Katrina and global warming

Shop deals on ebay
Advertise with us
shop deals on amazon
Ford SportTrac Forum

Help Support Ford SportTrac Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
F

Frank screwyourednecks

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2007
Messages
539
Reaction score
1
Location
Munster, IN
The fiasco of Katrina, and the Global Warming that may have contributed to it. What are your views on both? I think the climate has definitely changed. The environment is contributing to the change in the weather.. sure. But to what extent?? What factors contribute to it?? Lets hear your best explanations for this...
 
Earth goes through a natural cycle of warming and cooling. No one really knows if this is just part of the cycle or if humans are causing it. Im thinking is that we are in the warming part of the cycle right now, and that we may be just a small contribution to this. But again thats just me;)
 
It does go through cycles..



Acid rain, for example, is no cycle though. I think folks need to scrap thier political beliefs and agendas and look at scientific fact. Then make an assertion. The climate is WITHOUT A DOUBT being changed by environment. Industry, farming, logging, the populace, oil spills etc etc are the only things that have changed. If global warming were a murder case. The prosecution would have enough evidence to convict the industrial world of the crimes. We need to spearhead the effort to educate the world to be greener.



Just my opinion..
 
I've heard that the emissions from one volcano eruption are worse than all of mankind in history.
 
Dingo>> that is a theory. Can you show some data to back this up? My Auntie puts some ash in her garden every spring. It may hurt in some ways though.?? Go fetch
 
Global warming hasn't happened since 1993, the temperatures have been cooling since. We are also in a lull in Sun Spot activity in the natural cycle of sun. Mercury, Mars and Jupitar (possibly the rest) have all seen increases in average temperatures in like fashion to the Earth.



CO2 follows increases in temperature, not leads it. New research is showing that "global warming" lead to the ice age centuries ago.



The Earth is still comming out of the "mini" ice age that occured during the medieval times between 1650 and 1700.



Higher average temperatures are good for growing crops (corn does not grow well when it's frozen or damaged by frost). Staples like Corn, Rice, Wheat, Barley, Alfalfa, etc. all need warm summer temperatures to grow. Cows, Pigs, Sheep, etc. reproduce in the warmer months and pack on fat in the cooler.



All this "man-made" global warming is a bunch of hooey. The amount of CO2 created by ALL HUMANS be burning oil, gas, coal, wood, politicians in the history of the world is miniscule compared to the amount of sulfur dioxide, CO2, heavy metals, etc. that come out of volcanoes like Mt. St. Helens and Pinitubo. There are lakes in California the belch enough CO2 to pretty well compete with the US, China and India in CO2 emmissions.



Everyday the oceans belch enough methane to power a city. Let me quote from the LA Times (the bastion of Conservative Though....:lol:):

Methane belching out from beneath ice sheets caused a dramatic shift in Earth's climate, ending the last "snowball" ice age, scientists report in this week's edition of the journal Nature.



Unstable and collapsing ice sheets allowed frozen pockets of methane to erupt to the surface, then into the atmosphere, the researchers concluded. Methane is a far more damaging greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, the most frequently referenced culprit of planetary warming.



"Our findings document an abrupt and catastrophic global warming that led from a very cold, seemingly stable climate state to a very warm, also stable, climate state -- with no pause in between," said geologist Martin Kennedy of the UC Riverside, who led the research team funded by the National Science Foundation.
Click to expand...



This happened to end the last actual Ice Age.



Not trying to bring Presidential Politics into the discussion, but during Reagan it was the Ozone hole. During Clinton? Nothing. During Bush... Global warming. Kinda curious isn't it?



Where does man sit? Well, being stewards of the planet as entrusted by God Almighty, I do believe that we should keep the environment clean from pollution, but there comes a cost that must be taken into account. Things like Kyoto punish countries like the US while letting India and China continue on unabaded.



In the 1970's, Scientists wanted to spread ash all over the North Pole. While I'm sure their intentions were good, look what they would be saying today if they did that. They did nothing and nature did it's thing. Besides, getting North Pole soot all over my living room is not what SANTA should be doing.
 
well according to the news, everything bad is the Result of George Bush.



Mortgage crisis, george bush, even though he tried in 01 and 05 to stop giving loans to people who cannot pay, barny frank, christopher dodd, chuck schumer, waxman, biden etc shouted him down.



katrina, well day 1 after katrina they were blaming bush, despite NO paying millions of dollars to clintons buddies to come up with a plan for disaster preparedness, that useless governor did not execute the plan, she couldnt even answer questions, she just stood there with her consultant (a clinton drinking buddy) taking questions for her. Fact, she never signed the request for the federal government(george bush) allowing for the National Guard to enter her state. The federal government is not the "First Responder". but ok they blamed bush and the media drank the Kool Aid.



8 years ago, they said George Bush was some sort of Nazi because he would not sign the famouse Kyoto agreement. China has passed the US in polution and soon will pass the US in number of autos on the road yet they were exempt. Kyoto, what has it done?

Again, they were more concerned with demonizing Bush than addressing real facts. I guess if Clinton had not given china most favored nation status, maybe they would not have grown so fast and there would be less polution, but they would never blame old slick willy for anything.



The earth is not static, it is in a constant state of change, "global warming" is just the latest marketing term they use to describe it. actually, global warming is out, now they are using "climate change", makes it easier to apply it as the reason for more types of bs.

aparmently they switched to climate change because the last couple of years, the tempurature has not cooperated with their propaganda data.

in the 70s it was global cooling, in the 80s it was "Acid Rain" what ever happened to those? did the problem go away?



now everything is a result of climate change.



the 04 Tsunami was blamed on Global Warming, even though it was an earthquake that caused it.



the polar ice caps have been melting for 1000s of years, you cannot blame that on polution.



The climate changes every day with or without mankind, the way Al Gore presents it to us, his argument seems to be that every climate change is the result of mankind and that just does not make sense to me. He is an activist who is getting very rich being a spokesman for the the environmentalist movement.



What happened to the hole over the poles? 15 years ago it was as if the ozone layer was going to disappear and we were all going to have to live underground or we would burn up like vampires exposed to the sun? hmmmm, well if I am not mistaken, sunlight kills ozone, and this kind of explained, (along with wind currents) why you get a bigger "hole" opening up over the poles at times of the year when daylight was longer.



I think we have some effect, but no where near what al gore says. and I dont blame bush either, and I dont think giving the government more power will make it better.



oh, sorry I am ranting, better go drive my V8 and relax....













 
Wow, there a lot of folks that think the government response was poor axxman. Heres some data:



Conservative philosophy has three fundamental tenets: individual initiative, that is, governments positive role in peoples lives outside of the military and police should be minimized; the President is the moral authority; and free markets are enough to foster freedom and opportunity.



The conservative vision for government is to shrink it to starve the beast in Conservative Grover Norquists words. The conservative tagline for this rationale is that you can spend your money better than the government can. Social programs are considered unnecessary or discretionary since the primary role of government is to defend the countrys border and police its interior. Stewardship of the commons, such as allocation of healthcare or energy policy, is left to peoples own initiative within the free market. Where profits cannot be made conservation, healthcare for the poor charity is meant to replace justice and the government should not be involved.



Given this philosophy, then, is it any wonder that the government wasnt there for the residents of Louisiana and Mississippi in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina? Conservative philosophy places emphasis on the individual acting alone, independent of anything the government could provide. Some conservative Sunday morning talk show guests suggested that those who chose to live in New Orleans accepted the risk of a devastating hurricane, the implication being that they thus forfeited any entitlement to government assistance. If the people of New Orleans suffered, it was because of their own actions, their own choices and their own lack of preparedness. Bush couldnt have failed if he bore no responsibility.



The response to Hurricane Katrina rather, the lack of response was what one should expect from a philosophy that espouses that the government can have no positive role in its citizens lives. This response was not about Bushs incompetence, it was a conservative, shrink-government response to a natural disaster.



Another failure of this administration during the Katrina fiasco was its wholesale disregard of the numerous and serious hurricane warnings. But this failure was a natural outgrowth of the conservative insistence on denying the validity of global warming, not ineptitude. Conservatives continue to deny the validity of global warming, because it runs contrary to their moral system. Recognizing global warming would call for environmental regulation and governmental efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Regulation is a perceived interference with the free-market, Conservatives golden calf. So, the predictions of imminent hurricanes based on recognizing global warming were not heeded. Conservative free market convictions trumped the hurricane warnings.



Well we all know that the Bush administration made thier own free market conditions. Then proceeded to profit from them. There arent free markets. Its an absolute lie.The wto is not an elected entity. We may need greenpeace to become an offshoot of the United Nations HAHAH!



Axxman>> do you have an answer for this??

 
If you are going to build a city in the middle of a lake, you've got to presume that one day it will sink...
 
Here is a really good report on it by john stossel

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/kHCJ-UhZFT4&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/kHCJ-UhZFT4&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
 
I posted the John Stossel Give Me a Break report at the same time as Chase 01 so I changed it to add this conversation between John Stossel and RFK Jr. Very good also.



John Stossel vs Robert Kennedy on Global Warming



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldXRB4U3vW0&feature=related



He's no RFK senior!!



'07 ST
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Glenn Beck: Global Warming greatest scam in history with the founder of the Weather Channel



A very good alternative view to the global warming crowd...IMO!



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ft8LfE7AI2w&feature=related
 
I am not a scientist...I fix broke cars for a living...but I am not ignorant enough to think that our exsistance on this planet and our actions while we are here have no detrimental affect to the place that we call home.
 
Stossel is a registered Republican and very active. His report must be taken with the perverbial grain of salt.
Click to expand...



Now what does being a registered Republican & very active have to do with the validity of his report ??? Frank, you are a registered Democrat & a very active union member, does your opinion have anymore validity than everyone else ??? I think not...
 

Latest posts

Top