Originally Posted by WeVonBraun
Global warming is one thing and yes People like you will now have a hard time demonstrating that this is in fact a "natural" phenomenon.
Actually it is a natural phenomenon but don't you think the timing is VERY bad : just 150 years after the western world invented industrial mass production a sudden and dramatic change in climate occurs. I feel like a dinosaur that has found a good spot just 5 minutes before the collision.
Let's be serious. Do you have any idea what and how much has been dumped in the great lakes during 1930-1945 with the automobile and war industries at their wildest ?
It has been eveluated in hundreds of TONS ....of bcp's, contamited oils, discarded paint coulours, etc .... and this is only a drop of the millions of tons of industrial waste we've dumped all over the place during the last 100 years.
Global warming is just ONE aspect of the catastrophy.
Global average temperatures have risen 1 degree in 100 years BASED UPON OUR MEASUREMENTS. That is sudden and dramatic compared to when, exactly?
Between 15,300 and 15,400 years ago, how much did global average temperature change?
How about between 200,500 and 200,600 years ago?
Do "ice ages" result after long, steady change? Or does the climate natuarlly change at varying rates based upon vulcanism, solar activity, etc.?
Do you know how we have measured temperatures for the last 100 years?
Are you aware that global temperatures have not tracked with the industrial revolution as you state? In the 70s we thought global cooling was happening because that is what our measurementys told us. This was at the same time that we pumped increasing amounts of "greenhouse gases" into the atmosphere.
Localized environmental destruction is one thing. It is absolutely appropriate to pursue environmentally clean technology.
The idea that mankind can intentionally change the climate is ridiculous.
The "debate" has nothing to do with "climate change".
It is and always has been a debate about how people should live their lives.
Granola versus steak. Hemp versus cotton.
This is another example of a tenet of the religious left that is not open for question.
I am an idiot, a shithead, or a neocon asshole for presenting what those who actually study climate know about the climate. NOT the thongs of the "scientific community" who base their grant requests upon "studying the effects of climate change on <fill in the blank>".
I was called the same names for disagreeing about the religious left's claim that EMR was as huge threat (electro-magnetic radiation). Now we find that EMR has therapuetic value.
Remember, EMR used to equal "people living a high, western standard of living. Just like CO2 emissions have become the measure now. CO2 only became a "problem" after the automobile (ultimate symbol of everything loathed by a Marxist) became so clean running that they actually spew exhaust that is cleaner than the air they take in in some cities.
Is there anyone here that can at least take a run at debating ideas without hiding behind a stupid picture and 2nd grade profanity?
Or is this like a hard hitting CNN debate where a panel of five "experts" of varying liberalosity debate whether Bush is "an idiot, or just a simpleton"?