Global Cooling Is Here!

"What do YOU think?"

Mostly, I agree with you. I put Global Warming in the same category as the war on terror except I'm not sure G.Warming has any actual human deaths to report.
Basically, though, some fact and a whole lotta fear tactics.
Think about it. We don't know where it started. We don't know how to stop it. We're "pretty sure it's our fault". And ,though it's unlikely to kill you, Washington is going to demand your absolute conformance instead of dealing with it proportionally to it's threat level. Just like the WOT.

Again, I'm no expert, just a blue collar skeptic.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You don't have to be afraid, but our climate is the thing that keeps us alive. It was also a huge part of the last 5 extinction events on Earth.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The data shows cooling in the average temperature of the entire earth, not just in some areas as predicted by global warming alarmists.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

:shrug:
And?

 

Indeed, meanwhile there are plenty of problems out there that are causing thousands of deaths. Which problem should be address first?

Right. Global warming, if it exists, is way down on my list. And in a world with limited resources, it just doesn't make any damned sense to blow hundreds of billions of dollars on something that might affect us in a couple hundred years when we've got a shitload of problems to deal with right now.

And, regardless, as energy prices continue to rise, we will see ever more efficient uses of energy and the decreased emmisions that go with it.

 

madanthonywayne,

What is your stance on the multitude of other problems that pollution, deforestation and rampant habitat destruction causes?

 

IS THIS A COVERUP?

 

In a world with limited resources, it makes no sense to keep investing in a source of energy with NO FUTURE.

 

What caused the global cooling the last 3/4 year with the big jump last month?

Who knows, but sunspot activity is unusually low for months in a row now and there has been one of the strongest La Nina's on record last winter. But the CO2 went up and the glaciers are still melting.

And as Iceaura remarked, global warming causes cooling, demonstrating the interlectual bankrupcy of global warming theory. If it's necesary to predict contradicting events, you're not predicting anything.

 

My primary concern is the quality of life for humans. I don't believe that deforestation is a problem in the US. I think I've read that there are more trees standing now than when Columbus first arrived.

I think it's a problem in areas like the Amazon where slash and burn agriculture is practiced. I certainly don't think it's right for us relatively rich Americans and Europeans to tell the third world they've got to live in shit because we like to look at the pretty forests and animals in their countries.

Perhaps the rich celebrities and the like that are so offended by the culling of the rainforests could invest some of their own money in those countries to give the people there some alternative way of making a living? The people of the third world have as much a right to use their natural resources as we do.

No matter what you do, eliminating poverty is the best way to keep the environment clean. A clean environment is a luxury item. A starving man doesn't give a rat's ass about the forest or CO2. A man who just lost his job isn't going to be happy about increased bio-diversity. Environmental regulations that force more people into poverty are, therefore, counter-productive.

 

When something is non-falsifiable it's outside of the relm of science. It's like Freudian theory. Whether your actions conformed to his predictions or where the exact opposite, he'd claim it supported his theory. ( I can't remember the term for doing the exact opposite thing he predicted. But he had one, so he was never wrong. Just like the global warming "scientists")

 

Nature doesn't limit the effects of deforestation to national borders. The reality is that in the long term, the rainforest is a larger moneymaker than the short-term profits that can be gained by destroying it. A clean environment is not a luxury, it's a pre-requisite for health.

 

You can say that all you want, but which areas are cleaner; wealthy areas or poor areas? Was the wealthy west or the poverty stricken communist block cleaner? The answer is obvious.

If you want to prevent deforestation in the third world, another way for them to make a living must be found. One that's just as lucrative (or better) than what they're doing now.

 

Global warming alarmists have always predicted that global temperatures will continue to go up and down, year by year, as they have in the past, from all the causes that have operated in the past.

There will be, according to the global warming alarmists, cold years yet to come, as the solar flux varies and the orbit varies and so forth.

The rapidity of the recent onset of a cooler year, and the size of the temp drop, matches one of the predictions of global warming alarmists - more dramatic climate swings, day to day, month to month, year to year.

In the Amazon, at least, they had another way already - some very high density populations lived along the Amazon, building up the soil with careful burning and farming mostly tree crops.

The deforestation is imposed, or borrowed, largely for the international economy as managed by (and profiting) outsiders.

 

Maybe the northeast can start getting some real winters like we used to lol.

 

Bunk. You're saying that no matter what happens, it supports global warming theory.

Temp up? Yep, that's what we predicted.
Temp down? Yep, that's what we predicted.
​

On the other hand, the solar activity theory explains exactly what happened and even predicted it. And not in some nebulous "whatever happens jibes with our theory" way.

 

That's because the rich areas have power and they use that power to oppress the poorer areas and buy natural resources from them.
We import wood from third word nations because we don't HAVE to use our own, and with the globalization of the economy and political walls falling down they have little option but comply - not to mention we will go to war to control their natural resources and we have the weapons and power to do so.

There is only one environment, and anything done to destry that environment in the shipyards of India WILL afect the rest of the world in more ways than just environmentally.
Still, money talks and rather than working to find a solution that will benefit all, we find one that will get US the most power and money the fastest - fuck the consequences because the forests of North Carolina are in good enough shape (their not, by the wy - the cutting off of the forest corridor into smaller forests up and down the East Coast has had enormous impact on disease in the idiigenous species).

We have had a military presence in the Middle East for as long as we have known there was oil there.

We play chess with leaders of soverign nations and pour boatloads of money down their throats so they can see their people out and give us access to their natural resources.

The destruction of the environment knows no national borders, and I think you know that as well as I do.

 

I find that difficult to believe.

 

In the US proper it's possible,in a sense - consider that shrubby second and third growth of invasive species can be more separate little trees per acre - lots more - than old forest.

But the usual wingnut stat compares the US around 1900 or some such convenient time with the US now - ignoring the massive clearing of the Big Woods that accompanied the settlements in the 1800s, and counting the extra trees planted on the farmsteads and towns of the Plains.

Temps up and down, long term trend up - that is what was predicted by the most radical of the global warming alarmists. I'm sorry if that kind of sophistication is implausible in your world.