Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
UGL OZ
UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsUGL OZUGFREAK

The myth of "Global Warming."

  • Thread starter Thread starter Intact
  • Start date Start date
I

Intact

Guest
Seeing as August is upon us, it is time to revisit the issue of "global warming." A sparrow does not a spring make, but in the Druid religion of environmentalism, every warm summer's breeze prompts apocalyptic demands for a ban on aerosol spray and paper bags. So where is global warming when we need it?

In 1998, President Clinton denounced Republicans for opposing his environmental policies, citing Florida's inordinately warm weather: "June was the hottest month they had ever had – hotter than any July or August they had ever had." This, after the Senate rejected the Kyoto Treaty by the slender margin of 95-0. In fact, all the world's major industrial powers initially rejected the treaty, including Japan. That's right: Even Kyoto rejected Kyoto.

That same year, CNN's Margaret Carlson remarked that when her neighbors experienced temperate weather at Christmas, global warming was the word on everyone's lips. Adding to the world's supply of hot air, she said global warming was the big sleeper issue.

Well, this year, Washington, D.C., had the coldest February in a quarter-century. What are the scientific conclusions of Ms. Carlson's neighbors now? In a single day in February, New York got its fourth-deepest snowfall since 1869. Baltimore got more snow in February than in any other month in recorded history. I wish there were global warming.

In 1995, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change produced a computer model purportedly proving "a discernible human influence on global climate." According to the U.N., there was not enough evidence to determine if Saddam Hussein was a threat, but the evidence is in on global warming.

The key to the U.N.'s global warming study was man's use of aerosol spray. You have to know the French were involved in a study concluding that Arrid Extra Dry is destroying the Earth. In a world in which everyone smelled, the French would be at no disadvantage. Aerosol spray. How convenient.

According to global-warming hysterics, global warming would begin at the poles, melt the ice caps, and then the oceans would rise. On the basis of such fatuous theories, in August 1998, the host of NPR's "Science Friday," Ira Flatow, told his listeners to look out their windows and imagine the ocean in their own back yards. Explaining that receding glaciers in Antarctica would dramatically lift sea levels, he warned that their grandchildren could be "hanging fishing poles out of New York skyscrapers," thus qualifying as the world's all-time greatest "fishing story."

Since then, evidence disproving "global warming" has been pouring in. God knows how many trees had to be sacrificed to print new data refuting global warming.

In January 2002, the journal Science published the findings of scientists who had been measuring the vast West Antarctic ice sheet. Far from melting, it turns out the ice sheet is growing thicker. The researchers were Dr. Ian R. Joughin, an engineer at the jet propulsion laboratory of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration in Pasadena, Calif., and Dr. Slawek Tulaczyk, a professor of earth sciences at the University of California, Santa Cruz.

About the same time, the journal Nature published the findings of scientist Peter Doran and his colleagues at the University of Illinois. Rather than using the U.N.'s "computer models," the researchers took actual temperature readings. It turned out temperatures in the Antarctic have been getting slightly colder – not warmer – for the last 30 years.

The chief scientist for Environmental Defense, Michael Oppenheimer, responded to the new findings by urging caution and warning that "there is simply not enough data to make a broad statement about all of Antarctica." That's interesting. We didn't have to wait for more data when lunatics curtailed the use of nuclear energy in this country on the basis of the movie "The China Syndrome." That was hard scientific evidence.

We didn't wait for more data when DDT (dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane) was banned on the basis of Rachel Carson's book "Silent Spring," which brainwashed children into believing DDT would kill all the birds. American soldiers in World War II were bathed in DDT. Jews rescued from Nazi death camps were doused in DDT. It was a miracle invention: Tiny amounts of DDT kill disease-carrying insects with no harm to humans, protecting them from malaria, dengue and typhus. But in 1972, the U.S. banned one of the greatest inventions in modern history.

Now environmentalists are in a panic that African nations will use DDT to save millions of lives. Last year, 80,000 people in Uganda alone died of malaria, half of them children. The United States and Europe have threatened to ban Ugandan imports if they use DDT to stop this scourge. Environmentalists would prefer that millions of Africans die so that white liberals may continue gazing upon rare birds.

Liberals don't care about the environment. The core of environmentalism is a hatred for mankind. They want mass infanticide, zero population growth, reduced standards of living and vegetarianism. Most crucially, they want Americans to stop with their infernal deodorant use.
 
can you hook me up with the url? I'm starting a Environmental Science bio class in a week or so, this will be cool to show the Teach :D
 
Testosterone boy said:
Wow.........about 35 sentences and 32 lies. What a monologue.

Sorry, I should have included my citations for where I gathered my info.
 
It really depends on who funded the studies. Like most companies they’ll hire 10 firms to do a study and publish the one that’s fits their objective.

The truth is that we really don’t know what global warming will do in the long term. The most common belief is that the temperatures will not drastically increase but instead the temperature will hold steadier at night. Where they can now dip 20-25 degrees after sunset they will only drop (example) 7-12 degrees. This would help agriculture.

As far as the impact on the polar caps. Who knows, probably little to nothing. I would be more concerned with the ozone layer since if that disappears we are pretty much dead as our entire ecosystem fails.
 
2Thick said:
Global warming may be a cycle and not affected by man (as much as some people believe) but the fact remains that the ozone layer is being depleted and that humans have a negative affect on the environment.

But that is entirely different than the global warming argument, i.e. the polar ice caps are melting, we are causing El Nino, etc. I should track down an article stating that the ozone hole over Antarctica is getting smaller.
 
I can not imagine why industrialists would back studies showing that the environment is fine. I'm pro manufacturing if the impact on the environment is neglibible but we go way out of our ways to pollute the hell out of the earth.

Must everyone own a 7 litre engine and speed away from all intersections as if in an imagined race? I love to listen to those engines that seem to be engineered for maximum noise.

Big engines are fine.........if needed for towing large things but for tooling around town? Rediculous.
 
Intact said:


But that is entirely different than the global warming argument, i.e. the polar ice caps are melting, we are causing El Nino, etc. I should track down an article stating that the ozone hole over Antarctica is getting smaller.

Much of the global warming studies are now involved with tracking the salt concentration in the North Atlantic. If certain events don't happen right, it could only take a few years to start an exponential increase in the "global warming." Personally, I think the deforestation in South America is a bigger issue, but that may just be me.
 
Intact said:

Liberals don't care about the environment. The core of environmentalism is a hatred for mankind. They want mass infanticide, zero population growth, reduced standards of living and vegetarianism. Most crucially, they want Americans to stop with their infernal deodorant use.

Just out of curiosity, why do so many on this board sound like they are contributing editors for the next Savage Nation broadcast? Is it something about the internet that draws people w/ these views or is it just elitefitness?
 
Re: Re: The myth of "Global Warming."

jrw667s said:


Just out of curiosity, why do so many on this board sound like they are contributing editors for the next Savage Nation broadcast? Is it something about the internet that draws people w/ these views or is it just elitefitness?

The whole deodorant/French thing was just thrown in there for some humor.
 
2Thick said:
Global warming may be a cycle and not affected by man (as much as some people believe) but the fact remains that the ozone layer is being depleted and that humans have a negative affect on the environment.


very true. Both sides of the arguments are extreme. Those that believe that we are somehow destroying earth and its climate are way off base. If you look at the temps of the world over the course of time you would see that these changes we see today are very normal.

However, that doesnt mean that we arent capable of doing further damage to the earth by use of certain chemicals.

The earth is alot tougher than environmentalists would have you believe.
 
2Thick said:
Global warming may be a cycle and not affected by man (as much as some people believe) but the fact remains that the ozone layer is being depleted and that humans have a negative affect on the environment.

And your suggestion for fixing a perceived problem that is "believed" to be created by humans? Would forcing humans back into primative times, thereby destroying the nation's economy, satisfy?
 
primetime21 said:



very true. Both sides of the arguments are extreme. Those that believe that we are somehow destroying earth and its climate are way off base. If you look at the temps of the world over the course of time you would see that these changes we see today are very normal.

However, that doesnt mean that we arent capable of doing further damage to the earth by use of certain chemicals.

The earth is alot tougher than environmentalists would have you believe.


Good post.

I support a balance of enviornmental care and industrial freedom.

The line drawn is where it gets tough

Rain forest deforestatoin really bothers me though...
 
I was hoping that global warming would mean more hot, dry weather -- but the past year has been the coldest and wettest in a long time if ever. I'd hate to be in the business of selling sun screen or air conditioners around here this year. Since 1992, we've had three "years without a summer". The only good to come from all this cold, wet, shitty weather is that nobody around here is spouting off any of that "global warming" bullshit lately.

Fight global cooling! Burn more fossil fuels!

************
RIESFH=Rain Is Evil Shit From Hell!!!!
 
In the 1970s, everyone said a great ice age was coming.

In the 1990s, everyone said we are going to bake to death from global warming.

Now I'm hearing about this huge gigantic mass of different water in the North Atlantic, and if it keeps doing what it has been (increasing in size somehow, maybe due to ice/ice meltage?) England and the rest of northern Europe are going to be in for the big freeze as it will divert the Gulf Stream.

But even if higher carbon levels and tempertures happen, whats so bad about it? Millions of years ago, when volcanos were spewing on a regular basis (many of which was dumping more carbon into the air than all the factories have in all of the industrial revolution), and this was a time when rain forest covered the Earth. People complain about the greenhouse effect, but dont you realize that thats where plants grow the best?

More plants = more clean oxygen
More plants = more food or food for animals who become food

I guess the worst part would be the rise of the sea level a little bit, and the loss of huge tracts of $$$ real estate. Not that that would effect me that much.
 
Tarheel said:
In the 1970s, everyone said a great ice age was coming.

In the 1990s, everyone said we are going to bake to death from global warming.

Now I'm hearing about this huge gigantic mass of different water in the North Atlantic, and if it keeps doing what it has been (increasing in size somehow, maybe due to ice/ice meltage?) England and the rest of northern Europe are going to be in for the big freeze as it will divert the Gulf Stream.

But even if higher carbon levels and tempertures happen, whats so bad about it? Millions of years ago, when volcanos were spewing on a regular basis (many of which was dumping more carbon into the air than all the factories have in all of the industrial revolution), and this was a time when rain forest covered the Earth. People complain about the greenhouse effect, but dont you realize that thats where plants grow the best?

More plants = more clean oxygen
More plants = more food or food for animals who become food

I guess the worst part would be the rise of the sea level a little bit, and the loss of huge tracts of $$$ real estate. Not that that would effect me that much.

The global warming we are talking about is one that will culminate to the end result of an extreme global cooling (worst-case scenario). And no one can argue with you that greenhouse gasses are a negative: They sustain our life-giving environment. And yes, the tidal coolings are a cycle that researchers at UC-SD are beginning to formulate (1,800 years for maximum cycle & perhaps as little as 180 yr smaller ones). The vertical tidal mixing is weakening and the greenhouse effect (whether humans have interfered with this or not) is adding to the effect. They are now looking towards historical evidence to support their research, which will help us predict future trends in the global cooling/warming cylce and give insight into how much the increasing greenhouse gas effects are really changing it.
 
Top Bottom