# Global Warming Explained



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 25, 2011)

OK, I can see that we're all having some trouble here, so I thought I'd take a moment and break it all down for you.

In the beginning, there was the earth.  And it was very, very, hot.  But eventually it cooled off some, and green stuff started showing up.  Then critters came along and they ate the green stuff and other critters ate the critters that ate the green stuff, and pretty soon, there was a whole what-you-call ecosystem going on.

Occasionally, stuff would happen.  Sometimes, the earth would burp up a bunch of hot stuff and smoke and it caused problems for the critters and the green stuff.  Things would heat up; or cool down.  Sometimes it killed off great gobs of the critters and the green stuff.  And then sometimes, big things from outer space would smack into the earth and that would also kill off lots of critters and green stuff.

The heating and cooling developed into cycles; some lasted for a long time and some lasted for a short time.  Some repeated over and over again, and some eventually ended and new cycles took their place.  The shortest ones were called 'weather' and the next shortest were called 'seasons' and the longest ones were called 'climate'.

Eventually, the critters developed the ability to make things out of the parts of the earth, and they began to change things in a way that other critters and all the green stuff had mostly not.   They turned solids into liquids, liquids into gasses, and basically just set things up to suit themselves.  Sometimes the changes they made caused other critters and green stuff to die off.  The earth didn't care much, and mostly the critters didn't either.  But the tool-making critters sometimes wished they hadn't done whatever it was they did that caused things to change.  But others were happy, they liked the things they made, like internet pr0n and MTV and microwave burritos. 

Eventually, some of the thinky-critters started looking at the cycles that the earth went through.  They tried to apply principles to the cycles, starting with the weather.  They called it predicting the weather, and they were occasionally right.

Some of these folks who thought they could predict the weather applied some of the same principles to climate.  And some of them thought that perhaps the changes the thinky-critters had made were affecting the climate.  Things were getting hotter before they would have done if left to their own devices.  This warming trend might eventually cause the thinky-critters to die off, just like the other critters and green stuff had done before them.

Or it might not.  It was hard to predict the weather; it was harder to predict the climate.  The people who thought that there might be changes were unsure.  Some thought it would be worse.  Some thought it would be minor.  Some didn't think it would happen at all.  Some thought the changes were happening, but that they were not significantly different from the changes that would have happened anyway.  And of course, the earth had not stopped burping, and rocks might still crash into it and set things back again, just as they had so many times in the past.

But the thinky-critters who had decided that the other thinky-critters had in fact set in motion changes that would eventually kill off the other critters and green things had a lot invested in their theories.  It got them elected to high office.  It got them money to do more studies.  It got them dates with Hollywood stars.  And they called it 'Global Warming'.  They called anyone who disagreed with them 'deniers' and they did their best to make it seem as if anyone who even had a question about their methods or motives was a 'denier' and they even tried to make sure that 'deniers' didn't get jobs in the climate-predicting industry.

And so they proposed that Something Must Be Done.  This 'something' was a bit mushy around the edges; no one was quite sure what it entailed.  But mostly, it was thought, that since messing up the earth had been relatively fun and easy, fixing it would have to be difficult and painful.  It would have to involve lots of the thinky-critters giving up their things and their money and living as their pitiful ancestors had, for long periods of time.  And this was not guaranteed to fix things, but it might.

Some thinky-critters objected to this; they lived in countries which had not yet had their turn at having fun messing up the earth, and they resented being asked to help fix it.  They were called 'emerging nations'.  So the thinky-critters decided that the emerging nations would not have to put themselves in hardship to fix the planet.  But the other nations would have to.

Now, this voluntary privation would cause the 'developed nations' to not be competitive with the 'emerging nations', but the thinky-critters who felt that the earth was broken by the agency of other thinky-critters didn't care.  They wanted something to be done, and they didn't much care if it caused great hardship or if it caused nations to no longer be great, powerful, or wealthy.

Fortunately, some of the thinky-critters were not fooled.  They knew that the 'Global Warming' might indeed be real, and that some of it might even be caused by the agency of thinky-critters, but they also thought that given how well the weather was predicted, the chances of climate being predicted was even less of a science; and that even if it was accurate, there might or might not be anything thinky-critters could do to fix things, and even if they could fix things, the chances were low that the things they would do would the right things.  And that giving up huge amounts of money to fix things that might or might not be a problem, and which they might or might not even be able to fix, while giving up their economy and letting the 'emerging nations' take over instead, was not really something that they wanted to have happen.

So they said "Stuff it, bone heads."  And that was the end of that.


----------



## Sukerkin (Oct 25, 2011)

Can't Rep you presently Bill, so public appreciation of induced chuckles it has to be for you .


----------



## MA-Caver (Oct 25, 2011)

My argument has always been thus. How do we know that this "global warming" isn't a NATURAL process of the earth? Oh sure we farted and polluted the planet and tore a nice big hole in the "ozone" layer and the seas have millions of gallons of crude oil floating around in a convoluted mess. Yet the planet went through not one but TWO ice ages. The second one was not as long or as intense as the first one... but it did happen. Lots of people got their bunwaleas froze off but they survived.
There is still a lot that we don't understand about our planet and it's ecological system. We haven't been on it long enough and while tremendous advancements have been made in the field of meteorology and geology and lots of other "ologies" we still don't have all the answers. 
So instead of panicking we should just try to minimize OUR damages to the earth and let the rest take care of itself. Mankind, survived BOTH ice ages and I earnestly believe that we'll survive this global warming. We may have to move away from our ocean front properties but that's life, and the risk that one takes when one builds a house with the ocean a stone's throw from your back porch. Same as the ones who place their houses and towns along fault lines and along areas known to habitually spawn tornadoes annually like clock work during a certain time of the year. 
We as a species need to remember that we do not control the planet in any shape or form. If we did Katrina wouldn't have happened. The tornadoes that tore up the south earlier this year wouldn't have happened and the earthquakes in Japan and else where on the planet wouldn't have happened. 
As Mr. Miyagi from the Karate Kid said: walk on left side of the road--safe, walk on right side of road-- safe... walk in middle of road--sooner or later *squished* like grape.


----------



## Empty Hands (Oct 26, 2011)




----------



## crushing (Oct 26, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


>




The next frame shows a bankster, a lobbyist, and a politician each with wads of money stuffed in the pockets saying in unison, "Shhhhh.  It's not for nothing!"


----------



## punisher73 (Oct 26, 2011)

Sometimes I think that as humans we are like that little bug buzzying around an adults ear.  Soon, when the adult has had enough, it swats and squishes the little bug.  I think that mother earth will soon have enough and swat us and bring back balance.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 26, 2011)

punisher73 said:


> Sometimes I think that as humans we are like that little bug buzzying around an adults ear.  Soon, when the adult has had enough, it swats and squishes the little bug.  I think that mother earth will soon have enough and swat us and bring back balance.



we cannot destroy the planet.  We cannot make it uninhabitable for all forms of life.  But we can make it uninhabitable for humans.

Mother Earth doesn't just decide that she's "had enough", and cannot deliberately "bring back balance".  There is no deliberate will in that sense.

balance develops as a result of many factors interacting, and once balance is lost it can take many thousands, and even millions of years for a comparable balance to develop again.  Humans are definitely having a diverse effect on the planet, and we could destroy our own home, upsetting the balance needed for human existence.  Even a dog knows not to **** in its food bowl, but that is exactly what Humans do.

Agent Smith said it very well: Humans are a virus.


----------



## HammockRider (Oct 27, 2011)

Whether Global Warming exists or not is almost irrelevant. There are far too many pollutants in the enviroment. Pregnant women are now warned against eating fish because of the mercury content. Drinking water contains a Mulligan Soup of pharmaceuticals and industrial products.  If the big, bad scary Global Warming doesn't exist we  still need to clean up our act and stop dumping poisons into our enviroment.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 27, 2011)

Flying Crane said:


> balance develops as a result of many factors interacting, and once balance is lost it can take many thousands, and even millions of years for a comparable balance to develop again.  Humans are definitely having a diverse effect on the planet, and we *could* destroy our own home, upsetting the balance needed for human existence.  Even a dog knows not to **** in its food bowl, but that is exactly what Humans do.
> 
> Agent Smith said it very well: Humans are a virus.



The operative word is 'could'.  I don't spend my money on 'could'.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 27, 2011)

HammockRider said:


> Whether Global Warming exists or not is almost irrelevant. There are far too many pollutants in the enviroment. Pregnant women are now warned against eating fish because of the mercury content. Drinking water contains a Mulligan Soup of pharmaceuticals and industrial products.  If the big, bad scary Global Warming doesn't exist we  still need to clean up our act and stop dumping poisons into our enviroment.



Fine.  Spend your money.  Leave my money alone, because I'm not interested.


----------



## punisher73 (Oct 27, 2011)

Flying Crane said:


> we cannot destroy the planet. We cannot make it uninhabitable for all forms of life. But we can make it uninhabitable for humans.
> 
> Mother Earth doesn't just decide that she's "had enough", and cannot deliberately "bring back balance". There is no deliberate will in that sense.
> 
> ...



so much for literary device.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 27, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> The operative word is 'could'. I don't spend my money on 'could'.



well we ARE on a path of pollution which very well COULD lead to an environment that is miserable for humankind, if we don't make some changes.

If we don't make some changes, we WILL create an environment that is miserable, if not outright hostile, to human existance.

I get it that you feel it won't affect you personally, perhaps we won't see full-blown effects in your lifetime, so it doesn't bother you. That message is loud and clear.

I personally suspect that it may be too late anyway.  Too much pollution momentum already out there to just turn the train around even if we completely stopped all pollution globally today.  I think we are already in for a rough ride, no matter what we do at this point.


----------



## Empty Hands (Oct 27, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> The operative word is 'could'.  I don't spend my money on 'could'.



Of course you do.  At least, as long as you have health, car or homeowners insurance, which I assume you do.  The question is never "could" vs. "will", but rather competing risk vs. reward weighted by the probabilities of events occurring and intervention doing something about it.  That is rational.  Demanding epistemological certainty is not rational, because it is not possible, and you don't demand it for things you aren't politically disposed to disregard.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 27, 2011)

HammockRider said:


> Whether Global Warming exists or not is almost irrelevant. There are far too many pollutants in the enviroment. Pregnant women are now warned against eating fish because of the mercury content. Drinking water contains a Mulligan Soup of pharmaceuticals and industrial products. If the big, bad scary Global Warming doesn't exist we still need to clean up our act and stop dumping poisons into our enviroment.





Bill Mattocks said:


> Fine. Spend your money. Leave my money alone, because I'm not interested.



This is really funny. I mean, you are advocating we continue to **** in our own food bowls. Or at least you intend to do so.

OK, so **** in your own food bowl. Leave my food bowl alone, because I'm not interested.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 27, 2011)

Flying Crane said:


> well we ARE on a path of pollution which very well COULD lead to an environment that is miserable for humankind, if we don't make some changes.



Except no one knows what changes, and of the available options, what they will do, and again, the operative word is 'could'.  Could also means 'might not'.



> If we don't make some changes, we WILL create an environment that is miserable, if not outright hostile, to human existance.



Now you went from could to will.  And you don't describe the changes.  And we don't know if these changes, once described, will work.



> I get it that you feel it won't affect you personally, perhaps we won't see full-blown effects in your lifetime, so it doesn't bother you. That message is loud and clear.
> 
> I personally suspect that it may be too late anyway.  Too much pollution momentum already out there to just turn the train around even if we completely stopped all pollution globally today.  I think we are already in for a rough ride, no matter what we do at this point.



I've heard that also.  So that's pretty much that.  If we can't change the environment, adapt to it.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 27, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> Of course you do.  At least, as long as you have health, car or homeowners insurance, which I assume you do.  The question is never "could" vs. "will", but rather competing risk vs. reward weighted by the probabilities of events occurring and intervention doing something about it.  That is rational.  Demanding epistemological certainty is not rational, because it is not possible, and you don't demand it for things you aren't politically disposed to disregard.



Good points.  On the other hand, those things you mentioned directly benefit me.  Extracting money from my wallet that might fix some problem we might have at some point in the far future...not so much.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 27, 2011)

Flying Crane said:


> This is really funny. I mean, you are advocating we continue to **** in our own food bowls. Or at least you intend to do so.
> 
> OK, so **** in your own food bowl. Leave my food bowl alone, because I'm not interested.



Works for me.  See, I don't insist that you not change the world; go on and change it.  I only don't want to pay for it.  However, those who do want to change the world seem to want me to pony up for something I am not interested in.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 27, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Works for me. See, I don't insist that you not change the world; go on and change it. I only don't want to pay for it. However, those who do want to change the world seem to want me to pony up for something I am not interested in.



I'd like for you to stop ******** in my food bowl.  Would you please do that?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 27, 2011)

Flying Crane said:


> I'd like for you to stop ******** in my food bowl.  Would you please do that?



Does it cost me money?


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 27, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Does it cost me money?



It might.  But you won't be alone in the endeavor.  We are all in that boat together.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 27, 2011)

Flying Crane said:


> We are all in that boat together.



But we're not.  For example, the Kyoto Accords.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 27, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> But we're not. For example, the Kyoto Accords.



would you be willing to stop ******** in my food bowl?  You are dancing around the answer.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 27, 2011)

Flying Crane said:


> would you be willing to stop ******** in my food bowl?  You are dancing around the answer.



No, I'm being fairly clear.  The answer is, if it costs me money, then I'm not interested in changing anything I do.  Especially if it costs me money and gives other countries a competitive advantage over mine.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 27, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> No, I'm being fairly clear. The answer is, if it costs me money, then I'm not interested in changing anything I do. Especially if it costs me money and gives other countries a competitive advantage over mine.



Let the record show that Bill Mattocks believes he has the right to **** in everybody's food bowls, especially if his financial interests would be affected.


----------



## Jenna (Oct 27, 2011)

http://www.actionforourplanet.com/#/top-10-polluting-countries/4541684868

I had based my opinion previously on China and India being the top two polluting nations.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 27, 2011)

Flying Crane said:


> Let the record show that Bill Mattocks believes he has the right to **** in everybody's food bowls, especially if his financial interests would be affected.



Glad you got that out of your system.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 27, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Glad you got that out of your system.



the record is clear.  I'm surprised you actually feel this way.


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 27, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> gives other countries a competitive advantage over mine.



    Thats my biggest problem with the entire Global Warming theroy. They want the US to change, Pay more for the things we make, tax ther CO2 output for companies, yet our competators in the world market dont need to follow the same rules. 
    So It now causes even more jobs to go overseas, higher prices for products I need to support my family, and has little impact on the enviorment since places like China, Mexico, India, middle east and Africa dont change anything. 
    To top it all off there is still ZERO proof that climate change has anything to do with people. So we will handcap the few manufacturing jobs we have left in this country and cause everyone to pay more for things for nothing and the entire time these go Green activists like Al Gore and leo decaprio will still have private jets, huge houses, and pockets full of money they have made off the Go Green movement.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 27, 2011)

Flying Crane said:


> the record is clear.  I'm surprised you actually feel this way.



Feel what way?  You're the one who wanted to make me the bad guy.

All I want to do it be left alone and not charged money to fix something that we don't know we broke, don't know can be fixed, and don't know if our 'fixing' will actually fix it.  I also don't want my country to become less competitive worldwide because we're an 'advanced nation' whilst 'developing nations' like India and China do not have apply the same kind of pollution controls to their industries, leaving them able to out-compete us on price.

As I said, I don't tell you to give money so that I can live my life.  And if you want to save the world, have at it.  Just don't ask me to pay for whatever it is you think we should be doing.

I separate my recyclables in my trash, and give my bottles with deposits on them to the Boy Scouts when they come around once a year.  I keep my car tuned up.  Unless we really *are* all in this together - meaning everyone in all nations - then I'm not willing to do more for something that might or might not be a problem anyway.

If that's a surprise to you, I'm a little surprised myself.  I've always said I'm a conservative; it's only the ultra-right-wingers on MT who say I'm not.


----------



## Empty Hands (Oct 27, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> To top it all off there is still ZERO proof that climate change has anything to do with people.



Absolutely false.  You can believe what you like, but you aren't entitled to your own facts.  There is a very large pile of evidence showing just that.


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 27, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> Absolutely false. You can believe what you like, but you aren't entitled to your own facts. There is a very large pile of evidence showing just that.



All I can say is you can march out your 50 experts that prove your point of view and I can find 50 more experts that disprove your point. Why are your experts more right then mine? Fact is they have no Facts its all opinions of so called "experts". Water freezes at 32 degs is a fact. We all stop driving cars and the temps of the planet will stop changing is NOT a fact.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 27, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Feel what way? You're the one who wanted to make me the bad guy.



Bill, I asked you if you would be willing to stop ******** in my food bowl. You couldn't even say "yes" to that on a hypothetical level, without tagging on "only if I don't have to pay anything for it". Here's the funny thing: you and I both eat out of the same food bowl. So by ******** in my food bowl, you also **** in your own. It's all connected. Whether or not you believe in human driven gobal climate change, the rate at which we pollute our environment and spoil our natural resources such as water supplies and food sources, is astounding. Global climate change or not, pollution is bad for us all.

and yet you cannot even bring yourself to say, "I'd be willing to stop ******** in the food bowl". Nevermind the political issues surrounding it, nevermind what other nations might be doing or not doing, you can't even say it for yourself.

If you look like the bad guy in this, it's because of what you have said.


----------



## Empty Hands (Oct 27, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> All I can say is you can march out your 50 experts that prove your point of view and I can find 50 more experts that disprove your point.



No, you can't.

Even if you could though it would still disprove your assertion that there is "no evidence."


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 27, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> No, you can't.
> 
> Even if you could though it would still disprove your assertion that there is "no evidence."


You trying to say I cant find enviormental Scientists that will say Man Made Global Warming is a Hoax?  There are just as many that say its fake as there are that say its real.  All have the same big fancy degrees from the same big fancy schools.


----------



## Empty Hands (Oct 27, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> You trying to say I cant find enviormental Scientists that will say Man Made Global Warming is a Hoax?  There are just as many that say its fake as there are that say its real.  All have the same big fancy degrees from the same big fancy schools.



Can you find them?  Yes.  Are there "just as many"?  No, not by a long shot.  Consensus in the field is greater than 20 to 1 at least.


----------



## Sukerkin (Oct 27, 2011)

Flying Crane said:


> the record is clear.  I'm surprised you actually feel this way.



Me too - we've been around this dance-floor a couple of times but I thought BillM had more sense than that.  

Try expressing the problem on non-AGW terms to see if it helps think things through.  e.g if you don't pay a dollar to push the button on this device that's strapped to your wrist with a timer counting down, it might do nothing or it might blow your hand off.  What do you do?


----------



## Sukerkin (Oct 27, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I've always said I'm a conservative; it's only the ultra-right-wingers on MT who say I'm not.



Agreed wholeheartedly :nods:.  

But why does being a Conservative have to mean you're not willing to take a punt on doing something about an issue that if we don't fix it we will have big troubles ahead?  If the temperature keeps rising, the human race is in 'harms way' {again}, so we need to figure out if there is anything meaningful we can do to stop it before it is too late.  On that basis, it is almost irrelevant if what we have done as a 7 Billion Strong species is making things worse.  AGW or not-AGW the thermometer is rising ...


----------



## Josh Oakley (Oct 27, 2011)

(deleted because someone already made the point I was going to and I should have read throughthe whole thread before I posted instead of being a TOOL)


----------



## billc (Oct 27, 2011)

Ballen0351,

You can look and actually find the experts who disagree with the "consensus" on man made global warming, but be prepared.  Your experts will be deemed big oil corporate shills, "only" meteorologists or hacks, and the "consensus" will be used against you as if you are a vampire and it is a crucifix.  You could point out the e-mails discovered in Climategate, the fact that the IPCC report from the U.N. was put together by scientists who are making fortunes off of global warming...climate change, and that the e-mails show they destroyed data, tried to have scientists who questioned their "facts" banned from peer reviewed scientific journals, threatened to get the editors of those journals replaced if they allowed "deniers" into their journals, and obstructed the quest for actual scientific inquiry.  Keep in mind that "global climate change" is happening the way that there wasn't anything faster than the speed of light...until just a few weeks ago when something may have been found that was faster than the speed of light.

While you may simply want to examine what scientists who say it either isn't happening or that man has no part in it, that is heresy, and will not be condoned.  You will simply be deemed not smart enough, or a political extremist, and your opinions will be discounted.

Be prepared, and step boldly forth.

And shame on you for not wanting some politician to take your money away from you to save the world...of course they will also necessarily have to give a little to their friends and relatives.  But you can't put a price on saving the world can you?


----------



## billc (Oct 27, 2011)

Why is it that the industrialized world must give up advancement and the developing world must enact population controls and not develop, and people think that this is alright.   With all the greed, corruption, waste, fraud and abuse at all levels of government and within all government agencies, people buy hook line and sinker the notion that global warming is actually fact, without a hint of doubt about wether they are being played for fools by the people who stand to make vast sums of money off of man made global warming hysteria.  At what point did these "scientists" and politicians become all knowing and infallible?  To the point where people will be happy to down grade civilization based on these wizards of smart.


----------



## billc (Oct 27, 2011)

To skip ahead, yes, I believe the planet has experienced global warming AND global cooling, in cycles throughout history, and that we may now be entering a cooling period, much like the 1970's, the mid 1940's and the period of the revolutionary war.  I just do not believe that mankind has the ability to impact the climate in any meaningful way.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Oct 27, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> You trying to say I cant find enviormental Scientists that will say Man Made Global Warming is a Hoax?  There are just as many that say its fake as there are that say its real.  All have the same big fancy degrees from the same big fancy schools.



Ok. Quote some. Show some studies.


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 27, 2011)

Josh Oakley said:


> Ok. Quote some. Show some studies.


Why will it change your mind?  Funny thing about political issues is once you decide your side is correct you could be smacked in the face withthe truth and will never change you mind.  You want to read studies google it 100s of studies will show up.  Read them and ignore them if you want.  In the mean time amirillo texas just got record snow today but dont worry all this global warming will melt it away.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 27, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> Agreed wholeheartedly :nods:.
> 
> But why does being a Conservative have to mean you're not willing to take a punt on doing something about an issue that if we don't fix it we will have big troubles ahead?  If the temperature keeps rising, the human race is in 'harms way' {again}, so we need to figure out if there is anything meaningful we can do to stop it before it is too late.  On that basis, it is almost irrelevant if what we have done as a 7 Billion Strong species is making things worse.  AGW or not-AGW the thermometer is rising ...



I have doubt that there is anything man can do to return the climate to what it was.  And I am loathe to destroy our already-precarious economy to try stuff.  Worse would be if we could actually affect the climate, but made things worse.  But given our ability to terraform (at this point, nil).

And as I've said, this cost is not to be pressed down evenly upon the brow of mankind, but forced on the 'wealthy' and 'developed' countries, regardless of which are the major polluters.  Nations like China get the buy, they don't have to cut emissions or pay anything; which puts them in a commanding position vis-a-vis the American Decline.

All of this to reverse what is predicted variously as a 1 to 2 degree rise in temperature over the next 100 years and oceans levels raising up by something less than a foot.  Yes, it won't be good, especially for those who live in coastal plains and areas where it is already very hot.  On the other hand, 100 years is a lot of time to move or take other precautions.

So my conservative position is this; I don't want to spend money on radical changes that a) the West has to bear, putting us at a disadvantage economically and b) might not do a bloody thing anyway.

That's a conservative point of view.  I don't deny Global Warming, nor do I believe that humans did not have any agency in it (I just have some doubt that AGW has been proven); but more importantly than that, I don't want to pay for 'fixes' that I have no confidence will 'fix' anything, and hurt us in the meantime.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 27, 2011)

Flying Crane said:


> Bill, I asked you if you would be willing to stop ******** in my food bowl. You couldn't even say "yes" to that on a hypothetical level, without tagging on "only if I don't have to pay anything for it". Here's the funny thing: you and I both eat out of the same food bowl. So by ******** in my food bowl, you also **** in your own. It's all connected. Whether or not you believe in human driven gobal climate change, the rate at which we pollute our environment and spoil our natural resources such as water supplies and food sources, is astounding. Global climate change or not, pollution is bad for us all.
> 
> and yet you cannot even bring yourself to say, "I'd be willing to stop ******** in the food bowl". Nevermind the political issues surrounding it, nevermind what other nations might be doing or not doing, you can't even say it for yourself.
> 
> If you look like the bad guy in this, it's because of what you have said.



If I chase you around until you admit you are in favor of euthanasia for pets which have contracted incurable diseases, I can then announce you are an admitted puppy-killer.  I didn't say I want to deposit feces in anyone's food bowl; that's your emotional buzzsaw, not mine.  I just don't feel like playing that semantic game with you.  I don't want to pay for 'fixing' the planet.  If you choose to characterize that as crapping in your kitchen pantry, so be it.  Your words, not mine.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Oct 28, 2011)

I have been in multiple Global Warming posts/threads/discussions/arguments/silliness both on and off MT&#8230;. andfrankly I was not going to comment here because it is pretty much useless sinceboth sides are as partisan as US politicians and far beyond listening to logic and reason.... but want to know what I think&#8230;.look it up is it here.

The main problem here seems to be who we want to point the finger at and whether or not we want to take responsibility or not&#8230;. It is so much easier to blame someone or something else because if you take responsibility then if things go to hell in a hand basket you have no one but yourself to blame and lord knows we don&#8217;t want that.  I know it all seems like a worthwhile thing to do&#8230; but frankly, IMO, it is a complete waste of time. Bottom-line&#8230;is the planet getting warmer and if you answer anything but yes you are in denial. Ice is melting, climates are changing, water levels are rising, and weather patterns are changing to. Is any of this long term or is it short term and before you answer that understand we are may be talking Geological time which means equating that to human time it ALL becomes long term.

Now as to who or what is to blame? Frankly I don&#8217;t care. The actual thing we need to do is figure out if we can do anything about it because if we can we best get busy before it is too late, if it is not to late already. If we can&#8217;t then we best get ready for an uncertain future&#8230;and invest in property on higher ground because eventually you will have ocean front homes in Pennsylvania, central California and the southern coasts of Alabama and Georgia. Of course I am only talking about the USA&#8230;. Same thing for any low lying coastal area all over the world&#8230;it will be underwater and many major cities could end up underwater.

There are multiple reasons for the climate to change on this planet; Earth orbit changing (and it does and has by the way) Earth Axial shift (also happens), gallons of fresh water being introduced into the salt water systems (this is very bad by the way &#8211; see melting ice), increased levels of Carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere (see industrial and car emissions&#8230; and if you blame cows I will waste no more time talking to you), very large volcanic eruptions (think Krakatau or Yellowstone, heck Mt Saint Helens had an effect), decrease in the pH and increase in acidity in the oceans (Which is happening). There are tons of reasons as to why climate changes. Now if I remember correctly and if you can take into account geological history, we should be in a cooling phase, not a warming phase. But even that is uncertain because it is possible that the beginning of a cooling phase starts with warming&#8230;. Not sure I buy that one but I did once read a rather compelling argument for that possibility. 

Global warming does not mean that the entire planet is going to get warming, so stop pointing to places that are getting cooler as proof there is no global warming... all that shows is that you do not understand what global warming is. It means that many places are getting warmer and some are actually going to get colder. Weather patterns change, Oceanic conveyor belt system shuts down and places get no warm currents or warm air masses so&#8230;.they get colder. Oh and let&#8217;s not forget the Younger Dryas&#8230;. Now that would be a change.. a devistaing climate change&#8230;and rather fast to&#8230;even in human time

So gentleman please, continues arguing&#8230;it is a complete waste of time&#8230;.accomplishes nothing&#8230; and the earth gets warmer&#8230;. See you on the beach on the Southern coast of Georgia


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Oct 28, 2011)

Anyone else imagine Karl Childers from Sling Blade narrating the OP?  No?  Hm...


----------



## JohnEdward (Oct 28, 2011)

Politics and money can't seem not to infect everything.

I pay taxes and have little or no control where or how that money is spent. Currently it seems allot of it is spent in or as a result of politics, and on very little on what really matters.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Oct 28, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> Why will it change your mind?  Funny thing about political issues is once you decide your side is correct you could be smacked in the face withthe truth and will never change you mind.  You want to read studies google it 100s of studies will show up.  Read them and ignore them if you want.  In the mean time amirillo texas just got record snow today but dont worry all this global warming will melt it away.


Maybe you should leave this argument to the big boys then. Mattocks and billcihak, when asked, will actually post their sources when asked. Billcihak and I have disagreed on multiple points of multiple topic. But there is a mutual respect that allows us to debate and yes, on occasion, he has changed my mind on things. You are of the opinion, judging from your words, that your opponents will never change theory mind no matter what information the encounter. So that begs the question: why are you posting in a debate forum? If you aren't actually trying to change people's minds, then what is your intent? Do you just like being contentious for the sake of contention? Do you just put your views out there so you can cackle, crow, and say , " I told you so" should it turn out you happen to be right? Or are you just that impressed by your own typing?I really hope this isn't the case. I am rather hoping you are a valued debate partner.


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 28, 2011)

Josh Oakley said:


> Maybe you should leave this argument to the big boys then. Mattocks and billcihak, when asked, will actually post their sources when asked. Billcihak and I have disagreed on multiple points of multiple topic. But there is a mutual respect that allows us to debate and yes, on occasion, he has changed my mind on things. You are of the opinion, judging from your words, that your opponents will never change theory mind no matter what information the encounter. So that begs the question: why are you posting in a debate forum? If you aren't actually trying to change people's minds, then what is your intent? Do you just like being contentious for the sake of contention? Do you just put your views out there so you can cackle, crow, and say , " I told you so" should it turn out you happen to be right? Or are you just that impressed by your own typing?I really hope this isn't the case. I am rather hoping you are a valued debate partner.



Naa I just find internet tough guys like yourself are not worth my time.  Had the person I was actually chatting with asked me for the information I would have gladly responded or had you provided a counter point to my post I would have gladly engaged you in the debate.  However when a internet tough guy pops in and makes a 6 word post saying prove it, well lets just say this is not my first rodeo I know when someone wants to actually debate and when someone just wants a fight and well Everyone knows what comes from fighting over the internet.


----------



## Sukerkin (Oct 28, 2011)

Gentlemen, I wonder if perhaps you aren't getting off on the wrong foot with each other here?  It doesn't take much to become irritated with each other in a medium such as this, where we can't read expression or tone very easily.  Give each other another chance and see where it leads you.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Oct 28, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> Naa I just find internet tough guys like yourself are not worth my time.  Had the person I was actually chatting with asked me for the information I would have gladly responded or had you provided a counter point to my post I would have gladly engaged you in the debate.  However when a internet tough guy pops in and makes a 6 word post saying prove it, well lets just say this is not my first rodeo I know when someone wants to actually debate and when someone just wants a fight and well Everyone knows what comes from fighting over the internet.


Actually I was genuinely asking for the information. I have read both sides, but if you have something new I would like to see it. I mean you could have brought up Dr. Roy Spencer of NASA who talks about how a lot of the earth's heat is being lost into space, or a number of articles from skepticalscience.com, etc. etc. And you didn't.


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 28, 2011)

Josh Oakley said:


> Actually I was genuinely asking for the information. I have read both sides, but if you have something new I would like to see it. I mean you could have brought up Dr. Roy Spencer of NASA who talks about how a lot of the earth's heat is being lost into space, or a number of articles from skepticalscience.com, etc. etc. And you didn't.



Your right I could have provided you links.  
Heres a site my pal Bill sent me http://climatechangefacts.info/#ViewsBySkeptics

Or  This is one I check out at times

http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/


I have no problems against cleaning upthe earth if it makes sense. My issue is the methods the GreenPolice want us to do. Its dishonest for people likeAl Gore to fly around in private jets and tell me I need to ride abike to work. Its dishonest to say America needs to reduce itsfactory emissions yet we dont want mexico, india, China to do itbecause they are emerging nations. Its false science to say we canmeasure the co2 output of a steel mill in Pittsburgh and tax them onit and when they reach the limit the Govt sets force them to buycredits from other countries so the mill can stay open. Its dishonestto jack up food prices because farmers are selling all the corn tomake gas. A Gas that cost more and kills engines and has no realimpact on the environment. I just dont agree with throwing money at aproblem when we dont even know if it can be fixed. It would be likeyour car not starting and instead of finding out exactly whats wrongand fixing it you just start buy new parts changing them until itstarts. 

You want to fix the problem fine find concreteundeniable proof that if we do XYZ then things will get better. Untilthen Im not in the mood to waist my money and handicap the few jobproducers we have left in this country over a theory.


----------



## billc (Oct 28, 2011)

Josh Oakley, be careful, you are just going to encourage me.


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 28, 2011)

I could use some global warming right now its freezing outside


----------



## billc (Oct 28, 2011)

In posting the following article I accept the attacks...I know, I know, this has absolutely nothing to do with anything to do with why people should question the validity of global warming hysteria...but come on, the earliest snow since the civil war...keep in mind the part about snow and the civil war and the word "early"...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2054719/North-east-braces-October-snow-inches-predicted-areas.html



> New York has received measurable snow before Halloween only three times since 1869 - and never more than one inch, which is what some experts are predicting.
> It would be the earliest one-inch snowfall in the city since the Civil War.
> 
> The heaviest snows are expected between 5pm and 8pm Saturday night, although the temperatures could bring light snow throughout the night.
> ...



One question that comes to mind...is Al Gore anywhere in the area.  Usually when he is giving a global warming hysteria, I mean, global warming speech there is unexpected and record setting cold spells, or so it seems.

Next, this early snow has happened three times since 1869...hmmmm....


----------



## JohnEdward (Oct 29, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> Your right I could have provided you links.
> Heres a site my pal Bill sent me http://climatechangefacts.info/#ViewsBySkeptics
> 
> Or  This is one I check out at times
> ...



And dangnabit, I will be damned if I use one square of toilet paper to wipe my nether regions, specifically me ****.


----------



## JohnEdward (Oct 29, 2011)

The politics and hypocrisy on both sides will keep this argument alive for decades.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Oct 30, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Josh Oakley, be careful, you are just going to encourage me.


All a part of my devious master plan!


----------



## Josh Oakley (Oct 30, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> Your right I could have provided you links.  Heres a site my pal Bill sent me http://climatechangefacts.info/#ViewsBySkepticsOr  This is one I check out at timeshttp://www.climatescienceinternational.org/ I have no problems against cleaning upthe earth if it makes sense. My issue is the methods the GreenPolice want us to do. Its dishonest for people likeAl Gore to fly around in private jets and tell me I need to ride abike to work. Its dishonest to say America needs to reduce itsfactory emissions yet we dont want mexico, india, China to do itbecause they are emerging nations. Its false science to say we canmeasure the co2 output of a steel mill in Pittsburgh and tax them onit and when they reach the limit the Govt sets force them to buycredits from other countries so the mill can stay open. Its dishonestto jack up food prices because farmers are selling all the corn tomake gas. A Gas that cost more and kills engines and has no realimpact on the environment. I just dont agree with throwing money at aproblem when we dont even know if it can be fixed. It would be likeyour car not starting and instead of finding out exactly whats wrongand fixing it you just start buy new parts changing them until itstarts. You want to fix the problem fine find concreteundeniable proof that if we do XYZ then things will get better. Untilthen Im not in the mood to waist my money and handicap the few jobproducers we have left in this country over a theory.


  Interestingly, for all that people tout corn ethanol, its production actually has a NEGATIVE impact on the environment. http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/4032I did a research project on the topic about 5years ago during my first go-round at college. This article highlightsghts some of the more problematic issues with corn ethanol. Personally, I wish they would bring back the gas turbine car. People in America didn't cotton to it because they were too used to standard engines, but those things were reliable, massively fuel efficient, and simple. I actually AM an environmentally minded person, and used to focus a lot of effort towards that front. I got the recycling program expanded at my old college because when I presented it to the board I touched on the beneficial environmental impacts, but FOCUSED on showing, in real numbers, how the added revenue from the sale of recyclables would offset the added janitorial costs. I also got a statement from the facilities manager saying that the added janitorial workload would be minimal, and that he was heavily in support of the project. Finally I showed three rough estimates from three separate companies showing the potential proffit (I was told I had stepped on some toes by getting these rough quotes, because a student government member doesn't have the power to commit the college to contracts, but since the facility manager had helped me get the quotes, and hadn't actually committed to anything, I got off Scott Free). When it went to board, it won by unanimous decision. I had turned what was at the time a politically divisive issue (others had tried to get similar program expansions before, but used unfriendly rhetoric) into a simple and obvious financial decision. The way I approach environmentalist topics is like that of an old-timey conservationist pragmatism. There are a number of environmental issues that can be addressed in economically responsible ways, and they are the things I focus on. BTW, I am no particular fan of al gore, but I would advise against going ad hominim when evaluating his claims. It is a fallacy for a reason, and ot takes the focus off the important part of the discussion: the claims themselves. ( sorry this is all one big run-on. My phone refuses to learn the concept of paragraphs.)


----------



## billc (Oct 30, 2011)

Well...the north east U.S. just recieved about 2 feet of global warming goodness over the weekend.  Imagine if we didn't have global warming...it might have been 4 feet of freezing, icy goodness.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Oct 30, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Well...the north east U.S. just recieved about 2 feet of global warming goodness over the weekend.  Imagine if we didn't have global warming...it might have been 4 feet of freezing, icy goodness.



If we didn't have global warming we may have gotten none at all.... or we may have gotten more.... the world will never know.

Either way I have snow in my yard at the moment


----------

