The founder of the theory has already came out and said that he was way off the mark and it's a false alarm..the people still pushing this want to implement a global carbon tax.
Sorry Global Warming Alarmists, The Earth Is Cooling
Opening paragraph:
Another good article:Climate change itself is already in the process of definitively rebutting climate alarmists who think human use of fossil fuels is causing ultimately catastrophic global warming. That is because natural climate cycles have already turned from warming to cooling, global temperatures have already been declining for more than 10 years, and global temperatures will continue to decline for another two decades or more.
This is what global cooling really looks like
And another one:
Global cooling since 1990?
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 09-10-2012 at 03:38 AM.
The founder of the theory has already came out and said that he was way off the mark and it's a false alarm..the people still pushing this want to implement a global carbon tax.
How long ago?
Do you always trust what lawyers tell you about scientific issues?
... or is it just this one time?
What studies does he cite in the article that support this rather concrete claim?
Seeing that the first scientist who claimed fossil fuel combustion enhances global warming died in 1927, I'd love to hear who this supposed founder is.
So much bull . I mean, I like how the right buys into propaganda and will use that to my advantage, but it's so much bull .
Strip away the overtly communist bull on the left and the denialist bull on the right, and you get a picture of a gradually warming earth where changes in rainfall patterns and greater extremes in wetness and drought create some instability in the food supply and drive human migration. This will create political opportunities to gain and consolidate power.
The one thing that is happening that was hard to predict is these high-pressure systems from that pop up somewhere on the earth every summer. Non-linear effects were always going to be all but impossible to model.
the earth is warming as nature intends and it has little to do with humans behavior, nor is it something that could be postponed or changed by our power imho. the climate oscillates between cold and warm on a regular time basis, has been working this way since the dinosaurs' time, long before the appearance of steam and inner-combustion machines and even before the appearance of humans themselves.
Of course this precludes any ability of humans to improve their ability to create and grow food, or societies to build on knowledge bases, and move food around to where it is needed.
Kind of a bit of a wildcard innit?
Nature doesn't "intend" to do anything. No credible scientist would claim our climate systems are static. We know they are not.
What has changed is our ability to affect global climate overall through our actions.
Look at 2008 and even 2012, the global cooperation in getting food where it was needed, and the instability that was still created. Regimes fell.
Humanity will adapt. I think the economic disruption from trying to prevent global warming at the level it would take actually to accomplish anything is much greater than the economic disruption caused by global warming. I think what I just said should be the null hypothesis until proven otherwise.
Humanity will adapt, but adaptation involves change, and the need to adapt involves suffering. Suffering and change respresent an opportunity to increase power. The communists see it and I do too.
I liked three pieces people. Not one.
For those of you who scoff at the Urban Heat Island Effect.
Manny... I mean the indoctrinated, like you...
Urban heat island effect on temperatures, a tale of two cities
Here is a link to three articles about the healing powers of crystals:
http://www.soularenergy.com/gemstones.htm
http://www.gems4friends.com/therapy.html
http://www.peacefulmind.com/stones.htm
Remember, I linked three articles, not one.
For the second time:
What studies does he cite in the article that support this rather concrete claim?
i.e. what forms the scientific basis for this positive claim, and how good is the support for it?
Seems like a pretty marked claim, as well as one that contradicts a lot of other scientific study.
Do you expect to be taken seriously?
Only one article was challenged, and I as if the other two were looked at. They were not challenged because of merit, but by author.
Let me know when you can act like an adult.
Does anyone need a better reason to act? The is hitting the fan!
It's time to start doing something!
Yes, I agree.
Time to stop requiring 10% ethanol in fuel, and time to stop subsidizing it. Corn for the food market is getting expensive.
lol you asking someone else if they want to be taken seriously...
by the way RG has about 1000 times the credibility that you do..
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)