climate change skeptic

Cool. Like I said previously, think "triage".....

 

I came across this article in the newspaper actually (ya who reads those things anymore) and I thought there may be some substantial conjectures or something along those lines but really, the skeptic didn't reverse course too much.

"Muller did not address in his research the cause of global warming. The overwhelming majority of climate scientists say it's man-made from the burning of fossil fuels such as coal and oil. Nor did his study look at ocean warming, future warming and how much of a threat to mankind climate change might be."

He didn't really focus on the crux of the controversy, just kind of came around to what a lot of the science community has already been saying. I'm sure his fellow skeptics will be disheartened though.

 

there's always going to be skeptics for everything, but I believe in the facts. Like photos of Antartic ice melting away year by year or species going instinct.

 

A consensus among qualified scientists was quantified years ago.

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

 

given all the fraud perpetuated by those who believe in this theory it is going to be hard to get people to believe it. for the most part its a dead issue where people like it or not.

 

I am a firm believer in newtons law of “every action as an equal and opposite reaction” you can’t reasonably deny humans are having some kind of impact on climate. I know a big opposing argument is that climate change is a natural occurrence, happening every now and again… And there is proof of this happening in soil testing. I’m just saying that we as humans are denying the fact we could possibly make any kind of difference in climate, but with the population just passing 7 billion…. I don’t know…. That’s an awful lot of CO2…

 

Exactly! So what is the alternative? Crazy regulations that actually have no impact or effectiveness? How about eugenics? Population control? It brings up the question...what is the end game? Are we the end all be all?

I personally do not think so. Many of these climate scientists are very intelligent and great at numbers...but that's all they are looking at. They are missing the big picture. And again let's not down play the fact that they've changed the accepted name from "global warming" to "climate change". Duh!!

 

Thought provoking side note:

According to the UN. Approximately 30k people die everyday in Africa. Half of those (15k) from hunger related illness.

It might sound warped or cruel...but without a large human "die off" or some other catastrophic event to kill massive human populations....we will overpopulate the host (earth) before "climate change" does a dam thing!

 

here's another thought provoker: how can a group that can barely predict the weather accurately 3 days in advance, possibly predict what will happen 20 years from now......

 

i agree about the fraud associated with it. i hate al gore. i know a good amount of surfers are into the environmental movement. i'm not, but if they are that's cool with me. i love the ocean, and that's about it. do i believe in climate change? maybe to a point i might believe in it. a friend was showing me a report he did on it in high school, and how factory farming causes more damage to the environment than all the cars, planes, trains, and ships combined, and that a bicycle riding meat eater is doing more harm than a vegan who drives a hummer. he was a car enthusiasts as am i, so he actually was doing the report to see if his driving was affecting it, and to prove people wrong it wasn't. he's by no means an environmentalist or a vegan. al gore loves to eat meat too. i saw that old man ed begley jr do some thing about how his water use is killing the environment, and how he regulates his wife's showers to 5 minutes, and his are only 2. i loved that what a dumbo.

i can't stand the epa. they do more harm than good. with all the pollutants in the air it makes sense that it can hurt the planet. the report i read was talking about methane from cow farts is really causing it, and when they're raised for beef, and filled with food to be large when they are killed. this is no joke. i like that approach more than my car or shower killing it.


guess what though? i'm not gonna stop eating meat, i'm not gonna go around with nasty smelling balls, i'm not gonna drive any less, i'm not gonna put the emissions back on my cars either. the epa sucks, all these regulations especially from president odumbo are useless. i saw something late night on the whether channel a few weeks ago. actually a few months ago. had a panel of people. they had to be plants. there were three questions. they were

would you be willing to pay more for electric bills if it was made with clean energy?

would you mind if a windmill was built in your neighborhood?

would you be willing to pay a dollar more per gallon of gas if you knew it was made with clean energy?

almost everyone said they're be willing to pay more for energy, and the same for not minding a windmill in their neighborhood. i think still just over 50 percent said they'd be willing to pay a dollar more a gallon if made with clean energy. i say screw that.

regardless of what i think, and if the argument holds water i can't stand all this regulation against it. i'll probably be in the minority though.

 

Anyone who has ever taken a statistics course would understand that statistical data models are predicated upon trends. This holds true within the climate models currently used to confirm global warming. Scientists look at trends, not localized regional incidents or anomalies. There is no doubt within the scientific community regarding anthropogenic global warming. Take this into account with the specifics of the observed atmospheric warming which is congruous with long wave radiation retention.The physics behind CO2 and heat retention were elucidated in the 1880s.It shouldn't take too much intellect to extrapolate a scenario where sequestered carbon is released into the atmosphere and causes a net heat increase. The only real debate is among the lay public or scientifically illiterate individuals.

 

here's a business idea...create a condom company in africa.

 

according to what i was taught in school, we have gone through two ice ages of which we know. that means that the earth had to have cooled off, warmed up, cooled off and warmed up again since we are not currently in an ice age right now. this was before we had hummers and mcdonalds and huge beef ranches. so if the earth warmed and cooled on its own back then, whats to say it wont do the same again in the future? what makes us think we can stop it from happening?

yeah ive seen those videos of polar bears standing on islands of ice and polar caps melting yeah boo hoo. just because its melting who's to say they might not freeze again later?

someone mentioned something about more and more species becoming extinct. i think in recorded history there are so many examples of species that went extinct for different reasons, but there are no examples of new species that surged as a result of evolving or adapting. also, francis crick, the guy who got a nobel prize for mapping out dna, after being dumbfounded by the complexity of life, suggested that perhaps dna was sent to earth from outer space on rocket ships by a distant intelligenct life elsewhere. its in his book, "life itself"

what does all this have to do with surfing? nothing but you already read the thread this far

 

it don't have anything to do with surfing. it has to do with weather, and that's the forum it's in. aside from that you bring up some good points though. who is to say there will not be another ice age? the earth goes through temperature, and weather cycles? i think it does. if anything the age we live in now just might be more into the fact it won't get cold again, because of things like factory farming, and pollution, and automobiles which none of those were around yet during the ice ages or other warm periods during the earth's existence. i think it's possible.

 

"climate change....over?"

http://www.express.co.uk/features/view/280948/Is-global-warming-over-

this should stir the debate again.

 

I doubt it at least in the US. I've seen recent polls that say 'climate change' isn't even on peoples radar anymore and as long as the economy is in the toilet, it will remain a non-issue.

 

If you can read this, you may learn something

Excess warmth in certain places affects the way heat is distributed in the atmosphere. \'Weather\' is the observation of the process of heat distribution. Abnormal warmth alters the way heat is distributed, which alters the observable form of this process, the weather.\r\n\r\nThe recent Northeast snow storm was an example of this. On the same date the most unusual snowstorm was affecting the Northeast, temperatures over a good portion of Saskatchewan Canada were record warm, which finished off an incredibly warm month in Canada from Saskatoon, to Yellowknife, to Baker Lake.\r\n\r\nWhen Canada can\'t have normal Canada weather because it\'s too warm, it says, \"Here you take it\" to the Eastern United States, \"You want to warm me up? Well you\'re getting my weather now . . .\" And while Canada is baking, the Northeast gets snow and chilly temperatures.\r\n\r\nRecord warmth in Canada was also behind the incredibly snowy winters in our region the past two winters. Remember, excess warmth alters the atmosphere\'s heat distribution process, which alters the weather. The 2009-2010 winter was Canada\'s warmest winter on record- meanwhile Baltimore and Philadelphia had record seasonal snow. Remember the Boxing Day Storm last December? If you follow temperatures and geopotential height anomaly in Eastern Canada you\'re mind would have been blown that month. While warmth was baking the Arctic last December, the Arctic said, \"Here Southeast United States, you take my weather\" . . . and Georgia and Florida were record cold that month.\r\n\r\n\r\n

 

are the monitoring stations near urban heat islands to purposefully show a warming trend?