water shortages

Redworm, it's only outside the norm for as long as we've been keeping records, which isn't very long.
No sir, we can see back many, many years.
Can you look at one single curve, all you can see of a chart that extends back hundreds of sheets of paper, and draw a conclusion from that? Nope. And in fact, the ice-core samples are not supporting the theories of the global warming alarmists.
Depends on what you mean by "alarmists". If you mean the many scientists that have studied the issue and published finding after finding, conclusion after conclusion then the ice cores do indeed support the idea that our current change in climate is being affected in a significant manner by human presence. The severity is under debate within the community itself but the idea that the effect is there is solid.

If you mean the guys that think the world will be utterly and irreversibly destroyed in the next couple decades then I'd have to agree with you.
BTW, the hottest year on record in the United States? It was 1934.
Remember, weather and climate are not the same thing. ;)
 
Speaking of 1934. Well not really. However the railroads paid huge amounts of money to "scientists" who then claimed that planting farm crops in Kansas and OK would cause a change in weather and there would be plenty of rain. This caused the dust bowl. Now we have virtually the same thing. Some scientists are being paid lots of money to say humans don't cause global warming. They were being paid all that money to say global warming wasn't happening, but that eventually looked just too stupid so they changed to global warming is happening but we didn't do it, or we did it but there isn't anything we can do about it now so go about your business.
 
Religion + Science = ?
Politics + Religion =?
Science + Politics =?

As far as I can tell Environmentalism is a hybrid of all three philosophies. What pray tell does this =?

Some substances/philosophies shouldn't be combined. Unless you like to have life = :eek:+:mad:+:confused:... ;)
 
Chaos theory explains why tiny causes can have enormous effects.

Check out the definition of the word theory. Don't state as a matter of fact concepts underpinned by the application of "theory".

Perhaps a more realistic restructuring of you statement would be:
Chaos theory postulates a possible explanation why tiny causes may sometimes have enormous effects.

Think about it.

Humanity can change the environment. The elimination of megafauna is one example.

Again, human activity as a possible explanation for the extention of the megafauna is highly speculative. Highly speculative is probably being overly gracious.

I would like to see where your data came from on this point. No flame intended buzz. I read and agree with much you have to say here.

Best

S-
 
However the railroads paid huge amounts of money to "scientists" who then claimed that planting farm crops in Kansas and OK would cause a change in weather and there would be plenty of rain. This caused the dust bowl.

BWA HA HA HA!

Vintage tinfoil! The RAILROAD BARONS CAUSED THE DUST BOWL!

Oh, man, I just snorted my coffee. Thanks for the laugh!

You people are revising history to blame the rich for everything, even! ROTFL!
 
Remember the "hole in the ozone layer"?

Do I remember the last "tree hugging" theory that came down the pike and changed my business (HVAC) forever? I certainly do !

I remember then (as now) that there was only speculation and theory offered as hard fact.

Thats why it now costs you $300.00 or more for a job that should cost $30.00.

The theory was that another naturally occuring element (Chlorine) was eating away at the ozone layer, and that soon we would all need tin foil suits (Goes well with the hat) to survive, unless we, A. abolished this menacing substance, B. Required anyone who had knowledge of this awful substance to be "Certified" on proper use by .Gov, and C. come up with more expensive (Read Taxable) substitutes. So yes Red, I seem to recall it :rolleyes:

when we took steps to decrease our impact the planet was able to recover.

Since the USA was the ONLY country to "take steps" I find it likely that the planet was able to recover on its own, without help from our little ant farm.

Remember, all you need to make ozone is electricity (Lightning)and Oxygen.

Then, as now, no Science, just chicken little
 
Last edited:
Outcast: Arent they finding out now that HFC-134 is just as bad, if not worse than the R-12 in which it replaced?

And R-12 worked so much better. I remember my old RX-7 used to shoot ice cubes at me when i cranked that AC up.
 
Arent they finding out now that HFC-134 is just as bad, if not worse than the R-12 in which it replaced?

SteelJM1, that depends on whether you use the same broad brush to paint something as "Bad" that was used on R-12 (and in 2010 R-22, the most common refrigerant used in home air conditioning) they have simply traded Chlorine for Fluorine, (another naturally occuring element) and manufactured a refrigerant that is less efficient, but "feels better" for the environment, just not inside your car.:D
 
The theory was that another naturally occuring element (Chlorine) was eating away at the ozone layer,
Not exactly. CFCs are not simply chlorine.
A. abolished this menacing substance,
Which was done. Had CFCs not been banned the problem would be worse.

So yes Red, I seem to recall it
Then if you can look past the effect it had on you personally and try to understand that making your job harder was beneficial to the species as a whole, we'd be getting somewhere. ;)
Since the USA was the ONLY country to "take steps"
Not exactly. Many industrialized nations followed suit. Yet remember that we were the largest producers of CFCs until steps were taken to reduce our contribution.

Remember, all you need to make ozone is electricity (Lightning)and Oxygen.
riiiiiight.....so what's your point? :p
 
And R-12 worked so much better. I remember my old RX-7 used to shoot ice cubes at me when i cranked that AC up.

We in East Tennessee found it "hilarious" when they put freon under such heavy restrictions. In Oak Ridge, the feds used freon for cleaning by spraying it out of hoses without any attempt at containment.

Ah, well. It's nice to be the sovereign.
 
Check out the definition of the word theory

Obviously it is not I who does not understand the scientific definition of theory. I've never met anyone who doubted chaos theory, and only a few people who doubted the germ theory of disease.
 
I didn't say I didn't accept the scientific concepts embodied in CT. What I called you on was your quick and dirty use of a theory to support your argument as if it were a fact. As an aside, I’ve read enough of you posts to know you have the intellectual assets to understand what you did/said and why, but it’s a bogus debating technique IMO. Last time I checked CT is still a Theory, not a Law.

Since you bring up the germ theory of disease and since the last time I checked my degree is in Microbiology I'd like to point out a couple of important points that may illuminate as to how credible scientists of the past addressed the use of data & the differences in a scientific theory and scientific law:

1. Till Koch and others before and after him collected supporting data the GToD was just that, a theory.
2. The fact we now associate a number of diseases with a given microorganism/virus/prion is based on the scientific certitude that careful experimentation and an unbiased interpretation of the data will provide the correct answer (Koch’s Postulates for example) plus limitless data collected and reproduced over time using technology Koch never dreamed of.
3. Even now it's still not called the Germ Law of Disease because it’s not. Not all “diseases” are caused by microorganisms. Figuring out what caused diseases was what got Robert and his pards on the trail of the wee beasties in the first place but alas, for all that he and they discovered, it didn’t cover all the bases/didn’t explain every disease.

What we had in Koch and his compatriots was a studious level of scientific impartiality where their observations were concerned that appears lacking in much of the scientific community these days and especially so when it comes to Global Warming. Having anything that even remotely resembles a credible set of scientific credential isn’t necessarily required to be an expert in the field of mankind- induced global warming if the networks and the Noble Prize committee are providing the guidance. It may take years and billions of tax dollars but global warming, based on human activity, will go down as a poster boy of junk science, as well it should.

In closing if you want to win your point on the environment and global warming as they may be impacted by human activity many critical thinkers here will want something a bit more solid than the butterfly effect as an explanation. (Stay away from the practice of using theories to support you arguments, germ, butterfly or otherwise, not your strong suit)
Best
S-
 
Hey, I can draw some conclusions from unrelated data correlations, too! Look! It's graph-tastic! PIRATES!

piratesarecool4.jpg
 
I've got the solution:

We'll have a "pirate credit" scheme (um, I mean, a "pirate credit plan"), in which the countries from which the pirates originate will have to pay a tax for each pirate from the respective country (and modified by each pirate attack that is caused by said pirates), and those countries must pay other countries for their unused pirate credits, thus combating global warming.

Of course, poor countries (as well as India and China) will be exempt from the plan, and/or will receive extra pirate credits.

Sounds like a good plan to me! Lets get to work to fight global warming!
 
It's not just a problem of mere correlation; it's a politically correct hoax which is designed simply to transfer wealth from some countries to other countries:

Chill out over global warming
By David Harsanyi
Denver Post Staff Columnist
Article Last Updated: 12/26/2006 12:31:50 PM MST

You'll often hear the left lecture about the importance of dissent in a free society.

Why not give it a whirl?

Start by challenging global warming hysteria next time you're at a LoDo cocktail party and see what happens.

Admittedly, I possess virtually no expertise in science. That puts me in exactly the same position as most dogmatic environmentalists who want to craft public policy around global warming fears.

The only inconvenient truth about global warming, contends Colorado State University's Bill Gray, is that a genuine debate has never actually taken place. Hundreds of scientists, many of them prominent in the field, agree.

Gray is perhaps the world's foremost hurricane expert. His Tropical Storm Forecast sets the standard. Yet, his criticism of the global warming "hoax" makes him an outcast.


"They've been brainwashing us for 20 years," Gray says. "Starting with the nuclear winter and now with the global warming. This scare will also run its course. In 15-20 years, we'll look back and see what a hoax this was."

Gray directs me to a 1975 Newsweek article that whipped up a different fear: a coming ice age.

"Climatologists," reads the piece, "are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change. ... The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality."

Thank God they did nothing. Imagine how warm we'd be?

Another highly respected climatologist, Roger Pielke Sr. at the University of Colorado, is also skeptical.

Pielke contends there isn't enough intellectual diversity in the debate. He claims a few vocal individuals are quoted "over and over" again, when in fact there are a variety of opinions.


I ask him: How do we fix the public perception that the debate is over?

"Quite frankly," says Pielke, who runs the Climate Science Weblog (climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu), "I think the media is in the ideal position to do that. If the media honestly presented the views out there, which they rarely do, things would change. There aren't just two sides here. There are a range of opinions on this issue. A lot of scientists out there that are very capable of presenting other views are not being heard."

Al Gore (not a scientist) has definitely been heard - and heard and heard. His documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth," is so important, in fact, that Gore crisscrosses the nation destroying the atmosphere just to tell us about it.

"Let's just say a crowd of baby boomers and yuppies have hijacked this thing," Gray says. "It's about politics. Very few people have experience with some real data. I think that there is so much general lack of knowledge on this. I've been at this over 50 years down in the trenches working, thinking and teaching."

Gray acknowledges that we've had some warming the past 30 years. "I don't question that," he explains. "And humans might have caused a very slight amount of this warming. Very slight. But this warming trend is not going to keep on going. My belief is that three, four years from now, the globe will start to cool again, as it did from the middle '40s to the middle '70s."

Both Gray and Pielke say there are many younger scientists who voice their concerns about global warming hysteria privately but would never jeopardize their careers by speaking up.

"Plenty of young people tell me they don't believe it," he says. "But they won't touch this at all. If they're smart, they'll say: 'I'm going to let this run its course.' It's a sort of mild McCarthyism. I just believe in telling the truth the best I can. I was brought up that way."

So next time you're with some progressive friends, dissent. Tell 'em you're not sold on this global warming stuff.

Back away slowly. You'll probably be called a fascist.

Don't worry, you're not. A true fascist is anyone who wants to take away my air conditioning or force me to ride a bike.

David Harsanyi's column appears Monday and Thursday. He can be reached at 303-820-1255 or dharsanyi@denverpost.com.
 
PLEASE, PLEASE STOP TREATING THE GLOBAL WARMING DEBATE AS A CRUSADE AGAINST SOCIALIST LIBERALS AND THEIR EVIL CONSPIRACIES!!!!!!

The science that supports global warming concerns is just as legitimate as the science that dismisses it. The only aspect of this debate that we should be criticizing is the sensationalism of the science by both liberal and conservative opportunists.



Curiosity yields evolution...satiety yields extinction.
 
The problem that I see is there is an overuse of good drinking water, there is plenty of alternative water sources. I don't see why the water that goes on my lawn and what flushes my toilet has to be drinkable brfore it just gets ran through.
 
The only aspect of this debate that we should be criticizing is the sensationalism of the science by both liberal and conservative opportunists.

As it stands right now, today, we do not know to an acceptable level of certainty that the science that supports global warming concerns is just as legitimate as the science that dismisses it and we certainly do not know how great or small is the impact of human activity.

What I could agree with is the non-scientific agendas of both sides require close examination, careful/critical thought and a grain of salt the size of a Toyota.

If we as a society what to "do something for the environment" that increases taxes, redistributes wealth and changes the quality of life for a major sector of the population of this country for potentially better air and water quality let's drag out the numbers and let the pros and cons of that matter alone be decided in the court of public opinion. Throwing a bunch of man-made global warming junk science into the mix as a means to justify implementing those changes cheapens science and likley casues us to misdirect efforts and resources away from enviromental matters that really need to be addressed.

BTW TheFacts this is not a flame of you or your comments.

Best

S-
 
"And now that same iceberg against the side of a Nimitz-class carrier would probably scratch the paint."

Do you have any idea how LIGHTLY armored an aircraft carrier is???
The thing that might save one from an iceberg scrape is that the fuel storage is on the outside of the hull.
There is a reason we put them in carrier groups surrounded by escort ships to keep the enemy away.
 
Back
Top