What's your opinion on global warming?

- Forums - Register/Sign Up - Reply - Search - Statistics -

Small Cabin Forum / Off Topic / What's your opinion on global warming?

. 1 . 2 . 3 . >>
Author	Message
rayyy Member	# Posted: 29 Jan 2013 12:20 Reply Our weather is getting wackier by the year.We had an aweful summer drout that dried my creek down completely to nothing.Combined with a warm,early spring time which brought up an abundance of moths which laid egg's that became million's of catipillers which devestated our crops,,,YIKES!A few day's ago it was 10 below zero,everything was frozen solid.today it's 52 degrees,mud city,poaring cat's and dog's out.Huricanes and tornado's are getting worst.Food production is going down,some folk's are in flood stage while other's are in drout stage.It's just crazy!

LDamm Member	# Posted: 29 Jan 2013 12:46 Reply 40,000 years ago, most of North America was covered with a 2 mile thick sheet of ice...... yea, the climate has warmed up a little.

sparky1 Member	# Posted: 29 Jan 2013 15:56 Reply ok you buy 100 acres of Prime forest nice & cool in it...cut all the trees down-Build a asphalt HOT parking lot-1000 cars on it "yepper it's warmer". then it rains no where for the water to go"since it used to soak in" flood the next property, sparky1. my 2 cents.

Rifraf Member	# Posted: 29 Jan 2013 16:06 Reply i'm no scientist, but i can research as well as the next guy and the trending temps are moving up.. although they bounce a bit along the way, they are going up. The solar system, and the galaxy we are in both move in orbits.. I think its possible that our sun and its orbiting planets in our neighborhood are all effected equally as we move along our larger galactic orbits.. hence the ice ages, and remelting over and over, were just in a warm patch of the universe

PA_Bound Member	# Posted: 29 Jan 2013 17:17 Reply I believe there is enough evidence to prove the environment is indeed changing, getting warmer. Right up there with religion, politics and guns however, is the question "why?". Is it the results of natural cycles, or man's activities? I'm still trying to decide where I come down on that question.

toyota_mdt_tech Member	# Posted: 29 Jan 2013 18:10 - Edited by: toyota_mdt_tech Reply Man made global warming is a scam, hoax, scheme, only to seperate you from money. See, create a crisis, then they can regulate (tax) you on things like carbon dioxide. What seems like abnormal temps you have seen in your life, its just a small window and doesnt amount to anything. Look a few years further, you will find these temp swings are normal. We go through a warming/cooling/warming/cooling it seems about every 40 yrs. We are on the cooling slide right now. The sheer thought that they consider carbon dioxied a pollutant is repulsive at best. We had a mini icer age from 1300-1850, themn warmed without any fossil fuels... Carbox dioxide has went from .038% to .039% and we have a crisis???? The glaciers you see sluffing off into the ocean, isnt from warming. A glacier is in the ocean because its advancing and breaks off as it sets in warmer sea water. Warming, the glacier would retreat and not be able to fall into the ocean. The bigger fear should be the reduction is oxygen, during the cretaceous period, it was at 30%, not its at a suffocating 21% PS, I'm a survivor of the global cooling of the 70's, where the ice would make its way to Ney Yrok, shorter growing seasons, less areas to grow food, we were going to starve... Scam, hoax, scheme. The "green" they talk about is your money.

Borrego Member	# Posted: 29 Jan 2013 22:42 Reply Depends when the 'scientists' set their dates for the research. It's always been warming and cooling regardless of man's influence. Not saying that an acre of asphalt isn't hotter than an acre of grass, of course it is, it's just that that is not the problem. Fly across the US and look down....I don't believe that mankind is capable of destroying this incredible planet, it will be here long after our species is gone. Just my .02

Martian Member	# Posted: 29 Jan 2013 23:36 Reply To those that say we don't have an effect, I ask: What if you're wrong? What does it hurt to err on the side of caution? Why shouldn't electric cars be used by those that drive short distances? Is cleaner air somehow bad? If oil is a finite resource, shouldn't we be saving all we can for the future generations? Don't you want someone to have the incentive to find better ways to do things? Tom

toyota_mdt_tech Member	# Posted: 30 Jan 2013 01:16 Reply Tom, ask where does the electricity come from to charge said car? IS it a coal fired plant, nuclear, maybe natural gas, propane. As a state certified emission specialist, I can tell you the engines hardly produce and HC or CO. Its so clean now. We are always looking right now for future sources of energy. But nothing will equal the energy oil produces. So now is a great time to be looking. And in the mean time, more local exploration. The thought of my money going to a terror state irritates me. We have been doing much more here locally, that is good news. Green energy isnt cost effective, battery is an issue. They are toxic in themselves. I'm not anti green or anti electric, but I'd just say let it continue on its own course not be pushed off into a very expensive alternatives that actually consume so much energy to make. Example, a gallon of corn fuel takes almost a gallon of fuel. But in the meantime, we are growing food for oil, not to eat. Drives up the price of food. Poor suffer. High fuel, poor is also hit the hardest. My state is full of hydro electric. But the govt doenst consider that a renewable energy source? Why not?

TheWildMan Member	# Posted: 30 Jan 2013 08:43 Reply climate change is a normal thing in earths history, brought on fast by massive events such as as a comet impact or super volcano, or slow over time. the current warming trend is more rappid than most of the natural ones (most shifts took thousands of years) and is directly influenced by excessive human activity changing the chemical composition of the atmosphere (smog takes a toll), extinctions are normal but the rate we see due to human activity is extreme comparable to the end of the cretatious (dinosaurs) and the permian mass extinction (earlier, killed off trilobites and 95% of all life). the anthropocene mass extinction is close to these other events in the number of species dying out. my view leads me to view the earth as a single living organism, the water is blood, trees are hair, etc. global warming is a feaver, a fever is what happens when an organism is infested with toxic microorganisms (viruses and germs) making it sick. a feaver is part of the imune system when the organism raises its body temperature to create an inhospitable environment to burn/kill off the excessive microorganisms making it sick and bring things back into balance. earth is a living organism, global warming is part of its imune system, and humans are a toxic microbe.

bobbotron Member	# Posted: 30 Jan 2013 09:45 Reply I definitely think climate change is real, and we're the cause. I don't think I have the stamina to debate this on the internet at the moment however.

bugs Member	# Posted: 30 Jan 2013 10:06 Reply I think this was discussed on another thread. Hard to keep track of all the threads sometimes. Don't confuse weather and climate. They are related but two different things. Last winter the weather was warm and dry. This year the weather is cold and wet. I live in a continental climate. Some other people live in a tropical climate....And at -33C with a -43 wind chill this morning I think I would prefer the tropical climate. thewildman has it pretty much right. A big factor, which is an inherent wobble in the poles/tilt of the earth and eccentricity of the earth's orbit from the round. These factors are in 100,000 and 40,000 year cycles (Milankovitch cycle). The northern hemisphere will enter another ice age eventually as will the southern. There will also be interglacial periods where due to the above the climate will warm for various parts of the earth. Toss in rapid catastrophic events volcanoes and giant meteorite/asteriod impacts and it is amazing that life survived! It is highly unlikely that anything humans do will change the effects of these major earth events. A good read is EC Pielou: After the ice age: The return of life to glaciated NA. Or maybe I am a bit biased cause one of my research interests is post glacial aquatic insect zoogeograhy distributions and the effects of modern climate change on present insect distributions....Gee it sounds as boring as it likely is to most people What we are doing exploiting the earth as we are and have done in the past is alarming but really I think the roller coaster has started and the corporate/public greed and distance from the natural world that most people live in, will continue the exploitation unabated. Even going green (off grid, solar, batteries, propane, wood etc etc) requires vast amounts of natural resources and manufacturing to the point that GREEN is really not all that green. Anyway just thought I would toss my Cdn nickel into the mix.. bugs

exsailor Member	# Posted: 30 Jan 2013 10:12 Reply What if we are wrong about global warming? Consider this, we have too many people in the world; whose throats are we going to cut to keep the balance? A different argument carried to the same extreme degree. Any changes our country could make will have a negligible effect on the global environment and wreck our all ready fragile economy. We are now closing down coal burning power plants. Why, because a government agency has established pollutant levels that is cost prohibitive to reach? Any negligible improvements in air quality will have no effect on people with respiratory problems, the driving focus of these cuts. The EPA has already admitted that. How are you going to charge your clean electric cars if you can't generate power? What about the ecological damage the battery production for those clean electric cars are causing in Canada? We catch their pollutants in our rain water. I have yet to hear the uproar about that. Notice they could not pass Cap and trade, so they have an "agency" making law. That is what the Senate and House is for not an "agency". What good will anything we do wrecking our economy if China, India, and any other third world country ignores, while growing their economies with dirty cheap power? China is building more coal burning electric plants than we are shutting down. Where is the global balance or even pollutant reduction? I am not convinced man is the all inclusive reason we see any global temperature changes. The surface of Mars has raised a couple degrees are we responsible for that as well? Al Gore is the biggest prophet of global warming and he has made millions of this new religion, with gaia as their goddess. The global warming convention recently convened opened with prayers to gaia, when will the stupidity end? The span of time we have been recording date is not long enough to make any kind of workable climate model, and with the jerks in England "fixing" the data as emails have proved; show you can't trust their models. How can you take something as global as the weather, a fluid and dynamic system and create an accurate model. Do you believe in the buttery fly effect causing a tropical storm? How could you put that into a computer model? You will never define all of the variables that effect the equation, so you have garbage in and get garbage out. Yes some of my arguments have been heard before but nobody has provided a workable answer to them. I believe in scientific proof and man has not proved to be the primary cause of any global warming Excuse me now it is called climate change because the temps didn't support their arguments.

TheWildMan Member	# Posted: 30 Jan 2013 10:33 Reply toyota, continue on the same course won't work in the long run. back in the 30s a guy with a pickup and a bucket could scoop up oil out of holes in texas. WW2 was fueled by our easy access to fuel (japan had to conquer oil sources, by the end they had planes and warships and soldiers but after we liberated their oil sources they simply couldn't use their machinery and it was left to sit as they armed the civilians with spears and readied for the land invasion to fight to the last man standing rather than surrender, they gave up when they realized there was no invasion coming just atom bombs from the sky, they readied spears when the tanks and fighters were without fuel) the 70s fuel shortage and early green energy interest happened when the US reserves were mostly used up and harder to tap, forign oil fields temporarily solved that and things continued (the old gas card days and 10 cents a gallon). these days we get low returns on investment taking a lot of resources to get oil from harder and harder places to get it from (BP oil rig when shore sources are used up). even if we continue to tap more remote sources and improve refining efficency we will reach a point when we cannot get enough oil to fuel business as usual. finite resources are finite. global warming or not, once we use up the oil the carbon added to the atmosphere will stop increasing and we will be forced by default to use green energy simply since there won't be anything left. its not a matter of if its a matter of when, peak oil theorists say its now and going to get worse in the next few years, nay sayers say 100 years. it will happen eventually. yes batteries are toxic, but they can be recycled and refurbished and reused. small scale generators require magnets and metal (copper). when it comes down to it eventually the expensive green energy will be the same cost as oil and then will be cheaper. depending on who you are and where you live green energy may already be cheaper (on individual scale) if a few years or decades it will be the power of the masses and oil will be the expensive luxury. the fact that so much green energy is here now says that enough people see it cost effective enough to invest in it that it can (at least in localized settings) survive and even compete with fossil fuel and conventional energy. a more direct analysis is the small cabin setting, unless your cabin is close to existing lines, installing new power lines and conventional utilities may be more expensive in remote fringe areas than solar and wind. as conventional energy gets more expensive the fringe areas will more closer to town.

bugs Member	# Posted: 30 Jan 2013 11:01 - Edited by: bugs Reply Just a note about hydro electric. It may have some advantages over other types of energy but it is not environmentally neutral. I am actually, errr should be staring down the microscope right now, looking at subfossil/paleolimnological core samples from a dam reservoir. The devastation caused to a river by dams is incredible. Not only is there the change from running water to essentially a lake environment there are also contaminants and sediments deposited plus the damage to the terrestrial environment being flooded. And, down stream dams can cause a multitude of issues to the community compositions. So hydroelectricity does come at huge environmental cost just like all the rest of the energy sources. Unfortunately as people have mentioned humanmade climate changes fixes require a global rethink and can not be done by individual countries so the FIX will never happen. Also, for us that live in democracies, politicians only look ahead until the next election which is too short term to make any effective changes. And most of the masses don't really care anyway because they have their heads...not in the sand....but staring at iphones, tv screens or computers.....Err OOOOOPS what am I doing???????? Best get back to my bugs so I can make some money so I can contribute to the economy by buying consumer goods that I am told I HAVE TO HAVE and not what I need.

toyota_mdt_tech Member	# Posted: 30 Jan 2013 17:05 Reply Quoting: bugs Even going green (off grid, solar, batteries, propane, wood etc etc) requires vast amounts of natural resources and manufacturing to the point that GREEN is really not all that green. Anyway just thought I would toss my Cdn nickel into the mix.. bugs Bug, good point and in agreeance. As for that Canadian nickel, it goes much further than the American nickel.

igor	# Posted: 31 Jan 2013 22:10 Reply Oh dear, does this debate still continue? After all the true science, the shocking revelations expressing the fierce urgency of the present, how can it be that there remain some still denying this vicious, massive hoax? Yes, that is correct - Golly – where to start? How about this – a "peer reviewed" study that DENIES ACCESS TO RAW DATA & COLLECTION METHODS – pray tell – how does a "peer" review such a "study"? Or denies access to the computer model "analyzing" raw data – a model which it seems generates the same output regardless of input data? Or perhaps we could consider the Yarmal tree ring "study" – cherry picking NINE out of thousands of tree ring cores – choosing a non representative sampling INTENTIONALLY to arrive at a predetermined conclusion. Or, maybe we could look at the reality behind the Australian weather station "study"; which amounted to again, "correcting" raw data to arrive at the predetermined conclusion. Oh, I know! How about ice core "studies" – my favorite! Where it is acknowledged that ALL OTHER GASES diminish in concentration in ice – but "we believe"! that CO2 does not! The resultant error should be obvious. AND, supplementing with a proxy – the Mauna Loa CO2 captures! I gotta stop this – it's hilarious! OH – how about the Glacier Girl – a P38 landing in Greenland about 1942 – found fifty years later under 200+ FEET OF COMPACT SNOW AND ICE! During a period when industrial production was extreme! Aah – let us consider this fact – there is no more carbon on earth now than at the time of creation – that's right – carbon IS NOT being created – thus a carbon tax REVEALS the utter idiocy (from an ecological standpoint) and venality of the high priest "Al" and his algorithm. Any guess at the concentration of CO2 present to past? How very little it is as atmospheric make up? And what were those ice age thingies? I could go on – but it shouldn't be necessary. There IS NO ACGW. It is a HOAX.

cabinbiscuit	# Posted: 31 Jan 2013 23:39 Reply igor- you must be a truth denier. You need to get on board with the new world order. It's not the facts that matter, there is wealth to be transferred here. Personally I'd just be happy if the weather man could get the forecast right for the next 48 hours before they try to tell me what the global climate was or will be a thousand years from now. Truth be told God is in control no matter what we do.

ShabinNo5 Member	# Posted: 1 Feb 2013 07:04 Reply Personally I believe that the focus should be on stewardship of our environment. We all have an impact on our surroundings. As pointed out by bugs nothing comes without some sort of a price. The question is how much do we want to pay or leave as a debt for others. Also, I reject the notion that our impact on the environment is temporary. Even the dinosaurs left bones.

bugs Member	# Posted: 1 Feb 2013 07:59 - Edited by: bugs Reply IM'umbleO:For what its worth which not much usually. Maybe slightly off topic but: The deity of choice (note I am not singling out any one god(s) or religion(s)/faith(s) here.....gezzzz can you tell I am a Cdn??? ) seems to be used as a crutch for too many things and people just sit back rather than DO something. deities of choice also seem to enable people to twist things to further their political and commercial agendas/gains. If you think about it there have been more people tortured and killed and wars fought by factions both claiming a deity of choice on their side through history than for anything other reason. Once you label a group of people heathens or pagans and dehumanize them and the killing starts. People talk about love in religion...Hmmm.. All I see from history is hate.Doug Adams makes some interesting points in his trilogy in five parts. "Who is this god person anyway?" etc. (Should add an FYI that I was raised an evangelical southern baptist type (hopefully fully lapsed). Jerry Falwell was big in our house. No wonder I am a bit odd ) Okay on topic: Applied scientific propaganda will continue no matter what the truth is based on objective scientific methodology and hypothesis testing. Check the tobacco companies or the tar sands advocates for a couple of examples. If there are huge amounts of money involved interpretations will be twisted to support the money and greed. If the general public are getting their info from secondary sources ie the news media (news media are selling commercial time by the way with little regard for fact) then maybe it is time to sit down with the peer reviewed research papers...all of them not just a select few.....and check the raw data, how was it collected and interpretation of results for yourselves. By the way when WILL humans finally land on the moon?? ....Need some cabin time.... Have not been out there since end of October! Getting grouchy. Sorry.... bugs

Bevis Member	# Posted: 1 Feb 2013 15:23 Reply Quoting: cabinbiscuit Truth be told God is in control no matter what we do. Now there is something that I believe ...the rest is just gibberish.

bugs Member	# Posted: 1 Feb 2013 17:18 Reply Quoting: cabinbiscuit Truth be told God is in control no matter what we do. No disrespect intended .... but which deity(ies) are in control. Too many Christian versions and way too many other versions in other religions for my little brain to fathom. And believe me I have stared at the ceiling for hours in the middle of the night trying to figure out the meaning of life....."Always look on the bright side of life!" (There are no whistling smilies???... too bad.) And, I have read that when certain deities get fed up with the "freedom of choice" to make mistakes that humans were given the deities up and wipe the slate/earth essentially clean and the whole process starts again alas H2G2. Maybe that is where we are headed if this climate change does work out as some predict/forecast.

cabinbiscuit	# Posted: 2 Feb 2013 03:27 Reply bugs- You assume that I am a Christian and not a follower of one of the world's other religions. You are correct though I am a Christian and the God that I am speaking of is in my belief the one and only true God, the creator of all that was and is and is to come. I didn't intend to turn this into a theological discussion although I would be happy to have one with you. I would just encourage you to continue in your search for a relationship with God, because he loves you and he definitely wants to have a relationship with you.

Salty Craig Member	# Posted: 17 Nov 2013 22:10 Reply igor I think I'm in love with you........

Gregjman Member	# Posted: 17 Nov 2013 22:36 Reply A fun read from my favorite author, State of fear by Michael crichton. Fiction but with all Crichton, a good scientific basis for thought.

silverwaterlady Member	# Posted: 17 Nov 2013 22:53 Reply Only time will tell....

creeky Member	# Posted: 18 Nov 2013 08:56 Reply i'm going with man made climate change. as wildman points out, the bacteria in a petri dish analogy is just too alluring to pass up. and, sing with me monty, as bugs points out, "always look on the bright side of life." I live in a very cold but warming area on this planet. global climate change will have winners and losers. Winner! i will miss glaciers and coral reefs. but maybe we can get some bright young kids to help out there with a little research.

RidgeRunner Member	# Posted: 18 Nov 2013 09:16 Reply The current hype is all about CONTROL!!! Climate change has existed since the beginning of time and the hype has existed for several decades!!!! GLOBAL COOLING: 1890s-1930s The Times, February 24, 1895 "Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again" Fears of a "second glacial period" brought on by increases in northern glaciers and the severity of Scandinavia's climate. New York Times, October 7, 1912 "Prof. Schmidt Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age" Los Angeles Times, June 28, 1923 "The possibility of another Ice Age already having started ... is admitted by men of first rank in the scientific world, men specially qualified to speak." Chicago Tribune, August 9, 1923 "Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada." Time Magazine, September 10, 1923 "The discoveries of changes in the sun's heat and the southward advance of glaciers in recent years have given rise to conjectures of the possible advent of a new ice age." New York Times, September 18, 1924 "MacMillan Reports Signs of New Ice Age" GLOBAL WARMING: 1930s-1960s New York Times, March 27, 1933 "America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-Year Rise" Time Magazine, January 2, 1939 "Gaffers who claim that winters were harder when they were boys are quite right.... weather men have no doubt that the world at least for the time being is growing warmer." Time Magazine, 1951 Noted that permafrost in Russia was receding northward at 100 yards per year. New York Times, 1952 Reported global warming studies citing the "trump card" as melting glaciers. All the great ice sheets stated to be in retreat. U.S. News and World Report, January 18, 1954 "[W]inters are getting milder, summers drier. Glaciers are receding, deserts growing." GLOBAL COOLING: 1970s Time Magazine, June 24, 1974 "Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age." Christian Science Monitor, August 27, 1974 "Warning: Earth's Climate is Changing Faster than Even Experts Expect" Reported that "glaciers have begun to advance"; "growing seasons in England and Scandinavia are getting shorter"; and "the North Atlantic is cooling down about as fast as an ocean can cool". Science News, March 1, 1975 "The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed, and we are unlikely to quickly regain the 'very extraordinary period of warmth' that preceded it." International Wildlife, July-August, 1975 "But the sense of the discoveries is that there is no reason why the ice age should not start in earnest in our lifetime." New York Times, May 21, 1975 "Scientists Ponder Why World's Climate is Changing; A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable" GLOBAL WARMING: 1990s-? Earth in the Balance, Al Gore, 1992 "About 10 million residents of Bangladesh will lose their homes and means of systenance because of the rising sea level due to global warming, in the next few decades." Time Magazine, April 19, 2001 "[S]cientists no longer doubt that global warming is happening, and almost nobody questions the fact that humans are at least partly responsible." New York Times, December 27, 2005 "Past Hot Times Hold Few Reasons to Relax About New Warming" The Daily Telegraph, February 2, 2006 "Billions will die, says Lovelock, who tells us that he is not usually a gloomy type. Human civilization will be reduced to a'broken rabble ruled by brutal warlords,' and the plague-ridden remainder of the species will flee the cracked and broken earth to the Arctic, the last temperate spot where a few breeding couples will survive." So is man directly responsible for global warming...errrr, I mean global cooling...errrrr, I mean climate change??? I seriously doubt it!

toyota_mdt_tech Member	# Posted: 18 Nov 2013 10:43 Reply RidgeRunner and Igor, we are on the same page.

Dillio187 Member	# Posted: 18 Nov 2013 10:59 Reply yea, what a bunch of crap. This year has been one of the coolest in recent memory, snow in May, cool summer, early fall. It will make a vacation some place warm in February feel even better!

. 1 . 2 . 3 . >>