When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
The truth is over the past several years the average earthwide temperature has risen by about 1 degree Celsius. The reason for this is not global warming however. As time has passed, more and more weather stations have been installed around the world to measure and record average temperatures. At the same time, the countries of the world have expanded and developed many areas that these weather stations are in. So, many stations that were once out in the middle of nowhere are now surrounded by a sea of concrete and civilization. Concrete retains the heat of the sun and can raise the temperature of cities several degrees higher than the surrounding areas. Bearing this in mind, it is easy to understand how average temperatures have risen in the last say, thirty years. Rather than an actual warming or cooling of the planet (which occurs quite naturally, I might add) these current numbers are due to an increase of human development of areas that were formerly wilderness. This is just the latest fear campaign of the environmentalist lobby, no doubt one of the most dangerous and damaging movements to our country's econony. Not to go off on another rant, but these people are the reason you are going to be paying above $3 a gallon this summer for gas. Without increasing our refining capacity and tapping ALL domestic sources of oil (ANWR, CA coastal oil rigs, etc.) America will continue to be in the grips of the Arab oil lobby. </end rant>
I doubt that mankind is going to cause the next ice age or warm the earth enough to hurt anything.
It doesn't make for a very good movie I found out last summer.
We should, however, cut pollution so we have healthier air to breathe. Perhaps in place of cutting out pollution here we could just stop other, dirtier, countries from polluting. Hmmm, yes it might just work!
We should, however, cut pollution so we have healthier air to breathe. Perhaps in place of cutting out pollution here we could just stop other, dirtier, countries from polluting. Hmmm, yes it might just work!
that'd be the perfect idea BUT, we should be the ones doing it first, then and only then talk to the other places.
Ok, I'll try to make a point without flaming anyone then...
I would respectfully ask then: Yes, the earths climate moves in cooling and warming cycles, a well documented fact. But is it unclear that there is a significant difference between cycles that take thousands and maybe tens of thousands of years to complete and those that may take just decades?
Let's say hit your head on a truck bumber while you're changing your oil. Then let's say that the bumber on a truck doing 100 mph hits you in the head. Yes, both can accurately be described as head-to-bumper contact, but I'd suggest that there is a difference...
that'd be the perfect idea BUT, we should be the ones doing it first, then and only then talk to the other places.
The reason this administration went against the Kyoto Protocol was because they wanted everyone to cut back on the production of greenhouse gasses, yes? The president decided that cutting back wasn't the way to get results, so he opted out of the agreement in favor of developing new technology that created fewer gasses. Please correct me, if I am wrong. Now, that being said, this country has done more than any other country has to cut back on CO2 production. It has already been said in this thread that there are many other countries that are far, far behind us in this field. So, as far as the above quote is concerned, not only are we (the U.S.) NOT living in a glass house, we aren't throwing stones, either.
> so he opted out of the agreement in favor of developing new technology
> that created fewer gasses. Please correct me
I think it was a total of $2 Billion for alternative fuel development?
All these posts and no external links to support "con vs. pro" for an inkling of fact based data. Probably because it is theory and not data that promotes the global warming flurry.
stu37d,
After reading what you wrote, I have to consider it's notion in regards to what others have posted here on this thread.
Are we to assume that it is not only the flaming liberals and the corporate media that are spreading this "propaganda" about global warming, but our own government, and administration as well?
Or is there really some truth to this issue?
Or is this really a big environmentalist wacco conspirousy to kick the little guys and big buisiness?
Or is the writing on the walls and we choose to bury our heads in the sand about global warming?
Or???
rebocardo,
Good post. Good reading, thanks.
I think it would be a great day when the maniacs over in the desert stop receiving our welfare money, while using it to bomb this country.
Very happy to see George working for the vote I gave. I think the only way we'll see anything happen quick though is when the researchers can include a method of profitting from their efforts.
That's okay though, tis a little longer before my truck becomes obsolete.
Well, there's some interesting theories on Global Warming. Some seem far out there, some seem very plausable.
As for me, I'm still thinking that the A-Bomb Testing and real A-Bomb sites have negatively affected the degree of axial rotation and/or the elliptical orbiting path. That much explosive power has to have some sort of negative impact, besides the obvious. And that is what we are currently experiencing and claiming to be "global warming." But that is just my theory. It may or may not be just ramblings of some crazy FTE member. (Somebody write this down though, so if future scientists confirm my thinking you can say, some brilliant dude on FTE said that years ago, but we all thought he just had one too many bottles of Lone Star.)
The reason this administration went against the Kyoto Protocol was because they wanted everyone to cut back on the production of greenhouse gasses, yes? The president decided that cutting back wasn't the way to get results, so he opted out of the agreement in favor of developing new technology that created fewer gasses. Please correct me, if I am wrong. Now, that being said, this country has done more than any other country has to cut back on CO2 production. It has already been said in this thread that there are many other countries that are far, far behind us in this field. So, as far as the above quote is concerned, not only are we (the U.S.) NOT living in a glass house, we aren't throwing stones, either.
WOAH WOAH WOAH, I didn't think about that, calm down dude. Its been a while since I've read up on this topic.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/publica...show/1139.html
Now there is some incentive for our some to avoid the global warming issue and hope to keep all of us thinking to keep our heads in the sand. No oil sales, national economy takes a hit? I wonder if huge profits vs huge loss would be enough for big buisiness and govt to generate propeganda?
Hate to sound like a consperacy theorist. Just a thought.
IF you think there is anything related to Global Warming you are a complete idiot.
I've done about three reports for school on this subject, and two out of three refrences that I used stated that "There is NO Such thing as Global Warming"
these so called "scientist" don't have propper information to be conclusive, seeing as the Earth has been around longer than any of them.
I'll stop for now, I could type for quite a while on this.
Yeah I agree with you totally. But oh no we are all gonna die from global warming panick!!!!!!! But I wonder if the Ozone layer is really are faults? CFC or not?
as far as using ice cores to tell what past climates, they are accurate, but not used exclusively either. many other things are used to tell what previous climates were like, mostly geological evidence.
I know man, i was just pointing out at one way wich i could easily prove and explain as valid proof, thx for pointing that out anyway.
Mainly, the change on climate won´t affect the human race (except for the people living on extreme climates and in coasts), it initially will damage several species of wild-life/flora that cannot survive changes of more than 4-5 degree changes (several frog species are endangered already or even dissapearing, also a special kind of fungus is also killing them, poor things...), and destrolling eco-systems. I think this concern all of us, as the guardians we should be, being supposedly the most evolved species we think we are.
As for Mil1ion: are you sure you´re really thinking it hard enough? i don´t just accept the information given to me, as an engineer student, and even far before that, i learned to take the information and facts given to me and to consider wich information really is logical and plausible, and to disregard noise and other useless information.
About the YOU event: i´m sorry if the way i expressed myself offended anyone, maybe it has some to do with the fact i´m not native from a english speaking nation, so writting down my thougths can be a little hard (as for proper etiquette, vocabulary and gramatic)... anyway maybe next time i´ll try to be softer in my expresions or i´ll write this size so Mil1ion can´t read... LOL!