed their opinions based on that huh?? Hahahaha