Climate Change -- conspiracy theory or is it time we all drive a Prius?

Page 4 of 38<1234567>Last »
May 3rd, 2014 at 10:35:16 AM permalink
AZDuffman
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 98
Posts: 6189
Quote: reno

The shipping industry must be full of useful idiots who claim that global warming has opened up profitable new lanes through the melting Arctic ice.


All they would be claiming is there is less ice at one particular in one or a few particular places. They are not claiming man is doing it.

Quote:
It's not a lie. And according to Muller, (a former skeptic!) the CO2 data and the temperature data correspond too perfectly to be a coincidence.


Let him claim whatever he wants, I am not buying a trend on 150 years of measurable data. And the "tree ring" thing even ifitwas correct would give at most another 50 years. All meaningless in the life of a planet.

But if you believe it is real, have you ripped out your air conditioner since you would not want to use it and make things worse?
The man who damns money has obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it has earned it
May 3rd, 2014 at 11:12:21 AM permalink
boymimbo
Member since: Mar 25, 2013
Threads: 5
Posts: 615
In some senses, I've always been a bit energy conscious. In our province's case, 75% of our home/industry usage comes from non-greenhouse sources (hydro + nuclear) so when I have a few too many lights on, I'm not too worried about my carbon footprint. And I try to drive fuel efficient cars as well, but I am not going to pay for the technology to drive a Prius or the Leaf (though my next car in 6 years could easily be an electric).

You're convinced that 150 years is all the "measurable" data out there. But there is thousands and hundreds of thousands of years out there. The short of the matter is that the only easily explainable thing that could be messing around with the energy balance on this planet is the increase of Carbon Dioxide. I know that you don't want to believe that, and even if that were true, you would say, why isn't that meant to be?
May 3rd, 2014 at 12:55:12 PM permalink
AZDuffman
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 98
Posts: 6189
No, there are not thousands of years. 150 at best of records. At best 200 years for so-called tree ring measurements unless there are lots of 1000 year old trees out your way. Tree ring data is a rough estimate. Anything else is a rough estimate. Get off on the estimate by 1C and you have already hit the change number they claim will happen.

And again it it is CO2 we'll 95% of that does not come from man made sources.
The man who damns money has obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it has earned it
May 6th, 2014 at 1:06:01 PM permalink
AZDuffman
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 98
Posts: 6189
So now it is "Climate Disruption."

Do they realize we have noticed that we have been hearing "disaster will come in 10 years" for about 20 years now?
The man who damns money has obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it has earned it
May 6th, 2014 at 1:23:49 PM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 677
Posts: 7753
Quote: boymimbo
In some senses, I've always been a bit energy conscious. In our province's case, 75% of our home/industry usage comes from non-greenhouse sources (hydro + nuclear) so when I have a few too many lights on, I'm not too worried about my carbon footprint. And I try to drive fuel efficient cars as well, but I am not going to pay for the technology to drive a Prius or the Leaf (though my next car in 6 years could easily be an electric).

You're convinced that 150 years is all the "measurable" data out there. But there is thousands and hundreds of thousands of years out there. The short of the matter is that the only easily explainable thing that could be messing around with the energy balance on this planet is the increase of Carbon Dioxide. I know that you don't want to believe that, and even if that were true, you would say, why isn't that meant to be?


The Little Ice Age is defined by NASA as the term as a cold period between AD 1550 and 1850 of which three particularly cold intervals:
one beginning about 1650,
another about 1770, and
the last in 1850, each separated by intervals of slight warming.

Several causes have been proposed:
an inherent variability in global climate,
cyclical lows in solar radiation,
heightened volcanic activity,
changes in the ocean circulation,
or decreases in the human population.

The year 1816 is highlighted in the Little Ice Age (the Year Without a Summer). Evidence suggests that the anomaly was caused by a combination of a historic low in solar activity with a volcanic winter event, the latter caused by a succession of major volcanic eruptions capped by the 1815 eruption of Mount Tambora, in the Dutch East Indies (Indonesia), the largest known eruption in over 1,300 years. Because of the association with Mt Tambora, it is usually held separate from the other three cold periods.

The crop failures of the "Year without a Summer" may have helped shape the settling of the "American Heartland", as many thousands of people left New England for what is now western and central New York and the Midwest in search of a more hospitable climate, richer soil, and better growing conditions.

There were food riots in France and Switzerland and at least 200,000 died from hunger and a typhus epidemic in Europe.
May 7th, 2014 at 3:16:20 PM permalink
AZDuffman
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 98
Posts: 6189
In 1970 alarmists said the temp would rise by 7F and sea levels up 10 feet by 2000!

"Goodbye NY, Goodbye Washington!" they said.

Both are still there, the predicted effects always remain 10 years out.

I think I will remain a skeptic!
The man who damns money has obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it has earned it
May 7th, 2014 at 3:40:55 PM permalink
Evenbob
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 106
Posts: 10696
Quote: AZDuffman


In 1973 they said the next Ice Age was here.

If you take a risk, you may lose. If you never take a risk, you will always lose.
May 14th, 2014 at 9:35:23 AM permalink
AZDuffman
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 98
Posts: 6189
Now it is down to 500 Days to avoid "Climate Chaos." This is yet another example of why I cannnot take anything the believers say seriously.

Will the "scientists" denounce this alarmism? Or will the reaction be, "well, anything to raise awareness is good."
The man who damns money has obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it has earned it
May 14th, 2014 at 12:52:49 PM permalink
Beethoven
Member since: Apr 27, 2014
Threads: 18
Posts: 640
The Warmers are no different than the Truthers and Birthers.
Boron Boron Boron rhymes with moron, moron, moron
May 14th, 2014 at 1:02:03 PM permalink
Evenbob
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 106
Posts: 10696
Quote: AZDuffman
Now it is down to 500 Days to avoid "Climate Chaos." This is yet another example of why I cannnot take anything the believers say seriously.


It's just another take on 'hurry up, only a few
more in stock.' Meaningless twaddle.
If you take a risk, you may lose. If you never take a risk, you will always lose.
Page 4 of 38<1234567>Last »