They say all the coal fired plants, forest burning, and cars are causing the earth to heat up. So I have been doing a little looking and I will say I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer but wouldn't all the junk in the air cause the earth to cool off by blocking the sun like it did in 1815-1817? 1816 was called the year without a summer because of a volcano erupting in 1815 it blocked the sun causing global cooling not warming. It was called mt. Tamboro. So why wouldn't today's pollution have the same effect only on a milder scale?
The totally unproven and probably unprovable theory is that it depends on where the materials going into the atmosphere end up on whether they raise or lower the earth's temperature. The whole movement is mainly about controlling people and wealth redistribution.
Particulates and certain other compounds in the upper atmosphere block sunlight. It does cause cooling. Greenhouse gasses do not block the radiation, rather they trap certain wavelengths that make it into the atmosphere and cause warming. We have as a society release a lot less of the particulate pollution. It had other nasty effects like acid rain as well. Different types of pollution have different effects.
A lot of the CO2 in the atmosphere is absorbed by the ocean. It's basically a giant "heat sink" for both temp & greenhouse gases. Which isn't really a good thing.. makes it more acidic. Mollusks & all those calcium-shelled critters have trouble surviving in those conditions. Some organisms like it though, and bloom more frequently bc of it; Red Tide is a good example
There are many other factors that affect algal blooms, but I won't bother getting into them here
They say all the coal fired plants, forest burning, and cars are causing the earth to heat up. So I have been doing a little looking and I will say I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer but wouldn't all the junk in the air cause the earth to cool off by blocking the sun like it did in 1815-1817? 1816 was called the year without a summer because of a volcano erupting in 1815 it blocked the sun causing global cooling not warming. It was called mt. Tamboro. So why wouldn't today's pollution have the same effect only on a milder scale?
You may be correct..........
The push for a cleaner air quality over the last 40 yrs may have caused some small insignificant amount of warming
The earth has been this warm and warmer in the past. This is a completely normal warm up (if you look at earth temp charts over millions of years...best they can guess anyhow). When people here in MN say the earth is warming, I say I sure hope so. Was only a very short time ago (in geologic timeframe) that where I'm standing right now had 150 feet of ice over me. Over 13,000 lakes here in MN....all created by the ice age. Hard to get around with 150 feet of ice on top of ya.
Humans are nothing but a flash in the pan. It doesnt matter what we do. Earth will have billions of years to reinvent itself. Everything here will be reprocessed and reformed. We'll be lucky to be referenced as a footnote in the history of this planet
The earth has been this warm and warmer in the past. This is a completely normal warm up (if you look at earth temp charts over millions of years...best they can guess anyhow). When people here in MN say the earth is warming, I say I sure hope so. Was only a very short time ago (in geologic timeframe) that where I'm standing right now had 150 feet of ice over me. Over 13,000 lakes here in MN....all created by the ice age. Hard to get around with 150 feet of ice on top of ya.
Humans are nothing but a flash in the pan. It doesnt matter what we do. Earth will have billions of years to reinvent itself. Everything here will be reprocessed and reformed. We'll be lucky to be referenced as a footnote in the history of this planet
A comforting reminder. I keep this one in my pocket
Greenhouse gasses do not block the radiation, rather they trap certain wavelengths that make it into the atmosphere and cause warming. We have as a society release a lot less of the particulate pollution. It had other nasty effects like acid rain as well. Different types of pollution have different effects.
and carbon dioxide is one of the strongest of the greenhouse gases.
That's why Mars (whose atmosphere is 95 percent carbon dioxide) is so darn hot! it's like 800 degrees on Mars!
Greenhouse gasses do not block the radiation, rather they trap certain wavelengths that make it into the atmosphere and cause warming. We have as a society release a lot less of the particulate pollution. It had other nasty effects like acid rain as well. Different types of pollution have different effects.
and carbon dioxide is one of the strongest of the greenhouse gases.
That's why Mars (whose atmosphere is 95 percent carbon dioxide) is so darn hot! it's like 800 degrees on Mars!
Well crap. So much for that remote winter home idea I had.
It's all a farce and has always been a farce. The biggest lie told by the wacked out left. Still to this day not one speck of evidence from any independent source that humans have anything to do with it or that the earth is even warming. In fact, there has been more evidence against it and countless instances of government "scientist" playing with the numbers. It's all a crock, has always been a crock and will always be a crock.
Lets see I'm no scientist but trees eat CO2 and none of these smart people talk about planning billions of trees but do send cash they are OK with that.
It's all a farce and has always been a farce. The biggest lie told by the wacked out left. Still to this day not one speck of evidence from any independent source that humans have anything to do with it or that the earth is even warming. In fact, there has been more evidence against it and countless instances of government "scientist" playing with the numbers. It's all a crock, has always been a crock and will always be a crock.
Greenhouse gasses like CO2 and methane trap heat. No denying this. Coal and carbon fuel produce CO2 and methane gasses. No denying this. Many states allow natural gas to be flared at the wellhead. No denying this. If you think air pollution is not real, travel to Beijing. I have been there. No denying that the air in China will choke an American. China burns a lot of coal. No denying this.
The Martian atmosphere is extremely thin. Even though it’s small amount of CO2 heats up quickly, it offers almost no insulating blanket at night and the heat escapes. Here on earth, our denser atmosphere acts as a blanket, keeping us in a moderate zone of highs and lows. Our zone of temperatures is rising. That is our problem. Summers and winters, on average, are getting a little warmer as our CO2 levels are increasing
I wish it wasn’t so. The swings used to occur naturally, but human activity is a contributing factor today.
Greenhouse gasses like CO2 and methane trap heat. No denying this. Coal and carbon fuel produce CO2 and methane gasses. No denying this. Many states allow natural gas to be flared at the wellhead. No denying this. If you think air pollution is not real, travel to Beijing. I have been there. No denying that the air in China will choke an American. China burns a lot of coal. No denying this.
The Martian atmosphere is extremely thin. Even though it’s small amount of CO2 heats up quickly, it offers almost no insulating blanket at night and the heat escapes. Here on earth, our denser atmosphere acts as a blanket, keeping us in a moderate zone of highs and lows. Our zone of temperatures is rising. That is our problem. Summers and winters, on average, are getting a little warmer as our CO2 levels are increasing
I wish it wasn’t so. The swings used to occur naturally, but human activity is a contributing factor today.
I am open to a science based objection.
Charles, I respectfully disagree with the human activity part of your post. I will not argue with the planet warming, Although NASA climate satellites say no warming for 15 year period, and that’s why they changed it from “global warming” to “climate change”. It also troubles me greatly that they have been revising old heat records from the early 1900’s and lowering them. If you dig on the net you will see previous records have been revised down. I will not argue that we can and do have an impact on our environment (pollution). They like to interchange the words climate and environment to trip people up. I would challenge you to read the book “A Disgrace To the Profession “ by Mark Steyn. One of many great books on the other side of climate change. Search YouTube for him discussing it also.
Greenhouse gasses like CO2 and methane trap heat. No denying this. Coal and carbon fuel produce CO2 and methane gasses. No denying this. Many states allow natural gas to be flared at the wellhead. No denying this. If you think air pollution is not real, travel to Beijing. I have been there. No denying that the air in China will choke an American. China burns a lot of coal. No denying this.
The Martian atmosphere is extremely thin. Even though it’s small amount of CO2 heats up quickly, it offers almost no insulating blanket at night and the heat escapes. Here on earth, our denser atmosphere acts as a blanket, keeping us in a moderate zone of highs and lows. Our zone of temperatures is rising. That is our problem. Summers and winters, on average, are getting a little warmer as our CO2 levels are increasing
I wish it wasn’t so. The swings used to occur naturally, but human activity is a contributing factor today.
I am open to a science based objection.
"Science based" is what is at issue. When the "scientists" claim that over the past 100 years, the Earth's temperature has risen by 2 degrees "Fahrenheit", my B.S. meter goes off. What scientist on the planet uses Fahrenheit? Only the one who thinks that 0.8 degrees Centigrade doesn't seem like enough of a difference for the sheeple to take notice. Science is also greatly lacking when it comes to methodology of a scientific study. The methodology used today was not even imaginable 25 years ago, let alone 100 years ago. The most glaring absence in the discussion of the results of these "studies" is the mention of the Margin of Error, which is used to determine whether the results of the study are statistically significant. Without the declaration of statistical significance, the results of the study are summarily dismissed as scientifically invalid. So they changed gears and relabeled our ultimate demise as Climate Change. A brilliant move in spite of their diabolical intentions. Who can deny that the climate changes. How can anyone possibly even measure climate, let alone measure change in climate. Therefore there is no way to debate Climate Change. It is very similar to the South Park, Johnny Cochran, Cewbacca Defense. "It doesn't make sense. If it doesn't make sense, you must acquit."
Charles, you just sold your sound-front property recently...did it hold its value over the time you owned it, or did you have to essentially give it away, since it'll be underwater soon? it's elevation was like 6 feet, wasn't it?
"listen to the words of former United Nations climate official Ottmar Edenhofer:
"One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore,
So what is the goal of environmental policy? "We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy," said Edenhofer."
China has drastically altered their climate with coal smoke. You cannot see the sky in Beijing. Some days you cannot see the tops of buildings. It is man made for certain.
Surely the Chinese industrial pollution impacts weather and health.
Don, I sold my Hatteras Island home after 14 years for what I had in it. I broke even. A year later I might have done a little better because of the new bridge. My lot elevation was 2.8 feet. Friday the sound side water was at seven feet.
Not only is sea level inching up, but the Island has always moved from East to West. Near me is a flat area where locals played baseball 50 years ago. It is two feet under water now.
We sold and moved for three reasons. Our age and my health was factor number one. Not a good place to grow old or need medical services. Number two was the severity and frequency of hurricanes, and lastly we see our grandkids every day now. Number two was the dal maker.
I can show you four distinct sea shores in N.C. The geology is evident. Sea level changes have occurred in the past. Land is also sinking, especially in the NE corner. Temps are warmer even in my lifetime. Sea water temp changes are causing fish species to more north. We now have manatee in Norfolk Va! Lion Fish are off our shores. Bird migration are changing because of climate. NC now has armadillo.
Charles, I'm not doubting there are changes. Nothing on this rock is static for long (geologically).
none of the things you mentioned can be DIRECTLY attributed (SCIENTIFICALLY) to the warming that is occurring. storm frequency and intensity MAY be related (and likely is); but there's no hard evidence. remember, a correlation in time does NOT establish a scientific cause and effect relationship.
the problem for me is that when the IPCC gurus THEMSELVES say the Paris (previously Montreal and Rio) Accords are much more about re-distribution of wealth than saving the planet...I tend to believe them!
Looking back, EVERY environmental "crisis" had the same exact solution: America had to PAY, in one way or another (usually, by giving up cheap, reliable energy and/or its sovereignty.)
We might poop in our own bath water so to say? But we will not destroy what took the God to create!
By the way:. The Bible says to take your waste far from you and to be good stewards! So do thatt and we will all be ok till the earth is destroyed. Then some of us will still be ok after!
They know from ice core samples from the Arctic that greenhouse gases have not been this high as far as they can go back witch is about 1 million years.
Ice core samples is also the same instrument used to get led out of the gas.They also denied and fought that tooth and nail.
For that experiment to really be accurate the bottle with alka selzer needs a valve to release gas so the pressure in each bottle is the same. Pressure creates heat. Its the principal diesel engines work on. 2nd it should be done out side in sunlight with sunshine as the heat source. I don't believe that a heat lamp can be evenly directed at two bottles. I also think the level of co2 needs somehow measured in both bottles so that any temperature disparity can be evaluated and compared to co2 levels in our atmosphere
When I was in school in the early seventies school administrators had a guy come in and tell the assembled high-school students about the plan to spread ash over the polar ice caps to slow and reverse global cooling caused by (what else) mankind. Even at that young age I recognized bullcrap when I heard it. Haven't put much stock in climatologists since.
When I was in school in the early seventies school administrators had a guy come in and tell the assembled high-school students about the plan to spread ash over the polar ice caps to slow and reverse global cooling caused by (what else) mankind. Even at that young age I recognized bullcrap when I heard it. Haven't put much stock in climatologists since.
Exactly. And then wasn't it acid rain that would doom us all lol.
Global CO2 has been ONE THOUSAND TIMES higher than today. Global average temperature has been 15F higher... and 20F lower. Life went on just like today.
Global Cooling is a VASTLY greater threat to life on Earth than Warming.
Man made Climate Change is 100% lefty kookadoodle hoax.
Global CO2 has been ONE THOUSAND TIMES higher than today. Global average temperature has been 15F higher... and 20F lower. Life went on just like today.
Global Cooling is a VASTLY greater threat to life on Earth than Warming.
Man made Climate Change is 100% lefty kookadoodle hoax.
I have seen no evidence to that. All the ice core data i have seen shows Greenhouse gas's are higher now than at any time in the past 800,000 years. I am not talking temperature i am talking green house gases.
The truth on this will come out because somebody on one side or the other is lying. Either the data is being skewed to support deniers or it's being skewed to support pro-claimer's.
They know from ice core samples from the Arctic that greenhouse gases have not been this high as far as they can go back witch is about 1 million years.
Ice core samples is also the same instrument used to get led out of the gas.They also denied and fought that tooth and nail.
Are you suggesting that glacial ice contained lead from gas? Did Fred Flintstone's car burn leaded gas? Look up the meaning of glacial ice. While you are in the looking up mood, look up the fact that the ice core samples prove that CO2 level increased AFTER a warming period, not before. Therefore elevated CO2 did not cause global warming.
The truth on this will come out because somebody on one side or the other is lying. Either the data is being skewed to support deniers or it's being skewed to support pro-claimer's.
I agree, the data is being skewed one way or the other. It's not unusual for climate data to be skewed to promote one political agenda or another. Or to make a select few powerful and wealthy folks much richer.
I would do that bottle experiment, in the sun, if I could figure out how to let one fill with co2 but have the same internal air pressure as the other bottle. heck put 100% co2 in it
Bill Nye is a mechanical engineer, not a scientist. Not to say that he is not well-read, but the problem is, he is reading someone else's words. If we were to allow what he and his ilk would like for us to do, there would be no measurable change whatsoever in the climate. Now think about this for a minute. Let's say that these folks could actually reduce green house gasses enough to change the climate, what's to say that they wouldn't cause a global catastrophe by going too far and permanently eliminate the green house gasses and turn the planet into Venus?
Bill Nye is a mechanical engineer, not a scientist. Not to say that he is not well-read, but the problem is, he is reading someone else's words. If we were to allow what he and his ilk would like for us to do, there would be no measurable change whatsoever in the climate. Now think about this for a minute. Let's say that these folks could actually reduce green house gasses enough to change the climate, what's to say that they wouldn't cause a global catastrophe by going too far and permanently eliminate the green house gasses and turn the planet into Venus?
Bill Nye is a mechanical engineer with a whole lot of physics. Not my words, his. University records could find out if that's true or not. He has done more than just read other peoples word's. There is video of him at the arctic when he was young and also at one of the facility's in the arctic where they pull the core samples. So he has conversed with these scientist one on one. There is a biography on Bill that shows this running on Netflix. .https://www.netflix.com/title/80182411
I don't believe they want or could eliminate greenhouse gasses, just reduce them.
[/quote] Are you suggesting that glacial ice contained lead from gas? Did Fred Flintstone's car burn leaded gas? Look up the meaning of glacial ice. While you are in the looking up mood, look up the fact that the ice core samples prove that CO2 level increased AFTER a warming period, not before. Therefore elevated CO2 did not cause global warming. [/quote]
The amount of led in the atmosphere at any given point/time was frozen in the core sample. This was testified to in Congress by a scientist. That's why Congress outlawed putting led in gas. You can look that up it's public record. Congress obviously believed the data the core sample told them at that time.
Why isn't Congress doing this today so we can get to the bottom of it ?
It's not true that prevailing scientific theory in the early '70s ignored global warming in favor of a new ice age. Global warming was so accepted even back then that it made it into Hollywood in films of the time, like "Soylent Green."
I prefer the term global warming because that is exactly what is happening. Nature or God has put Venus right in front of us as an example. Greater proximity to the sun cannot account for the hellish climate--Venus is even hotter than Mercury, which is the closest planet to the sun.
As has been pointed out, there is a big difference between greenhouse gases and particulate pollution. (Thank you Charles and Muddyriverdogz.) Particulates, as from a massive volcano, can cause global cooling for a year or so--according to scientific theory. Of course, if you reject science you won't pay heed to that either.
All that being true, I won't deny that some political forces may be using global warming as cover for wealth redistribution. But what do you tell a third-world country that says, "You had your industrial revolution. Now we want ours."
what do you tell a third-world country that says, "You had your industrial revolution. Now we want ours."Jim
you tell them "no!"
after all, the future is green energy. tell them to put up windmills. tell them to install electric car charging stations. tell them to stop raising goats and cows and start raising solar panel farms. tell them to do everything WE'RE being told to do.
to do otherwise, is to do them a great injustice!
why would you saddle them with old technology, while WE leap forward [AGAIN!] past them???
why would we "allow" them to harm the planet more than we have already done? fossil fuels are the past, man...we owe them a future!
(and if they need fossil fuels to catch up, that tells you something right there.)
For Zim: "A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming (Peterson 2008). The large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than 1970s scientists predicting cooling, the opposite is the case."
They know from ice core samples from the Arctic that greenhouse gases have not been this high as far as they can go back witch is about 1 million years.
are you suggesting that a correlation in time proves a scientific cause and effect relationship?
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Climate - 09/09/1910:52 AM
Just one question? If scientist/governments believe we can control climate, why don't we make it rain out west to prevent wildfires? If we have the ability to control climate, controlling weather should be really easy.
Well I remember watching a film in science class that claimed the oil was about to run out and another ice age was unavoidable. Who knows who was claiming what. There were no computers so access to information was not what it is today. I remember that Charlton Hesston movie you refer to. Remember all the ads promoting it and also going to watch it. There was another movie made also. A little more recently. In 2004. The Day After Tomorrow. In that movie everything freezes.
I suspect if anything has warmed it up a degree or two its all the heat produced to keep buildings warm, produced by vehicles, produced by manufacturing. I have seen the fog that was really pollution dropping down into the L.A. area out of Barstow in the 80's. Had black soot on my semi after spending the night near a steel mill in Pittsburg. (again the 80's) . I like to breath. Air quality is important to me. There is a line though. I like a/c and running water. Like being able to travel 15 miles in 15 minutes rather than 2 hours. I believe any warming that may be human caused is being exaggerated for reasons unrelated to air quality.
brian, your superstition is about as accurate as the climatologists at least.
Danny - I am still praying that God reveals Himself to you before you stand before Him. I often wonder why you try to explain away God.....Brian is correct as the Bible says. Man is in control of the climate just like he is over his next breath and the days of his life.
Delingpole: Ship of Fools VI – Arctic ‘Global Warming’ Mission Scuppered By Mysterious Hard White Substance
Yet another greenie expedition to the Arctic to raise awareness of ‘global warming’ has been scuppered by unexpected large quantities of ice. This brings to a total of six the number of Ship of Fools expeditions where weather reality has made a mockery of climate theory. According to Maritime Bulletin: Arctic tours ship MS MALMO with 16 passengers on board got stuck in ice on Sep 3 off Longyearbyen, Svalbard Archipelago, halfway between Norway and North Pole. The ship is on Arctic tour with Climate Change documentary film team, and tourists, concerned with Climate Change and melting Arctic ice. All 16 Climate Change warriors were evacuated by helicopter in challenging conditions, all are safe. 7 crew remains on board, waiting for Coast Guard ship assistance. The reporter, Erofey Schkvarkin clearly has a sense of humour. He adds: Something is very wrong with Arctic ice, instead of melting as ordered by UN/IPCC, it captured the ship with Climate Change Warriors. It appears the mainstream media has failed to get the memo. Here is a tweet from Reuters which appeared after the ship got stuck in ice. (h/t Stewgreen) Here’s another hysterical story about Longyearbyen written by the Guardian earlier in the year – with a correction that puts the nonsense in context. Here is the Ship of Fools list of shame Ship of Fools 1 Australian climate researcher Chris Turkey and a crew of climate alarmists on a mission to demonstrate just how much Antarctic ice has been affected by global warming get stuck in unexpectedly thick ice and have to be rescued by helicopter. Ship of Fools II Arctic expedition led by veteran explorer David Hempleman-Adams to raise awareness of “permanent irreversible change in the sea ice landscape of the Arctic” caused by global warming is ruined by unexpectedly large quantities of ice. Ship of Fools III Global warming research study in Canada cancelled because of ice. “It became clear to me very quickly that these weren’t just heavy ice conditions, these were unprecedented ice conditions” claims the lead scientist, blaming it on “climate change fully in action” and calling it “a wake up call for all of us in this country.” Ship of Fools IV Arctic Mission sailing expedition to North Pole to raise awareness of global warming has to turn back after yachts find their passage blocked by large quantities of unexpected frozen white substance. Ship of Fools V Scientists, students, filmmakers from University of Rhode Island’s Inner Space Center on a mission to “document climate change effects” in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago have to be rescued after the ship is damaged after grounding on unexpected hard, bluey-white substance floating on the sea. Do you think someone up there is trying to tell these people something Source: https://www.breitbart.com/europe/20...bal-warming-expedition-scuppered-by-ice/
It's perfectly reasonable to reject the climate change hysteria, the doom and gloom predictions, and the broader politicization of climate science... while at the same time accept the scientific evidence for global warming. The latter does not necessarily lead to the former.
There are well-respected scientists who have not made those fundamental mistakes, and who've been careful NOT to claim more than the evidence and models can predict.
For instance, Freeman Dyson, Richard Lindzen, Judith Curry, Robert Davis, Ivar Giaever and many others are skeptical of the frantic predictions that we all seem to feed on. The key disagreements here are with the current predictive models and the claimed accuracy of the IPCC climate projections.
I always wonder why the ones that are so sure the end is in sight from global warming, don't quit using fossil fuel if that is the problem. I don't know any of them that have stopped driving and heating or cooling their house. Some how everyone else is the problem and should be the ones giving up fuel.
In the 1970s, when I was in School in NYC, be it public or Cathloic or Lutheren [I bounced around quite a bit...] one thing was always taught and that is how the climates have changed over the millions and millions and millions of years as a result of overpopulation resulting in extinctions of life forms.
I remember learning what killed off the dinosaurs was how their numbers became too great and they wiped out all their plant forms which they consumed, hence they starved to death. Of course, the predators probably liked that - making the plant eaters easier targets - but once they perished, then so did others who preyed of them.
We see it on smaller scales with our own wildlife.
The nice thing about our Planet is that it always seems to bounce back.
It might take millions and millions of more years, but somehow she does give life again.
The difference I see now is how mankind has the ability to do things which the animals never could [industry, changing entire landscapes...] and with the human numbers going way way way up, it's only a matter of time until we too become extinct.
Could you imagine life on our planet with 15 billion people ??
My concern these days is solar energy - because all those panels get super hot and reflect all that heat back into the atmosphere. As the number of solar usage increases [which I view as a very bad idea...] I bet that helps heat things up too.
My other concern is all the RF energy that is in the air due to the abundance of everything going wireless.
I don't think fossil fuels are the problem. I think our numbers are becoming slowly unsustainable.
I always wonder why the ones that are so sure the end is in sight from global warming, don't quit using fossil fuel if that is the problem. I don't know any of them that have stopped driving and heating or cooling their house. Some how everyone else is the problem and should be the ones giving up fuel.
Because peons like you and I are supposed to do as we are told and not what the Libtard's do. Don't ask questions, don't think differently, don't look at evidence or the lack thereof. Just do as your told.
In the 1970s, when I was in School in NYC, be it public or Cathloic or Lutheren [I bounced around quite a bit...] one thing was always taught and that is how the climates have changed over the millions and millions and millions of years as a result of overpopulation resulting in extinctions of life forms.
I remember learning what killed off the dinosaurs was how their numbers became too great and they wiped out all their plant forms which they consumed, hence they starved to death. Of course, the predators probably liked that - making the plant eaters easier targets - but once they perished, then so did others who preyed of them.
We see it on smaller scales with our own wildlife.
The nice thing about our Planet is that it always seems to bounce back.
It might take millions and millions of more years, but somehow she does give life again.
The difference I see now is how mankind has the ability to do things which the animals never could [industry, changing entire landscapes...] and with the human numbers going way way way up, it's only a matter of time until we too become extinct.
Could you imagine life on our planet with 15 billion people ??
My concern these days is solar energy - because all those panels get super hot and reflect all that heat back into the atmosphere. As the number of solar usage increases [which I view as a very bad idea...] I bet that helps heat things up too.
My other concern is all the RF energy that is in the air due to the abundance of everything going wireless.
I don't think fossil fuels are the problem. I think our numbers are becoming slowly unsustainable.
I have seen no evidence of any of your statements. It seems the evidence points to the extinction of the dinosaurs (mostly) from a cataclysmic meteor hit. The have even found the crater and the fossil record shows this. It's pretty much known, proven science at this point with tons of real evidence. Solar panels are not really making things "hotter" They use that energy to make electric. Any energy getting "reflected" back into the atmosphere would only make things cooler. Much like the polar ice caps that reflect a lot more solar radiation than all the solar panels combined to about the 10th power. RF energy again is miniscule in the grand scheme of things. You have fallen into a trap mindset. You are thinking humans are much more substantial than we are. Although we may wipe ourselves out at some point, it won't be from destroying the earth like some kind of Dr. Suess book. The earth will be just fine. Your concerns would be better used worrying about things like Iran building nukes(which they will use). Islam which will eventually take over the world at current rates. Or half of our country trying to take away the rights from the other half of the country. The earth maybe or maybe not raising 2 degrees over the next century is not a concern. It is nothing more than fear mongering from the left. Do 5 minutes of real research.
My Google news feed has been blowing up for the past 3 days about asteroid strikes becoming more likely... So I wouldn't sweat the climate change too much.
I remember seeing a timeline in Scientific American where since the 1800s, every few years people predicted either ice ages or heat waves. Nobody truthfully knows if temperatures will rise or fall and how much humans effect global temperature, or even if we are making the temperature better or worse for human life by our activities.
The whole now climate change movement is about making money and garnering votes.
Every person currently on the planet could live in a 1,200sqft house and all of those houses could fit in the State of Alaska. Part of each house could grow all the food they need.
This planet is so far from being overcrowded! Y'all are astoundingly ignorant and completely ridiculous!
For Zim: "A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming (Peterson 2008). The large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than 1970s scientists predicting cooling, the opposite is the case."
Every person currently on the planet could live in a 1,200sqft house and all of those houses could fit in the State of Alaska. Part of each house could grow all the food they need.
This planet is so far from being overcrowded! Y'all are astoundingly ignorant and completely ridiculous!
I have five people in an 800 sqft house. I think all a person needs is 200.
We, the U.S. and even Europe have cleaned up our act greatly since i've been alive. I remember going NEAR a city and smelling it from a half hour away. When you got there, you couldn't see the sun from the smog. Not the case anymore.
Now here's the part that makes no sense............The track we were on, the Paris agreement, didn't address the countries who haven't cleaned their act up. The new idea, the "new green deal" which will cost us untold amounts does nothing but destroy us. There is no logical arguement to support the main proposals within it.
And here's yet another kicker to this scam...............The same people who agree with this, the ones who are so worried about the pollution the U.S. puts out, are the very same people who support our trade with the country producing the most gasses.....China.
Every person currently on the planet could live in a 1,200sqft house and all of those houses could fit in the State of Alaska. Part of each house could grow all the food they need.
This planet is so far from being overcrowded! Y'all are astoundingly ignorant and completely ridiculous!
I have five people in an 800 sqft house. I think all a person needs is 200.
Take a look at the measurements we are given in Bible for city!
In the 1970s, when I was in School in NYC, be it public or Cathloic or Lutheren [I bounced around quite a bit...] one thing was always taught and that is how the climates have changed over the millions and millions and millions of years as a result of overpopulation resulting in extinctions of life forms.
I remember learning what killed off the dinosaurs was how their numbers became too great and they wiped out all their plant forms which they consumed, hence they starved to death. Of course, the predators probably liked that - making the plant eaters easier targets - but once they perished, then so did others who preyed of them.
We see it on smaller scales with our own wildlife.
The nice thing about our Planet is that it always seems to bounce back.
It might take millions and millions of more years, but somehow she does give life again.
The difference I see now is how mankind has the ability to do things which the animals never could [industry, changing entire landscapes...] and with the human numbers going way way way up, it's only a matter of time until we too become extinct.
Could you imagine life on our planet with 15 billion people ??
My concern these days is solar energy - because all those panels get super hot and reflect all that heat back into the atmosphere. As the number of solar usage increases [which I view as a very bad idea...] I bet that helps heat things up too.
My other concern is all the RF energy that is in the air due to the abundance of everything going wireless.
I don't think fossil fuels are the problem. I think our numbers are becoming slowly unsustainable.
I have seen no evidence of any of your statements. It seems the evidence points to the extinction of the dinosaurs (mostly) from a cataclysmic meteor hit. The have even found the crater and the fossil record shows this. It's pretty much known, proven science at this point with tons of real evidence. Solar panels are not really making things "hotter" They use that energy to make electric. Any energy getting "reflected" back into the atmosphere would only make things cooler. Much like the polar ice caps that reflect a lot more solar radiation than all the solar panels combined to about the 10th power. RF energy again is miniscule in the grand scheme of things. You have fallen into a trap mindset. You are thinking humans are much more substantial than we are. Although we may wipe ourselves out at some point, it won't be from destroying the earth like some kind of Dr. Suess book. The earth will be just fine. Your concerns would be better used worrying about things like Iran building nukes(which they will use). Islam which will eventually take over the world at current rates. Or half of our country trying to take away the rights from the other half of the country. The earth maybe or maybe not raising 2 degrees over the next century is not a concern. It is nothing more than fear mongering from the left. Do 5 minutes of real research.
May be would have been better off to create higher fees for goods from those nations not working to lower emissions. That way instead of tariffs and those collections going to the government, the increased cost of goods coming from the USA or other developed nations would go to the producers and maybe ultimately to workers etc. We have now created an additional tax collection device that may or may not go away in the future.
Why is it that it is always the united states must stop doing this or that first? India, China, Russia and most of southeast asia are worse polluters than us. Seems like some kind of world wide effort to make us as poor as the rest of them.
Bill Nye is a mechanical engineer with a whole lot of physics. Not my words, his. University records could find out if that's true or not. He has done more than just read other peoples word's. There is video of him at the arctic when he was young and also at one of the facility's in the arctic where they pull the core samples. So he has conversed with these scientist one on one. There is a biography on Bill that shows this running on Netflix. .https://www.netflix.com/title/80182411
I don't believe they want or could eliminate greenhouse gasses, just reduce them.
So let me get this straight. "Bill Nye has a whole lot of physics." What does that even mean?! "Not my words, his." I don't believe much of anything which he espouses. His words therefore are mostly meaningless. A liar stating that he is not a liar is not a convincing argument. "There is a video of him at the arctic when he was young and also at one of the facility's in the arctic where they pull the core samples. So he has conversed with these scientist one on one." -There is a video of me standing next to the Rose Queen of Jackson County, Michigan. That does not mean that I did her (in spite of me telling all of my High school buddies that I had).
The amount of led in the atmosphere at any given point/time was frozen in the core sample. This was testified to in Congress by a scientist. That's why Congress outlawed putting led in gas. You can look that up it's public record. Congress obviously believed the data the core sample told them at that time.
Why isn't Congress doing this today so we can get to the bottom of it ?
You have not yet finished your homework assignment of learning what glacial ice is and how old it is. Also there is no led in the atmosphere (your second misuse of "led"), there is only led in zeppelins. How does lead in the atmosphere have anything to do with Global Climate Warming Change?
Carl, I agree Bill Nye is a crackpot. I think you’re talking to a stone post. Climate nuts are impossible. They don’t get how we could love the planet and be conservationists and not believe their BS.
Get this! After years of Obama telling us global warming is gonna flood the coast, showing charts of N.Y. City, New Orleans and Miami flooded, he plops down 14 million for,.............. wait for it....................Ocean front property! lol.
Some good insights in the below link. Also click on the link about Dem's looking the wrong way. Some interesting insights as what can lower concerns and help expand growth etc.
Many times people can have the correct argument but not the best solution(s). Being realistic based on experience and knowledge is helpful in most arguments or debates and being able to look at the long term and not the short term for reasons other than good policy, and that door swings both ways.
Maybe some scientist can change the location of where the glaciers have receded by drawing a large arc on a map with a sharpie that shows them still well below the arctic circle???? Maybe they'll even reach Alabama ..............Then maybe we can all listen to our potus claim that it's the media that puts out "Fake news"!
Do you suppose he could use that Sharpie to redraw the boundaries of the Portage Glacier, which has receded so much that it can no longer be seen from the visitor's center they built recently?
I have some photos of my kids playing on chunks of glacier ice as big as houses that had broken off the glacier and drifted across the lake. Right around 1986, though I don't recall the visitors center being open then. Portage Glacier itself is visible across most of the background in the photos.
Since then the glacier has retreated around the mountain and can't even be seen from the visitor's center.
I haven't seen any mention yet about how all the big money folks that are pushing this are all buying multi million dollar homes and/or own one already in areas they claim will be under water in 12 years. While flying private jets to all their climate meetings.
Anything these folks come up with to save us from ourselves will only be forced upon you and i (the small guy).
They (the elites) will still have what they have and more at our expense!
I have some photos of my kids playing on chunks of glacier ice as big as houses that had broken off the glacier and drifted across the lake. Right around 1986, though I don't recall the visitors center being open then. Portage Glacier itself is visible across most of the background in the photos.
Since then the glacier has retreated around the mountain and can't even be seen from the visitor's center.
Why are you still stuck on the notion that man has no responsibility for the warming trend?
Don't tell me: you own stock in oil companies. What happened, did you finally sell your tobacco stocks?
Jim
An ounce of any proof at all would go a long way. Typically you have none other than staring out a window. Meanwhile, evidence of this being a hoax is not only mounting but for anyone doing any real research on the matter, almost irrefutable.
Do you suppose he could use that Sharpie to redraw the boundaries of the Portage Glacier, which has receded so much that it can no longer be seen from the visitor's center they built recently?
Jim
Jim you are many things, but stupid isn't one of them. Surely you realize that glaciers are ancient relics from the last Ice Age, and that the Earth is in a natural rebound from that ice age in the form of the current Natural Warming Trend which has been going on for the last 10-18 thousand years. Of course they are melting. We need to leave it alone, lest we inadvertently create the next ice age. You want to see mass destruction? What do you imagine an ice age would cause? Is human activity adding to the increase of the temperature of the planet? Does one BB added to a boxcar full of BBs make that boxcar heavier? I'd say yes to both, and in the same amount in terms of significance. That would be insignificantly.
Why are you still stuck on the notion that man has no responsibility for the warming trend? Don't tell me: you own stock in oil companies. What happened, did you finally sell your tobacco stocks? Jim
James, Jim, Jimmy....show me where I ever said man had NO responsibility for the warming trend. I don't know how much (if any) measurable effect man has made on the climate. And frankly, neither do YOU!
my points have always been: if you intend to completely disrupt major economies based on this stuff, you'd better have hard core, common sense and rigorous science backing it up. (even then, it may not be worth the disruption). right now, you have some computer projections that say we might/could/likely have a problem. computer PROJECTIONS, Jim...PROJECTIONS.
the other thing is that (if it's true and clearly evident) then EVERYONE ON THE PLANET carries the same burden to resolve it. one group of people should not be "allowed" to continue to pollute when the technology is there to "fix" it.
we have to rely on green energy? so does everyone else!
and when I say "everyone", I mean EVERY ONE! no exemptions for the "elite".
Why are you still stuck on the notion that man has no responsibility for the warming trend?
Don't tell me: you own stock in oil companies. What happened, did you finally sell your tobacco stocks?
Jim
Respectfully, James I don’t believe that as humans we have the power to do it. We can’t stop a hurricane, thunderstorm, or even a dirt devil.
If president Trump ordered the federal government to raise the global temp 2 degrees in the next 2 years what would they do? I’ll bet we couldn’t do it in ten years. It’s impossible. Yes we can pollute. Make streams, oceans, and soil nasty. But there is a big difference between that and the climate. And all of the climate change deniers like me that I know respect nature. Heck some of us make a living buy it. I’m a grade A conservationist and proud of it. I just don’t buy their bs. Last but not least a majority of scientists don’t agree. The often sighted 97% of scientists agree. Was just a survey taken many years ago. Less then 100 replies were given, and they have been using it ever since.
Man probably can't raise the temp 2 degrees in 2 years so that means we do zippo? Just because something is huge, hard and expensive does not mean that resources should not be utilized to learn what we can as quickly as we can and at the lowest cost in dollars and other assets. The main portion of the Earth where most of the 7 billion live are in the temperate climates of the world, which means they vary considerably for the most part annually and also there is a wide range over time, but a general pattern is set. The extreme portions of the Earth north and South are where most of the temperature changes are impacting the ecosystem. Adding water or moisture to the oceans over time raises water levels. As the oceans warm and the surface and upper layers of water expand as warm water is less dense then cooler water and the heat comes off as moisture which in many areas creates more rain etc. As the deltas and mouths of rivers back up just a few inches due to more rain and higher ocean levels we get more high water way back upstream and also the wind can move the warmer less dense water easier and creates higher waves and more impact on shallow areas around the world. There a multitude of things the World can do to mitigate the impacts of a changing climate, regardless of the causes but if we choose to argue about who is responsible instead of dealing with the issue we are all losers in the end. I feel that raising the human population from a few million to 7 billion in 50 or so generations and we have no impact on any changes on our Earth is a very simplistic and false view of the impact of any and all life on our Earth.
Here's my biggest issue with changing our behaviors to stop alleged climate change. Are the Russians, Chinese, and India going to change? Because if they dont, it really doesn't matter what anyone does. Its global climate change for those that believe in it. Global. The US and Europe probably arent big contributors anymore given all the emission standards we have. Guarantee the other three I mentioned care less as long as their products are cheap and their country keeps ticking.
If we buy into this global climate change then it's only going to be the western world that gives up its freedoms and buries itself in debt for nothing. Going to cost a lot of us dearly.
Those "projections" are like weather forecasts--uncertain, but the best information we have. No scientific certainty, but THE BEST INFORMATION WE HAVE.
If the weatherman says a storm is coming, do you ignore the forecast just because he could be wrong?
Bryce, I will not argue that 7 billion people have an impact on the environment. I’ll lower it to .5 degrees in 2 years. I will still bet short of 50 nuclear weapons we couldn’t move the temp. I will say it again. NASA satellites show now warming for the last 15-18 years. Search Ted Cruz and Sierra club on YouTube. Senate hearings on climate change. Watch it and listen to the other side. I listen and research both sides and have came to the conclusion that it’s an agenda not a real problem. Good debate. Thanks
Those "projections" are like weather forecasts--uncertain, but the best information we have. No scientific certainty, but THE BEST INFORMATION WE HAVE.
If the weatherman says a storm is coming, do you ignore the forecast just because he could be wrong?
Jim
James, that’s my problem with it. It’s not based on data or facts. It’s based in computer programs built by people with an agenda. NOAA simulations showed 3 days out that the last hurricane would hit Florida, Alabama, etc. if I lived there of course I would have taken precautions, but I wouldn’t have sold my house, or screamed in the street that we were all going to die. Those projections have been wrong since 1989, so I’m a weary of them.
Those "projections" are like weather forecasts--uncertain, but the best information we have. No scientific certainty, but THE BEST INFORMATION WE HAVE.
If the weatherman says a storm is coming, do you ignore the forecast just because he could be wrong? Jim
no, but a prudent person would not burn down their house just because a storm might be coming. your side is saying we need to burn down our nice, $250,000 house on an acre and BORROW several hundred million dollars to re-build a cement block hovel for us and $100,000 plain-Janes for everyone else. but of course, WE have to pay for it all.
let's put this in terms you may be more familiar with...
you're the defense lawyer for a client on trial for murder. the prosecution's witness list contains very distinguished experts who all say your client "most likely" committed the crime. the first expert witness has all kinds of charts that they drew up on Corel Draw with all kinds of squiggly lines that seem to say your guy did it. upon cross-examination regarding the data making up the chart, he says "well, my computer program said so". the next three experts (Larry, Moe and Curly) were paid huge amounts of money by the "Foundation to Enslave Millions" to point the finger at your client. but they are "pretty sure" your guy did the crime.
Finally, when it comes time for you to present your defense, the judge says "you won't be allowed to present your defense...we've already decided your client is guilty."
Your side hasn't convinced most Americans to take the steps YOUR side screams we need to (ask AOC). and THAT's true, even though you're brainwashing our kids with only Larry, Moe and Curly's take on it.
We should use the cleanest forms of energy that are practical and available to us. We are drowning in natural gas in this country to a point at which we are flaring it off in great volume. It should replace coal for generating power faster than it currently is. Instead of subsidies and tax breaks to big energy companies, use the money to develop ways to make what we use cleaner(there's no such thing as clean coal)and to develop more efficient, cleaner sources of energy. Nukes are expensive and unpopular but we need to use more of them.
I believe the biggest problem with finding ways to make things better is the profit both sides see to be made by exaggerating their claims.
There is always at least one, isn't there. Is any added expense a no starter? There may very well be jobs lost-pipes replace trucks, no coal ash to be shipped, fewer miners needed, and one BIG kicker lots of very wealthy people will see there profits drop.
We as a country are already doing things to lessen our carbon footprint, for the Dems to say we are doing nothing is a lie. Climate change is more about revenue sharing than anything else.
Keep supporting/investing in the company that imports chinese good grackle, that'll help.
And then when one of the dems take office and implement their ideas of the green new deal that they say will cost us trillions of dollars, don't whine about the debt your kids are going to pay, which seems like a worry of yours.
[i]"Keep supporting/investing in the company that imports chinese good grackle, that'll help".[/i]
What er ya talkin' 'bout, hip? If it's Walmart, I don't care shops there. I rarely do, but I own a fair number of shares in their stock. It's been pretty good to me----nothing spectacular but, slow, steady growth and fair dividend. And I certainly support a business making it own decisions and the customers making the choice where they shop. It's unAmerican to believe otherwise.
Tell me where i'm wrong............................
Your on every climate thread complaining about pollution. Your on every Walmart thread supporting them, stating you own stock in them. Walmart is our leading importer from the countries who pollute the most.
Practice what you preach to us, or stop preaching.
Better check your investments to see if any of the money is in companies that do any business with China, hip. Get it out of them. Otherwise, among other things, you are a hypocrite.
Tell me where i'm wrong............................
Your on every climate thread complaining about pollution. Your on every Walmart thread supporting them, stating you own stock in them. Walmart is our leading importer from the countries who pollute the most.
Practice what you preach to us, or stop preaching.
Better check your investments to see if any of the money is in companies that do any business with China, hip. Get it out of them. Otherwise, among other things, you are a hypocrite.
NO, you hear me complaining about the global warming like you?
Tell me where i'm wrong............................
Your on every climate thread complaining about pollution. Your on every Walmart thread supporting them, stating you own stock in them. Walmart is our leading importer from the countries who pollute the most.
Practice what you preach to us, or stop preaching.
Kinda hard to argue that's not a fair point!
Hippie nailed him to the floor with his own actions and statements.
Grackel learned from all the Dems that cry the sky is falling on the climate and then go to one of their three homes on a private jet. Do as I say not as I do.
Better check your investments to see if any of the money is in companies that do any business with China, hip. Get it out of them. Otherwise, among other things, you are a hypocrite.
NO, you hear me complaining about the global warming like you?
You really are tone deaf.
(besides, all our money is at home now.)
Your opinion of me, or any person or subject, means less than nothing to anyone who possesses the ability of think for himself.. I used to think you and your like were just stubborn or brainwashed. But, while that may be true, I believe you are limited in at least a few other ways. That is why you must stalk, call names, and put words in the posts of others or intentionally misrepresent them to mean something they do not, it proves you to be dishonest at your core.....Ya jist cain't believe somebody kin see things defernt then you do, kin ya? You need to have somebody read my posts to you where I point out the many faults of the dems and their position, including climate change Now, that person would have to be capable of explaining them to you also.
Tell me where i'm wrong............................
Your on every climate thread complaining about pollution. Your on every Walmart thread supporting them, stating you own stock in them. Walmart is our leading importer from the countries who pollute the most.
Practice what you preach to us, or stop preaching.
I may be all that grackle, i'm man enough to face it if you prove it.
So, where am i wrong, or are you just gonna attack me like your blaming me for?
Who said all of we conservatives are dumb? There are some who are dumb to the point of believing conservatives all walk lock step with those who tell them what they must think to be a real member of their group.
NO, you hear me complaining about the global warming like you?
You really are tone deaf.
(besides, all our money is at home now.)
Your opinion of me, or any person or subject, means less than nothing to anyone who possesses the ability of think for himself.. I used to think you and your like were just stubborn or brainwashed. But, while that may be true, I believe you are limited in at least a few other ways. That is why you must stalk, call names, and put words in the posts of others or intentionally misrepresent them to mean something they do not, it proves you to be dishonest at your core.....Ya jist cain't believe somebody kin see things defernt then you do, kin ya? You need to have somebody read my posts to you where I point out the many faults of the dems and their position, including climate change Now, that person would have to be capable of explaining them to you also.
Hippie's opinion means something to me and from your bizarre, very poorly put together, ranting reply, you too.
Keep supporting/investing in the company that imports chinese good grackle, that'll help.
And then when one of the dems take office and implement their ideas of the green new deal that they say will cost us trillions of dollars, don't whine about the debt your kids are going to pay, which seems like a worry of yours.
There isn't anybody whining about the debt there kids are going to be paying now ! So i doubt anything would change and probably wouldn't even matter at this point. Heck we will have negative interest rates before the Dem's get in just to service the debt ! Trump is out there today calling Powell a Bonehead for not taking rates negative. lol
Bernie should get a new slogan like..."We are going to stop global warming and the Greenhouse gases are going to pay for it."
Bizarre and shaken???? I think you must be delusional.
This is what you typed.
Originally Posted by gryhkl
Your opinion of me, or any person or subject, means less than nothing to anyone who possesses the ability of think for himself.. I used to think you and your like were just stubborn or brainwashed. But, while that may be true, I believe you are limited in at least a few other ways. That is why you must stalk, call names, and put words in the posts of others or intentionally misrepresent them to mean something they do not, it proves you to be dishonest at your core.....Ya jist cain't believe somebody kin see things defernt then you do, kin ya? You need to have somebody read my posts to you where I point out the many faults of the dems and their position, including climate change Now, that person would have to be capable of explaining them to you also.
You use bizarre punctuation, sentence structure and non words. You generally don't react quite that poorly, thus Hippie's words obviously shook you.
There is a lot being made of someone's poor spelling and punctuation.
Besides accusations of dishonesty. Maybe Grykl just made a mistake. Relied on erroneous sources. Unless you mean intellectual dishonesty for something said here, how can you be sure someone is dishonest?
How do you know if he's being honest if you can't tell what he's saying? lol
There is a lot being made of someone's poor spelling and punctuation.
Besides accusations of dishonesty. Maybe Grykl just made a mistake. Relied on erroneous sources. Unless you mean intellectual dishonesty for something said here, how can you be sure someone is dishonest?
How do you know if he's being honest if you can't tell what he's saying? lol
Jim
Aww...sticking up for your cheerleader...isn't that special...
I never said you were dishonest, so not sure who their talking about. Could be someone added words somewhere.
I did call out your hypocracy tho, to which you had no response.
(
Anyone who claims that I intentionally post anything that is not true is a liar. Maybe some believe any OPINION that does not match there is a lie.................And somebody's going to jump on your spelling soon, hip.
I own stock in many companies. I am not an activist investor. To invest that way, I'd have to research every company's position on every issue. That would be pretty hard for the stocks in my IRAs and other retirement funds that others manage for me. I suppose I could do it in the portfolio I manage myself, but it would cut into my gains without having any effect on the actions of the companies.
I understand that for investments, but what i don't understand is your support on every Walmart thread knowing what i already pointed out and expecially showing support on the thread about Walmart backing an anti-gun group.(anytown)
A new International Monetary Fund (IMF) study shows that USD$5.2 trillion was spent globally on fossil fuel subsidies in 2017. The equivalent of over 6.5% of global GDP of that year, it also represented a half-trillion dollar increase since 2015 when China ($1.4 trillion), the United States ($649 billion) and Russia ($551 billion) were the largest subsidizers.
Subsidies include all Gov. interaction in an industry, including tax breaks which I believe the fossil fuel industry gets by being able to deduct exploration and equipment right away instead of prorated. I saw where the Gov. gave Green Energy 14 billion in subsidies and fossil fuel 489 million. All kinds of facts out there.
Yes the depreciation and exploration are tax deductible as are all costs in a business and all businesses can use the 179 depreciation which allows the full depreciation in one year, however the very large subsidy that the oil industry gets is the over 20% they can deduct for what is called a depletion allowance. They can deduct the cost of using up their oil supply. I wish I could get a depletion subsidy on my ground I plant, or the rats I take out of the resource or the coons, or the loggers as well. They will never cut that tree again.
I could be wrong but I believe the only oil companies allowed to use the depletion allowance are independent(small) companies. Major oil companies do not qualify for the depletion allowance. Small companies finance their drilling budget from current cash flow. The depletion allowance was designed for them to be able to invest their cash flow into new drilling, both exploratory and development wells. I would argue that this has been of tremendous value to the average taxpayer. I will explain my reasoning if anyone is interested.
I could be wrong but I believe the only oil companies allowed to use the depletion allowance are independent(small) companies. Major oil companies do not qualify for the depletion allowance. Small companies finance their drilling budget from current cash flow. The depletion allowance was designed for them to be able to invest their cash flow into new drilling, both exploratory and development wells. I would argue that this has been of tremendous value to the average taxpayer. I will explain my reasoning if anyone is interested.
Below is the link I used to make my statement regarding oil depletion. I did not read or find the references you were discussing and yes if you are able to share your knowledge for our benefit please do so.
China signed the Paris accord on climate change and agreed to stop or limit pollution . But I have to assume it's all just a game because in the same breathe they will have between 3 and 5 hundred new coal powered power plants on line in the next 10 to 12 years.So I really think the rest of the world should get off our case and go after them. Just my 2 cents.
To refute an unsubstantiated claim someone made earlier, NASA actually says the earth is warming. https://climate.nasa.gov
Jim
James that would be me!
It’s not unsubstantiated, it’s a fact. You just don’t hear about it because of FAKE NEWS. If you buy global warming 100% and never research the facts you wouldn’t know any better, so I’ll give you a pass. NASA satellites data showed 15-18 years of NO warming. That’s when they came up with the new term “the pause “ to explain why there is no warming. It’s Data not my opinion. What does a lake in Colorado lowering have to do with Global warming. We had lakes at record lows here in Kansas last year and they were closed this year because of high water levels. KDWP lost millions because people couldn’t camp. Campsites where under water!!! The Climate Nuts will just say “see the lakes are flooded “ it’s climate change, but I know and many others it’s just the norm. Maybe we haven’t seen it in our lifetime, but I it’s happened before . I seriously doubt senator Cruz would testify in senate hearings about it in front of the whole world. If he didn’t have the facts to back it up. Not trying to be a pain in the butt, but look at the other side of it.
To refute an unsubstantiated claim someone made earlier, NASA actually says the earth is warming. https://climate.nasa.gov
Jim
James that would be me!
It’s not unsubstantiated, it’s a fact. You just don’t hear about it because of FAKE NEWS. If you buy global warming 100% and never research the facts you wouldn’t know any better, so I’ll give you a pass. NASA satellites data showed 15-18 years of NO warming. That’s when they came up with the new term “the pause “ to explain why there is no warming. It’s Data not my opinion. What does a lake in Colorado lowering have to do with Global warming. We had lakes at record lows here in Kansas last year and they were closed this year because of high water levels. KDWP lost millions because people couldn’t camp. Campsites where under water!!! The Climate Nuts will just say “see the lakes are flooded “ it’s climate change, but I know and many others it’s just the norm. Maybe we haven’t seen it in our lifetime, but I it’s happened before . I seriously doubt senator Cruz would testify in senate hearings about it in front of the whole world. If he didn’t have the facts to back it up. Not trying to be a pain in the butt, but look at the other side of it.
[quote=Pawnee][quote=James]
You're not a pain in the butt for making your case and arguing respectfully to others.
I cited a web link to show that NASA says the earth is warming overall. You haven't cited anything.
You can't just say my evidence is fake news. Google it yourself.
Your scenario is ridiculous because criminal trials don't turn on whether the defendant "likely" did it. The judge would dismiss the case, and report the prosecutor to the Bar association, probably.
Your scenario is ridiculous because criminal trials don't turn on whether the defendant "likely" did it. The judge would dismiss the case, and report the prosecutor to the Bar association, probably. Jim
why IS that the case, Jim? is it because the stakes are so high?
why is the required level of proof in a criminal trial so high, James?
(I'll help you out here: it's because the stakes are so high.)
just because YOU'RE willing to surrender your standard of living and the whole of the US economy on less (MUCH less) evidence than what is required to convict a man of selling drugs, doesn't mean the rest of us will.
[side note: I will NEVER AGAIN over-estimate the abstract thinking ability of a lawyer.]
just because YOU'RE willing to surrender your standard of living and the whole of the US economy on less (MUCH less) evidence than what is required to convict a man of jselling drugs, doesn't mean the rest of us will. [/quote]
That's a bit dramatic, don't you think? There are things we should be doing now. Increase the use of nat gas in replacing other fossil fuels(build those pipe lines). More nuke energy. Stop the burning of coal anywhere cleaner forms of energy can be used. Trade policies that pressure other countries clean up there practices. Continue research into developing cleaner forms of energy.
Unlike what some of the liberals advocate, we cannot end the use of fossil fuels all together nor cut there use drastically any time soon. That does not mean we should not take the steps that are right in front of us. It's irresponsible to not do these things.
I understand that for investments, but what i don't understand is your support on every Walmart thread knowing what i already pointed out and expecially showing support on the thread about Walmart backing an anti-gun group.(anytown)
Your reason if it isn't investments is?
I have said that I am no fan of shopping at Walmart. I do it when It's the most convenient place for me(I hate shopping and rarely do it anywhere) I've also said in other posts that, just like we are free to boycott a business because of it's policies, they have every right to establish the policies they see fit.
Given that there have been mass killings inside a couple of their stores, I don't blame Walmart for doing something in response, even if many of us think it's a misstep on their part. As far as I know they have not tried to make other businesses change their gun policies. I would have a big problem with them if they had. Plus,their moves should actually help the mom and pop stores that we all say we wish had more support.
First, when I interjected NASA into the debate. I repeatedly said to go to YouTube and watch the Senate hearings. I have never posted a video on here and don’t have time to figure it out. I also asked for someone to post it for me. I have also provided what to search for. That’s as close to citing as I can get. Please go watch it and respond.
Second, NASA and the EPA are now full of people that have had global warming crammed into their heads since first grade, so when the data shows something different it’s a shock to their systems. I completely understand why they don’t advertise it. It’s human nature to not go against the grain. That’s why they came up with the term “The Pause” they need a way to rationalize the data that goes against everything they have been taught and now believe.
A Senate hearing is a circus. Don't expect to find the truth there, where there is no shortage of deniers.
I did this search: "Does NASA say the earth is warming or cooling?"
All of the links that show up say that NASA says the earth is warming. Yes, there was a pause in the short-term trend, but the overall change for most of the world has been for higher temperatures.
How could there possibly be a global warming pause with all of the CO2 consistently on the rise? Could it be due to the true source of global warming? Fluctuation in Solar activity?
How could there possibly be a global warming pause with all of the CO2 consistently on the rise? Could it be due to the true source of global warming? Fluctuation in Solar activity?
It's not fluctuation in solar activity, according to NASA.
How could there possibly be a global warming pause with all of the CO2 consistently on the rise? Could it be due to the true source of global warming? Fluctuation in Solar activity?
Carl you just committed the cardinal sin. Never, and I mean never bring solar activity. They will not discuss it.
Every time I put DEF fluid in my tractor, inspect the date on my propane tanks, and spill gas all over the ground trying to use the new no-spill gas cans, I am glad to do my part as the lay man for the "greater good" of a society.
I'm sure thankful all those folks so much more intelligent than me know how to save our civilization.
It's funny to think in ancient civilizations they used to require offerings and even human sacrifices to win favor from the gods for good weather and to win wars, ect.
I'm sure the lay man in those ancient worlds were glad to do their part for the "greater good" also.
I feel the same way about non-Christians. as a Christian, if I end up being wrong...oh, well. no harm, no foul. but if non-Christians are wrong...they end up being eternally separated from God's love.
I don't mean to be dismissive, but there is no analogy between a criminal trial and global warming.
Your demand for proof of global warming beyond a reasonable doubt is a big risk. What if you're more likely than not going to be wrong?
I suppose there were people on the Titanic who demanded proof beyond a reasonable doubt the ship was sinking.
Jim
Jim, you've committed the pernicious counterfactual fallacy here. It's also a bit like Pascal's Wager by hedging your bets, neither of which are valid argumentative strategies....strictly speaking. But then as a lawyer you know the value of rhetorical strategies. That is until your opponent in the court room recognizes the fallacy and objects, right?
You're also conflating different requirements of evidence. The 'beyond a reasonable doubt' threshold is sufficient for legal proceedings but it's not for scientific research. The threshold is much higher in the sciences, at least in theory if not practice.
Your honor, I object! Counsel is speculating about what the risks might be IF the global warming Chicken Littles are correct, thus concluding what my client ought to do based on speculation of what might be the case. Your honor, I submit that we have not yet determined whether the global warming Chicken Littles are correct, which is exactly what this case is all about.
Objection sustained.
Thank you, your honor. You're a smart dude....I owe you one!
When something is beyond a reasonable doubt, and important as global warming, shouldn't reasonable measures be taken to lessen it's effects. It certainly should not be dismissed just because it MIGHT not be as bad as we fear.
.....and this does not mean I favor the new green deal.
When something is beyond a reasonable doubt, and important as global warming, shouldn't reasonable measures be taken to lessen it's effects. It certainly should not be dismissed just because it MIGHT not be as bad as we fear.
.....and does not mean I favor the new green deal.
There is nothing in your fictional camp that even comes close to beyond a reasonable doubt. If you believe so, then prove it. My suggestion is to stop embracing the chicken little defense and sit down and actually follow the facts, real facts. And no, I'm not going to be your B, do it yourself for the love. Are you receiving payment from some liberal arts school to make really stupid post and record the findings.
When something is beyond a reasonable doubt, and important as global warming, shouldn't reasonable measures be taken to lessen it's effects. It certainly should not be dismissed just because it MIGHT not be as bad as we fear.
Pascal's Wager
The exact same line of reasoning could be used to argued against "lessening it's effects" because of the economic risks and subsequent global catastrophe that would result, especially for third world countries and developing nations that need such resource utilization to build their economies. In short, that line of reasoning is simply flawed from the get go.
God created this earth and gave Adam and all his posterity dominion over it. It was created for our use.
There are no coincidences. HE knew we would need fuel. HE provided coal, oil, natural gas (and yes sun, wind, water, uranium and ??). How brilliant - the energy from the sun / photosynthesis - captured and stored for centuries in natural fuel cells "batteries". God would not have provided fossil fuels if he didn't want us to use them. There are no coincidences!
The real climate deniers are those who deny the earths climate has changed and will continue to change with or without man's influence. As if, of all points in geologic time, this is the climate point we should (and could ----hear GOD laughing uproariously in the background) freeze frame, and maintain it right here! Yah, Right!
We used a trackhoe to dig a hole in a sandstone ledge for our basement. We found dinosaur bones, a sharks tooth and a crocodile tooth. I think the climate has changed a bit in Vernal Utah. No green new deal, or blue new deal, or any other egotistical human deal, would have influenced that change one way or another!
Just like we can freeze frame the mix of species of plants and animals on earth to what we have right now with the endangered species act (hear GOD laughing uproariously in the background).
God created it all for our use. He just wants us to be good stewards, recognize HIS gifts, and show our gratitude.
All of the things being proposed by government's to stop climate change are designed to give corrupt politicians more control over us while they line there pockets (look at Al Gore and carbon credits and the rest of the lot ). None of it will affect what the climate does.
It's one of the biggest hoaxes ever perpetrated on mankind. And most that buy into it are doing it because they want to place trust into some higher power to keep them safe and haven't learned to place their trust in GOD.
Suppose you own a valuable building. You are considering whether to insure it against fire and flood.
If you don't buy the insurance, and suffer a fire, your building is a total loss. Your small business fails. Your family may go have to go hungry, without health insurance. That's a pretty catastrophic loss.
On the other hand, if you skip the insurance and never have a fire, you'll save the money you would have paid for insurance premiums for years.
So what do you do? My bet is you get the insurance. The reason is the chance of a fire is so catastrophic, while the cost of premiums spread over time is a lesser burden. Your business won't go under because of the cost of the fire insurance.
Now, substitute global warming--a potentially catastrophic event--for a building fire. A change in our use of fossil fuels, including a greater cost of energy, is like the insurance premiums. You see where I'm going?
I don't favor drastic measures that would undermine our lifestyle. But we do need to first recognize the problem.
Trust GOD. Acknowledge HIS hand. Be a good steward . Show gratitude.
Do all those things and we'll all be fine.
How do we show gratitude and be good stewards? Don't waste the precious gifts HE is giving us. Be clean and efficient with them. And remember to thank HIM.
That is how I will pay my insurance premiums. I am confident that insurance will pay off.
Giving over the premiums corrupt politicians are telling us will protect you???? Good luck with that!
You see where I'm going? I don't favor drastic measures that would undermine our lifestyle. But we do need to first recognize the problem. Jim
I see exactly where you're going, Jim, but you're just repeating the same fallacy with another failed analogy because the underlying premise is flawed, viz., the so-called problem we all need to recognize. It's not as clear cut as you would like to believe. As I pointed out in an earlier post on this very thread:
Quote
It's perfectly reasonable to reject the climate change hysteria, the doom and gloom predictions, and the broader politicization of climate science... while at the same time accept the scientific evidence for global warming. The latter does not necessarily lead to the former.
I don't see the value or need to accept either position whole cloth simply because I'm told to oblige or because it's so obvious. There's nothing obvious about it. But to be fair, the elevation of climate change to an indisputable truth is a product of folks like you, not us. In other words, we have not been shoving this religious mumbo jumbo down everyone's throat with threats of extinction-level annihilation.... You have!
Suppose you own a valuable building. You are considering whether to insure it against fire and flood.
If you don't buy the insurance, and suffer a fire, your building is a total loss. Your small business fails. Your family may go have to go hungry, without health insurance. That's a pretty catastrophic loss.
On the other hand, if you skip the insurance and never have a fire, you'll save the money you would have paid for insurance premiums for years.
So what do you do? My bet is you get the insurance. The reason is the chance of a fire is so catastrophic, while the cost of premiums spread over time is a lesser burden. Your business won't go under because of the cost of the fire insurance.
Now, substitute global warming--a potentially catastrophic event--for a building fire. A change in our use of fossil fuels, including a greater cost of energy, is like the insurance premiums. You see where I'm going?
I don't favor drastic measures that would undermine our lifestyle. But we do need to first recognize the problem.
Jim
Genuis. Global warming, er...... I mean climate change insurance. I'm gonna be rich.
I don't mean to be dismissive, but there is no analogy between a criminal trial and global warming.
Your demand for proof of global warming beyond a reasonable doubt is a big risk. What if you're more likely than not going to be wrong?
I suppose there were people on the Titanic who demanded proof beyond a reasonable doubt the ship was sinking.
Jim
Jim, you need to get with the Program. Its Climate Change, not Global Warming. I can't believe that you missed that memo. FYI, your people changed it due to two primary reasons. 1) The Pause in Global Warming. 2) Climate Change cannot be argued against since it has gone on since the beginning of time. It also cannot be measured due to the complexity and vastness of the planet/atmosphere, and its inherent perpetual and constant fluctuations. (A brilliant strategy created by brilliant people seeking to keep the money train on time at the money station.)
Hopefully Trump gets us back on a path of domestic manufacturing again. Loss of manufacturing is the #1 reason I voted for him. Its an untenable position when your country produces vast amounts of cotton, millions of cattle, has huge reserves of uranium, natural gas, and coal, a very loyal Allie just to the north with vast amounts of iron ore, but cannot produce blue jeans, boots, or steel.
..............Then maybe we can all listen to our potus claim that it's the media that puts out "Fake news"! 