Positive proof of Global Warming .....

JPG · Post by **JPG** » Fri Oct 10, 2014 8:54 pm

beeg wrote:"CLIMATE CHANGE". Who can say it's not a 100000 year cylindrical event.

Oh I think it might 'correct' in another 100000 years assuming we humans become extinct soon enough.

charlese · Post by **charlese** » Fri Oct 10, 2014 9:54 pm

beeg wrote:"CLIMATE CHANGE". Who can say it's not a 100000 year cylindrical event.

Right on!!! Like I said - until the temp at the poles cool down again.

WoW! We are making a big thing about a little cartoon joke!:eek:

JPG · Post by **JPG** » Fri Oct 10, 2014 10:01 pm

charlese wrote:Right on!!! Like I said - until the temp at the poles cool down again.

WoW! We are making a big thing about a little cartoon joke!:eek:

An 8 yr old one?

skou · Post by **skou** » Sat Oct 11, 2014 5:00 am

Sorry to get all political and $**+ here, but we're arguing about 2 or 3 degrees (or so) in 15 (or so) years. Can anyone not say that that is within the natural fluctuations? (Can you back that up?)

And, (here is where I get political) has anyone bothered to look at Al Gore's (he's only grossed about 1 BILLION on "global Warming") personal Co2 "footprint?" And compared it to (let's just say) GW Bush's Co2 footprint? (GWB has only profited about ONE BILLION LESS!)

AlGore, Nobel! Oscar! Emmy! Day Time Emmy! Tony! Clio! (OK, I'm making stuff here, but you get my drift.) GWB, cheap electrical (and gas) bills!

I'm just sayin,' "follow the money!" AlGore seems to be raking it in, as well as raking in the limelight. GWB is just being nice to troops.

Or, prove me wrong!

steve

tomsalwasser · Post by **tomsalwasser** » Sat Oct 11, 2014 6:25 am

Where I live in Minnesota, it was covered with a glacier a mile thick 10,000 years ago. Was it global warming (or climate change) that caused the glaciers to melt? I guess you could call it that. It was not caused by man. These cycles are natural and have been occurring since time began. I do however favor moderate and sensible attempts to develop and implement technologies that curtail greenhouse gasses in the name of clean air.

garys · Post by **garys** » Sat Oct 11, 2014 9:01 am

robinson46176 wrote:
No thanks, I'll get my science advice from the real scientist who have carefully studied this stuff everyday for many years. Not someone standing in their back yard holding a thermometer.

.

Just remember that your so called "real scientists" already have been caught falsifying their numbers to prove their scam. Continue to believe their lies if you choose.

dusty · Post by **dusty** » Sat Oct 11, 2014 9:35 am

charlese wrote:Right on!!! Like I said - until the temp at the poles cool down again.

WoW! We are making a big thing about a little cartoon joke!

This is an example of what would not be allowed if I was the forum cop! The cartoon was cute but from there it all becomes political. Why were Al Core and GWBush drug in.

Yes, there is climate change. It happens on an irregular schedule every year.

WmZiggy · Post by **WmZiggy** » Sat Oct 11, 2014 10:38 am

Last time I looked it was the "Community" thread where people can express themselves, funny and serious. I threw in the article concerning NASA and global cooling that I had just read and that pulled the thread from joke to serious and it became a mixture of both. What do they say, all comedy has an element of truth to be funny. If I broke a rule I apologize.

JPG · Post by **JPG** » Sat Oct 11, 2014 11:35 am

WmZiggy wrote:Last time I looked it was the "Community" thread where people can express themselves, funny and serious. I threw in the article concerning NASA and global cooling that I had just read and that pulled the thread from joke to serious and it became a mixture of both. What do they say, all comedy has an element of truth to be funny. If I broke a rule I apologize.

What rule? As you said, community and it WAS on topic.

Now if the ozone 'layer' depletion (hole over the pole) is the cause of some of this, why are we not making more ozone to replace it. And planting more trees to soak up all that excess CO2.

There is abstinence(carbon emissions limits) and there are compensatory actions. I vote for both.

Any 'scientist' who falsifies data is no scientist but something far less honorable. Seems since 'they' learned statistical 'analysis' they think extrapolation is fact. Maybe, but an educated guess never the less. We need to separate the guesses from observation. Neither is absolutely conclusive, but with observation, only our conclusions contaminate our perception, not our predictions.

davebodner · Post by **davebodner** » Sat Oct 11, 2014 2:07 pm

...and an amusing joke turns, yet again, into diatribe.