The Only Cure for Global Warming

fossten

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
12,460
Reaction score
6
Location
Louisville
The Only Cure for Global Warming
by Vin Suprynowicz


There are some who, lacking the ecstatic thrill of any other faith-based religion, wish to believe that the earth is in the early stages of an unprecedented climatic change which will see temperatures soar, the polar ice caps melt, rising sea levels flood our coastal cities – general devastation on the biblical model – all because we insist on driving petroleum-fueled private automobiles and using electricity generated by burning coal.

Burning that stuff releases into the atmosphere large amounts of carbon dioxide, you see, a "greenhouse gas" which contributes to the ongoing warming of the planet.

Now, this is almost entirely nonsense. The planet is currently warming at a rate of perhaps one degree a year, part of an ongoing cycle of global warming and cooling which (ice cores and other fossil records tell us) has been ongoing for millions of years. This is caused not primarily by CO2 levels – changes in atmospheric CO2 loading actually TRAIL temperature shifts by decades or even centuries – but rather by fluctuating solar activity. Even if CO2 were a factor, most of the CO2 in the atmosphere comes from volcanoes and the natural processes of the oceans, not from man-made sources.

If warming continues at the present rate, the most significant impact is likely to be a small increase in the amount of previously frozen ground in which people can now grow wheat.

The global warming hysteria will be remembered as one of those episodes of "hysteria and the madness of crowds" which saw bands of flagellants wandering Europe urging folks to finish work on those cathedrals real soon because the world was going to come to an end at the millennium in 1,000 A.D., and the minor panic of Oct. 30–31, 1938, when numerous radio listeners were taken in by the realistic Orson Welles broadcast of "The War of the Worlds."

The difference from those earlier episodes of mass folly, however, is that there is a group of folks with an ulterior motive beating the drums for this one. These are jealous socialists who want America to be a lot more like Europe, punishing "rich people" for the gall of freely driving where they want, when they want, in their "wasteful" private automobiles. This gang wants prohibitive taxes on cars and gasoline, with the money to be shifted into mass transit boondoggles that will require us all to enjoy much more togetherness, singing kum-ba-ya in three-part harmony as we live in quaint urban walk-ups and ride around packed into little tin trolley cars in a neater, tidier world a lot more like Sweden, or possibly the Beatles’ Magical Mystery Tour – "Roll up, roll up for the mystery tour!"

These people still say they’re fighting "to protect the environment." But they’ve pulled off a massive shift, largely unnoticed, in the meaning of that word.

It used to be that we said we wanted to improve man’s life by cleaning up man’s environment. We wanted to reduce soot in the air and toxic crap in the water, the same way we’d try to train a particularly slow-witted kitty-cat not to poop in his own food bowl.

By "the environment" we meant "mankind’s environment" – the fresh air and clean water and green trees that make our human lives healthier and more pleasant.

Last weekend, however, the Review-Journal ran an editorial ridiculing the radical Greens for fighting a pipeline needed to transport drinking water to Las Vegas from east central Nevada by using their usual cat’s paw – insisting the plan would damage some obscure minnow in some pond in Utah.

"It appears that the RJ editorials have hit a new low," wrote one of these characters. "The childish, blind-eye editorial in Sunday’s paper was pathetic. Apparently whoever wrote (and approved it) feels that man is the only thing on earth worth saving ... and damn the environment if it gets in their way!"

So now "the environment," as used by these zealots, no longer means "the environs of mankind, which make mankind’s life healthier and more enjoyable," and which might presumably include "enough water to drink." Rather, the term has been skinned and cured, turned into sheep’s clothing and draped over a lurking wolf. The term is now used to mean "pristine nature, a beautiful thing which is endangered by the ongoing prosperity and procreation of human beings, a foul invasive enemy whose numbers need to be reduced through thirst and other means."

That’s a big change, worth remembering the next time you’re tempted to say, "Well, of course we all consider ourselves environmentalists ..."

But, all that said, let’s pretend for a moment we agree that the earth is heating up to an unprecedented degree, as punishment from the Goddess Gaia for our hubris in daring to tame the wilderness, putting in stand-alone houses and sewage lines and Wendy’s drive-through windows.

If these Chicken Littles really believed this, what would they be doing? They’d be looking for proven ways to really cool things down, of course.

How about examining the historical record for the approximately 200 years for which we have reliable weather data? Look to see if there was a period when the weather cooled down, all of a sudden, and what caused it.

Google "Year Without Summer." From April 5 to 15 of the year 1815, Mount Tambora on the island of Sumbawa in the Dutch East Indies (modern-day Indonesia) blew up, ejecting 40 cubic kilometers of volcanic ash (more than twice as much as the 1883 explosion of Krakatoa) into the upper atmosphere.

Other volcanoes – La Soufrière on Saint Vincent in the Caribbean in 1812 and Mayon in the Philippines in 1814 – had already built up a substantial amount of atmospheric dust.

That stuff stayed up there, in the jet stream, for more than a year. Sunlight got reflected off that orbiting cloud of crap, and had trouble getting through. The "Year Without a Summer," known colloquially as "Eighteen hundred and froze to death," was 1816, in which severe summer climate abnormalities destroyed crops in Northern Europe, the American Northeast, eastern Canada and even China.

In May, frost killed off most of the crops that had been planted. In June, two large snowstorms in eastern Canada and New England resulted in many human deaths. In July and August, lake and river ice were observed as far south as Pennsylvania.

In Europe, food riots broke out and grain warehouses were looted. A recent BBC documentary tallied up 200,000 deaths.

Clearly, if anyone believes the earth is warming catastrophically and that we need to do something, the only PROVEN solution is to start throwing as much crap into the atmosphere as we possibly can, right now.

Clean nuclear and natural-gas-fired power plants must be shut down and immediately replaced with coal plants burning the softest, dirtiest coal – even peat – that can be found. "Smog inspections" will take on a new meaning as our cars will be checked regularly to make sure each is pouring up the densest cloud of black smoke and carbon particulates possible.

Since every little bit counts, we may also have to make tobacco-smoking mandatory for everyone above the age of 10.


Now is not a time to hesitate, to refuse to make the minor sacrifice of breathing some slightly less healthful air. Global warming is a crisis, baby. It’s time we all set aside our selfish desire to keep our yard furniture free of drifting soot, and share the sacrifice! Think globally; act locally! Do your part!

Pollution – wholesale, massive, sooty pollution – is the only answer!

P.S. – This is actually going to happen, whether we like it or not. The explosion of the Yellowstone caldera, already overdue, will make Tambora look like a kid’s sparkler. The real ecological challenge of the coming age will be global cooling.

June 30, 2007
 
fossten said:
The planet is currently warming at a rate of perhaps one degree a year, part of an ongoing cycle of global warming and cooling which (ice cores and other fossil records tell us) has been ongoing for millions of years.


So...how old is Earth again?
 
Approximately 4.5 billion years old.

Not according to the so-called "creationists". It's supposedly only a couple 100,000 years old (or whatever, right Fossten?). Nowhere near the millions or billions claimed by this article. Interesting how some pick and choose their "facts" and switch sides when it's convienient for them to make an argument. :rolleyes:
 
rmac, you shamelessly attributed the quote from the article directly to me. That's reprehensible. I posted the article to start a discussion. I shouldn't have to disclaim everything I disagree with.

Johnny and rmac, you need to learn where to pick your fights. I noticed you CAN'T dispute the article, so you try to find some little factoid in it that I've been known to disagree with on occasion. So what if the guy doesn't have the age of the earth correct? He's still right about the GW, and you don't bother refuting it because of sheer inability.

Common sense, people. You guys sound like little kids. And your argument is boring and a waste of time.
 
Chill out dude, I was just messing with you. Besides, I don't want to refute the article. I thought it was interesting. BTW, maybe it's you who has the age of the Earth wrong, but then again, I don't have the ability to refute your ideas, so I'll just let pretty much every scientist, geologist, etc. handle that one.
 
Chill out dude, I was just messing with you. Besides, I don't want to refute the article. I thought it was interesting. BTW, maybe it's you who has the age of the Earth wrong, but then again, I don't have the ability to refute your ideas, so I'll just let pretty much every scientist, geologist, etc. handle that one.

Gotcha. Use a smilie next time? ;) Hard to tell when somebody's kidding on a forum. :D
 
The only thing he got correct is that volcanic eruptions can cause short term cooling because of the particulates. He's completely wrong about the amount of CO2 that volcanoes emit compared to humans. Estimates range from less than 1 percent up to a maximum of 3 percent. And even if what he said were true, then we should expect to see dramatic spikes in CO2 levels after major eruptions (Mt. Pinatubo, Mt. St Helens). We do not. The levels have been on a smooth steady climb.

On the other hand, the oceans are a huge contributer of CO2, but they also absorb much off it, through different processes.

No matter what the ratio of natural vs. man-made CO2, what matters is that natural processes have been able to adjust to CO2 levels and maintain equilibrium. But those adjustments take thousands of years.

By introducing additional CO2 from burning of fossil fuels over such a short amount of time, we've thrown the system out of balance. To use an analogy, say you've got a bucket with a small hole in the bottom. If you start to fill it with water, you can adjust the water flow until the water in the bucket stays at a constant level. But increase the pressure EVEN A TINY AMOUNT, and eventually the water will fill the bucket up and spill over the side. And just as the hole in the bucket will not automatically become bigger to let more water out (unless it naturally rusts out - which takes TIME), nature can't just instantly kick into overdrive in order to absorb more CO2. If it did, the level of CO2 would fall until it hit equilibrium again, which is obviously not happening.

So while CO2 levels (and temperatures) have indeed risen and fallen over time, the current rate of increase is much higher than at any other time that we've measured, and natural processes cannot keep up. That is the argument, not whether humans emit more greenhouse gases than nature.
 
Tommy, let me appeal to your common sense here. I still believe you have some. You sound like you're implying that humans existing on this planet are the problem. That is the talking point of the environmentalists - that humans are evil.

Don't you believe that we humans are natural to this planet as well as the animals and plant life? If so, how can we be any more responsible for doing what comes natural, i.e. improving our standard of living? When a bear kills a deer, nobody has a problem with that because that's just the bear being a bear. But when a human kills a deer, he's evil.

While we're on the subject, isn't oil organic? Doesn't oil come from the ground? As such, where do environmentalists get off saying that using oil to better our lives is evil? We're just using ingredients that "Mother Gaia" has given us. Nobody thinks we should start exterminating cattle for increasing methane gas emissions.

The fact is that scientists are NOT anywhere close to a consensus on GW - from deciding if it's really happening to who's causing it to whether or not we can even do anything about it. Our ecosystem is so complex there's no way that a stupid group of politicians called the IPCC should be allowed to decide the economic fate of the world.
 
So while CO2 levels (and temperatures) have indeed risen and fallen over time, the current rate of increase is much higher than at any other time that we've measured, and natural processes cannot keep up. That is the argument, not whether humans emit more greenhouse gases than nature.

BINGO, that's the part most GW dissenters convieniently overlook.

Sun cycles certainly have an effect on global temps. Nothing we can do about that. (DUH, no great revalation there, so no need to "dispute" it..... besides that article is a pathetic excuse for a serious call to action, a friggin' JOKE is all it is) However, combine that natural effect w/ recent RAPID increase in CO2 from increased human activity (un-natural) and now we're pushing Mother Nature where she's never been before. WHAT'S SHE GONNA DO??
 
...and now we're pushing Mother Nature where she's never been before. WHAT'S SHE GONNA DO??

You don't know the answer to this, scientists can't agree on the answer to this, many scientists even debunk your very premise. So why should we agree to a socialist environmental tax that will CRIPPLE the US economy based on a bunch of what-ifs?
 
You don't know the answer to this, scientists can't agree on the answer to this, many scientists even debunk your very premise. So why should we agree to a socialist environmental tax that will CRIPPLE the US economy based on a bunch of what-ifs?

I KNOW THE ANSWER!!!! Because the people aggressively supporting it hate both America AND capitalism!!
 
the current rate of increase is much higher than at any other time that we've measured, and natural processes cannot keep up.

Wrong!!!
"The current rate of measured increase is much higher", that would be a more accurate statement. But the measuring method is so inaccurate as to make this pretty much irrelevent too. to claim that the earth is warming with any degree of accuracy, one must be referring to an increase in measured global mean surface temperature – a quantity that has yet to actually be measured. The earth’s surface temperature isn’t measured globally, but haphazardly, wherever measuring stations happen to be. When hundreds of measuring stations were shut down in Siberia in the early 1990’s, the result was that the earths average temperature shot up dramatically. The 1990’s was later labeled the “hottest decade on record”. That claim was later debunked by the National Academy of Sciences in 2006.

Also, to say that this is the highest recorded temp that we've measured is relevent only to the very intellectually lazy. We've been measuring (with accurate scientific equipement and techniques) for a very short time. And not all measuring stations use the same techniques, or can afford the best, most accurate equipement. Basically, wording it like u did allows u to logically make that claim only because u are focusing on a very short period of time, and dileberately choose as a baseline a year colder then today. "global warming" has been occurring since the six to seven hundred year period know as the Little Ice Age ended. If u wanna pay attention to short periods, it warmed until the mid-1940's, cooled until the late-1970's, then started warming again. *owned*

It's called critical thinking. Drop the kool-aid, get off your intellectually lazy asses and try it sometime!:D
 
Just as relevant as your reports of cold-snaps in January.....

Published: July 6, 2007 6:00 a.m.
Triple-digit heat scorches West, breaks records

By Rebecca Boone
Associated Press

BOISE, Idaho – Sweltering residents across the West headed for lakes and rivers on Thursday, seeking relief from triple-digit temperatures expected to set records through at least today.

Some office workers were given the option to float on innertubes down the Boise River instead of sitting at stuffy desks, with temps in Boise expected to reach 105 degrees. Forecasters predicted a high of 107 today – six degrees higher than the 101 record for that date set in 1985.

“Once it gets that high – 105, 107, 109 – it just feels hot,” said Rick Overton, a copywriter who arranged the float trip for the digital marketing firm Wirestone. “I’m going to keep a tube under my desk for the whole summer and whenever it gets this hot I’m going to escape.”

But temperatures in part of the West were climbing so high that authorities warned residents of southern Nevada, southeastern California and northwestern Arizona that outdoor activities could be dangerous except during the cooler early-morning hours.

A 1-year-old boy was found dead Wednesday evening in a locked car in temperatures approaching 100 degrees in Orofino, Idaho. He was locked in the car for about five hours when passers-by noticed him, and the boy’s stepgrandmother was charged in his death, authorities said Thursday.

St. George, Utah, hit 111 by 1:30 p.m., a day after a nearby weather sensor recorded an unofficial reading of 118, which would top the state’s record of 117 set in St. George in 1985.

Summer temperatures across Utah are running 10 to 15 degrees above normal, meteorologist Brandon Smith said.

“To be honest, as far as temperatures, for as far out as we can see there’s no relief,” he said.

Around Las Vegas – where temperatures reached 109 degrees before 1 p.m. Thursday – transformers were overheating and causing electrical pole fires because of all the people switching on their air conditioners, said Scott Allison with the Clark County Fire Department.

In Montana, farmers anxiously watched their crops and thermometers. High temperatures for a handful of days can harm crop yield.

“Prolonged heat is devastating. Four or five days of it is going to be hard,” said wheat farmer Lynn Nordwick near Poplar, Mont.

Even Stanley, Idaho, which at more than 6,000 feet elevation is routinely the coldest place in the lower 48 states, was seeing record highs, the National Weather Service said. The remote town in the Sawtooth Mountains was expected to reach 93 degrees Thursday, and 92 degrees today.

Hardly anyone in the tiny town has air conditioning, said Nancy Anderson, Stanley deputy city clerk. The city hall offices are also without that amenity.

“They’re all going to the lakes and the rivers and trying to find the shade,” Anderson said.

At least 150,000 people were expected to flock to the Lake Mead National Recreation Area in Nevada and Arizona in hopes of cooling off in the water this weekend, said Roxanne Dey, recreation area spokeswoman.

“For some people, we’re the only affordable alternative for a place to cool off,” Dey said.

In Phoenix, which hit 115 Thursday, 42-year-old laborer Russ Waldrip wiped sweat from his face as he unloaded large windows from the back of a truck.

“When it gets this hot I pour water over my head all day,” Waldrip said. “Sometimes I can’t wait to jump in the pool, but I don’t even have the energy to do that.”

Arizona emergency rooms don’t see many patients when it’s this hot, said Dr. Ann-Michelle Ruha at Banner Thunderbird Medical Center in Glendale.

“People in Arizona seem aware of the problems that come with the heat,” Ruha said.

In Spokane, Wash., the temperature was expected to soar past 100, breaking a record for July 5 set in 1975.

In the northern Idaho lake city of Sandpoint, a forecast temperature of 103 would break a record for the date set in 1926, the National Weather Service said.

Northeastern Oregon residents were experiencing what was expected to be the hottest day of the year on Thursday, with temperatures hitting 107 in Hermiston and Pendleton.

The heat and a dry spring raised concern among firefighters.

“We’re really primed to burn right now,” said Dennis Winkler, an assistant fire management officer for the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. “We’re well above average in terms of fire danger for this time of year.”

;)
 
Way to stroke his meat there fossten. You really like these circle jerks, don't you?

Way to troll there Ahmadinejohnnycensorship. Maybe you should take your own advice and STFU. Whatsamatter, your post count not high enough?
 
Published: July 6, 2007 6:00 a.m.
Triple-digit heat scorches West, breaks records

By Rebecca Boone
Associated Press



;)

Ahmadinejohnnycensorship, the acolyte of the Associated Fearmongering Press. Take a bow, Chicken Little.
 
If global warming (co2) is the reason for our current heat waves 2006, How
can they explain the 1930's when there where some of the hottest summers on record..In the 1930's there where more trees,empty fields and less factories and the country wasn't one big slab of radiant asphalt and concrete. all things being equal,how much hotter would the 1930's have been.

hottest_summers_va.gif
 
It's been said on this forum before that anecdotal temperature fluctuations of a particular area or region of the planet do NOT reflect the entire planet's temperature fluctuations. Idaho is certainly not a big enough area to justify using it to prove GW.

It would be the same if I pointed out the snowstorms in April of THIS YEAR as an example of global COOLING.

Of course it's hot, you dumba$$ GW-ers. It's summer for crying out loud.
 
It's been said on this forum before that anecdotal temperature fluctuations of a particular area or region of the planet do NOT reflect the entire planet's temperature fluctuations. Idaho is certainly not a big enough area to justify using it to prove GW.

It would be the same if I pointed out the snowstorms in April of THIS YEAR as an example of global COOLING.

Of course it's hot, you dumba$$ GW-ers. It's summer for crying out loud.

I hope your not calling me a dumba$$..Because I'm with you on this one.My piont was to show how stupid some arguments where used for global warming.
maybe I came across wrong.
 
Published: July 6, 2007 6:00 a.m.
Triple-digit heat scorches West, breaks records

By Rebecca Boone
Associated Press

BOISE, Idaho – Sweltering residents across the West headed for lakes and rivers on Thursday, seeking relief from triple-digit temperatures expected to set records through at least today.

Some office workers were given the option to float on innertubes down the Boise River instead of sitting at stuffy desks, with temps in Boise expected to reach 105 degrees. Forecasters predicted a high of 107 today – six degrees higher than the 101 record for that date set in 1985.

“Once it gets that high – 105, 107, 109 – it just feels hot,” said Rick Overton, a copywriter who arranged the float trip for the digital marketing firm Wirestone. “I’m going to keep a tube under my desk for the whole summer and whenever it gets this hot I’m going to escape.”

But temperatures in part of the West were climbing so high that authorities warned residents of southern Nevada, southeastern California and northwestern Arizona that outdoor activities could be dangerous except during the cooler early-morning hours.

A 1-year-old boy was found dead Wednesday evening in a locked car in temperatures approaching 100 degrees in Orofino, Idaho. He was locked in the car for about five hours when passers-by noticed him, and the boy’s stepgrandmother was charged in his death, authorities said Thursday.

St. George, Utah, hit 111 by 1:30 p.m., a day after a nearby weather sensor recorded an unofficial reading of 118, which would top the state’s record of 117 set in St. George in 1985.

Summer temperatures across Utah are running 10 to 15 degrees above normal, meteorologist Brandon Smith said.

“To be honest, as far as temperatures, for as far out as we can see there’s no relief,” he said.

Around Las Vegas – where temperatures reached 109 degrees before 1 p.m. Thursday – transformers were overheating and causing electrical pole fires because of all the people switching on their air conditioners, said Scott Allison with the Clark County Fire Department.

In Montana, farmers anxiously watched their crops and thermometers. High temperatures for a handful of days can harm crop yield.

“Prolonged heat is devastating. Four or five days of it is going to be hard,” said wheat farmer Lynn Nordwick near Poplar, Mont.

Even Stanley, Idaho, which at more than 6,000 feet elevation is routinely the coldest place in the lower 48 states, was seeing record highs, the National Weather Service said. The remote town in the Sawtooth Mountains was expected to reach 93 degrees Thursday, and 92 degrees today.

Hardly anyone in the tiny town has air conditioning, said Nancy Anderson, Stanley deputy city clerk. The city hall offices are also without that amenity.

“They’re all going to the lakes and the rivers and trying to find the shade,” Anderson said.

At least 150,000 people were expected to flock to the Lake Mead National Recreation Area in Nevada and Arizona in hopes of cooling off in the water this weekend, said Roxanne Dey, recreation area spokeswoman.

“For some people, we’re the only affordable alternative for a place to cool off,” Dey said.

In Phoenix, which hit 115 Thursday, 42-year-old laborer Russ Waldrip wiped sweat from his face as he unloaded large windows from the back of a truck.

“When it gets this hot I pour water over my head all day,” Waldrip said. “Sometimes I can’t wait to jump in the pool, but I don’t even have the energy to do that.”

Arizona emergency rooms don’t see many patients when it’s this hot, said Dr. Ann-Michelle Ruha at Banner Thunderbird Medical Center in Glendale.

“People in Arizona seem aware of the problems that come with the heat,” Ruha said.

In Spokane, Wash., the temperature was expected to soar past 100, breaking a record for July 5 set in 1975.

In the northern Idaho lake city of Sandpoint, a forecast temperature of 103 would break a record for the date set in 1926, the National Weather Service said.

Northeastern Oregon residents were experiencing what was expected to be the hottest day of the year on Thursday, with temperatures hitting 107 in Hermiston and Pendleton.

The heat and a dry spring raised concern among firefighters.

“We’re really primed to burn right now,” said Dennis Winkler, an assistant fire management officer for the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. “We’re well above average in terms of fire danger for this time of year.”

;)

...and your point is.... Oh, wait, u had none to make

Where I am living we have been having an extremely mild (if not downright cool) summer in comparison to what we typically get. The big thing here right now is lots and lots of rain. I assume u can attribute that to global warming as well as the droughts towards the coasts and see no hypocracy in doing so either, right? :eek:
 
I hope your not calling me a dumba$$..Because I'm with you on this one.My piont was to show how stupid some arguments where used for global warming.
maybe I came across wrong.

Although my post appears directly below yours, it wasn't intended to go in your direction.:cool:
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top