- This topic has 5 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 9 months ago by dajepson.
March 26, 2014 at 4:19 pm #20195tom.osborne78Member
Here’s my 2 cents on climate change:
With the extremely high rates of CO2 emitted, it makes intuitive sense that this would cause a dangerous chemical imbalance in the earth’s atmosphere and should cause the earths temperature to increase. The earth has in fact been heating up at a rate of 1 degree C per century, which is causing glaciers to melt and deserts to become drier.
The earth was in fact warmer during the Middle Ages (800 – 1300 AD), then it is today. During the Middle Ages, ship logs from Icelandic fishermen indicate that the polar ice cap was much farther north than it is today. Grapes were grown for making wine in central England, 500 km further north than they can be grown today. Greenland actually was green and had many farms. There were towns in the Alps that are today covered by glaciers.
The earth, was unquestionably warmer in the Middle Ages than it is today. Records of ice cores prove that the warmer temperatures actually preceded increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide by several centuries.
Between the years 1303 and 1308, the earth rapidly turned colder and continued to get colder until 1700. Farms in Greenland were abandoned. The English wine industry disappeared. Towns in the Alps were engulfed by glaciers and are still covered by glaciers. The Thames would freeze over nearly every year, as would the Hudson and Delaware rivers. This period became known as the Little Ice Age. The year 1700 is generally considered to be the coldest point of the Little Ice Age.
The earth has in general, been warming since 1700 at a rate of 1 degree C per century. This rate was the same before and after the Industrial Revolution, which indicates that the burning of fossil fuels does not seem to be the cause of the warming of the earth. The warming is due to the natural temperature cycle.
So how can the high levels of carbon dioxide emissions have no effect on the warming of the earth? The amount of carbon dioxide emitted each year is a drop in the bucket compared to the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by and absorbed by the oceans.
Global warming is a huge fraud. It is being used by power greedy politicians as an excuse to raise taxes and control greater portions of the economy. Global warming is being used by greedy undeveloped countries to extort money out of developed countries. The Global Warming scare is being used by greedy scientists to attract increasing amounts of research funding.
Source: The Little Ice Age by Brian FaganApril 6, 2014 at 10:36 am #20196patriciacollingParticipant
Sometimes I don’t even understand why the power brokers even bother with pretense. They seem to be able to extract wealth and have more and more control over the population without approval by its sentiment. Really, how many people are concerned with climate change? Most people are just trying to buy themselves some leisure and golden years with their productivity (and a rainy day fund for the responsible ones) to worry about these things. When and if the population decides government is its bane and what, if anything, the population will do about it, is anyone’s guess.April 6, 2014 at 8:12 pm #20197dardnerMember
I’m not so sure about part of your conclusion. The people of undeveloped nations would probably like to develop. It seems to me, all this hoopla about climate change is being used to bring about things like cap and trade. This is a protectionist racket used to ensure only the largest and most wealthy firms are able to exist. In other words, smaller firms that cannot bear the additional costs find themselves effectively barred from entry. I would bet that if these large firms find the additional carbon costs too much, some sort of subsidy will come their way.
What is an imbalance, we are told the climate has changed in the past, we are told it is changing now, what is balancing it? People have always lived around rivers, the rivers flooded so they lived outside of the flood plane, Now we live in the flood plane and act shocked when there is a flood. Humans have the ability to adapt to their environment and have the nerve to wave their hands when the environment doesn’t adapt to us.April 10, 2014 at 1:07 pm #20198patriciacollingParticipant
Osgood401: I wonder if the same people crying global warming want to subsidize people living in flood zones–I have often argued your point about living in flood zones. I’m glad you mentioned it. Perhaps the man-made global-warming enthusiasts (actually, as you say–protectionists; and, also, as I would suggest, possibly– misanthropes) want to encourage foolish homesteading to prove [cough] their point.April 11, 2014 at 7:45 pm #20199dardnerMember
I can’t be sure of how well they have thought this all out but if the United States were covered with active volcanoes I am sure the government would go out of its way to incentivize people to live there.
It is funny you mention misanthropes. I have a friend who argues about how awful people are to the planet and how much better off the planet would be without the presence of human stupidicus. You should have seen the look of dismay on his face when I explained to him that his environmental concerns are meaningless without people to experience it, as the state of the environment is only significant with its ability to support human beings. And the irony is that left on its own the planet will eventually wipe out all life as we know it and all but the truly misanthropic will be calling for man-made climate change to remedy us from this fate.June 14, 2014 at 1:27 pm #20200dajepsonMember
As the OP noted, it is indeed intuitive to think that an increase in atmospheric CO2 might cause warming temperatures, through the well-known greenhouse effect. However, as also noted above, the evidence is much stronger that temperature changes in fact drive changes in CO2 concentration. And given this, it is IMPOSSIBLE that CO2 is also driving temperature. If this were the case, we would have long ago seen a runaway feedback loop leading to the destruction of all life on earth.
I highly recommend watching the YouTube video of Murry Salby’s presentation in Hamburg last year:
It takes him barely over an hour to comprehensively blow the entire man-made climate change hypothesis out of the water. If you don’t like math, you can skip the first half-hour without missing too much, though be aware that this section contains some important material on interpreting the proxy record.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.