Global warming


Page 1 of 22 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 214

Thread: Global warming

  1. #1

    Global warming

  2. #2
    That might be the least trustworthy looking website I have ever seen.

  3. #3
    As I always say, consider the source!! There is so much crap on the web that at first glance looks like it's reliable, but is just spamming, stinking, steaming, crap! Fox news is just barely above that, this site is much lower.

  4. #4
    Is planet warming? Slightly, but records only go back so far. It appears the 1930s were as warm or warmer than today before data tampering.

    It also appears that warming has been limited to levels far below IPCC and other popularized climate models. Whereupon a clique of scientists once believed global warming would be a runaway "hockey stick" phenomenon, it now appears to be mediated either by 1) geologic feedback mechanisms or 2) simply false climate models.

    It is known that global warming is more of a political issue, primarily pushed by the UN and others in favor of a global sustainable development framework; one that centralizes power and decision making by means of scientific technocracy and also redistributes wealth among nations through CO2 taxes, uneven implementation of environmental regulations, development guidelines and the like.

    Personally I'm not worried about it. As far as Climate Depot goes, they're funded by oil companies. I don't think that's necessarily a 100% bad thing as they do seem to push out information regarding the large number of scientists that dissent from the popularized anthropogenic global warming theory that otherwise wouldn't be entertained in the liberal media.

    Global warming theory has become dogma for many people mostly dependent on politics. I recognize that when people say "the science is settled", "the debate is over", and skeptical people and dissenting scientists are "deniers", that these folks are rushing to pull the wool over the masses to accomplish an agenda.

  5. #5
    Pretty much agree with you Tuna regarding the politics side of it.

    I do think the science is settled that air/water pollution is bad for the world regardless of what the effect is on temperature/climate. I've got no problem with an agenda to make things cleaner, even if the economics of such isn't palatable in the short term.

  6. #6
    Oh I'm down with cleaning up air and water pollution.

    Unfortunately I think many environmental "activist" organizations like Greenpeace are now getting their funding from the global warming politics side of things. It seems the entire environmental movement which I came to know and love in the 90s has been hijacked with this obsession on global warming.

    Which, I can understand, if I thought the world was legitimately going to end I'd want to fight it too. And I believe they've played on people's fears and good intentions to shuttle regular environmentalists into the global warming camp. When the Earth is about to melt down and destroy all life -- obviously everything else can wait. Unfortunately *actual* environmental issues (and I say that as a serious skeptic regarding the seriousness of climate change) have gone to the wayside.

    I'm an independent who voted Obama once, Jill Stein in 2012, and Trump in 2016. Not really a partisan I call it like I see it. I'm happy with an agenda to make things cleaner. But reducing CO2 doesn't do that. CO2 is not a pollutant. So why tax CO2? Plant some trees.

    I believe the agenda is a lot more about global wealth redistribution, grants for the in group of researchers who tow the line, more power and influence for the UN.

    Ultimately I'd like to see the USA become energy independent and I think this needs to happen whether or not we have a form of magical clean energy that can replace oil and coal. Nuclear worries me as well for different reasons. Consider myself an environmentalist still but not under false pretenses.

  7. #7
    Aren't pretty much all political agendas born on money grabs? Fear is the easiest way to motivate people. Those fighting the flip side of the global warming argument with environmentalist are equally as motivated by money, perhaps even more so.

  8. #8
    Sure but ultimately the truth isn't a subjective matter determined by money. Someone is right, the other is wrong, or no one is right, regardless.

    My personal leaning is always to oppose political and social movements and err on the side of caution when a matter is in question. Let's make sure we've crossed those T's before we implement an agenda which affects the welfare of people in real ways. Let's make sure the agenda isn't based on an ideological preference, but results-driven and also agreeable to all parties involved.

    If I believed a fire was truly spreading across the world at breakneck pace I might be inclined to throw caution to the wayside. But I don't.

  9. #9
    I can dig that, but I also don't think welfare of people is static. As an example, hundreds of thousands of people who worked for Kodak and Polaroid had their welfare turned upside down in a hurry due to obsolescence of those technologies. Individual people have a responsibility (to themselves and society) to be as forward thinking towards future opportunities as the governments that steer policy. If your job is going to be replaced by a robot, train yourself to build that robot.

  10. #10
    Do no harm! Environmentally and economically.
    Live, Ski or Die Trying!!!
    "Life is not measured by the numbers of breaths we take, but by the ski runs that take our breath away."

    SKI THE EAST!!!!!!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:26 AM.