Originally posted by soin2cal
I do not quite get that.
solid water (ice) acts as a barrier...the more of it there is...the less liquid water their is...
the larger the surface area of liquid water there is...the more CO2 gets dissolved (wave action)...so the more the ice melts allegedly because of CO2 gas in the atmosphere...the more CO2 is absorbed out of the atmosphere...
capiche?
We haven't had a drop of snow in 3 years, and normal snowfall is several inches a year. And now on to other issues...Tomorrow we'll see a high of 48, a low of 26, with 50% humidity. Chance of flurries in the PM, tapering off into Sunday. Wind at 5-10 mph, gusting up to 20 in some locations. And we'll be back after a word from Wilford Brimley and Quaker Oatmeal, "Do what's right - Quaker Oatmeal."
My stance on global warming is simple:
Don't trust the movies, especially documentaries made by ex-politicians. Granted, there are facts included, but there are facts excluded also. I don't know how much of what's said about global warming is true or false, but I find it hard to believe that the Earth couldn't handle it.
I think the recent wave of global warming awareness will shoot itself in the foot also. Sooner or later global warming awareness will become so commonplace that people will just get tired of it if it's continually rammed down everyone's throats, and it will be as though there were no heightened awareness movements anyway.
If it does exist and it's as bad as everyone claims, then we obviously can't do anything about it, and if we could, it won't happen, so I just don't see the point in worrying.
There's things we're not being told, more importantly, for worse and possibly better. So you never really know.
-AC
It's like the run-up to the 2004 US election.
I'm pretty sure that if it wasn't cool to be anti-Bush, Bush would have lost. I think a lot of people were so tired of the whole thing that they voted for him as a backlash reaction, even at a subconscious level.
The more people go on about GW (Global warming, not G.W Bush) the more people will ignore it, and if it's as serious as people claim, that's a bad thing.
-AC
...and that's precisely why it's a bad thing, because it gave us another 4 years of a man who is making the world a more dangerous place.
Same with global warming, although my belief is still undecided there. The science seems to prove it exists, but the extent to which it can affect us is still...I'm not convinced.
The comedy of them both being G.W is still amusing me.
-AC
Global Warming talk tends to be very preachy. Environmental groups sit on a high pedestal and do not like to be questioned.
For a long time, to question environmental disaster talk was to be identiifed with evil companies pouring raw sewage into baby food. People who did it were seen as akin to holocaust deniers.
But it's become far more respectable now, whiuch is a good thing. It's happened because the IPCC has started to tear itself to pieces as people within it start to reveal how fake the consensus is, and because a lot of the earlier models about the scale of climate change have proven to be so hopelessly wrong. I mean, a lot of the scate talk in the 80s was "By the year 2000..." Well, we're well past 2000 now and it didn't happen, and it sure as hell isn't because we threw away our old fridges.
But the environmental lobby is sitll very preachy, as if there is no possible cause to doubt them. It's defiitely going to alienate people.
Imo, the reason the environmental loby looses my support is that they are unwilling to entertain the idea that global warming could be a natural phenomenon as we exit a relatively cold time in our planet's history.
That being said, i don't think environmental regulations are a bad thing at all, but its the simple "you are causing the apocalypse" being incessantly banged into your head that turns people off.
like i've already said...the problem isn't the global warming...we all know its happened before with bigger and more severe fluctuations in temperature...
the problem is how society is structured throughout the world
huge populations are fixed in huge cities near coasts and the amount of upheaval and economic problems that a rise in sea levels will bring with decimate global capitalism...
all the push for "green" issues is simply a way to try and redress the balance..
if a giant supermarket chain eliminates half its packaging and so appears more "green" then it also eliminates half its packaging costs...would these savings be passed on to us?...no...
if they become more fuel efficient in transporting products will those savings be passed on to us?....no
even if they do all these things...will if help stop global warming?...will it ****...it will help stop them being finacially effected by it though
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
My stance on global warming is simple:Don't trust the movies, especially documentaries made by ex-politicians. Granted, there are facts included, but there are facts excluded also. I don't know how much of what's said about global warming is true or false, but I find it hard to believe that the Earth couldn't handle it.
-AC
Exactly what I said on the second page 😄