Thread: More global warming shown to be false!

If you think about it though, both of those opinions on climate change are the same. As it's been presented time and again, climate change has been blamed on humans and our activities. I don't know that there has ever been a serious argument based around the climate naturally changing, especially by the major scientific powers of this world. All we hear about is "the sky and glaciers are falling, bad wasteful humans, Bush, and SUV's!". So, as presented, climate change [due to humans] ain't happening.

Why has it not been presented to us by our governments as being a natural occurrence? Because if it's naturally occurring, then there's nothing to argue about and certainly nothing to stump about or tax.

Originally Posted by xman

Well, I sure do which is why I keep going back to it again and again. Cuts through the crap.

I also love how the Climate Change denier has gone from, "It ain't happening", a decade ago to "Well ok, but it not our fault".

X

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/...html?id=332289
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23583382-2,00.html
For you X! It was just a matter of time!

Originally Posted by xman

Well, I sure do which is why I keep going back to it again and again. Cuts through the crap.

I also love how the Climate Change denier has gone from, "It ain't happening", a decade ago to "Well ok, but it not our fault".

X

Well beats me, but that's always been my position, after all I recall asking in my one of my first posts, what killed the dinosaurs....which I was assured was a meteor, of course. I also pointed out the polar caps on Mars are melting. So if you perceive a change, it is not because I have changed my position, but you are finally reading what I actually wrote.

Nobody is convincing anyone in here of anything anyway. One side says "well, there's nothing we can do about it, probably, but let's give the government money and more power to try anyway" while my side says "since when did giving the government more money and power to solve a problem to which there is possibly no solution-ever solve anything".
Solutions come from individuals and the private sector IMHO, not from government agencies which merely seek to fine and gain revenue from actions counter to its policy-but does nothing to solve the problem because such would put those particular bureaucrats out of a job.
Later folks.
John P.

And here we see the forming of the next argument. Even KP is almost there. "By the time we really realised there was a problem we were too late to do anything about it anyway. We were probably always too late".

Good-bye now. See you in the aftermath. You know how much I like to say. "I told you so".

X

X, if you are around for all the catastrophic things you predict, I won't write any apologies for you anyway, as you wouldn't read them, choosing rather to argue with me over what you *think* I said.
If you believe the world is warming on a catastrophic path, so be it. If you believe that people are controlling it, so be that also. It really doesn't matter in the long run, because people here are going to put themselves out of sorts to protect the environment, etc (I alway have believed in stewardship) and then they will turn to a country that does not care so much, and buy everything from that country, as producing the same things in "clean" countries would cost too much.
Its all really hypocritical IMHO, and why I take issue with the movement to assign blame without doing the real science. There is far too much politics involved, IMHO.

John P.

I'm late to this thread, but from what I've read we've been seeing the climate warm for that past 50 years due to natural cyclic changes that have been occurring for eons. There's a body of evidence that says additional warming is occurring on top of that due to an increase in greenhouse gases resulting from mankind's pollution and destruction of forests. I read somewhere that it is estimated it will take the earth's natural ecosystem something like 10,000 years to cleanse itself of the CO2 we humans have already released into the atmosphere over the past 100 or so years. While there are lots of doom and gloom chanters, I have not seen any evidence that indicates the human contribution will necessarily be what overloads the system to the point that destruction of life will occur. Then again, I haven't seen any evidence that it won't, either. My take is the only viable solution is to reduce the worldwide birthrate to something less than the replacement value so that the earth's population decreases to something more in keeping with what the earth can comfortably support. There isn't much about China's political system I agree with, but they are at least trying to control their population explosion.

I’ve seen many people mention China as a major contributor to pollution, and they blame China. The US is still a huge producer of pollution and we would be worse than China if our industry hadn’t moved out and went to China, India and Mexico. China is just producing the products that Americans and Europeans are consuming. If we reduce the consumption, then we will reduce the pollution.

I couldn't help but notice the "expert" who authored the article failed to cite any source other than those refering to bird names. This has something to do with the rise of the earth's temperature, how?