99.99% of all glaciers are shrinking

You are such a pessimist. Only 99.99% of glaciers are shrinking. What about the .01% which aren't? Alarmist! You "environmentalists" are always looking on the negative side. GWB 8 more years! let's make it 100% of glaciers are shrinking.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Oct 12 2006, 12:17 PM) [snapback]331745[/snapback]</div>

Hmm, I predict, if Hillary is elected President, Nancy Pelosi becomes head of the House of Reps, and let's throw in Al as head of the EPA, then Global Warming will stop (and even reverse dare I say), everyone (er, I mean just those evil "rich" people) will have a new line item on their 1040's for a "Carbon Taxâ€, and, oh, I almost forgot, the Iraqi's will send us flowers on Mother's Day.

The Midwest is currently experiencing some of its coldest temperatures on record. The US had no hurricanes hit this year partly because of cooler Atlantic Ocean temps. But I'm sure it's all attributable to humans and GW somehow. Time to dust off those old Time magazines predicting the new Ice Age, or are we still Global Warming(?); it's so confusing! GW alarmists say glaciers are melting and sea levels are rising at a rapid rate. I just can't figure out why here in FL the sea levels have not risen any measurable rate in the last 100 years. I suppose our sea level is different here...

So keep sending your money to Al and Bill. The sooner we can get the message out that all corporations and rich people are evil and need to be eliminated the better off we will be.

I remember in grade school being taught by the year 2000 the world would have virtually no petroleum available, fresh water would be extremely scarce, and the world population would increase to a point that everyone, including Americans, would be malnourished and almost starving. So where does Global Warming that's caused by humans come into play...??? I'll give you a few seconds to figure out that one.

Rick
#4 2006 Global Warmer

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(viking31 @ Oct 12 2006, 12:29 PM) [snapback]331774[/snapback]</div>

A quick google search will provide you with information. See specifically the site established by our own governmental agency the EPA.

It cracks me up when people speak solely of temps in their own local region. Again, it's called global warming, not regional warming. Average global temps are up to 7 degrees higher in some areas. Some areas of the globe will get cooler. The net effect is that those micro climates will be affected adversely, probably in a deragatory fashion. Plants, animals, insects etc., will not have time to evolve to the changes. Note that certain birds time their migration to the budding of certain trees and plants which attract specific insects that these migratory birds require for their energy. This timing is affected and so the bird species decline. One example but probably not an important one for you because it doesn't directly affect you.

Did you know that polar bears are drowning due to melting sea ice? Did you know that baby seals are drowning because of melting sea ice? The latter can't keep up with their moms who have to swim longer durations due to the melting ice.

I tire of hearing those that ignore the very tangible data present on a vast majority of governmental sites and from a vast number of scientists identifying its occurence. NASA has pictures of the melting ice if you care to perform a simple search to educate yourself. If you don't care, at least many of us do and hopefully the net affect will benefit you. You can thank us later.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(viking31 @ Oct 12 2006, 01:29 PM) [snapback]331774[/snapback]</div>

You were taught that in grade school? So, when your teachers were drilling and testing you on these horrific nightmarish predictions of absolute world doom, destruction, and devastation, weren't your parents a little upset? Did they vote for school board members who approved such a curriculum? Where did your school board find commercial gradeschool texts with multi-decade predictions of population growth and horrific US living conditions? Generally speaking, my kids' texts seem to stick to the facts, and that's about how I remember it when I was growing up. Bu I grew up in America. What Communist country did you grow up in?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(viking31 @ Oct 12 2006, 01:29 PM) [snapback]331774[/snapback]</div>

Let me apologize for the tone of my prior post. There was no need for it and it does not help the discussion.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(chogan @ Oct 12 2006, 03:13 PM) [snapback]331854[/snapback]</div>

California schools. Some almost consider it another country. About as left and full of neolibs as can be (esp. in the 70's). The textbooks in subjects such as Social Studies were rife with such drivel. But they were the "facts" back then. Books such as "The Population Bomb" by Paul R. Ehrlich were quoted and referenced. I remember textbooks with pictures of cars lined up in 1973 during the oil crisis. Again the textbooks made references to the ever dwindling supply of oil and choking air pollution which would only get worse - never better.

None of these predictions came true. We have so much food we are actually going to make fuel from some of it. Is the world going to run out of oil? Never. While the price will naturally go higher if supplies do become scarce (which is NOT why prices are relatively high now) many other power sources (coal, hydro, nuclear) will easily fill the gap if needed as economics dictate.

Which brings us back to GW. In thirty years or so when Global Cooling becomes the latest rage (it will, just be patient) we will see the reminders of magazine covers and quotes from "climate experts" who predicted the end of the world as we know it because of GW.

Oh, and think textbooks are factual (or even close for that matter)? In Kansas children in public schools were just as of recent taught to consider that humans magically appeared on Earth a few thousand years ago. And yes, the school board who voted for the inclusion of such "facts" was elected, not appointed by the community (Those pesky neocons are at it again...).

Rick
#4 2006 Global Cooler

 

Consider...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(viking31 @ Oct 12 2006, 04:36 PM) [snapback]331929[/snapback]</div>

So, in a nutshell:

Some previous outlandish predictions by pop authors have have been wrong. (Say it isn't so!)
Some schools have briefly taught religion in the guise of science, and have taught things that in retrospect were incorrect. (No!)
Therefore there is no global warming.

Well, I can't argue with that. The logic's impeccable. Good luck, I'm out of here.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(viking31 @ Oct 12 2006, 03:36 PM) [snapback]331929[/snapback]</div>

This is an erroneous fact. Oil reserves are finite. The quantity available to us may increase as new reserves are located but the supply is finite. Additionally, there are some areas that contain reserves that would be better left untouched, as is the case with ANWR. The reserve here is thought to contain only a smidge over a year's worth of supply. It not economically sound, nor is it beneficial to that specific eco system, to drill in this area for such a minute quantity of oil. Such is the case in other areas containing reserves.

So far as gw is concerned, I would be in a better position to digest (and maybe even learn from) your position if you cited evidence or facts to counter the gw theory. Rather you seem to be merely desensitized due to the fact that you've not witnessed the realization of the other "doomsday" predictions thrown your way. By what facts and evidence have you arrived at your position?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(viking31 @ Oct 12 2006, 12:29 PM) [snapback]331774[/snapback]</div>

You just scared the #@$% out of me.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(viking31 @ Oct 13 2006, 06:36 AM) [snapback]331929[/snapback]</div>

Well, I read the wikipedia article about the book. And the book was obviously written as a "wake up call."

If we don't do something about this, something dire is going to happen. Now the author's proposed solution to the problem (not enough food for growing population) obviously wasn't the solution that was implemented (grow more food, not implement population growth control). (Actually population growth control has been implemented in China)

Only a few of the predictions came true because (well, actually hundred of millions of people did starve, but only a couple million starved to death). WE DID SOMETHING ABOUT IT. Today, there's more than enough food, the problem is distribution channels & political stability of certain regions.

Same deal with the 1973 oil crisis. Many drastic changes were implemented back then (alot we don't see), to fix that problem. Here's something you probably don't know that was implemented back then, ALL the oil companys based in the US are subsidized by US tax dollars. You ever wonder how much gas would cost if it wasn't? Well, since it's taxes it really depends on how much gas you use. But for the statistically average guy (he doesn't exist), it's like $10/gallon. I used to think only the gas in China was subsidized by the chinese government. But no, we do it too!

So back to the Global Warming issue. All the scientists are trying to say is. If we don't do something about it right NOW, there's going to be alot of doom and gloom. Maybe what the scientists are proposing isn't the right solution for us. But someone's has to be looking for options instead of just denying the fact that we have a problem.

Just like it takes billions of tax dollars to keep gas prices sane, we are going to need to fork in some serious money to tackle the GW problem. IF that is even possible.



Jimmy

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SSimon @ Oct 12 2006, 06:54 PM) [snapback]331972[/snapback]</div>

I'd like to ditto that sentiment, SSimon. I think you've put your finger on what I'm reacting so negatively to this thread. I read Prius Chat because I learn a lot ... because a lot of very smart people are willing to share useful information. On some issues it's the best tutorial I've found. So when I read these strong statements, got suckered in, responded, then realized -- hey, there's nothing there, there -- it took me a while to get oriented.

But I'm on track now. This is just the application of the first rule of information theory: a stopped clock is right twice a day, yet provides zero information. Everybody is entitled to an opinion. But spending time reading the opinion of a Florida resident, regarding global warming, who can't be bothered to Google for the explanation of the dramtic 2006 dropoff in hurricanes? If I were into infotainment or political expression, I guess I'd hang in there, but as it is, this is simply uniformative.

Now I really am out of here.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(chogan @ Oct 12 2006, 07:50 PM) [snapback]332006[/snapback]</div>

Aw, don't leave yet...

Uh, let's see... Last year during our very active hurricane season we were lectured again and again by the neolibs that Katrina and other hurricanes were the direct result and proof positive of manmade GW. The 2005 hurricane season was a GW alarmists dream come true. Lawmakers (neolibs), that's right - elected representatives, were quoted stating that GW and (and George Bush, too, of course) were responsible for those hurricanes. And now you tell me that GW helps accelerate the formation of the El Nino that suppresses hurricanes in the Atlantic. Gee, is that bad or good??? Seems like the "climate experts" forgot to mention that last year.

Rick
#4 2006 Global Warmer, and as a bonus it's a Hurricane suppressor too!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(viking31 @ Oct 12 2006, 07:31 PM) [snapback]332065[/snapback]</div>

You're not really understanding the issue. What most models show is that the climate is going to produce more extreme weather. Sure, when an El Nino developes it will likely surpress Atlantic hurricane activity. But if an El Nino doesn't develop, then the higher ocean surface temps will be a breeding ground for more intense and frequent storms. Florida won't be such a pleasant place to live under those conditions.

Also keep in mind that El Nino weather patterns tend to dry out the northern part of the country including the PNW, the northern Rockies, and the Ohio river valley. That's not going to help the Mississippi River issues at all. River stages havn't been good this year. It's impacting commerce on the river (barges can't carry large loads of goods) and hurting agriculture.

So what makes you so smug about GW anyways? Coming from the state who's highest point is "Britton Hill" (345 ft above sea level) and whose average elevation above sea level is a measely 100 ft, you seem pretty confident about your position on the issue. How exactly did you come to this conclusion? You've yet to say anything substantive.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(viking31 @ Oct 12 2006, 08:31 PM) [snapback]332065[/snapback]</div>

Fact: Category 4's didn't start striking our coasts until the last decade. Scientists cite the warming temps of our oceans for this phenomenon. What is your scientific conclusion?

Here's a conclusion that I've arrived at. All the gw naysayers should all move to the south coast along hurricane channels. Should a hurricane strike of a catastrophy greater than we've encountered before the silly theory of gw, you guys are on your own. Since you're the people who probably aren't doing anything to curb greenhouse gases, you get no federal or state money to assist with rebuilding or transport out of the afflicted area. When the consistent droughts start happening and food supplies run short, food will be diverted from your area as well. You'll have nice marshy areas so you could start growing your own rice. That'll be your gift from gw. Sound like a plan?