Posted on Jul 23, 2014
Colder winter and cooler summer, the global warming theory sounds like junk. What do you think?
34K
680
512
8
8
0
Posted in these groups: 
Politics
Climate Change
Politics Climate Change
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 94
21
21
0
To look at all of the things we put into the ground, air, and water and say you do not believe that human activity can cause climate change would be the same thing as saying that you do not believe that what you put into your body can effect your overall health.
I am completely confused as to why people are so against conservation efforts. If climate change is bunk, conservation efforts that get people thinking about how they use our resources aren't a bad thing. If climate change is real and we treat it like it isn't, we all die. The only people advantaged by ignoring climate science are corporations fighting regulations.
I am completely confused as to why people are so against conservation efforts. If climate change is bunk, conservation efforts that get people thinking about how they use our resources aren't a bad thing. If climate change is real and we treat it like it isn't, we all die. The only people advantaged by ignoring climate science are corporations fighting regulations.
(21)
(0)
SGT Jason Anderson
Based upon data charted through many samples, that allow for and follow the earth natural cycles, there is a dramatic uptick beginning near the 17/1800's and growing as it nears present day. How you could not get man as the driver is beyond me...
(0)
(0)
SGT Jason Anderson
I don't have a lot of time, so I'll be brief.
The uptick we are in now went up very, very fast.
I don't day they are infallible because they are a majority. I say the majority of naysayers are more fallible due to ignorance of proof, and thinking politicians understand science.
Absolutely, the atmosphere is very complex. Do I believe those that say we are all going to melt because of this overheating? No. I don't think we can accurately predict what is exactly going to happen.
The modeling being used currently so far appears to be very accurate. But no model can 100% replicate all of the various nuances of nature, we don't know all of them. So when there is proof showing something is going on, and it's not good... why the hell would you err on the side of "fahgedaboutit"???
The pole switch is such a slow and gradual process (which is accounted for in all modeling) that it is not possible to account for what the data shows.
And as you had said, you are not a climate scientist. Who are you (or me) to argue with one who is? I don't mean that disrespectfully, but really???
The only ones with something to gain by climatologists being wrong are a certain group of politicians (who would otherwise seem fairly credible) who are using it and "weather" to try to confuse the "climate" issue.
So much for a short post...
The uptick we are in now went up very, very fast.
I don't day they are infallible because they are a majority. I say the majority of naysayers are more fallible due to ignorance of proof, and thinking politicians understand science.
Absolutely, the atmosphere is very complex. Do I believe those that say we are all going to melt because of this overheating? No. I don't think we can accurately predict what is exactly going to happen.
The modeling being used currently so far appears to be very accurate. But no model can 100% replicate all of the various nuances of nature, we don't know all of them. So when there is proof showing something is going on, and it's not good... why the hell would you err on the side of "fahgedaboutit"???
The pole switch is such a slow and gradual process (which is accounted for in all modeling) that it is not possible to account for what the data shows.
And as you had said, you are not a climate scientist. Who are you (or me) to argue with one who is? I don't mean that disrespectfully, but really???
The only ones with something to gain by climatologists being wrong are a certain group of politicians (who would otherwise seem fairly credible) who are using it and "weather" to try to confuse the "climate" issue.
So much for a short post...
(0)
(0)
SPC Randy Torgerson
Rosemont, MN.... I'm originally from Mankato area. I'm not entirely sure in your last post which side your on but I did want to address one thing you said.
"So when there is proof showing something is going on, and it's not good... why the hell would you err on the side of "fahgedaboutit"???"
Something has been going on for about 4 billion years. This fraction of time that "man" has been involved here on earth really gives us a lot of credit to think we are making all these profound changes in climate. Science? un-manipulated science indicates growing ice at the poles and cooler temperatures. But the most important point I want to make on what you said is about siding with caution for the unknown information. I think the reason many people do NOT want to side with caution is that "caution" is incredible expensive with no empirical proof that man can ultimately change the climate for bad or good. So why spend all the money (tax money, as the governments have no income of their own, they must take it from you and me). One famous politician said "we have to pass the law first so we can read whats in it".
This is not the way I want my country to take on a global issue. So why not error on the side of caution you ask? Because I can't afford to accommodate the environmentalists of the world who rely on a single position where there is equal or greater evidence that what is going on is completely natural. Just my opinion of course.
"So when there is proof showing something is going on, and it's not good... why the hell would you err on the side of "fahgedaboutit"???"
Something has been going on for about 4 billion years. This fraction of time that "man" has been involved here on earth really gives us a lot of credit to think we are making all these profound changes in climate. Science? un-manipulated science indicates growing ice at the poles and cooler temperatures. But the most important point I want to make on what you said is about siding with caution for the unknown information. I think the reason many people do NOT want to side with caution is that "caution" is incredible expensive with no empirical proof that man can ultimately change the climate for bad or good. So why spend all the money (tax money, as the governments have no income of their own, they must take it from you and me). One famous politician said "we have to pass the law first so we can read whats in it".
This is not the way I want my country to take on a global issue. So why not error on the side of caution you ask? Because I can't afford to accommodate the environmentalists of the world who rely on a single position where there is equal or greater evidence that what is going on is completely natural. Just my opinion of course.
(0)
(0)
MSG (Join to see)
Ma'am, you definitely correct about conservation. When "Earth has lost half of its wildlife in the past 40 years, says WWF" is a headline we must stop believing that all of this is "natural" and start realizing that humans have just as much of a part to play in this earth's ecology as any other species. Except the honeybee, honeybees make this blue and green marble spin lol.
(1)
(0)
14
12
2
I love how the republicans say, "we're not scientists, so don't ask us about global warming".... then say there is no global warming, although 97% of climate researchers agree there is. The global warming deniers are on par with the 9/11 truthers and the birthers as being about as anti-intellectual as you can get.
(14)
(2)
SSgt (Join to see)
SGT David Fernandez You voted now tell me what you think other than a feeling??? lol
(0)
(0)
Capt (Join to see)
So what happened with the predictions I was given in HS that we were about to enter an ice age?
(0)
(0)
SSgt Randy Saulsberry
I find it funny that climate change became a hot topic back in the 1930s and was a Republican issue all the way until about 2005 and then all of a sudden republicans started to think it's a hoax. I wonder what happened around 2005 that caused this switch?
(0)
(0)
10
10
0
Why, oh why are we still having these discussions.
Here are some facts:
Between 1940-1975 the earth cooled about 1/3 of a degree. Pollution and volcanic activity cause this by limiting the amount of sunlight getting through.
This led to paranoia about global cooling.
Carbon Dioxide accounts for roughly a quarter of 'the greenhouse effect.' Human activity accounts for roughly a quarter of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Water vapor, on the other hand, accounts for over 2/3 of the greenhouse effect.
Without 'the greenhouse effect,' the earth would be inhospitably cold.
Alarmist predictions are almost always wrong. For instance, Al Gore predicted the virtual extinction of Arctic Ice by 2016. Instead, Polar sea ice is healthy and growing.
We know that CO2 warms. We know that it is created by a myriad of sources. We have NO IDEA what impact human activity has.
We know that planetary weather goes in cycles.
Calls for reductions are usually draconian. The Kyoto accords, for instance, would have destroyed the world economy if we all would have signed on.
We cannot make dangerous changes that we don't even know will help in response to something we don't completely understand.
And the chicken-littles in the MCGW camp do themselves a disservice with their fear-mongering.
Here are some facts:
Between 1940-1975 the earth cooled about 1/3 of a degree. Pollution and volcanic activity cause this by limiting the amount of sunlight getting through.
This led to paranoia about global cooling.
Carbon Dioxide accounts for roughly a quarter of 'the greenhouse effect.' Human activity accounts for roughly a quarter of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Water vapor, on the other hand, accounts for over 2/3 of the greenhouse effect.
Without 'the greenhouse effect,' the earth would be inhospitably cold.
Alarmist predictions are almost always wrong. For instance, Al Gore predicted the virtual extinction of Arctic Ice by 2016. Instead, Polar sea ice is healthy and growing.
We know that CO2 warms. We know that it is created by a myriad of sources. We have NO IDEA what impact human activity has.
We know that planetary weather goes in cycles.
Calls for reductions are usually draconian. The Kyoto accords, for instance, would have destroyed the world economy if we all would have signed on.
We cannot make dangerous changes that we don't even know will help in response to something we don't completely understand.
And the chicken-littles in the MCGW camp do themselves a disservice with their fear-mongering.
(10)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
Sir, because people are deceptive and wish to extort money from the population through fear mongering.
(3)
(0)
Sgt Jennifer Mohler
Can I save this, laminate it, and post it on my wall? Well said. Besides there is always a slight warning before we go into an ice age, but each portion of this cycle lasts longer then our lifetimes. It is nearly imperceptible to our daily lives. I do have to point out, however, that NASA does have images showing the holes in our ozone layer over the most poluted cities has begun to close since we have globally made efforts towards cleaner air. While our impact may not be as large as we think, we are not innocent either.
(0)
(0)
SPC Randy Torgerson
I know what the warning is before an ice age..!!!!! Answer: It gets colder outside.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google