"Global Warming" and "Ozone Depletion" Are they real?

[pdrake65]

Fact:There was an ice age.

Fact: We are no longer in an ice age.

Fact: Global Warming occurred prior to any industrial progress of man which led to the end of the ice age.

Do we really think that with the miniscule amout of climate/temperature date we have on record (that which hasn't been manipulated) is of any real consequence in trying to determine what the is normal for this planet?

What we have to base our theories on is a drop in the bucket in comparison to the overall picture.

Not to split hairs here ( and by the way you make some good points) but if you are saying that we have no recent data to determine what is normal for this planet how can you say it is not occuring? You also stated that global warming has occured... which is it?

[pageyjim]

Your link is from NOAA, which has come under suspect for manipulation of climate change data. I do applaud your checking out other thoughts though.

Because absolutes from so long ago cannot yet be 100% accurate, but nearly as good as within the past 100 years have been and even more so then the manipulated data we have received over the past 30 years, we do need to allow for a margin of error. However, soil analysis for what plant life and minerals were prevelant during any time period are pretty darned accurate.

So, let's take a look at this; http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/Boon_To_Man.html[/SIZE]

This article is about the time period Medieval Europe refers to as the Mini Ice Age. For a few hundred years, a global cooling trend created frozen rivers and a harsher life for Medeival Europe. In essence, the ending of the Dark Ages coincided with the Earth warming up.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...an-empire.html

Thomas Gale Moore
senior fellow
Expertise: International trade, deregulation, privatization. Looks like the resume of an average conservative scientist.

He seems especially qualified to talk about climate change.

[RoBoTeq]

There was an ice age? There have been at least 5 major ice ages.

We are no longer in an ice age? It depends on how nit picky you want to be because technically we are still in an "ice age."

Again a false argument and a silly premise that because warming has occurred before therefore we are not adding to it and bringing on a dangerous situation even faster. It is like saying that you have a customer that has a ref. leak and you cause a schrader core to stick open you did not contribute to the situation since it has happened before.

We have records that go back from between 750,000 to over a million years of data. It is enough to see trends and make reasonable calculations.

Now you are just playing games in order to denounce what you don't want to admit to and to make what you are claiming sound viable.

The last actual ice age ended while mankind was just appearing on the scene. The so called Medieval Mini Ice Age was not really an ice age, but rather an anomaly of global cooling interrupting the warming trend from the last true Ice Age. In other words, nature has taken many twists and turns without any influence from mankind.

And yes, global warming would be beneficial to mankind. While those living directly on what are for intent an purposes, barrier islands or breakwater areas, will lose their properties as ocean levels rise about a foot maximum, the additional water surface will increase precipitation which increases farmable land, oxygen and sea life.

One of the best things would be that it would just not be feasible to keep bailing out the idiots who live near coastal areas on land that is below sea level.

[RoBoTeq]

Not to split hairs here ( and by the way you make some good points) but if you are saying that we have no recent data to determine what is normal for this planet how can you say it is not occuring? You also stated that global warming has occured... which is it?

Through inspecting layers of earth from bygone eras, it is more accurate to ascertain what occured during thousand year periods in the past then it is to predict what is going to happen in the future due to atospheric data over the past 100 years.

From history, we can learn possible future patterns much better then we can predict the future using relatively recent weather patterns. I have a shirt (and the original drawings for the shirt) that shows a caveman drawing dire effects of the sun on the wall of a cave, telling other cavemen that at the rate the sun is warming the Earth, they will all be burned alive in just a few years. The other panel, the back of the shirt, shows one of the other cavemen confronting the first Chicken Little, saying; "It's called Summer, you moron!" That is about the best depiction of these climate factor scare mongers I can think of.

[RoBoTeq]

Thomas Gale Moore
senior fellow
Expertise: International trade, deregulation, privatization. Looks like the resume of an average conservative scientist.

He seems especially qualified to talk about climate change.

Typical leftist tactic of disclaiming any source that does not agree with them. Even though this source does agree with the source that you cited.

You people are truly pathetic. Well, those who are making money by fear mongering are just greedy, mean people. If you are not making lots of money from fear mongering over climate variations, then I can only think of you as a pathetic lemming type who only sees the butts of those you are following until you run out of ledge and plummet to your well deserved demise.
.

[pageyjim]

Typical leftist tactic of disclaiming any source that does not agree with them. Even though this source does agree with the source that you cited.

You people are truly pathetic. Well, those who are making money by fear mongering are just greedy, mean people. If you are not making lots of money from fear mongering over climate variations, then I can only think of you as a pathetic lemming type who only sees the butts of those you are following until you run out of ledge and plummet to your well deserved demise.
.

LOL, try reading your post while you look in a mirror.

You are the one that seems afraid.

[pageyjim]

Now you are just playing games in order to denounce what you don't want to admit to and to make what you are claiming sound viable.

The last actual ice age ended while mankind was just appearing on the scene. The so called Medieval Mini Ice Age was not really an ice age, but rather an anomaly of global cooling interrupting the warming trend from the last true Ice Age. In other words, nature has taken many twists and turns without any influence from mankind.

And yes, global warming would be beneficial to mankind. While those living directly on what are for intent an purposes, barrier islands or breakwater areas, will lose their properties as ocean levels rise about a foot maximum, the additional water surface will increase precipitation which increases farmable land, oxygen and sea life.

One of the best things would be that it would just not be feasible to keep bailing out the idiots who live near coastal areas on land that is below sea level.

Wrong, we are still in an "ice age." We are in an interglacial part of one. While the last glacial maximum period ended app 10,000 years ago. And mankind was not just appearing as you say.

[RoBoTeq]

LOL, try reading your post while you look in a mirror.

You are the one that seems afraid.

The only thing that I fear on this subject is that naive lemming people will continue to believe the farsical crap that deceitful science and those making money from deceitful science will continue to get support from fascist politicians who use this deceitful science to keep the masses in a constant state of fear so they are easier to manipulate and control. Every dictator who ever ruled used similar tactics.

[bunny]

There was an ice age? There have been at least 5 major ice ages.

We are no longer in an ice age? It depends on how nit picky you want to be because technically we are still in an "ice age."

Again a false argument and a silly premise that because warming has occurred before therefore we are not adding to it and bringing on a dangerous situation even faster. It is like saying that you have a customer that has a ref. leak and you cause a schrader core to stick open you did not contribute to the situation since it has happened before.

We have records that go back from between 750,000 to over a million years of data. It is enough to see trends and make reasonable calculations.

While there have been, as you say, 5 major ice ages...to most non-argumentative persons the term "ice age" typically refers the most recent colder period that peaked at the Last Glacial Maximum approximately 20,000 years ago, in which extensive ice sheets lay over large parts of the North American and Eurasian continents.

The fact is, you seem to want to cloud every basic premises that is put forth here with irrelevant dribble...

So, whether there have been one of five ice ages, there is some cyclicality in the climate and temperature which occurs on this planet.

That fact remains: There was "that" ice age.

That global warming occurred "without" man being the cause.

Ergo: There are climatic and temperature cycles that have occurred "naturally"...independently of mankind.

I don't believe any of us out here have said steadfastly that manking has not contributed in some way to some measure of global warming and/or ozone depletion.

However; the facts are clear that certain scientists have manipulated data to serve their own agendas.

Additionally, the 750,000 years of data to which you speak....we have a record in the earth's makeup showing the "results" of changes it has been through. Now, whether we interperet that data correctely based on our very narrow (timewise) point of view is another entirely different matter.

Whether global warming exists isn't the real point here, although I still maintain that our maybe 100 year database of recorded temperature is highly inadequate to interpolate what this planet has gone through for thousands of years.

We have no idea what the "natural" occuring changes should be because we have no frame of reference for comparison.

And there is no reason to trust someone with an agenda for determining which of our freedoms to take away, and to what degree fees while be imposed, to serve said agenda.

Might as well take the fox's word for it that the henhouse is in good order.

[jeremyhall.tech.sc]

You are making the argument that because "temperature cycles" happened before that man can't be responsible is a false argument at best.

Curious why you use the time period of thousands of years and not the better false argument of millions of years. Is there a reason you didn't use millions?

How did you unknowingly come across an article from 1921 about climate change? And again with your logic how did an article from 1921 counter the scientific argument for climate change today?

Follow the money trail to see who benefits from the status quo.

damn right! i bought stock in rubber and the dupont co. , see where it leads me?

[jmac00]

this is the greatest thread ever.

A bunch of folks arguing over a subject so complex not even the real scientist can agree on it.

Yet here we are. A place were we can only look back at history and speculate on a uncertain future.

A future I might add, that not one of us can even contemplate changing. Even if EVERYONE in America were to go totally "green" tonight, we still have 6 BILLION Chinese and 5 BILLION Indians, not to mention All the third world countries that really couldn't give a rats azz about some smoke coming from the factory down the street or the smoke coming from there cars.

So what exactly are we arguing about? Can we change the course of Climate change?......nope.

Is there anything I can do about it...nope.

So do I really care.......I have to admit.....not much.

[RoBoTeq]

Wrong, we are still in an "ice age." We are in an interglacial part of one. While the last glacial maximum period ended app 10,000 years ago. And mankind was not just appearing as you say.

Well then, if we are still in an ice age, then how in the world can we be condemning global warming? Then again, as usual, you show nothing to support your claim that we are in an ice age, other then attempting to redefine "ice age". By your method of terming our being in an interglacial part of an ice age, the Earth has been and will always be in an ice age since the time the first ice formed on Earth. All "interglacial" means is that we are between the "glacial" periods. As long as ice is formed at either of the Poles, one can argue we are in an ice age. It's a stupid argument that is very deceitful, but as long as everyone is willing to just make up any definition we want, we can all justify anything we state.

If "ice age" is used to refer to long, generally cool, intervals during which glaciers advance and retreat, we are still in one today. Our modern climate represents a very short, warm period between glacial advances.
Then again, we can't learn anything, just constantly argue.

http://www.museum.state.il.us/exhibi..._ice_ages.html

I am in error about mankind appearing at the end of the last "glacial advance" period of our current "ice age" (damn, you people really make it difficult to communicate). Modern man, homo sapiens sapien, developed during the last "glacial advancing" and survived when whooley mammaths and saber toothed tigers went extinct.

The bottom line is this; more dramatic cliate changes have occurred many times since the advent of mankind being on Earth, and the Earth has been warmer then it is now, and mankind prospered because of it.

[RoBoTeq]

this is the greatest thread ever.

A bunch of folks arguing over a subject so complex not even the real scientist can agree on it.

Yet here we are. A place were we can only look back at history and speculate on a uncertain future.

A future I might add, that not one of us can even contemplate changing. Even if EVERYONE in America were to go totally "green" tonight, we still have 6 BILLION Chinese and 5 BILLION Indians, not to mention All the third world countries that really couldn't give a rats azz about some smoke coming from the factory down the street or the smoke coming from there cars.

So what exactly are we arguing about? Can we change the course of Climate change?......nope.

Is there anything I can do about it...nope.

So do I really care.......I have to admit.....not much.

Some of us are trying to get others to understand that pumping billions of dollars and restrictive regulations into this fabricated rabbit hole is stupid and dangerous.

[pageyjim]

this is the greatest thread ever.

A bunch of folks arguing over a subject so complex not even the real scientist can agree on it.

Yet here we are. A place were we can only look back at history and speculate on a uncertain future.

A future I might add, that not one of us can even contemplate changing. Even if EVERYONE in America were to go totally "green" tonight, we still have 6 BILLION Chinese and 5 BILLION Indians, not to mention All the third world countries that really couldn't give a rats azz about some smoke coming from the factory down the street or the smoke coming from there cars.

So what exactly are we arguing about? Can we change the course of Climate change?......nope.

Is there anything I can do about it...nope.

So do I really care.......I have to admit.....not much.

You make some interesting points, but I am still hopeful.

BTW, scientists do agree by an overwhelming degree.

[jmac00]

You make some interesting points, but I am still hopeful.

BTW, scientists do agree by an overwhelming degree.

what scientist? Hell we can't get 5 people on this forum to agree on anything. The only scientist that agree on anything are the ones that get a grant for 'something' from the government.

Trust me, if you give me a grant for $100G's, I'll tell you anything you want to know and I'll defend that position to the death. Especially if I think I can get $200G's next year

[pageyjim]

Well then, if we are still in an ice age, then how in the world can we be condemning global warming? Then again, as usual, you show nothing to support your claim that we are in an ice age, other then attempting to redefine "ice age". By your method of terming our being in an interglacial part of an ice age, the Earth has been and will always be in an ice age since the time the first ice formed on Earth. All "interglacial" means is that we are between the "glacial" periods. As long as ice is formed at either of the Poles, one can argue we are in an ice age. It's a stupid argument that is very deceitful, but as long as everyone is willing to just make up any definition we want, we can all justify anything we state.

http://www.museum.state.il.us/exhibi..._ice_ages.html

I am in error about mankind appearing at the end of the last "glacial advance" period of our current "ice age" (damn, you people really make it difficult to communicate). Modern man, homo sapiens sapien, developed during the last "glacial advancing" and survived when whooley mammaths and saber toothed tigers went extinct.

The bottom line is this; more dramatic cliate changes have occurred many times since the advent of mankind being on Earth, and the Earth has been warmer then it is now, and mankind prospered because of it.

We haven't always been in an ice age actually. A simple google search would suffice to define ice age and show evidence that we are still in one just as I said.

To your last point it is not the Earth that would be in danger it would be human beings, economies and society as we know it. And yes the Earth has gone through more dramatic changes but we are here now in this moderate time.

[jmac00]

We haven't always been in an ice age actually. A simple google search would suffice to define ice age and show evidence that we are still in one just as I said.

To your last point it is not the Earth that would be in danger it would be human beings, economies and society as we know it. And yes the Earth has gone through more dramatic changes but we are here now in this moderate time.

I think the nice folks in Texas would have a major disagreement with your ice age theory

[pageyjim]

what scientist? Hell we can't get 5 people on this forum to agree on anything. The only scientist that agree on anything are the ones that get a grant for 'something' from the government.

Trust me, if you give me a grant for $100G's, I'll tell you anything you want to know and I'll defend that position to the death. Especially if I think I can get $200G's next year

Try these Nobel winners all of whom do not receive grants.
http://dieoff.org/page123.htm

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_priz...ecture_en.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...obel-laureates

http://globalsymposium2011.org/wp-co...Memorandum.pdf

[pageyjim]

I think the nice folks in Texas would have a major disagreement with your ice age theory

Nice folks in Texas? Do you have proof of that?

[jmac00]

Try these Nobel winners all of whom do not receive grants.
http://dieoff.org/page123.htm

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_priz...ecture_en.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...obel-laureates

http://globalsymposium2011.org/wp-co...Memorandum.pdf

fear not, I didn't click on any of those links. I have no faith in a *prize*system that gives out awards to non-deserving bone heads. So i automatically dis-qualify everyone of them