3. I understand that people who have lived in earthquake zones have moved from those places as well. Maybe they should move to Anchorage, Alaska where it was 50 below two weeks ago.
Global Warming
Sort:
-50 in Alaska... How is that surprising? It's further toward the poles, meaning that the temperature will be generally colder. Global Cooling has nothing to do with it.
ADK
You got some good points... Maintenance is still a problem because you are suggesting people be up there for a while and we know the effects of being in zero gravity, no ozone layer to protect us from harmful radiation, and the risk of burning up in re-entry. Global Warming is a NATURAL process (mentioned before). People are just speeding it up.
ADK
Jan 8, 2009
0
#46
ADK wrote:
-50 in Alaska... How is that surprising? It's further toward the poles, meaning that the temperature will be generally colder. Global Cooling has nothing to do with it.
ADK
Who said it was surprising? That's the point. It's normal! You're veering off course with your argument. It's about how things change in different parts of the globe. Go back to my original point about GLOBAL warming®, not isolated pockets of warmth.
Jan 8, 2009
0
#47
kco wrote:
so let kill the population ?!
There's a language problem. Can you be clearer about what you're saying? What population do you think is going die? The polar bears or humans?
Jan 8, 2009
0
#48
ADK wrote:
You got some good points... Maintenance is still a problem because you are suggesting people be up there for a while and we know the effects of being in zero gravity, no ozone layer to protect us from harmful radiation, and the risk of burning up in re-entry. Global Warming is a NATURAL process (mentioned before). People are just speeding it up.
ADK
This is getting ridiculous.
Consider these questions: what was the population of the Earth during the Industrial revolution and what is it now? How many animals were there on the earth and how many are there now? How much more CO2 is being breathed out by humans and animals now vs. 1870 A.D. ?
Shall we kill humans and animals to save the Earth?
Even thought the population was smaller back then, we burned so much coal and produced a lot of CO2 emissions that it heated the planet. There is a lot more people and animals now, but we are much more conservative than back then. Much more CO2 is breathed out by humans NOW, however, I'm talking about burning fossil fuels. That's a ridiculous question: The answer is NO, we should not kill to save the Earth.
ADK
Jan 8, 2009
0
#50
Look, ADK, I don't know where you get your information from but you are really dismissing a ton of obvious things.
Countries, no, whole continents like Africa and Australia were WAY behind the curve in the middle 1800s during the Industrial revolution. The point is that the whole of Africa, for example, is burning coal like there's no tomorrow. Did you watch the Olympics? Why do think there was such controversy about athletes not being able to breathe in China? Because they're burning less than they did 150 years ago? India is almost as bad and they have nowhere near the land mass China does. Sub-Saharan Africa has terrible emissions policies.
Here's the point I've been trying desperately to have understood:
When it comes to befouling the Earth, the knee-jerk reaction from the left is to blame the US. That's just plain wrong.
Even with what seems as though I'm making your argument for you, there is no conclusive proof that Global Warming® is anthropogenic. None. Only theories. And there as as many theories from creditable, dissenting scientists to clearly state that nothing is clear! Throwing money at something that is unproven is lunacy, as I've stated before. The doomsday scenaria have been wildly, wildly exaggerated and are reminiscent of End-Days talk.
Ask anyone in Germany what their opinion of Global Warming® is today after you've checked their recent weather.
I was reffering to the developed nations, like the U.S... NOT China & India. Also, I never said Global Warming was anthropenic, I said it was a natural process that people are speeding up! Germany? Why would I ask anyone from Germany? Of course their weather will be colder... Global Warming is the warming of the ENTIRE planet, not just pockets! Hey, it might even just be another period of Earth that is WARM.
ADK
Jan 8, 2009
0
#52
Okay, then if Global Warming isn't anthropogenic why would we go against nature and try to halt it?
My reference to Germany regards their recent snap of very cold weather, unusually so. It made the international news with some rather sensational pictures. I think you came in on the conversation without having read all the posts that preceded yours. You and I are not in disagreement, ADK.
Think about it, IF Global Warming were real and we are speeding it up; there wouldn't be anywhere on Earth we could escape the heat! Animals, like the Polar Bear, depend on the ice to survive, but there won't be any if we don't halt it. Global Warming is a natural process, we sped it up, now the problem we are facing is the effects of what we did in the past. Global Warming needs to be kept in check... I'm glad we are in agrreement.
ADK
Jan 8, 2009
0
#54
The only place we disagree is in the idea that we sped it up. As I said before, that notion has been fed by faulty data, such as James Hensen's. The assertion's he's made have been dishonest, to put it mildly.
It's a difficult issue and there has been much said about it that has been accepted at face value. The recent corrections to many of the statements get far less press than when they're first asserted.
I'm also about conservation and not wasting. That's not a political position, it's just common sense. I also don't believe there's much we can do about solar phenomena other than do what humans have done for milennia: adapt.
At any rate, thank you (and others) for keeping it civil. Just goes to show people can disagree without insults and sniping.
ADK wrote:
Think about it, IF Global Warming were real and we are speeding it up; there wouldn't be anywhere on Earth we could escape the heat! Animals, like the Polar Bear, depend on the ice to survive, but there won't be any if we don't halt it. Global Warming is a natural process, we sped it up, now the problem we are facing is the effects of what we did in the past. Global Warming needs to be kept in check... I'm glad we are in agrreement.
ADK
how is it natural
the sun stays still the earth still spins
its not natural in fact its fake
plese prove itor I will not stop doing wut I do
yes I wunt to go to my master in heven and that meens dy but not now that would not be good.
Global warming is caused by chess players getting hot over their opponents not moving fast enough. Ha Ha Ha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Jan 9, 2009
0
#57
JediMaster wrote:
Global warming is caused by chess players getting hot over their opponents not moving fast enough. Ha Ha Ha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Finally, a theory in which I can believe!
JediMaster wrote:
Global warming is caused by chess players getting hot over their opponents not moving fast enough. Ha Ha Ha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I like that
yep its a hoax
Jan 11, 2009
0
#59
Earth on the Brink of an Ice Age - Pravda.Ru
Oops... sorry... did we say global warming? Silly us... we meant cooling, cooling. Yeah, that's the ticket.
Now that we have that settled... can we haz money to fight it?
(edit: This comes from Pravda, so, it's likely a bunch of crap but I thought it was funny and that's why I posted it)
SSnyder,
This is precisely the problem with this debate: everyone has "evidence" they believe in. Yet, the evidence cited by the believers is very poor because it lacks depth on key issues.
Why have we had no warming in the last ten years?
Why have the last seven years shown COOLING globally?
Why is the Arctic adding ice?
Why is there a loss of polar ice caps on Mars?
Why am I sitting in minus twelve degree weather in Minneapolis?
You say you're not an Al Gore fan. Okay, fine. Like it or don't, since he is the most widely recognized proponent of man-made Global Warming® why is he not called to question by the media. Why is everyone so ready to accept his version of things and why won't he debate?
Why is your side so willing to accept the findings of the IPCC which is made up of very few scientists? It's made up of politicians and people with agendas.
The era of the man-made Global Warming® scam is over. Only the politicians who want to keep it as an election issue will use it. If you wish to educate yourself, read "The Deniers" and you'll know what happens to scientists that have dared to go against the grain and question authority. It's very dangerous and smacks of witch hunting.
I think I can answer that:
1. Conservationist, environmentalist, and stricter emission & pollution control acts have slowed Global Warming down.
2. This is just my theory, it's gloally cooling because there always has to be a counter-effect to EVERYTHING or else Global Warming will fry the Earth... Global Cooling COULD be caused by the melting of ice meaning more evaporation, more clouds, more reflection, and thus cooling the planet...
3. The Arctic is not adding ice, it's melting away... Every year the ice begins to retreat further and further towards the poles.
4. What does Mars have anything to do with what's happening on Earth?
5. No one said Global Warming was a fast process.
ADK
3. there is a town in canada that ice is billding on a lake and they are mooving or they will be flooded