jump to last post 1-23 of 23 discussions (387 posts)

Global Warming

  1. tirelesstraveler profile image87
    tirelesstravelerposted 3 years ago

    It is 33 degrees as I write, 10:45 am,  in sunny northern California.  Have been wishing for global warming as I watch my tropical plant freeze. 
    Why have we not heard about this story? 
    Did you say," It's not politically correct"?

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2 … d/3950019/

    1. breakfastpop profile image85
      breakfastpopposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      No, it is not politically correct and frankly, there is no money in believing that global warming is cyclical and natural.

      1. tirelesstraveler profile image87
        tirelesstravelerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Are you being a wet blanket Pop? We sure could use a wet blanket here, this is the 3 winter we haven't had any rain and nobody is saying a word about the "D" word. Curious how our media works.
        My regards to Manny, oh yeah he's in S. Africa with the king.

        1. breakfastpop profile image85
          breakfastpopposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Actually, as I write this there is a snow blanket outside. This global warming is making me cold. I will send my regards to Manny. He contacted me and told me how thrilled Pres. Obama was to meet a fellow communist from Cuba!

    2. tsadjatko profile image79
      tsadjatkoposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      "Antarctica records unofficial coldest temperature ever." Well now, you know that has to be caused by man. Didn't you know manmade global warming is a scientific fact so anything that occurs on planet earth is a result of manmade  global warming. I mean how stupid can a person be to deny the "concensus" of the scientific community. The whole world's temperature could drop by 5 degrees over night and that would have to be a result of manmade  global warming because scientists have determined that humans are causing global warming so any evidence to the contrary has to be proof of their conclusion whether it is or isn't in reality.
      That is the reasoning you will find by the manmade  global warming crowd. Time will tell, and is telling us as it passes that this "crowd" is nothing but a crowd of buffoons. Lunatics with agendas that have nothing to do with science, never did and never will. 50 years from now when the earth temperature hasn't changed an iota these chicken littles of the 21st century will still be screaming "the sky is falling" and it's the evil industrial capitalists causing it.

      http://s1.hubimg.com/u/8569452_f248.jpg

      1. tirelesstraveler profile image87
        tirelesstravelerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        I can't stop laughing.  You are wonderful Tsadjako.

        1. tsadjatko profile image79
          tsadjatkoposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          (TT - the feeling is mutual) but
          Oh oh, be careful 'bout heaping praise upon Tsadjako. You'll invoke the wrath of lunatics. Get ready they are on their way.  10...9...8...7...6...5...4...3...2...1...? Whoops, where are they? Oh well my timing might be off but mark my words, they are on their way here.
          http://s4.hubimg.com/u/8569611_f248.jpg

          1. 60
            retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

            My forensic scientist son found it interesting that the term for the cooling of the body after death is algor mortis.  We can't get away from that nut job even if we die.

            The whole global warming religion reminds me of dooms day cults.  Perhaps we should stop the sale of grape kool-aid until all this nonsense settles down.

            1. tsadjatko profile image79
              tsadjatkoposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              lol thanks for that tid bit of information!! algor mortis ...I love it!

              1. tirelesstraveler profile image87
                tirelesstravelerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Oh that is rich. Laughing so hard.

      2. Silverspeeder profile image60
        Silverspeederposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        The constant onslaught will last for years for three main reasons.

        1 Its a way of controlling the people

        2 Its a way of increasing government funds

        3 Global warming scientists get paid by the government

    3. PhoenixV profile image80
      PhoenixVposted 2 years ago in reply to this
      1. Zelkiiro profile image85
        Zelkiiroposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        In before retief2000 claims that YouTube videos are not evidence (despite the fact that videos can be very, very damning evidence) and/or are leftist propaganda.

      2. 60
        retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

        As serious a consideration as the idea of global warming deserves.

        1. PhoenixV profile image80
          PhoenixVposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Did you know that if you would just use LED lighting in your home you could probably save saber tooth cats in the future?

          1. 60
            retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

            All saber tooth cats?  Not just the vegan one?

            1. Ericdierker profile image81
              Ericdierkerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              You could also give my wife a reason to spend and extra 300 bucks!

              1. 60
                retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                I wonder how much pollution and green house gases it takes to make an LED bulb? I wonder how much real pollution all these global warming sillies cause with the mining and refining of lithium for batteries.  Talk about a real danger, that stuff is a deadly heavy metal.  There is some real science that enviro-mentals ignore.  But its all good unless you are an endangered eagle getting chewed up by a worthless and polluting windmill. Where ever living things get in the way of lefties there is death.

  2. aliasis profile image96
    aliasisposted 2 years ago

    It's pretty sad that in this day and age there are so many people that deny global warming. Global warming isn't a theory. It's a fact. That's why the ice caps are melting - fact, not theory. The only thing left to dispute is whether or not it's caused by men - and basically every credible scientist out there not only will tell you global warming obviously exists, there's substantial evidence to suggest it's man-made.

    Extreme conservatives really boggle my mind. I guess they've been rejecting science for thousands of years, so this is nothing new...

    (And to those confused about some "cooling" temperatures, that just demonstrates a lack of understanding about what's going on. The better term is "climate change". It is still global warming, but it affects the weather in various ways)

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      True statement...IF you define "credible" as anyone agreeing with you.

      1. tsadjatko profile image79
        tsadjatkoposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        True statement? - she wouldn't know the truth if it bit her in the... http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor … ng-crisis/

        For those who are too lazy to read the link or just want to keep their head in the sand here is an excerpt:
        "Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.

        The survey results show geoscientists (also known as earth scientists) and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists. Two recent surveys of meteorologists (summarized here and here) revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global warming claims."

        "Credible"? obviously aliasis doesn't know the meaning of the word or anything about which she is spouting including her absurd statement about conservatives. The only thing extreme here is her lack of intellect.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Ah, but the 64% that do not think it is man made are not credible, by definition.  Her definition.

          1. tsadjatko profile image79
            tsadjatkoposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            wilderness, I had to pinch myself - you and I actually agree on something?
            I mean we agree on something...! That's a good thing. cool

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              I don't know about that - it's awfully scary. smile

        2. aron62 profile image74
          aron62posted 2 years ago in reply to this

          True, nature is THE cause of change. Active volcanoes spew out more harmful gasses and ashes than many of the most polluting industries put together.

    2. tsadjatko profile image79
      tsadjatkoposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      What's pretty sad is people who spout stuff they hear only because they agree with it and really don't know what they are talking about. Global warming has occurred cyclically throughout history as has global cooling and that is the only fact - there is no conclusive evidence that anything man does can cause global warming and if you believe man made global warming is a fact you are simply putting on display your ignorance of the subject but what's worse is other uninformed people may believe the tripe you spread around.
      http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrar … g-is-here/

      1. Cody Hodge5 profile image81
        Cody Hodge5posted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Well, since you're the expert on tripe...I'll just trust that you know it when you see it?

    3. 60
      retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Life was once more widely spread and far more diverse than now. Why, you may ask, because the world was much warmer and much wetter than today.  As for Global Warming, I can't think of anything that would be better for biodiversity and humanity than a warmer world.

    4. Genna East profile image86
      Genna Eastposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Climate change does exist; as so cyclical changes in climate.  The question is, “how much of human activity is contributing to/accelerating this change?”  To devolve this discussion into politics is counterproductive and an argument one side uses against the other.  My father was a brilliant environmental scientist and research biologist (also a Republican).  I recall his discussions with his colleagues about climate change very well.  When listening, I had the same reaction that certain commenters do, here.  They sounded like alarmists out of the Twilight Zone.  I was only 14 at the time.  Since then, I have witnessed what these scientists were predicting decades ago now coming true.  One thing Dad said that haunts me today.  “They won't do anything about it until it’s too late.”

      1. Silverspeeder profile image60
        Silverspeederposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        So Genna East do you think taxing the problem will go away?

  3. WillStarr profile image83
    WillStarrposted 2 years ago

    When the UN's IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) says that the way to control global warming is by income redistribution, we should all realize that it's just a massive scam.

    1. John Holden profile image60
      John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      But the system that you so love is already predicated on income redistribution - upwards.

      1. 60
        retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Not on income redistribution but the free flow of income and property.  Property flows into the hands of those who have something worth buying and out of the hands of those who see that worth.  Bill Gates builds a house and millions of dollars move around.  Bill Gates doesn't build a house but leaves the money invested in the stock market and millions of dollars move around.  If th.e government takes Bill Gates money and use those dollars for its aims millions of dollars move but how they move now becomes the question.

        When dollars flow from the hands that own them and without compulsion from the state, they will move in the direction their owner intends.  Dollars used by their owner are more efficiently employed than when employed by those who do not own them.  The least efficient use is by those who can take what ever they want and buyr what ever they choose - this is government

        1. John Holden profile image60
          John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          And how many $billions have moved out of the hands of those that earned them into Bill Gates hands?

          1. tsadjatko profile image79
            tsadjatkoposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            You know I wrote an answer to your absurd statement John, but I deleted it because in doing so I realized nothing can be said to correct thinking like yours and it would be a waste of time and effort to try. Any discussion with you is nothing more than an exercise in 
            http://s1.hubimg.com/u/8571728_f248.jpg

            1. John Holden profile image60
              John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Oh good.

          2. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            As many billions as people voluntarily traded Bill for the things he owned but was willing to trade for $$.

          3. 60
            retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Completely, totally, voluntarily through Bill Gates hands and right back out to build a house, fly his jet to Africa and into his foundation and into the multitudinous investments that finance any number of other purchases, expansions, job creations, consumer loans, home loans, capital improvement loans, and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on....

            Bill Gates is not the final owner or user of the capital that flows through his hands but you can bet he is still a far more efficient user that government.

            1. John Holden profile image60
              John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              that government - what? smile

              Why does it have to be a choice between Gates and the government?
              Do you believe that the people who make the money could not effectively spend it?

              1. 60
                retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                oops - that should have been "than government" big fingers small keys

    2. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Actually, that makes sense. 

      Excessive income redistribution = falling standard of living = less energy used = less pollution = less global warming from CO2.

  4. aliasis profile image96
    aliasisposted 2 years ago

    Ahh, conservatives.

    -Global warming is a fact. Ice caps are melting (that's kinda why, you know, sea levels are rising and polar bears are going extinct). Temperatures are warmer. NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies reports that in recent decades it's gone up the fastest.

    -NO major scientific body denies global warming. None of any national or international standing. I mean, as convincing as wilderness's and tsadjatko's ~science knowledge~ (lol) is, I trust NASA more. Oooh, wait, it's all a government conspiracy, right? To make us... be more environmentally responsible? So devious, Al Gore!

    Seriously, though.

    U.S. Global Change Research Program: "Observations show that warming of the climate is unequivocal. The global warming observed over the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases. These emissions come mainly from the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and gas), with important contributions from the clearing of forests, agricultural practices, and other activities."

    -"Dispute" regarding global warming exists only in pop culture, not in the scientific community. The Republican party, non-scientists, invented global warming skepticism. Presumably to protect their god-given right to drive massive SUVs or whatever, because caring for the environment is such a horrible thing. Included among pop culture: Forbes business magazine (read: not a scientific publication). If you want to argue science, you may as well actually know who's on your side. Wikipedia has a list of opinions of climate change here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific … ate_change (hint... it's not in your favor)



    ...Dude. You have GOT to be trolling.

    1. 60
      retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

      I mean precisely what I said.  Give me global warming any day. Where is the greatest biodiversity in the world - warm and wet places - Brazil, Borneo, etc.... Where is the least? cold dry places, Antarctica, The Arctic, etc... What kind of climate is least conducive to human habitation - look at the population density of Nigeria compared to Norway.  Warm is good, cold is bad.  During the Medieval Warming, something your vaunted "climate change" computer models cannot account for, wine grapes and a broad range of food crops grew throughout Great Britain and Northern Europe.

      When the Medieval Warming ended millions died from disease and starvation.  The Black Death was symptomatic of that "climate change."  You know the one that didn't take gasoline to occur.

      I am very serious when I say, bring on the warming it will do great things for the world.

    2. Silverspeeder profile image60
      Silverspeederposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      When governments stop taxing global warming and starts banning the so called things that are said to cause it I will be more inclined to believe what the global warming scientists are trying to sell to us.

      In 1971 my science teacher told me that the rain forest was being depleted at the rate of the area of Wales (UK) every year. By his calculation that would mean the tree in my garden would be the only one left on the earth.

      If the earth is being killed by humans isn't it time we started to think about population control?

      1. Ericdierker profile image81
        Ericdierkerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Did that great teacher tell you how many trees I planted in the seventies?
        Did she tell you that by 1980 deforestation was down by 80%
        Did she tell you that with Global Warming -- whatever the cause, rain forests are more prolific?
        And did this teacher tell you about my families 1000's of trees and that they will out live your one?
        And did they really use the term "killing the earth"? Because I got some 2 billion year old rocks with fossils in them they might want to see.

        1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
          MelissaBarrettposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Wow, did you just take a whole conversation about global warming and make it about you?

          1. Ericdierker profile image81
            Ericdierkerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Well I have no idea how many trees you planted and neither does the teacher -- but I do know how many I planted. And I am pretty close in approximation on family property but I do not know about yours just like the teacher.
            And I really have rocks that old, doubt you do or that the teacher does.
            So it was not about me, but about what I know, unlike the "teacher" making such ludicrous comments not knowing what people do.
            Now do you want to make comments which include in the equation knowing what I am doing when you have no idea?
            This is what is so upsetting with that kind of speech. I think our PC speak global warming is a crock of crap. But I am and always have been an environmentalist whacko. Birkenstocks and bamboo anyone ;-)

      2. 60
        retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

        I have a modest proposal for solving human caused global warming.  Since those who subscribe to this paper thin notion are so passionate it should be incumbent upon them, most of all, to undertake actions to, at the least, mitigate its negative affects.  As we are told, human activity, especially all those activities in technologically developed countries, causes global warming they should stop doing these things, immediately.  Stop using any kind of electricity because they all generate green houses gases either directly as in the case of coal and petroleum or indirectly as in the manufacture of generating equipment like wind turbines and solar panels.  They should immediately stop eating anything that either generates methane in its cultivation, harvest, processing, consumption or digestion.  They should stop producing any kind of water vapor or carbon dioxide from all processes and actions in which they engage.  They should make sure that they do no produce anymore human polluters.  Most importantly of all, they should do this immediately and personally.

        If all the subscribers to theories of human caused global warming were to do everything they could to not cause global warming, I believe the problem could be eliminated in less than a generation.  This would mean that all global warming believers would have to stop using their computers, stoves, cars, lights, showers, lawnmowers, mass transit.  They would have to give up every kind of eating that involved any kind of farming, organic, local, personal or otherwise.  And finally, they would have to not have children and they, themselves, would have to stop breathing. 

        If so many people in the developed world so believe in global warming that they insist the rest of us should be forced to stop doing everything that causes global warming, I say YOU FIRST!

        1. Ericdierker profile image81
          Ericdierkerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          First big Political conference on the matter and Al Gore the sponsor showed up in a suburban.
          A bunch of us hippie types showed up at a big confab at the South Rim of the Grand Canyon where new parks were designated. All the VIPs showed up in gas guzzling V8s. Of course we all took the train! And I am a right winger, go figure.

          1. 60
            retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Hypocrisy usually wheres ermine.

        2. bBerean profile image61
          bBereanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Are you suggesting heating and lighting your many mansions, with entourages idling in SUV s at the airport while you fly about the world in jets to make speeches about how others should sacrifice to resolve an issue that has not been substantiated beyond it's ability to produce an industry funded by force of taxation by folks struggling to get by, and from which you profit, is somehow the wrong approach?  Next you'll be saying producing a carbon footprint annually that most couldn't hope to rival in a lifetime, while wagging your finger that others should pay more to use less and sacrifice for a dubious cause you only use as a vehicle for your personal success, is a bad thing.  How dare you!

          1. 60
            retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

            It is not I against whom you should rail, but rather, against the hypocrisy of the elitist and spoiled who believe everyone ELSE should be reduced to a state of privation.  Funny how the global warming types rest in the comfort of a life manufactured and delivered through the power of OIL and ignore their own foolishness.

          2. tirelesstraveler profile image87
            tirelesstravelerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Tell the people who are making the most money from global warming to shut off their suburbans and change light bulbs.  Its the common man making all the changes while Al Gore  easily pays $35,000/ month electricity bills for his mansions and condos.

        3. John Holden profile image60
          John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          But then those who believe in man made global warming are already doing much to reduce their consumption so their demise would have little effect.
          More effective if non-believers just cut back a bit.

          It might be coincidence and then again it might not.  Remember a few years ago and the holes in the ozone layer and how scientists thought that it was caused by CFCs and how they stopped using CFCs in aerosols and refrigerators, and remember how the holes repaired themselves? As I say, it might be coincidence, but it might not be. Do you think we should continue using CFCs until we are 100% positive, ie when there is no ozone layer left?

          1. 60
            retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Do you mean the naturally and annually reoccurring hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica.  Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc.

            I remember reading a lefty theorist that proposed that the whole CFC theory was started because the major manufacturer of Freon was about to lose its patent protected monopoly.  That should have caused some cognitive dissonance for the lefties but  the power of the state was best advanced by the anti-CFC argument, so that one triumphed.

            1. John Holden profile image60
              John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              No, the ones directly related to human activity.

              1. 60
                retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Oh, you mean the one's caused by Piltdown Man.

                1. bBerean profile image61
                  bBereanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Rumored to be a quite gassy fellow.

          2. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            LOL  That's a joke, right?

            I do far more to eliminate my carbon footprint that the large majority of the warmists, and it happens purely naturally, without any intent to try.

            An all electric home, in an area with large hydro plants.
            The most efficient car in the US, up to a couple of years ago.
            I drive less than 8,000 miles per year - tiny compared to most Americans
            All energy efficient appliances
            Energy efficient windows and doors
            Haven't flown in decades, and then only when employer required it.
            No job commute at all.
            etc.

            No, the vast majority of the global warming crowd have a long way to go to match my carbon footprint.  Let them do that before I work on it at all.

            1. John Holden profile image60
              John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              But then we've argued this before, one exception does not prove the rule.

              Or to put it in plain English, you may have a small carbon footprint (and good for you) but there are many who do not.

              Oh, and BTW, I don't even have an energy efficient car.

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Yes, I recognize that some are fortunate to depend on public transportation, but outside the large cities it's pretty limited in this section of the world.

                And I do understand the single example thing, although I don't see it as much of an exception.  What I mostly see is the warmers with truly massive footprints because they make their living from this farce and it requires much in the way of burning fossil fuels to do that.

                I understand there are those that do not, and have no quibble with them.  Just let the big voices telling us all to quit using energy while they burn 1,000 times as much, quit themselves.  Then I'll consider lowering my own use.

          3. Silverspeeder profile image60
            Silverspeederposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Now you see John the governments did something about it, they didn't tax it (which is the latest trend) they banned it.
            If they were really serious about it they wouldn't tax it or carbon trade their under subscription they would just ban the things that were causing the most problems.

            Governments have spent $billions on climate research only to tax us all on the findings.

            1. tsadjatko profile image79
              tsadjatkoposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Switch off the Sun and Earth would become a very chilly place. It doesn't take a scientist to know that the sun is the major factor in the temperature of earth. I wonder why UN documents had to be leaked for us to know about a leaked report by a United Nations’ group dedicated to climate studies says that heat from the sun may play a larger role than previously thought.
              http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/02/ … in-global/ and then there is this
              http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2 … ternative/
              http://s1.hubimg.com/u/8573504_f248.jpg

              Solution? Tax the sun? or Maybe we can ban it? Government is never the solution because any power you give it over our lives corrupts it.

              1. GA Anderson profile image85
                GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Maryland, (my state), is already taxing the rain in 10 counties, (no link, but I do have a hub on this), so maybe we can set an example for the nation with a Sun tax too.

                GA

                1. tsadjatko profile image79
                  tsadjatkoposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Yep, that is the "solution" the "progressives" are aiming for. They want you to believe that taxing virtually anything and everything here in the US will stem an imaginary man made global warming crisis, never mind that the rest of the whole world can make all the carbon dioxide they want. Anyone who buys into any "progressive policy" (ruse) is simply a dupe while the "progressives" are laughing all the way to the bank.

                2. PrettyPanther profile image86
                  PrettyPantherposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  It is, of course, not a tax on rain, but on impervious surfaces.  I'm not saying I support it; I don't know enough about it.  I see that the anti-tax people have found a great way to frame it by calling it a "rain tax" knowing that a certain segment of the populace will not bother to find out what it really is.  Nice of you to help them out by using the misleading term.

                  1. GA Anderson profile image85
                    GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Yes, it is a tax on impervious surfaces, so is this just a battle of semantics?

                    Why are they taxing impervious surfaces - because they block rain water absorption and create run-off.

                    These surfaces also included house roofs and private driveways and the tax also included waivers/rebates/credits/reductions, (just covering the semantics issue), for the use of "rain barrels," (and other "rain" water catchment dispersion methods), to catch roof gutter downspout water, (rain), and private driveway designs that included graveled drainage segments, (like two paved wheel strips with a graveled center strip, or a graveled/grated separating segment at the down-flow end of the driveway),

                    It is a silly tax that is being unevenly applied, (only affects 10 Maryland counties, and some major industrial areas, like the port of Baltimore, received waivers)  - so is it really so far-fetched to call it a rain tax?

                    Perhaps if you did know more about it you might not think the "rain" tax label was so misleading. Is it so different from calling a "carbon emissions" tax a tax on fossil fuels?

                    GA

  5. PrettyPanther profile image86
    PrettyPantherposted 2 years ago

    Sadly, the pattern will repeat itself as it has for centuries.  Progressive thinkers will eventually prevail over the naysayers, dragging them kicking and screaming into reality, but only after extensive damage has been done.  Then 50 or 100 or 150 years later conservatives will claim they were on the forefront of the solutions for global climate change all along.

    1. tsadjatko profile image79
      tsadjatkoposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Wow, that is a position of strength? Sounds to me like you simply don't have the evidence so you have to point to a make believe future after you are dead... If you had the evidence to support your claims it would be believed - you don't have the evidence and as this thread has provided evidence that even the majority of scientists don't believe you, you have nothing to stand on...but lies.  Are these the same progressives who are saying oh, Obamacare will be fine in 2017 - yeah right, anything to avoid exposing the current facts of a great debacle. Is former White House Communcation Director Annita Dunn one of those "progressive thinkers"  who Praised Mao Tse Tung as Her Philisophical Idol ?  http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=86c_1255 … bebuLJk.99
      I suppose since you go back centuries to praise "progressive thought" (mass murderer) Mao is one of the "progressive thinkers" that you worship?

      Enjoy living in a world of feelings void of reason and fact because that is where you are living. You know nothing about global man made warming, the progressives history of failures and lies (their entire existence is based on lies) Progressive "thinkers" have never been "right" about anything and if you knew anything about the movement you'd know that. You just hate conservatives. In my past I have found that hatred is not rooted in anything they do so much as what they stand for which is absolutes, principles that cannot be thrown into the progressive's ideology of relativism and the end justifies the means.

      http://s2.hubimg.com/u/8573661_f248.jpg

      1. PrettyPanther profile image86
        PrettyPantherposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        A heart specialist tells you that you must have surgery or will die and presents evidence in the form of scientific data and analysis.  Ten other specialists conduct their own tests and come to the same conclusion.  One specialist conducts his/her own tests and says you are simply undergoing a natural growth process and no intervention is required.  Will you have the surgery, or will you believe the one specialist and do nothing?

        No, I didn't present any evidence here.  It's out there and it is quite compelling.  Obviously, you are siding with the small percentage of scientists who do not believe intervention is required.

        Enjoy your inertia.  The rest of us will take action and you will eventually forget that you were part of the problem instead of part of the solution.

        1. tsadjatko profile image79
          tsadjatkoposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          There is nothing more convincing anyone can say to you that shows what you believe are lies than what has been shared in this thread for which you cannot provide any proof to the contrary. So the only logical conclusion is you haven't read anything offered in this thread or you are plain goofy. "It's out there? It's quite compelling?" Really? those are things people say when they don't have any credibility. A proponent of a cause should at least be able to articulate the facts...evidently you don't know what the facts are or have no interest in finding them out...that's fine if you are a wallflower but to voice an opinion that is totally uninformed is just

                             http://s3.hubimg.com/u/8574622_f248.jpg

          1. John Holden profile image60
            John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            You have said nothing yet that would convince anybody that climate change wasn't happening.

            1. tsadjatko profile image79
              tsadjatkoposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Nobody ever said climate change isn't happening, can't you even stay on topic without spinning it and lying about what has already been said here? Really, do you even pay attention? Well we already know you don't even read the facts so thanks for confirming it for us again. What has been demonstrated in above comments is the fact  that the vast majority of scientists don't believe in man made warming but that it is due to natural causes and she continues to assert that it is a view supported by science...it is not.

          2. PrettyPanther profile image86
            PrettyPantherposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            My, you are incredibly funny.  You want me, a nonscientist, to "provide proof" of global climate change on an internet forum.  Hilarious.

            The science is out there.  You know, facts and analysis by actual experts.  A tiny minority of scientists do not believe global climate change is happening.  You are choosing to believe them over the majority.  Now, who is goofy?

            Like I said, enjoy your inertia.  Others will find and implement solutions while you carp and moan on the sidelines.  We're getting used to it.

            1. 60
              retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

              I  wonder when science became a matter of miajority vote.  Seems to me that most scientific theories are individual battles waged against the prevailing theory of the times.  Perhaps we should ask Einstein how it felt to be the recipient of the majority vote.  Even today his theories are routinely put to the test.  What actual theory with experimental design or reliable predicted indicators accompany the THEORY of global warming.  Climates always change, there is no static natural system.  But global warming is the first scientific theory I have ever heard of being declared the winner because of a majority vote.

              1. PrettyPanther profile image86
                PrettyPantherposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Again, hilarious.  All one can do is examine the facts and draw reasonable inferences and act accordingly.  I'm not an expert, so I'll defer to those who know what they're doing.  Again, if 10 heart specialists say you will die without surgery and one says you will not, and you are not an expert yourself, would you choose the recommendation of the one over the 10 who agree on the facts?

                1. 60
                  retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  You are right, you do not seem to grasp the science.  The world is world is not dying and humanity will hardly parish from an increase in global temperature.  Quite the opposite.  The last time the globe was good and warm it teemed with life and lush greenery.  A warm world is a better world.  But you go ahead with your silly inertia, we know what to expect.

                  1. PrettyPanther profile image86
                    PrettyPantherposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    I have posed the question about the recommendation of 10 heart specialists versus the recommendation of. one to three different climate change deniers on these forums and have never received a response.

                    I wonder why?

                  2. PrettyPanther profile image86
                    PrettyPantherposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    By the way, of course we will not "parish" and probably won't "perish" either because some of us will move forward with solutions despite the dead weight of the deniers.

                  3. tsadjatko profile image79
                    tsadjatkoposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    retief - she says "You want me, a nonscientist, to "provide proof" of global climate change on an internet forum."  But then she wants us to believe she, a nonscientist understands anything about the debate ? That is really hilarious. How much ya want to bet she is a blonde?

  6. WillStarr profile image83
    WillStarrposted 2 years ago

    Scientists came up with the theory that human consumption of fossil fuels was releasing enough carbon dioxide into our vast atmospheric ocean to cause a greenhouse-effect, global warming. To prove it, they created computer models based on that theory, and predicted a global catastrophe unless we stopped using fossil fuels and started a massive transfer of wealth.

    We did neither, and the left (why is it always the left?) went into a decade of hysterics because we did not yield to their vastly superior 'science'.

    So called 'global warming' ceased 17 years ago, and the scientists we were all supposed to heed by giving up our way of life, have no explanation. However, that has had almost no effect on the zealots, who still demand that we all obey them and return to living in mud huts.

    This has been a left wing driven, theoretical hysteria from the very beginning, designed to force all of us to accept their 'Earth first', tree-hugging socialist ways, and to kill hated capitalism.

    Whenever I hear some new movement like this, I find out who's behind it, and if it's the left, I dismiss it out of hand.

    1. tsadjatko profile image79
      tsadjatkoposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Too bad you don't run the mainstream media. They are more than happy to, actually I believe some in the media look for lies to promote as long as the lies support their agenda. Once they print it the perception is it is true even if later proven to be a lie and people like PrettyPanther will just go on believing it.

    2. Zelkiiro profile image85
      Zelkiiroposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      You, sir, are in some dire need of education. Luckily, I have just the thing:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qbn1rCZz1ow
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjD0e1d6GgQ

      1. tsadjatko profile image79
        tsadjatkoposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        http://s4.hubimg.com/u/8573731_f248.jpg

        Only you would consider these videos "education". I suppose you look for youtube videos that support your agenda all day long ...what does that get you a BS in youtube? Anybody can create a one sided youtube video for the literary impaired to watch and be mesmerized by - these videos are not even a good attempt at making a case by cherry picking information and ignoring the whole story with no rebuttal of what is presented, but then I know you and this is exactly what we can expect from you. Ignore all the facts presented on this thread debunking man-made global warming and pick on the one comment that you can try to cloud with left wing propaganda. That is all you ever do.

        1. Zelkiiro profile image85
          Zelkiiroposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          potholer54 cites his sources. Where, pray tell, are your sources?

          No, before you even start, Answers in Genesis, any Christian Apologist site, Fox News, the Daily Mail, and The Guardian are not valid scientific sources.

  7. WillStarr profile image83
    WillStarrposted 2 years ago

    Zelkiiro is a great example.

    He (she?) purports to 'educate' me with a couple of youtube videos by some sneering, snotty, unnamed, far-left jerk living in his mother's basement who claims he alone knows the truth about global warming.

    As I said, Zelkiiro is a great left-wing example of whom we are supposed to heed and give up our capitalist good life.

    (sigh)

    1. Zelkiiro profile image85
      Zelkiiroposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      And you just proved that you didn't watch the videos because of perceived biases (Hint: A 40-year-old professional science journalist living with his wife and two kids would hardly be sleeping in his basement), which is the very definition of ignorance.

      You might want to look here, as well:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YMxpqYEjyo

      Then hopefully you'll realize how obtuse you are.

  8. WillStarr profile image83
    WillStarrposted 2 years ago

    No, I don't waste my time listening to sneering, snotty jerks, especially when they are obviously far-left zealots making a self-serving video.

    You are dismissed.

    1. Zelkiiro profile image85
      Zelkiiroposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Dismissing something before viewing it in its entirety? The very definition of ignorance.

      You must be so proud of yourself. Your ignorance levels are almost as astounding as those of Young-Earth Creationists (which I'll eat my hat if you're not among them).

    2. tsadjatko profile image79
      tsadjatkoposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Will, you couldn't be more right! (no pun intended)

  9. WillStarr profile image83
    WillStarrposted 2 years ago

    I get the same thing from loony conspiracy theorists who demand that I listen to their interminable videos.

    No, thank you.

    Make your own points, and stop demanding that we listen to some video.

    1. Zelkiiro profile image85
      Zelkiiroposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Oh, okay.

      Here's a start: The story about global warming not occurring over the past 15-16 years is due to a journalist acting on his own, misinterpreting a small subset of climate data, and reporting his misguided findings to The Daily Mail, which is probably one of the most disreputable news sources in existence (right next to Fox News and CNN), prompting many brain-dead right-wingers to latch onto the story and post it everywhere. And that's how you heard of it.

  10. WillStarr profile image83
    WillStarrposted 2 years ago

    On the contrary, the IPCC's own report confirms that the Earth has stopped warming:

    UN's massive new climate report adds little explanation for 'pause' in warming

    An enormous U.N. report on the scientific data behind global warming was made available Monday, yet it offers little concrete explanation for an earthly oddity: the planet’s climate has hit the pause button.

    Since 1998, there has been no significant increase in global average surface temperature, and some areas -- notably the Northern Hemisphere -- have actually cooled. The 2,200-page new Technical Report attributes that to a combination of several factors, including natural variability, reduced heating from the sun and the ocean acting like a “heat sink” to suck up extra warmth in the atmosphere.

    One problem with that conclusion, according to some climate scientists, is that the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has limited the hiatus to 10-15 years. Anastasios Tsonis, distinguished professor at the University of Wisconsin – Milwaukee, believes the pause will last much longer than that. He points to repeated periods of warming and cooling in the 20th century.

    More:

    http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/09/ … s-warming/

    1. tsadjatko profile image79
      tsadjatkoposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Will what's this ? No YouTube videos? You are so uneducated.

      1. WillStarr profile image83
        WillStarrposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        I wish I had a dollar for every time someone insisted that I waste my time watching a video 'proving' that Bush and Cheney placed demolition charges in the World Trade Center prior to 9-11.

        The facts will not be found in a YouTube video. They will be found in the IPCC's own report, admitting that they don't know why the Earth stopped warming, going on 18 years ago.

        Again, just look at who's promoting global warming, and you'll see that it's the usual far-left Marxists, pushing their anti-capitalism agenda. Always look behind the curtain first to see who's pulling the strings.

      2. John Holden profile image60
        John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        But Fox is suddenly a reliable source lol lol lol

        1. WillStarr profile image83
          WillStarrposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          If you think FOX is less reliable than other news sources, then prove it with a study. How hard could it be? (Here come the excuses!)

          In any case, this was the IPCC's own report, and it was quoted by several news sources.

          1. John Holden profile image60
            John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Contrary to saying that climate change has stopped its 2013 report says

            "Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any
            preceding decade since 1850 (see Figure SPM.1). In the Northern Hemisphere, 1983–2012
            was likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 1400 years"

            Are you so sure you'll rely on Fox?

            1. tsadjatko profile image79
              tsadjatkoposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              "But Fox is suddenly a reliable source?lol lol lol" Your words a moment ago.
              So it's good enough for you to cite right after mocking it? roll roll roll you are so lame.

              1. John Holden profile image60
                John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Sorry, I didn't cite Fox, I cited the IPCC report itself.

                My bad, I should have made that clearer.

                1. John Holden profile image60
                  John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  And wasn't that a generous reply?

                  1. tsadjatko profile image79
                    tsadjatkoposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Generous? Yes any time you attempt to be honest I would consider it generous of your highness. Of course you didn't read the whole IPCC report but cherry picked highlights from the report issued by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) . So if you really want to be generous admit that Fox reporting facts isn't the problem but the left  trying to spin the UN report by cherry picking info from it is.

            2. 60
              retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

              #1) Isn't 1850 the accepted date for the end of the "Little Ice Age?"  I would hope things have warmed quite a bit since then. 
              http://www.eh-resources.org/timeline/timeline_lia.html

              #2) The thermometer wasn't invented until the 17th Century and a standardized system for temperature wasn't established until the next century.  I wonder who used what and how to take an accurate temperature in  8th Century Florence.
              http://galileo.rice.edu/sci/instruments … meter.html

              The Solar Energy out put of the local star has far more to do with the climate of the Earth than does how much petroleum is burned.

              1. John Holden profile image60
                John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Aw shucks, got me there!

                No wait, scientists can get accurate indications of temperature changes from tree rings -sorry to blow up your illusions.

                1. 60
                  retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Actual accurate temperatures cannot be measured from tree rings.  Tree rings indicate tree growth rates which are, at best, analogous to the conditions surrounding the tree.  This is not a measure of temperature.

                  1. John Holden profile image60
                    John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Of course they can't but comparisons are relatively easy.
                    Dendroclimatology is too complex a subject to go into here so I suggest you research it.

  11. WillStarr profile image83
    WillStarrposted 2 years ago

    RESEARCHERS PUZZLED ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING STANDSTILL

    Date: 18/01/13 Axel Bojanowski, Spiegel Online

    How dramatically is global warming really? NASA researchers have shown that the temperature rise has taken a break for 15 years. There are plenty of plausible explanations for why global warming has stalled. However, the number of guesses also shows how little the climate is understood.

    and:

    Warmist Spiegel/Euro-Media Concede Global Warming Has Ended…Models Were Wrong…Scientists Are Baffled!

    By P Gosselin on 19. Januar 2013

    Spiegel has finally gotten around to conceding that global warming has ended, at least for the time being.

    Yesterday Spiegel science journalist Axel Bojanowski published a piece called: Klimawandel: Forscher rätseln über Stillstand bei Erderwärmung (Climate change: scientists baffled by the stop in global warming).

    We’ve been waiting for this admission a long time, and watching the media reaction is interesting to say the least. Bojanowski writes that “The word has been out for quite some time now that the climate is developing differently than predicted earlier”. He poses the question: “How many more years of stagnation are needed before scientists rethink their predictions of future warming?”

    Bojanowski adds (emphasis added):

    15 years without warming are now behind us. The stagnation of global near-surface average temperatures shows that the uncertainties in the climate prognoses are surprisingly large. The public is now waiting with suspense to see if the next UN IPCC report, due in September, is going to discuss the warming stop.”

  12. WillStarr profile image83
    WillStarrposted 2 years ago

    Still waiting for a study showing that FOXNews is not a reliable source.

    Or are we supposed to just take your heavily biased opinion as 'proof'?

    1. John Holden profile image60
      John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      So the IPCC report is now heavily biased!
      It wasn't when you claimed that it said climate change had ended!

    2. Zelkiiro profile image85
      Zelkiiroposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      A quick Google search will unearth a veritable storm of errors Fox News has made, from passing off fake stories as real news to claiming the 2011 Muppets movie was left-wing propaganda solely because the villain was an oil tycoon.

      The former link comes from a much larger page with 29 more such mistakes.

      And there are many examples of more mistakes, recorded and posted onto YouTube. You can't argue against the source material:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNU4Zohho_k
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYsGCNMdvzU
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqPJNqmc5Cw
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azVsW6U9Ngk

  13. WillStarr profile image83
    WillStarrposted 2 years ago

    Now you are being deliberately obtuse. You've been caught claiming FOX is unreliable when you have no evidence to back it up.

    This is why I never take you seriously.

    1. John Holden profile image60
      John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Good lord!

      The quoted IPCC report saying the opposite of what Fox claims is not evidence!

      Then tell me what you would consider evidence?

  14. WillStarr profile image83
    WillStarrposted 2 years ago

    MediaMatters? Really?

    MediaMatters was created for the express purpose of attacking FOXNews, and FOX has exposed their deliberate, out-of-context extortions so many times that  no one with a lick of common sense takes MediaMatters seriously any longer.

    Again, if you want to claim FOX is not a reliable source, show us a qualified media study that proves it.

    1. Zelkiiro profile image85
      Zelkiiroposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      And the Polio vaccine was created for the express purpose of attacking Polio. What's your point?

    2. tsadjatko profile image79
      tsadjatkoposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Will you are arguing with the YouTube graduate - Youtube and wikipedia are his staples. And as usual he, they have done what they always do on a forum thread. They ignore the facts and hijack the thread to change the discussion focus of the thread. In this case we've  gone from the topic of global warming to the credibility of Fox news!!
      This is what they do and it is not worth even entertaining their comments except to leave a record of their misguided thoughts for future readers to see that what they say tells so much more about them than anything they comment about. Bye my friend.

      1. Zelkiiro profile image85
        Zelkiiroposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Says someone who believes Fox News is anything resembling a legitimate news outlet. At least Wikipedia has moderators who require citation of sources, unlike Fox News, where the opinions of racist rednecks and business suck-offs are passed off as facts.

        1. tsadjatko profile image79
          tsadjatkoposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          And with that comment from Zelkiiro forever engraved in HubPage forums ...
                                  http://s1.hubimg.com/u/8574432_f248.jpg

  15. WillStarr profile image83
    WillStarrposted 2 years ago

    When I want some reliable global warming science, I'll contact Al Gore.

  16. WillStarr profile image83
    WillStarrposted 2 years ago

    BTW, it's snowing in Cairo, for the first time in 100 years:

    http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/l … z2nMzV6vMp

    Merry Christmas.

    1. tirelesstraveler profile image87
      tirelesstravelerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Now look what we have done!
      Merry Christmas to you Will.

  17. WillStarr profile image83
    WillStarrposted 2 years ago

    "Regarding scientific consensus, do you question scientific consensus on the theory of gravity?  Evolution?  That eating trans fats causes heart disease?" 

    Yes, I question everything because that's how we learn.

    "Of course, scientific consensus is merely the truth as far as we know at any given time."

    And that's the very reason that we should question everything. The notion that we must blindly accept anthropogenic climate change as fact defies scientific principles. That alone should make us all suspicious.

    And again, always look at who is supporting a theory that requires us all to drastically change our way of life. If it's the left, it's always more political than it is science.

  18. WillStarr profile image83
    WillStarrposted 2 years ago

    BTW, the '97% consensus' claim is doctored and basically worthless:


    http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor … us-claims/

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      But...but...Forbes?

      Could there be a more radical, right wing, war mongering, capitalist, denier, minority naysayer than that evil organization that wants everyone to die?

      1. tsadjatko profile image79
        tsadjatkoposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        You can take your tongue out of your cheek now. smile

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          lol

      2. Silverspeeder profile image60
        Silverspeederposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Not really bothered about Forbes, the origin of the figures comes from an American university, someone published a paper on the study and then the figures were used to suit the IPCC political slant.

        The fact that Forbes has found that the IPCC is bullshitting everybody is no surprise as they are looking for it.

  19. WillStarr profile image83
    WillStarrposted 2 years ago

    Hi Genna! Great to see you!

    You said: "Since then, I have witnessed what these scientists were predicting decades ago now coming true."

    That's fascinating. Could you give us some examples?

    1. Genna East profile image86
      Genna Eastposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Hi Will!  Good to see you, too!  Take your pick, my friend. :-)   The rise in Co2 emissions; the causal destruction of ecosystems that are or basis life support systems; the increase in solid waste mismanagement; wastewater management; and more.  Everything we see now, they warned about decades ago before it became a political football and before Al Gore decided to “weigh in.”  I sometimes wonder what Dad would have thought of ”An Inconvenient Truth.”  What I find curious is that people look at all of this – the question and issue of climate change, for example  – as something “new.”  It isn’t.  Another concern was that certain huge corporations and other organizations would go after scientists with little integrity to put in their pockets.  One of them – I won’t mention the name – tried to get Dad because he was so well known and respected in his field of natural resources.  He was LIVID.  You’d be shocked at what goes on out there, Will, and has for some time.

      1. Silverspeeder profile image60
        Silverspeederposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        So Genna your dad would have known about the huge spike in Co2 125000 years ago and the fact that it wasn't manmade.
        Yes we do add to the natural cycle of the climate, to stop our accumulation we would have to stop everything.
        Of course the giant corporations have a vested interest as do the governments who have found a convenient way of increasing funds.

        Until the scientists stop sensationalising, the governments stop taxing and the corporations stop self interest nothing will be done.

        1. John Holden profile image60
          John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          How do you reach that conclusion?

          1. Silverspeeder profile image60
            Silverspeederposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Because that's what's happening at the moment John, a sort of climate change tennis.

            1. John Holden profile image60
              John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Maybe in your world, not mine.

              1. Silverspeeder profile image60
                Silverspeederposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                So what do you have your eyes closed too then John?

                1. John Holden profile image60
                  John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  No, I don't run around demanding that somebody else does something. I do it.

                  1. Silverspeeder profile image60
                    Silverspeederposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    SO what have you done then John?

                    I now recycle as much as possible, turn the heating off everyday, switch off all my appliances when not in use, drive a lot less, have fitted insolation to the new standards, source as much of my food from organic sources, I have also convinced my workplace to recycle more.
                    I am trying to find a green energy supplier, but that is proving to be a little difficult.

                    Unless I live in a cave and walk everywhere and eat nothing at all I cant see how I can do anymore, now what are the government doing about it except taxing everything their government funded scientist are saying is killing the earth.

        2. Genna East profile image86
          Genna Eastposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Silver
          A number of people throw that one out there as an argument.  :-)  You are referring to the data that was discovered via the ice cores in Antarctica (800,000 years),  or the study of shells in deep sea sediments (10 – 15 mil years) which would have caused the sea levels to be, perhaps, 75 to 100 feet higher than they are now.  The fact remains that the rate of change in climate shifts now taking place is faster than in the past.   CO2 emissions are up almost 3% from 2011, alone.  This is what my father and his colleagues were referring to.

          I don’t know what you mean by scientists “sensationalizing” the problem.  Nor do I know how you reached your conclusion or the reasoning behind the statement, “to stop our accumulation, we would have to stop everything.”

          My best wishes for a happy holiday season to everyone.  Take care.  :-)

          1. Silverspeeder profile image60
            Silverspeederposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            My statement was in response to the fact that over the last 30 years scientist have said global warming is a result if everything we do, so it is obvious that we must stop everything we do.
            To be more specific we would have to stop using fossil fuel, stop production of almost everything and stop farming animals for food. We would also have to stop reproducing as the spread of humans is ruining the natural habitat of both plants and animals.

            Thank you for your best wishes.

            May peace and happiness be with you always.

            1. Genna East profile image86
              Genna Eastposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Hi Silver...

              i never heard of a reputable scientist -- at least from the world I came from -- stating that we had to "stop everything that we do."  Nor did they caution that the human race must stop reproducing.  Over population was part of certain arguments, but only as it related to the growing demands on natural resources, their unintended or inadvertent destruction of ecosystems, and the burning of fossil fuels. The need for better education and awareness was always part of that equation in terms of how to help solve those problems.   

              Anywho, I love the fact that you recycle, Silver.  Thanks for those good wishes. And with you, too.  :-)

  20. John Holden profile image60
    John Holdenposted 2 years ago

    By the way Silver, as a supporter of the capitalists you must surely approve of the people being taxed to repair the predations of the corporate giants.

    1. Silverspeeder profile image60
      Silverspeederposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      I am not in favour of taxing a problem to attain a more taxation.

      Al the estimates for the longevity for fossil fuel usage is between 50 and 200 years, will taxing Co2 emissions result in the solutions to the energy crisis that looms large on the horizon?

      1. John Holden profile image60
        John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        You don't get it do you?

        You and I are being taxed to protect the profits of the corporations.

        1. Silverspeeder profile image60
          Silverspeederposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          No John, taxes are used to protect the interests of big government. Although I must agree that the line between government and corporations has become very blurred indeed.

          1. John Holden profile image60
            John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            If that were the case why not tax the corporations to recover the costs of their errors?

            1. Silverspeeder profile image60
              Silverspeederposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Why tax a few corporations when you can tax millions for using the products of the corporations?

              1. John Holden profile image60
                John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                That's capitalism for you!

                1. Silverspeeder profile image60
                  Silverspeederposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  No John, that's governments for you.

                  1. John Holden profile image60
                    John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    And what is government if not the tool of the capitalists?

  21. L.M. Hosler profile image86
    L.M. Hoslerposted 2 years ago

    Reminds me of the story and movie "Homeless to Harvard". It was the true story of a young girl (Elizabeth) whose parents were drug addicts and homeless. She made it through school on her own and won a full scholarship to Harvard.

  22. breakfastpop profile image85
    breakfastpopposted 2 years ago

    Global warming is economically a potential blockbuster. This freezing weather must really annoy all the proponents. Think Al Gore!

    1. Zelkiiro profile image85
      Zelkiiroposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Oh look, another precocious child who not only thinks Al Gore is somehow relevant, but also believes global warming can be disproved with an exclamation of "It's cold! Today! Where I live!".

      1. tsadjatko profile image79
        tsadjatkoposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Oh look, it's Wikipedia man, Watch out he may be armed with YouTube videos!
               http://s2.hubimg.com/u/8587769_f248.jpg

        1. John Holden profile image60
          John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Better than being armed with blind ignorance.

        2. Zelkiiro profile image85
          Zelkiiroposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          And here we have a misguided soul who believes that the laughably-error-filled Wikipedia of 2008 bears any resemblance to the extremely-highly-moderated Wikipedia of today. Because, you know, systematic improvements and strict integration of citation requirements never happened.

          1. tsadjatko profile image79
            tsadjatkoposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Oh really so then this Wikipedia page is one you approve of ?
            Even Wikipedia itself says "Wikipedia is not considered a credible source"
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Academic_use
            What planet are you from, Wiki Man?
                              http://s2.hubimg.com/u/8587789_f248.jpg

            Oh, I know your answer - that can't be right because Wikipedia isn't a credible source! HA ha ha ha ha ha ha

            1. Zelkiiro profile image85
              Zelkiiroposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Read further than two sentences. It basically says that it's not the end-all-be-all for academic research and should be considered a starting point for such research. For casual use (e.g. discussions on a message board), it's more than valid. And if you doubt the article itself, guess what? THE SOURCES ARE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE! YOU CAN CLICK ON AND READ THOSE, TOO! HOW CONVENIENT IS THAT?!

              1. tsadjatko profile image79
                tsadjatkoposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                So when you want to make a credible point to others, not for your own satisfaction, you choose to select a source that itself says it is not a credible source rather than choose another source that is unquestionably credible. That makes sense, if you're from planet Zelkiiro! Thanks WIKIMAN for your enlightenment.

                1. Zelkiiro profile image85
                  Zelkiiroposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  I try to use simple words so that even folks like you can understand what I'm saying, but apparently I used too many words with multiple syllables. Try reading my post again. You can do it! I believe in you!

                  1. tsadjatko profile image79
                    tsadjatkoposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Since you are the one whose rationality is challenged maybe you can get the message from a cartoon.
                    http://s3.hubimg.com/u/8588166.jpg http://s2.hubimg.com/u/8588417_f496.jpg

  23. gmwilliams profile image86
    gmwilliamsposted 2 years ago

    It goes to show that there are people who make excuses and use the blame game to explain their life and socioeconomic situation while there are those who are more proactive and own their life and socioeconomic situation.  In other words, there are FAILURES who blame, avoid, and make excuses while the SUCCESSFUL access their situation,take charge, organize, strategize, and OWN their life and socioeconomic destiny!  Which ONE are YOU  or do you WISH to BE?
    http://s1.hubimg.com/u/8584072_f248.jpg

    1. John Holden profile image60
      John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      And there are people with their heads buried in the sand unable to accept reality.

      1. gmwilliams profile image86
        gmwilliamsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Reality is what YOU make of it, John.  I believe in being proactive and owning my life.  What do YOU believe in?  I OWN and DO.
        http://s2.hubimg.com/u/8571713.jpg
        If there is something negative about my life, I CHANGE it.  I refuse to make excuses and whine.  That is considered to be WEAKNESS, LAZINESS, and IMMATURITY.   God gave us brains, we are to USE them to create a better life for ourselves and others.
        http://s2.hubimg.com/u/8580341_f248.jpg

        1. John Holden profile image60
          John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Oh yes I do own my life and the many unemployed that I know would like to own their lives too.

          Would you say that applying for a minimum of five jobs a week was not proactive then?

          1. gmwilliams profile image86
            gmwilliamsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            A minimum wage job is a job.  It is something to tide one over until a better opportunity avails.  A minimum wage job is BETTER than welfare.  Take a job, any job.  Any job is BETTER than none unless one has savings and investments and/or is young, a recent college graduate who has affluent parents.

            1. John Holden profile image60
              John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Argh!! Can you not read or are you being deliberately obtuse?

              A minimum wage job is better than welfare but where are they?

              1. gmwilliams profile image86
                gmwilliamsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                There are many minimum wage jobs around but people think that they're too good for them.

                1. John Holden profile image60
                  John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  So you're being deliberately obtuse.

                  1. John Holden profile image60
                    John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    You changed your post while I was answering it!

                  2. gmwilliams profile image86
                    gmwilliamsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    I had excellent jobs, have a good work ethic, and was NEVER unemployed.  I take responsibility for my life.  I never complain nor whine about my socioeconomic situation.  I am successful!  I have a good life with no regrets.  I am contributing something noteworthy to the discussion.

          2. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            No.  Proactive would have been applying for those jobs before losing your own in a recession we all saw coming.

            1. gmwilliams profile image86
              gmwilliamsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Thank you, wilderness, intelligent people know this and act accordingly.

            2. John Holden profile image60
              John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Or not having your husband walk out on you.

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                True.  Or not having that crash that amputated a leg.

                s*** happens, but the biggest problem with the job hunters today is that they are too picky.  Pockets of the US are still very hard hit, but some areas are booming now and what is left is recovering.  Jobs can be had with some effort, just not usually jobs paying into the 6 figure range that some are used to.

                1. gmwilliams profile image86
                  gmwilliamsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  That is true.  People have to take what they can get.

                2. John Holden profile image60
                  John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Ain't so here.

                  graduates applying for jobs flipping burgers.

                  1. gmwilliams profile image86
                    gmwilliamsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Yes, it can, people aren't trying hard enough!

                  2. gmwilliams profile image86
                    gmwilliamsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Again, a job is a job is a job.  Yes, some graduates are flipping burgers because they have majored in fields where there are no jobs.  If a person majors in liberal arts and the humanities in this postmodern era, there is a SLIM chance that he/she will obtain a good job.  He/she is lucky to have a job flipping burgers.  If he/she wanted a professional job, he/she should have majored in a field that guaranteed  more lucrative employment opportunities.  If he/she should have participated in summer internment programs in the field.  Summer internment opens job opportunities.

                  3. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    At one point my wife, with 10 years experience building computer chips and a degree in dentistry assistant, was applying as a WalMart greeter.

                    You do what needs doing.  If you're not on welfare, you do - if the cash is flowing in, most sit back and let it come.

              2. WillStarr profile image83
                WillStarrposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Your husband walked out on you? Really?

                1. John Holden profile image60
                  John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  oh all the comics are coming out now.

                  Hint, I'm not unemployed.

 
working