Frank screwyourednecks
Well-Known Member
Finally the debate is over. At least for the majority of voters on both sides.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomzeller/2015/01/18/the-end-of-the-partisan-divide-over-climate-change/?partner=yahootix
Global Warming debate over
- Thread starter Frank screwyourednecks
- Start date
Help Support Ford SportTrac Forum:
Finally the debate is over. At least for the majority of voters on both sides.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomzeller/2015/01/18/the-end-of-the-partisan-divide-over-climate-change/?partner=yahootix
The debate is NOT OVER as far as the cause of global warming.
Most people will agree that overall the Earth's climate is changing. The real debate is "What is the cause of the climate change"? That's were many people disagree. No evidence has ever been provided that clearly proves the Green house gas theory and that it is man who is creating the climate change.
The Earth has gone through many extreme climate changes and at least 5 mass distinctions over it's estimated 4 Billion year history...all of them occured long ago and have nothing to do with man. The last major climate change was about 10,000 years ago, when the Earth emerged from the Ice Age. The end of the Ice Age was caused by Global Warming and had little or no help from mankind!
All the so-called proof is all circumstantial at best. They simply trying to link global warming with the start of the industrial revolution that started back around 1860. Since then, there have been numerous mini Ice-ages that the global warming theorist dismiss because they cannot explain them and it does not fit into their Greenhouse gas theory. Human caused global warming or climate change is just speculation by some scientist and is not based on one shred of proven evidence. Even the UN Climate Change committee admitted that much of the climate change data was manipulated or corrupted by scientist who were under pressure from their governments to support the Theory of Human caused climate change or they would loose their grants and funding. When you force a biased outcome, you don't really have any valid or acceptable results.
Shortly after WWII the Earth went into what many scientist described as a global mini Ice Age. At that time, the Earth had the highest concentrations levels of CO2 in the atmosphere that were ever recorded, and that have not reached that level since then. The scientist at that time claimed that it was the high level of CO2 that was causing the mini Ice Age, and if it continued would eventually develop into a full scale Ice Age? Hmmmm? Exactly the opposite of what they are saying now? Sounds like a there are too many scientist who have hair-brained theories that they cannot prove. :grin:
One thing that scientist all agree on, is that over 70% of the CO2 in our atmosphere comes from the oceans. When the oceans warm, more CO2 is evaporated into the atmosphere. Supporters of Human Caused Climate Change claim that atmospheric warming is causing the oceans to warm. Many other scientist claim the oceans are being warmed from below by magma and volcanic activity under thin spots in the Earths crust that heat the oceans from below. This is what they believe causes El-Nino's and La-Nina's...Warm ocean currents that we already know have significant impact on our weather.
I just saw a program on TV last night where scientist believe that the oceans tempurature and changes in currents are responsible for much of our climate change including the melting of the ice caps and glaciers. Scientist really don't know that much about what goes on in the depths of the oceans, So they have placed thousands of temperature sensors in the ocean (Pacific) over the past 10 years and are now seeing how the temperature and changes in ocean currents and their effects on the Earth's climate.
In my opinion, and the opinion of a lot of other people....There is still NO proof that Man is the cause of Climate Change and any change is simply the Earth going through another long and protracted cyclic climate change that may go on for thousands of years, or just a mini-cycle that last for a century or only a few decades?
We have nothing to do with climate change, and we are powerless to prevent it, or change it.
Man is smart enough to adapt to climate change just like we have adapted to everything else since we have existed on Earth.
...Rich
Most people will agree that overall the Earth's climate is changing. The real debate is "What is the cause of the climate change"? That's were many people disagree. No evidence has ever been provided that clearly proves the Green house gas theory and that it is man who is creating the climate change.
The Earth has gone through many extreme climate changes and at least 5 mass distinctions over it's estimated 4 Billion year history...all of them occured long ago and have nothing to do with man. The last major climate change was about 10,000 years ago, when the Earth emerged from the Ice Age. The end of the Ice Age was caused by Global Warming and had little or no help from mankind!
All the so-called proof is all circumstantial at best. They simply trying to link global warming with the start of the industrial revolution that started back around 1860. Since then, there have been numerous mini Ice-ages that the global warming theorist dismiss because they cannot explain them and it does not fit into their Greenhouse gas theory. Human caused global warming or climate change is just speculation by some scientist and is not based on one shred of proven evidence. Even the UN Climate Change committee admitted that much of the climate change data was manipulated or corrupted by scientist who were under pressure from their governments to support the Theory of Human caused climate change or they would loose their grants and funding. When you force a biased outcome, you don't really have any valid or acceptable results.
Shortly after WWII the Earth went into what many scientist described as a global mini Ice Age. At that time, the Earth had the highest concentrations levels of CO2 in the atmosphere that were ever recorded, and that have not reached that level since then. The scientist at that time claimed that it was the high level of CO2 that was causing the mini Ice Age, and if it continued would eventually develop into a full scale Ice Age? Hmmmm? Exactly the opposite of what they are saying now? Sounds like a there are too many scientist who have hair-brained theories that they cannot prove. :grin:
One thing that scientist all agree on, is that over 70% of the CO2 in our atmosphere comes from the oceans. When the oceans warm, more CO2 is evaporated into the atmosphere. Supporters of Human Caused Climate Change claim that atmospheric warming is causing the oceans to warm. Many other scientist claim the oceans are being warmed from below by magma and volcanic activity under thin spots in the Earths crust that heat the oceans from below. This is what they believe causes El-Nino's and La-Nina's...Warm ocean currents that we already know have significant impact on our weather.
I just saw a program on TV last night where scientist believe that the oceans tempurature and changes in currents are responsible for much of our climate change including the melting of the ice caps and glaciers. Scientist really don't know that much about what goes on in the depths of the oceans, So they have placed thousands of temperature sensors in the ocean (Pacific) over the past 10 years and are now seeing how the temperature and changes in ocean currents and their effects on the Earth's climate.
In my opinion, and the opinion of a lot of other people....There is still NO proof that Man is the cause of Climate Change and any change is simply the Earth going through another long and protracted cyclic climate change that may go on for thousands of years, or just a mini-cycle that last for a century or only a few decades?
We have nothing to do with climate change, and we are powerless to prevent it, or change it.
Man is smart enough to adapt to climate change just like we have adapted to everything else since we have existed on Earth.
...Rich
Last edited by a moderator:
DaninVa
Member
and....in a thousand years or so when the magnetic field reverses...some will say the is caused by humans also. :angry:
Frank screwyourednecks
Well-Known Member
I guess that there will never be 100 percent agreement. I bet there are still people who think the world is flat.
As far as scientific community goes there is a veritable consensus about the cause of GW
If you refer back to the link I provided it shows a nice correlation between how far right on the political spectrum one goes the further away from believing scientific fact you go.
Opinion wise, I think the lower the IQ you have the more you disagree with Science and Global Warming theory. Religion is oddly not included in the study. I believe it is due to religion having nothing to do with Science. Or the warming of the Earth. Although it might explain why some on the right do not believe in human kind doing wrong, especially the wealthy business owning or politically connected humans.
Alas the debate is kept alive for now, just like the tigers, the panda bear and all of the other animals trying to stave off extinction. Hopefully rational thought wont go down the path of extinction too. Science can only provide information. Action must come from within. You can lead a horse (zealot) to water, but you cant make him/her drink.
As far as scientific community goes there is a veritable consensus about the cause of GW
If you refer back to the link I provided it shows a nice correlation between how far right on the political spectrum one goes the further away from believing scientific fact you go.
Opinion wise, I think the lower the IQ you have the more you disagree with Science and Global Warming theory. Religion is oddly not included in the study. I believe it is due to religion having nothing to do with Science. Or the warming of the Earth. Although it might explain why some on the right do not believe in human kind doing wrong, especially the wealthy business owning or politically connected humans.
Alas the debate is kept alive for now, just like the tigers, the panda bear and all of the other animals trying to stave off extinction. Hopefully rational thought wont go down the path of extinction too. Science can only provide information. Action must come from within. You can lead a horse (zealot) to water, but you cant make him/her drink.
Mark K 2
Well-Known Member
The scientist in me says that climate change is real. My "big picture" view says that humans can contribute to it. Bottom line, I say that we should try to avoid polluting, but shouldn't go broke trying to meet that goal.
Duane Foster
Active Member
Frank, consensus doesn't make it so. And there's nothing wrong with my IQ.
I heard a Canadian climate expert say not only is CO2 actually a cooling agent, higher CO2 levels help plants/crops grow better, and CO2 levels somewhat higher than we currently have would be beneficial. Warmer temps are also good for plant growth, and allow crops to be grown where they aren't now. So unless potentially more food sources are a bad thing, what's the downside? Besides, scientists were using much of the same data to warn of a coming ice age 40 years ago.
Rich, Dan, Mark, and Hugh, well said!
Religion does play a part in what one believes about climate change. Those who believe man can cause catastrophic climate change, AND can fix it, deny God and His sovereignty, believing instead that man is all powerful.
I heard a Canadian climate expert say not only is CO2 actually a cooling agent, higher CO2 levels help plants/crops grow better, and CO2 levels somewhat higher than we currently have would be beneficial. Warmer temps are also good for plant growth, and allow crops to be grown where they aren't now. So unless potentially more food sources are a bad thing, what's the downside? Besides, scientists were using much of the same data to warn of a coming ice age 40 years ago.
Rich, Dan, Mark, and Hugh, well said!
Religion does play a part in what one believes about climate change. Those who believe man can cause catastrophic climate change, AND can fix it, deny God and His sovereignty, believing instead that man is all powerful.
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2006
- Messages
- 1,873
- Reaction score
- 65
- What engine do you have?
- V8 engine
- What year is your Sport Trac?
- 2007
- What Generation is your Sport Trac?
- 2n Gen Owner
Last edited by a moderator:
Jackson Ellis
Active Member
I don't think my truck was burning fossil fuel back when the first Americans could walk here from Asia.:welcome:
TrainTrac
Well-Known Member
You keep using this analogy, frank, and I can't help but notice the irony:
In the 15th century, the "consensus" of "experts" declared that "the debate was over", and that the world was flat. Paraphrasing your own words: "As far as the scientific community goes there was a veritable consensus about the world being flat."
The world was believed to be flat, and the sun was believed to revolve around the Earth. This was the "consensus" of the "majority" of "experts" at the time. Yet this "consensus" of "experts" didn't have much in the way of scientific data or facts to support this "consensus". And their reasons for suppressing any dissenting points of view were pretty much the same as the Chicken Littles who believe in the alleged coming global apocalypse, allegedly caused by Anthropogenic Global Cooling/Warming, Climate Change, or whatever the current term for it may be: Largely for political gain and power, and for gov't redistribution of wealth. Those who didn't believe these things to be so and sought to prove otherwise were branded as heretics, blasphemers, and yes, deniers. Sound familiar?
Here's a point of view differing from yours and those you blindly follow that very easily debunks most of the Chicken Little climate change BS. Oh, and the guy's a former NASA scientist and climatologist.
Last edited by a moderator:
gyates
Active Member
Thanks TrainTrac for posting the info. The Global Warming "debate" has nothing to do with science and everything to do with politics and control. Similar to Obamacare.
And Frank, your comments about IQ and belief in "science" are offensive. I suspect my IQ out rates yours significantly, not bragging, but a fact. I am also deeply religious, educated, and have studied these "reports" on global warming until I am cross-eyed. It is easy to get "consensus" when only one side is allowed to participate, which is what has happened on the climate issue. Sadly..
Now, back to enjoying my "evil, climate destroying" 'Trac. :driving:
And Frank, your comments about IQ and belief in "science" are offensive. I suspect my IQ out rates yours significantly, not bragging, but a fact. I am also deeply religious, educated, and have studied these "reports" on global warming until I am cross-eyed. It is easy to get "consensus" when only one side is allowed to participate, which is what has happened on the climate issue. Sadly..
Now, back to enjoying my "evil, climate destroying" 'Trac. :driving:
Duane Foster
Active Member
Southern California and the southwest were abnormally warm last summer and through the fall, while we in Iowa experienced one of the coolest years on record. In fact, our Dec - March period was the coldest recorded, largely because the temps didn't fluctuate like they usually do. We had a week of extreme cold in early Dec 2013, but otherwise the temps stayed steady in the upper 20s with no warm periods like we normally get - like we're having this week. The summer was also pretty mild, as the last few years have been, with steady temps without many days in the upper 90s like is typical.
We could argue the climate is cooling here, while the people in the SW would argue it's definitely getting hotter. Depends on which data you want to cherry pick to get the answer you want.
Thanks TrainTrac for posting Dr Spencer's article.
We could argue the climate is cooling here, while the people in the SW would argue it's definitely getting hotter. Depends on which data you want to cherry pick to get the answer you want.
Thanks TrainTrac for posting Dr Spencer's article.
TrainTrac
Well-Known Member
Oops, I guess 38% isn't exactly a consensus...
Pot, kettle, black, frank.
Pot, kettle, black, frank.
Last edited by a moderator:
Frank,
I have an IQ of 140, tested twice ! I have a very strong knowledge of mathematics and science, and studied engineering until I switched to computers about 45 years ago.
You imply that only people who believe in the Human caused Global Warming theory are intelligent enough to understand it. I say that they obviously have inferiour intelligence because that they are being persuaded by the argument without a valid foundation in scientific evidence.
As I previously stated. There is no connection to Man and Global Warming. Based on the way that you and others who believe the Anthropological Global Warming theory....mankind would be blamed for everything that happen on Earth since man has existed.
I agree that the Earth is going through climate change, but there is no conclusive evidence that it is caused by mankind. Without proof, all these theories are circumstantial and to say that "The Debate Is Over", only shows the lack of positive evidence to prove that theory and leans more towards government manipulation of the data to maintain control.
...Rich
I have an IQ of 140, tested twice ! I have a very strong knowledge of mathematics and science, and studied engineering until I switched to computers about 45 years ago.
You imply that only people who believe in the Human caused Global Warming theory are intelligent enough to understand it. I say that they obviously have inferiour intelligence because that they are being persuaded by the argument without a valid foundation in scientific evidence.
As I previously stated. There is no connection to Man and Global Warming. Based on the way that you and others who believe the Anthropological Global Warming theory....mankind would be blamed for everything that happen on Earth since man has existed.
I agree that the Earth is going through climate change, but there is no conclusive evidence that it is caused by mankind. Without proof, all these theories are circumstantial and to say that "The Debate Is Over", only shows the lack of positive evidence to prove that theory and leans more towards government manipulation of the data to maintain control.
...Rich
Jackson Ellis
Active Member
Are oceans rising? Yes. Are large amounts of polar ice melting? Apparently. Will the amount of money the Global Warming zealots want to spend on alternative energy, pollution reduction, etc. stop either? No.
If humans want to continue to live near the oceans, then we will have to learn to go with the flow - literally. As I said earlier, my Trac wasn't burning fossil fuels when the first humans WALKED here from Asia across a land bridge that is deep under water now. The oceans will rise, and they will rise until they stop, and then they will recede. I live 2.5 hours from the coast of SC, yet there are ocean-dwelling fossils buried all around this area. This is not new phenomena.
When refined fossil fuels became the norm, there were still people who swore they were going to kill whales to light their lanterns - and that their sons and grandsons would always do the same. But when they saw what a can of kerosene costs at the Dollar General, they changed their minds. Mankind will continue to develop technology, and will continue to reduce our impact on the environment, but it is wasteful to do it at all costs to other endeavors. The money spent (or proposed to be spent) on much of these enviro-scares should be put to better efforts.
I'm pro-nuke. I truly believe that this country could one day stop using fossil fuel to create electricity or warm homes. I also believe this country needs high speed rail that would put a huge dent in air travel and trucking of people and things. I have money invested in bio-diesel technology that will (I hope sooner than later) make diesel fuel out of refuse that is cheaper than current diesel refining. I believe these are engineering eventualities that will come via our capital-based system, with consideration for environmental and economical issues, not that should be done at all costs based on non-science.
We could spend every last American dollar to put everyone in an solar-powered electric car - but if we want to keep Miami, we'd better build some walls, channels, and water pumps. Mother nature will not be impressed enough to halt her plans; even if we had 365 Earth Days per year.
If humans want to continue to live near the oceans, then we will have to learn to go with the flow - literally. As I said earlier, my Trac wasn't burning fossil fuels when the first humans WALKED here from Asia across a land bridge that is deep under water now. The oceans will rise, and they will rise until they stop, and then they will recede. I live 2.5 hours from the coast of SC, yet there are ocean-dwelling fossils buried all around this area. This is not new phenomena.
When refined fossil fuels became the norm, there were still people who swore they were going to kill whales to light their lanterns - and that their sons and grandsons would always do the same. But when they saw what a can of kerosene costs at the Dollar General, they changed their minds. Mankind will continue to develop technology, and will continue to reduce our impact on the environment, but it is wasteful to do it at all costs to other endeavors. The money spent (or proposed to be spent) on much of these enviro-scares should be put to better efforts.
I'm pro-nuke. I truly believe that this country could one day stop using fossil fuel to create electricity or warm homes. I also believe this country needs high speed rail that would put a huge dent in air travel and trucking of people and things. I have money invested in bio-diesel technology that will (I hope sooner than later) make diesel fuel out of refuse that is cheaper than current diesel refining. I believe these are engineering eventualities that will come via our capital-based system, with consideration for environmental and economical issues, not that should be done at all costs based on non-science.
We could spend every last American dollar to put everyone in an solar-powered electric car - but if we want to keep Miami, we'd better build some walls, channels, and water pumps. Mother nature will not be impressed enough to halt her plans; even if we had 365 Earth Days per year.
NCState, putting your money where your mouth is I see. I'll wait for the answer to my above question to see if others do too.
I'm with you on nuclear, bio-diesel and high speed rail. They seem like the most feasible of the options right now.
Nuclear produces so much energy so cheaply. I'm happy my state of Georgia is the first in 30+ years to have a new nuclear plant in progress in Augusta. I'll also point out that I'm also glad it is over three hours away from me. I know, NIMBY.
Biodiesel makes sense for everyday travel. The infrastructure already exists from refineries to the pumps. Biowaste is readily available; just needs an efficient collection strategy to get it to the refineries. Electric cars and the hippies that drive them crack me up. On one hand, (they think) they're making a statement about clean energy and efficiency. On the other, they're powering their vehicles with coal and batteries that are essentially in-disposable.
I'm really shocked there hasn't been more investment in rail. The only options to get to the other coast right now is driving or flight, neither of which is very economical or efficient. Imagine the boost our economy would have with a more mobile middle class. We saw what happened with the mass production of cars and ability of Americans to expedite movement.
See Frank, these are the solutions capitalists devise. Very different from the fear tactics represented by your initial post. Assuming your position is correct, the fact remains that the cause is nearly irrelevant in policy analysis; the proposed solutions are where great men and women make their names (and due fortunes). What are your solutions?
I'm with you on nuclear, bio-diesel and high speed rail. They seem like the most feasible of the options right now.
Nuclear produces so much energy so cheaply. I'm happy my state of Georgia is the first in 30+ years to have a new nuclear plant in progress in Augusta. I'll also point out that I'm also glad it is over three hours away from me. I know, NIMBY.
Biodiesel makes sense for everyday travel. The infrastructure already exists from refineries to the pumps. Biowaste is readily available; just needs an efficient collection strategy to get it to the refineries. Electric cars and the hippies that drive them crack me up. On one hand, (they think) they're making a statement about clean energy and efficiency. On the other, they're powering their vehicles with coal and batteries that are essentially in-disposable.
I'm really shocked there hasn't been more investment in rail. The only options to get to the other coast right now is driving or flight, neither of which is very economical or efficient. Imagine the boost our economy would have with a more mobile middle class. We saw what happened with the mass production of cars and ability of Americans to expedite movement.
See Frank, these are the solutions capitalists devise. Very different from the fear tactics represented by your initial post. Assuming your position is correct, the fact remains that the cause is nearly irrelevant in policy analysis; the proposed solutions are where great men and women make their names (and due fortunes). What are your solutions?
Last edited by a moderator:
Duane Foster
Active Member
My mom took the train from Iowa to Denver, Co 10 or 12 years ago. There were times the train stopped every 20 or 30 miles, so it took much longer than driving would have. Not sure how efficient that was, but driving that far alone was not an option for her and many others.
Every now and then somebody around here suggests a rail line from Des Moines to Chicago, or maybe Omaha to Chicago going through Des Moines. I don't know if the demand would be enough to make it work. It would most likely have to be high speed rail, like the bullet trains in Europe and Japan, to generate enough use. That would require a HUGE investment in infrastructure and would take a lot of good farmland out of production.
As far as moving more goods by rail, years ago the towns and businesses grew along the RR tracks and many businesses had their own rail spur. That's not possible or feasible anymore. There isn't enough open land to build the rail system like there once was. Even if the land was available, it would take massive warehouse districts along the rail lines to work. And then the goods would still be put on trucks to go to their final delivery sites. There are plans to build a large warehouse east of Des Moines along a 4 lane highway and a few miles from I-80. Lots of pushback on that idea because there's a jr high and high school out there in what is now a rural area. More NIMBY as you said.
Trains can move large quantities long distances more cost effectively, but trucks move goods quicker. Trains were great at one time, and still are for some things, but we don't haul things away from the depot in horse drawn wagons anymore. Life in general was slower back then. Americans aren't patient anymore. We want what we want NOW!
Every now and then somebody around here suggests a rail line from Des Moines to Chicago, or maybe Omaha to Chicago going through Des Moines. I don't know if the demand would be enough to make it work. It would most likely have to be high speed rail, like the bullet trains in Europe and Japan, to generate enough use. That would require a HUGE investment in infrastructure and would take a lot of good farmland out of production.
As far as moving more goods by rail, years ago the towns and businesses grew along the RR tracks and many businesses had their own rail spur. That's not possible or feasible anymore. There isn't enough open land to build the rail system like there once was. Even if the land was available, it would take massive warehouse districts along the rail lines to work. And then the goods would still be put on trucks to go to their final delivery sites. There are plans to build a large warehouse east of Des Moines along a 4 lane highway and a few miles from I-80. Lots of pushback on that idea because there's a jr high and high school out there in what is now a rural area. More NIMBY as you said.
Trains can move large quantities long distances more cost effectively, but trucks move goods quicker. Trains were great at one time, and still are for some things, but we don't haul things away from the depot in horse drawn wagons anymore. Life in general was slower back then. Americans aren't patient anymore. We want what we want NOW!
Frank screwyourednecks
Well-Known Member
Hugh, My Trac is a 6 cylinder.
Richard, congrats on your 45 years of computer study. Silicon Valley was booming back in 1969 I'm sure of it. Also congrats on having your IQ tested more than once. I think your 140 quotient is impressive. How far apart were your 2 assessments? Were they years apart or on the same day?
If you think that there is no "conclusive" evidence that GW is being caused or influenced by mankind, you are just pitiful. I have to impart that someone with an IQ of 140 or above must see something that is culpable in Science's virtual consensus that this is indeed happening?
Come on dude...
Surely you don't think that humans have no effect on climate at all?
Stating that humans have NO effect is ridiculously ignorant. Saying that humans will ADAPT and change is arrogant. We are nothing but mammals and we are susceptible to extinction just like every other animal. Dude...think what you are saying?
I know you will sit down and write some long retort to me and try to justify how what I am saying (and science is saying) is not factual but answer me this...
How can you think humans are having no effect and how can you assert that humans will simply "adapt" to catastrophic climate change? Especially if there is no money in it?
Wow
Richard, congrats on your 45 years of computer study. Silicon Valley was booming back in 1969 I'm sure of it. Also congrats on having your IQ tested more than once. I think your 140 quotient is impressive. How far apart were your 2 assessments? Were they years apart or on the same day?
If you think that there is no "conclusive" evidence that GW is being caused or influenced by mankind, you are just pitiful. I have to impart that someone with an IQ of 140 or above must see something that is culpable in Science's virtual consensus that this is indeed happening?
Come on dude...
Surely you don't think that humans have no effect on climate at all?
Stating that humans have NO effect is ridiculously ignorant. Saying that humans will ADAPT and change is arrogant. We are nothing but mammals and we are susceptible to extinction just like every other animal. Dude...think what you are saying?
I know you will sit down and write some long retort to me and try to justify how what I am saying (and science is saying) is not factual but answer me this...
How can you think humans are having no effect and how can you assert that humans will simply "adapt" to catastrophic climate change? Especially if there is no money in it?
Wow
