Official Global Warming thread (merged)

#5,077
#5,077
mrorange211 said:
I have never seen it. Honestly. What's the subject?

And yes I am making that comparison. TR made that choice for the benefit of all Americans. The same decision needs to be made concerning fracking in the Dakotas and other Western (and some Eastern states). Those companies fracking in those areas are permanently destroying those lands forever. FOREVER.
Click to expand...

Actually, fracking has been going on since the 50s.

Are you saying there weren't problems back then when the technology didn't exist to make it safer? That this has suddenly become a major problem in the last five years?

And on the subject of TR. I have no issues setting aside parks and whatnot. I do however take issue with FDR grabbing lands that weren't rightfully his to declare them National Forests and then Clinton declaring 58 million acres off limits to logging, road building and any kind of development. And what do you get when you leave millions of acres of woodlands untouched?

Wildfires like the Hayman Fire in Colorado. In which those same Clinton policies prohibited controlled burning and hampered elements of fire response by not having roads capable of handling fire fighting equipment. And selective logging could have helped limit the destruction of said lands. You are going to tell me selective logging is a bad thing for the environment? It's called selective for a reason. They don't take the whole forest, but rather clear out what's needed and little more. But are prohibited from doing such by Federal Law.

Here's some good reading on the subject:

Congressional Record, Volume 148 Issue 86 (Tuesday, June 25, 2002)

Provided it's a bit dated at 2002, but I'd imagine the same problems still exist since the laws haven't changed.
 
#5,079
#5,079
Grand Vol said:
Actually, fracking has been going on since the 50s.

Are you saying there weren't problems back then when the technology didn't exist to make it safer? That this has suddenly become a major problem in the last five years?

And on the subject of TR. I have no issues setting aside parks and whatnot. I do however take issue with FDR grabbing lands that weren't rightfully his to declare them National Forests and then Clinton declaring 58 million acres off limits to logging, road building and any kind of development. And what do you get when you leave millions of acres of woodlands untouched?

Wildfires like the Hayman Fire in Colorado. In which those same Clinton policies prohibited controlled burning and hampered elements of fire response by not having roads capable of handling fire fighting equipment. And selective logging could have helped limit the destruction of said lands. You are going to tell me selective logging is a bad thing for the environment? It's called selective for a reason. They don't take the whole forest, but rather clear out what's needed and little more. But are prohibited from doing such by Federal Law.

Here's some good reading on the subject:

Congressional Record, Volume 148 Issue 86 (Tuesday, June 25, 2002)

Provided it's a bit dated at 2002, but I'd imagine the same problems still exist since the laws haven't changed.
Click to expand...

Law of unintended consequences.
 
#5,081
#5,081
Grand Vol said:
I've already said I think climatic change is a naturally occurring event that the earth undergoes every so often. I even think there are major temperature changes during those events. I'll even give you that humans aren't helping matters.

Where I draw the line, as I've stated all along, is the level of impact from the doomsday predictions by the environmentalist crowd. And the automatic knee jerk reaction to each and every power source on the planet that suddenly has drawbacks from that same environmentalist crowd.

Coal power - CO2 emissions and other harmful by products
Nuclear power - scary and meltdowns will happen so frequently we'll melt the earth
Petroleum - CO2 emissions and save the bunnies
Solar power - takes up arable land and can cause damage to the wildlife
Wind power - Harmful to the birds
Hydro electric - damages ecosystems
Natural Gas - fracking is bad
Geothermal - harmful byproducts
Ethanol - Takes up arable land, reduces food supply and increase food prices

Did I miss anything? Is there any power source the environmental crowd actually approves of?

And don't get me started on cow farts.
Click to expand...
Anti-environmental stereotyping

Do you consider the entire scientific community part of the ‘doomsday environmentalist crowd’? The IPCC? You really did nothing to clarify your position in that post
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#5,082
#5,082
BartW said:
Anti-environmental stereotyping

Do you consider the entire scientific community part of the ‘doomsday environmentalist crowd’? The IPCC? You really did nothing to clarify your position in that post
Click to expand...

Weren't you just talking about strawmen?

Have or have not the doomsday predictions made by many in the environmentalist crowd come to pass? It's a simple question really.
 
#5,083
#5,083
I was reminiscing about my time as a chaperone with my daughter's school trip to NYC. Our guide talked about the glacial "scarring" on the rock in Central Park.

Made me think of a question for Bart and those that agree with him. If you could go back in time with a device to stabilize global temperature fluctuations, would you prevent the warming which ended the last ice age from occurring?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#5,084
#5,084
McDad said:
I was reminiscing about my time as a chaperone with my daughter's school trip to NYC. Our guide talked about the glacial "scarring" on the rock in Central Park.

Made me think of a question for Bart and those that agree with him. If you could go back in time with a device to stabilize global temperature fluctuations, would you prevent the warming which ended the last ice age from occurring?
Click to expand...

Bart doesn't like plants (vegetation) so yes.
 
#5,086
#5,086
Grand Vol said:
Weren't you just talking about strawmen?

Have or have not the doomsday predictions made by many in the environmentalist crowd come to pass? It's a simple question really.
Click to expand...
I did not make any assumptions about your position. I'm asking a legitimate question. Who do you consider "the doomsday environmentalist crowd"?

You know there are numerous real environmental issues that have necessitated regulation and/or intergovernmental cooperation, right? Even Reagan took action on some of these issues that nutters like SandVol still refuse to believe.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#5,087
#5,087
BartW said:
I did not make any assumptions about your position. I'm asking a legitimate question. Who do you consider "the doomsday environmentalist crowd"?

You know there are numerous real environmental issues that have necessitated regulation and/or intergovernmental cooperation, right? Even Reagan took action on some of these issues that nutters like SandVol still refuse to believe.
Click to expand...

Did you see my question a few posts above?
 
#5,088
#5,088
McDad said:
If you could go back in time with a device to stabilize global temperature fluctuations, would you prevent the warming which ended the last ice age from occurring?
Click to expand...
Grammar aside, the way the question is framed doesn't really make sense to begin with. We are presently in an ice age. Specifically we're in an interglacial cycle within an ice age.

It would be nice if we could magically stabilize the present climate that has birthed human civilization. It would even be OK if we could just slow down present climate change to that of natural cycles occurring over geologic time.

Perhaps someone will invent your device in the future, but until then our best bet is simply to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#5,089
#5,089
BartW said:
I did not make any assumptions about your position. I'm asking a legitimate question. Who do you consider "the doomsday environmentalist crowd"?
Click to expand...

Seriously? Doomsday environmentalist crowd. Kind of self explanatory isn't it?

"Children won't know what snow is."

"Extensive drought in the central US." (kinda true)

"Ice free North Pole by the year 2000."

"Excessive heat killing off all life in the oceans."

"Climate refugees."

"Sunburned penguins."

Et cetera. You know? Doomer predictions. It's not hard to expand your mind a tad and see there's been quite a few really horrid scenarios that haven't come to pass.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#5,090
#5,090
Grand Vol said:
Seriously? Doomsday environmentalist crowd. Kind of self explanatory isn't it?

"Children won't know what snow is."

"Extensive drought in the central US." (kinda true)


"Ice free North Pole by the year 2000."

"Excessive heat killing off all life in the oceans."

"Climate refugees."

"Sunburned penguins."

Et cetera. You know? Doomer predictions. It's not hard to expand your mind a tad and see there's been quite a few really horrid scenarios that haven't come to pass.
Click to expand...

This is what I've been asking on here. Expect a side step and change of point of focus
 
#5,091
#5,091
BartW said:
Grammar aside, the way the question is framed doesn't really make sense to begin with. We are presently in an ice age. Specifically we're in an interglacial cycle within an ice age.

It would be nice if we could magically stabilize the present climate that has birthed human civilization. It would even be OK if we could just slow down present climate change to that of natural cycles occurring over geologic time.

Perhaps someone will invent your device in the future, but until then our best bet is simply to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
Click to expand...

Would you have stabilized the temp with a glacier on top of central park?
 
#5,094
#5,094
Septic said:
It was 63 degrees in Antarctica this week.

Fun Fact: Only two of seventeen Penguin species live in Antarctica, none live in the Arctic. All live in the Southern Hemisphere.
Click to expand...

We know but satellite data showed the entire continent -0.3C below average that day and -2.3C the next day
 
#5,095
#5,095
Septic said:
It was 63 degrees in Antarctica this week.

Fun Fact: Only two of seventeen Penguin species live in Antarctica, none live in the Arctic. All live in the Southern Hemisphere.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure about that. I think I saw them with polar bears in those Coke commercials. Reasonably positive that's up north.
 
#5,100
#5,100
Grand Vol said:
Seriously? Doomsday environmentalist crowd. Kind of self explanatory isn't it?

"Children won't know what snow is."

"Extensive drought in the central US." (kinda true)

"Ice free North Pole by the year 2000."

"Excessive heat killing off all life in the oceans."

"Climate refugees."

"Sunburned penguins."

Et cetera. You know? Doomer predictions. It's not hard to expand your mind a tad and see there's been quite a few really horrid scenarios that haven't come to pass.
Click to expand...
Sunburned penguins? Lol I've never heard that one.

You already acknowledge the drought. I don't know why you put climate refugees on that list either. There are already numerous examples (even here in the US) and as sea level rise consumes low-lying areas there will inevitably be more.

Can you cite the scientists who made those doomsday predictions? Do you think mainstream science belongs to that environmentalist doomsday crowd?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top