Global warming is wrong. THe earth is getting colder

Post Reply New Topic

I’m sick of knee-jerk skeptics. I’m not a tree-hugging hippy, blind media drone, or a paranoid alarmist. I work with climate scientists and know that global warming isn’t some made up conspiracy theory. There's plenty of evidence that the amount of warming we’re currently witnessing in the polar and sub-polar regions is unprecedented, at least for the past 10 millennia or so. It merely hasn’t affected the temperate climates as dramatically as of yet. Just because it hasn’t warmed that much in your back yard doesn’t mean the climate isn’t changing.

It can also be proven with simple physics that the only thing that could be responsible for this recent trend is the increased levels of anthropogenic greenhouse gases. We can calculate the order of magnitude of a climate response to natural cycles in solar activity and other phenomena, yet even when added together they are not nearly enough to explain the current trend. Yet increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases explains the current trend rather well. I’m not going to post a bunch of stuff because people can look it up themselves.

Don’t accuse me of being an alarmist either. We have very strong evidence that that the planet is warming and will continue to warm, but there’s considerably less certainty about it’s consequences for regional climatology and local populations. However, I’m fairly certain that life on earth will adapt to a warmer climate as it has in the past. Global warming isn’t a doomsday scenario as there have been much larger temperature swings in earth’s more distant history.

Personally, I’m even more concerned about a global economic collapse from shortage of fossil fuels. I think we need to be much more proactive in phasing in an alternative energy infrastructure or we will be forced to adapt too quickly. It’s something that needs to happen regardless of whether the catalyst is global warming or economic concerns.

It is disturbing to be cheered by a post that confirms we are in for a very tough time in the very near future but at least it reacts with reality.
The apprehension over our approaching energy problems seems also worthwhile appreciating, as the huge agricultural surge for using corn for fuel which is the first major reaction is not only an obvious swindle which is almost totally useless but a confirmation of the corruption of those entrusted with facing a terrible and difficult problem.

I'd suggest googling HAARP... sure, people are to blame, just not all of us. Imo.

Look at the official website, then read the essays about how dangerous and terrifying it is.

Then wonder why so many weird weather systems are happening.

Personally, I just like the idea of our energy becoming strictly reliant upon agricultural output. I think that the mainstream concern right now is working out what is and isn't sustainable for the long-term. The right-wing enthusiasts would be disappointed if it were to turn out that global warming isn't a problem after all. In fact, the real triumph for the left is getting people to exercise a degree of consciousness as to how their actions affect the health of their planet, and this is not something that would be readily diminished by a sudden pivot in scientific findings on the issue. Global warming is partially a legitimate concern, more properly a front on which to train society into having a sense of concern for their long-term well-being. Discovering that global warming is not such a problem after all would not suddenly make the right-wing's ethic of short-sighted imbecility catch like some plague. The idea of environmental consciousness has been pretty deeply emblazoned upon the public's mind.

That said, we should consider all findings on the subject welcome.

ethanol must die
seriously just kill ethanol now
It will contribute to world hunger over the next century 1/3 of our corn crop is going into ethanol
they have an ethanol powered hummer right one tank of fuel for that car is made out of enough calories in corn to feed someone for a year if they only ate corn!! !! !! !! !! !!

I totally agree that humanity should not only use its plant resources for both food and fiber and energy but improve its technological capability to efficiently capture directly the energy from the sun so that the economy of energy is in line with current input from the sun and the energy that the sun manifests in other forms such as wind and water. But a sensible prerequisite is that the Earth's long history of incorporating the energy input into the marvelous varieties of life which makes the Earth so unique in our solar system is deeply respected. That respect is obviously hugely disregarded in current human activity and the monstrous arrogant stupidity of this is not a violation of a romantic concept of life but a frightful stupidity as to how all forms of life including human is deeply embedded in each other's existence. Disregarding this can only lead inevitably to terrible tragedy.

Corn? What's wrong with algae? I would love to contribute to the work on engineering a species of oil-rich algae that is capable of thriving under conditions that are ideal for cultivation. That's more money into my pockets, sir. Besides, I have no interest whatsoever in contributing to the economic growth of sunbelt red states. For that matter, I don't understand why we put up with them. Nuke 'em now, I say. The filthy parasites are sucking the life out of our country.

I doubt we're going to switch over to ethanol entirely, though. I advocate it primarily as a necessary competitor. Our energy supply is a strictly non-competitive market, and this really needs to change if we're going to fulfill any libertarian fantasies of allowing government subsidies and regulations to lapse. That would really be the ideal...a simple competitive market and few environmental regulations designed to prevent run-off. Run-off is really something that libertarians NEVER consider, even though it is simultaneously theft, trespassing, and vandalism. It's one of the reasons I consider the lot of them completely hopeless idiots.

Sorry, but, on environmental issues particularly, I'm a progressive libertarian. The government should help set the stage for a self-reliant, self-regulated, and sustainable economy, and environmental regulations should be treated with the same seriousness as any law that prevents one entity from damaging the interests of another. I cannot stress this enough: environmental regulations should be treated with the same seriousness as the regulations we have against egregious theft. The only reason that hardcore libertarians don't endorse them is that they are outright morons. Practices that ruin MY air quality are just as damaging to my health and financial interests as theft or personal injury. Libertarians are just too stupid to see the sense in this point. Progressive libertarianism takes these issues into account, though, and I seriously think that more people should consider this political philosophy.

Excuse me, I had it wrong. Progressive libertarianism is a specific philosophy that has well-specified tenants. The point that I intended to make was that libertarianism would be best pursued through an organized retreat. Otherwise, other sources of tyranny and restriction WILL arise. If the government retreats, it should NOT leave a power vacuum in its wake. This can only guarantee us a plutocracy. Again, libertarianism, as it stands, is an imbecilically short-sighted philosophy. It does not take all factors into account. The retreat of government must be an organized one, for government is not restricted to that for which the electorate is responsible. If the elected government does not carefully plan its retreat, government will only fall into the hands of others.

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2006/3 ... d_ice.html