Datsun1500 wrote: It was called global warming for a long time, until people figured out it was BS. It was then changed to "global climate change" so Al Gore didn't look stupid.
FTFY! 
Too late for Al though...
Datsun1500 wrote: It was called global warming for a long time, until people figured out it was BS. It was then changed to "global climate change" so Al Gore didn't look stupid.
FTFY! Too late for Al though...
bravenrace wrote:Datsun1500 wrote: It was called global warming for a long time, until people figured out it was BS. It was then changed to "global climate change" so Al Gore didn't look stupid.FTFY!
Fo sho! I remember Dad telling me growing up that in the 60's they knew we were headed for another ice age and that by 2020 half of north america would be covered in ice. They also stated that by the year 2000 the world's population would explode to over 30 billion and there wouldn't be more than one square foot of space for each person.
Yeah....
Datsun1500 wrote: It was called global warming for a long time, until people figured out it was BS. It was then changed to "global climate change" so people didn't look stupid.
Actually it was because every time it snowed some jacktard would say "Hey look it's all a hoax because it's so cold!"
Cone_Junkie wrote:Datsun1500 wrote: It was called global warming for a long time, until people figured out it was BS. It was then changed to "global climate change" so people didn't look stupid.Actually it was because every time it snowed some jacktard would say "Hey look it's all a hoax because it's so cold!"
Or the fact that more and more bs about their "research" came out revealing what complete and utter bullE36 M3 it was.
nosleeves wrote: There are questions about rate of change, and how quickly that rate itself is changing.
If you changed that to: "How quickly the rate of change is accelerating" - then we'd be studying climate jerks.
Hurray math!
Remember that weather and climate are two separate things. Posting about global warming any time there's a winter storm is getting pretty old.
stuart in mn wrote: Remember that weather and climate are two separate things. Posting about global warming any time there's a winter storm is getting pretty old.
Some people can't quite comprehend the "global" part of it.
In reply to tuna55:
Does that make those of us advocating for action on curtailing emissions "cleaning jerks"? (Horrible puns are everyone's punishment for being here in this thread)
Bobzilla wrote:bravenrace wrote:Fo sho! I remember Dad telling me growing up that in the 60's they knew we were headed for another ice age and that by 2020 half of north america would be covered in ice. They also stated that by the year 2000 the world's population would explode to over 30 billion and there wouldn't be more than one square foot of space for each person. Yeah....Datsun1500 wrote: It was called global warming for a long time, until people figured out it was BS. It was then changed to "global climate change" so Al Gore didn't look stupid.FTFY!
My dad told me the same thing!
We have what, 100 years or so of what we "think" are good data? How old is the earth? I work in the air conditioning industry. Some "scientists" are now saying that R-134A may be more dangerous than R-12.
I do think Its important to methodically move towards ways of living that do not harm the earth. Its also important to remember that virtually everything that is stated as a scientific fact is really a scientific theory, and because of that it would be foolish for anyone to take a hard line opinion or knee jerk reaction on something as uncertain as global climate change.
Personally I think it was created just to make the people that created it rich. I find it humorous that a lot of the same people that believe that human kind is having a profound effect on climate change (IOW, supporting this hoaxters that are getting rich promoting it) are also quick to blame the rich for having too much money.
My dad told me babies come from storks and Santa Clause brought me presents.
bravenrace wrote:Bobzilla wrote:My dad told me the same thing! We have what, 100 years or so of what we "think" are good data? How old is the earth? I work in the air conditioning industry. Some "scientists" are now saying that R-134A may be more dangerous than R-12.bravenrace wrote:Fo sho! I remember Dad telling me growing up that in the 60's they knew we were headed for another ice age and that by 2020 half of north america would be covered in ice. They also stated that by the year 2000 the world's population would explode to over 30 billion and there wouldn't be more than one square foot of space for each person. Yeah....Datsun1500 wrote: It was called global warming for a long time, until people figured out it was BS. It was then changed to "global climate change" so Al Gore didn't look stupid.FTFY!
We have 100 years of good data on weather. We have much more than that on climate.
Keep in mind, gravity is also a theory.
I am a libertarian/republican voter, and I firmly believe that if humans are not the cause of, we are most certainly accelerating climate change too much for the good of our species.
In reply to Cone_Junkie:
So you agree. Good to hear.
bravenrace wrote:Bobzilla wrote:My dad told me the same thing! We have what, 100 years or so of what we "think" are good data? How old is the earth? I work in the air conditioning industry. Some "scientists" are now saying that R-134A may be more dangerous than R-12.bravenrace wrote:Fo sho! I remember Dad telling me growing up that in the 60's they knew we were headed for another ice age and that by 2020 half of north america would be covered in ice. They also stated that by the year 2000 the world's population would explode to over 30 billion and there wouldn't be more than one square foot of space for each person. Yeah....Datsun1500 wrote: It was called global warming for a long time, until people figured out it was BS. It was then changed to "global climate change" so Al Gore didn't look stupid.FTFY!
This x10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000. I hae always been for cleaner ways to make energy, better ways to do things with less waste etc. It's also part of the reason I do not think Electric Vehicles are the wave of the future etc because of the processes used to make their batteries.
You've gotta be pretty arrogant to think humans will have any significant impact on the long term viability of earth as a whole. I'd have more respect for the "save the planet" crowd if it were the much less popular and serious sounding "save humans from driving themselves extinct" crowd.
bravenrace wrote: We have what, 100 years or so of what we "think" are good data? How old is the earth? I work in the air conditioning industry. Some "scientists" are now saying that R-134A may be more dangerous than R-12.
Personally, I'm of the opinion that there's a correlation in how any refrigerant DuPont has a patent about to expire on is suddenly bad for the earth. I'm sure R12 is just terrible for the ozone and all that, though I'm also sure nobody would have cared enough to ban it outright if not paid to do so.
Kenny_McCormic wrote: You've gotta be pretty arrogant to think humans will have any significant impact on the long term viability of earth as a whole. I'd have more respect for the "save the planet" crowd if it were the much less popular and serious sounding "save humans from driving themselves extinct" crowd.bravenrace wrote: We have what, 100 years or so of what we "think" are good data? How old is the earth? I work in the air conditioning industry. Some "scientists" are now saying that R-134A may be more dangerous than R-12.Personally, I'm of the opinion that there's a correlation in how any refrigerant DuPont has a patent about to expire on is suddenly bad for the earth. I'm sure R12 is just terrible for the ozone and all that, though I'm also sure nobody would have cared enough to ban it outright if not paid to do so.
I (and almost every scientist) would argue that it is arrogant to believe that the E36 M3 ton of toxins we create and pump in to the atmosphere, ground, oceans, and rivers have no ill effect on the planet's ecosystem.
Cone_Junkie wrote:Kenny_McCormic wrote: You've gotta be pretty arrogant to think humans will have any significant impact on the long term viability of earth as a whole. I'd have more respect for the "save the planet" crowd if it were the much less popular and serious sounding "save humans from driving themselves extinct" crowd.I (and almost every scientist) would argue that it is arrogant to believe that the E36 M3 ton of toxins we create and pump in to the atmosphere, ground, oceans, and rivers have no ill effect on the planet's ecosystem.bravenrace wrote: We have what, 100 years or so of what we "think" are good data? How old is the earth? I work in the air conditioning industry. Some "scientists" are now saying that R-134A may be more dangerous than R-12.Personally, I'm of the opinion that there's a correlation in how any refrigerant DuPont has a patent about to expire on is suddenly bad for the earth. I'm sure R12 is just terrible for the ozone and all that, though I'm also sure nobody would have cared enough to ban it outright if not paid to do so.
Strawman. No one here has said "no ill effects". PLease come back when you can talk about what we have said and not what you can easily disagree with.
Kenny_McCormic wrote: You've gotta be pretty arrogant to think humans will have any significant impact on the long term viability of earth as a whole. I'd have more respect for the "save the planet" crowd if it were the much less popular and serious sounding "save humans from driving themselves extinct" crowd.bravenrace wrote: We have what, 100 years or so of what we "think" are good data? How old is the earth? I work in the air conditioning industry. Some "scientists" are now saying that R-134A may be more dangerous than R-12.Personally, I'm of the opinion that there's a correlation in how any refrigerant DuPont has a patent about to expire on is suddenly bad for the earth. I'm sure R12 is just terrible for the ozone and all that, though I'm also sure nobody would have cared enough to ban it outright if not paid to do so.
You may be correct, but it's just speculation. There's no proof to back up what you said.
Cone_Junkie wrote:Kenny_McCormic wrote: You've gotta be pretty arrogant to think humans will have any significant impact on the long term viability of earth as a whole. I'd have more respect for the "save the planet" crowd if it were the much less popular and serious sounding "save humans from driving themselves extinct" crowd.I (and almost every scientist) would argue that it is arrogant to believe that the E36 M3 ton of toxins we create and pump in to the atmosphere, ground, oceans, and rivers have no ill effect on the planet's ecosystem.bravenrace wrote: We have what, 100 years or so of what we "think" are good data? How old is the earth? I work in the air conditioning industry. Some "scientists" are now saying that R-134A may be more dangerous than R-12.Personally, I'm of the opinion that there's a correlation in how any refrigerant DuPont has a patent about to expire on is suddenly bad for the earth. I'm sure R12 is just terrible for the ozone and all that, though I'm also sure nobody would have cared enough to ban it outright if not paid to do so.
You quoted my post but apparently didn't read it.
tuna55 wrote:nosleeves wrote: There are questions about rate of change, and how quickly that rate itself is changing.If you changed that to: "How quickly the rate of change is accelerating" - then we'd be studying climate jerks. Hurray math!
rimshot
but Al Gore can't be wrong, he invented the internet???? LOL
Bobzilla wrote: This x10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000. I hae always been for cleaner ways to make energy, better ways to do things with less waste etc. It's also part of the reason I do not think Electric Vehicles are the wave of the future etc because of the processes used to make their batteries.
Put me in the same boat as we waste too much, pollute too much and a lot of the best things in life are disappearing too quickly.
Cone_Junkie wrote:Kenny_McCormic wrote: You've gotta be pretty arrogant to think humans will have any significant impact on the long term viability of earth as a whole. I'd have more respect for the "save the planet" crowd if it were the much less popular and serious sounding "save humans from driving themselves extinct" crowd.I (and almost every scientist) would argue that it is arrogant to believe that the E36 M3 ton of toxins we create and pump in to the atmosphere, ground, oceans, and rivers have no ill effect on the planet's ecosystem.bravenrace wrote: We have what, 100 years or so of what we "think" are good data? How old is the earth? I work in the air conditioning industry. Some "scientists" are now saying that R-134A may be more dangerous than R-12.Personally, I'm of the opinion that there's a correlation in how any refrigerant DuPont has a patent about to expire on is suddenly bad for the earth. I'm sure R12 is just terrible for the ozone and all that, though I'm also sure nobody would have cared enough to ban it outright if not paid to do so.
I'm not disagreeing on that, in a perfect world, burning coal would be illegal. But the people who go out and yell OMG WERE ALL GONNA DIE BECAUSE ITS 0.1 DEGREES WARMER AND ITS ALL OUR FAULT, are no better than the slimeball politicians who run towards any "mass shooting" to push their political agenda on a cart made of dead children.
Ya know what I mean?
Cone_Junkie wrote:Kenny_McCormic wrote: You've gotta be pretty arrogant to think humans will have any significant impact on the long term viability of earth as a whole...Define viability....
If by viability you mean there will be humans living on Earth still throwing back beers and arguing about politics then I agree.
If by viability you mean ecosystems/ natural areas and the species that inhabit these areas will be at the same level they are today then I disagree. I think it's arrogant to think that this globalization of invasive species, destruction of nature that is my playground, garbage floating around and surburbia going up in previously designated nature preserves is something to be ok with.
You know what contributes heavily to to CO emissions? Making cement. So please don't pull up those concrete mixers to start the patio yet...
In reply to Enyar:
By viability, I mean few hundred thousand years after we all kill eachother, be it through pollution, or the more likely case of thermonuclear war, you'd have to look hard to find evidence of mankind or whatever surface damage they did to earth in their self destruction. Life in some capacity on earth has existed for what? 4 billion years or so? Homo sapiens have existed for less than 10 million years, humans in the modern sense, 200,000 years.
We are a drop in the bucket.
This topic is locked. No further posts are being accepted.
