Serious Topic- Environmentalism and Conservation - Page 7

webguy4 · February 9th, 2013, 09:36 AM

regards your revelations quote:

i am not against conservation of rescources, am not against keeping the earth as clean as possible, i like my planet, i live here, my daughter lives here, all of the people i like live here, i am not motivated to spoil the earth.

in the long run, those who have run this climate scare scam will do the most damage to the environment. as their house of cards falls apart and the lies are exposed the people who honestly want to protect the earth with be discredited by association and the environment will suffer as a result.

imaginethat · February 9th, 2013, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by webguy4

source for saying the earth is cooling: international climate conference held by the heartland institute in chicago

source for saying the earth is warming: well most of those numbers trace back to hansen, and he has been busted repeatedly for cooking the books.

The Heartland Institute is as wrong about climate change as it was when it sided with Big Tobacco in opposing legislation that would limit or eliminate non-smokers being exposed to second-hand smoke.

Quote:

In the 1990s, the Heartland Institute worked with Philip Morris to question the link between secondhand smoke and health risks. Philip Morris used Heartland to distribute tobacco-industry material, and arranged for the Heartland Institute to publish "policy studies" which summarized Philip Morris reports. The Heartland Institute also undertook a variety of other activities on behalf of Philip Morris, including meeting with legislators, holding "off-the-record" briefings, and producing op-eds, radio interviews, and letters. In 1994, at the request of Philip Morris, the Heartland Institute met with Republican Congressmen to encourage them to oppose increases in the federal excise tax. Heartland reported back to Philip Morris that the Congressmen were "strongly in our camp", and planned further meetings with other legislators.

And:

Quote:

On May 4, 2012, the institute launched a digital billboard ad campaign in the Chicago area featuring a photo of Ted Kaczynski, (the "Unabomber" whose mail bombs killed three people and injured 23 others), and asking the question, “I still believe in global warming, do you?” The institute planned for the campaign to feature murderer Charles Manson, communist leader Fidel Castro and perhaps Osama bin Laden, asking the same question. In a statement, the institute justified the billboards saying "the most prominent advocates of global warming aren’t scientists. They are murderers, tyrants, and madmen." The billlboard reportedly "unleashed a social media-fed campaign, including a petition from the advocacy group Forecast the Facts calling on Heartland’s corporate backers to immediately pull their funding," and prompted Rep. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.), to threaten to cancel his speech at the upcoming Heartland Institute Climate Change Conference Within 24 hours Heartland canceled the campaign, although its President refused to apologize for it.[nb 2] The advertising campaign led to the loss of substantial corporate funding, the resignation of Institute board members, and the resignation of almost the entire Heartland Washington D.C. office, taking the Institute's biggest project (on insurance) with it. Subsequent to their resignation, the staff of the former Heartland insurance project founded the R Street Institute.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute

Like I said, the Heartland Institute has its political head up its ass about equally to Gore.

These are facts, webguy. You've been as bamboozled as the worst on the left.

Just remember, the Heartland Institute fought with Big Tobacco to make it so that you and your daughter could breathe second-hand smoke. Isn't that enough said?

TNVolunteer73 · February 9th, 2013, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by imaginethat

No, all the data doesn't point back to Hansen. Look here: What has global warming done since 1998?

Are you so freaking dense to think that ONLY Hansen has concluded the planet is accumulating heat energy? And that all you have to do is discredit him, and all the other evidence has been disproved?

Never mind, you repeatedly, even in this very exchange this very morning, have shown that yes, this is what you believe.

The Heartland Institute has a political agenda, the alter ego of Gores et al, but it's the political agenda you're comfortable with.

since 1998 the earth has been cooling with the exception of 1 year that was 2005 (Katrina) and first quater of 2006.

Now.. the earth has been warming since the 1860s.. because pre 1860 we were in what was called teh Little Ice age which lasted from ~1600 thruough the mid 1800s.

we the climate has warmed because an ICE AGE ENDED

Tony · February 10th, 2013, 06:47 PM

Really...what we do here on Gamma Solaris is minimal as compared to the vagaries of Sol. The one positive way to mitigate BOTH warming and heating issues is to put shades in following orbits out between Alpha Solaris and Sol. Maybe in the next thousand years we'll be able to do that. What next? Methinks a Dyson Sphere...

Yes...I'm being facetious...but there's very little we can do here except treat Gaia in a respectful manner...and be as clean and as green as we can...then let the Good Karma chips fall where they may! We ain't the neatest of species!

imaginethat · February 10th, 2013, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TNVolunteer73

since 1998 the earth has been cooling with the exception of 1 year that was 2005 (Katrina) and first quater of 2006.

Now.. the earth has been warming since the 1860s.. because pre 1860 we were in what was called teh Little Ice age which lasted from ~1600 thruough the mid 1800s.

we the climate has warmed because an ICE AGE ENDED

No, the Earth has not been cooling since 1998, another shameless repetition of a = bald-faced lie that I've disproved on this thread, not many posts ago.

But that's it with the deniers. Never mind the facts, never mind the evolving nature of climatology, we know there is nothing humankind CAN do to the atmosphere that's worth worrying about.

TNVolunteer73 · February 10th, 2013, 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by imaginethat

No, the Earth has not been cooling since 1998, another shameless repetition of a = bald-faced lie that I've disproved on this thread, not many posts ago.

But that's it with the deniers. Never mind the facts, never mind the evolving nature of climatology, we know there is nothing humankind CAN do to the atmosphere that's worth worrying about.

Acctually it has..

NASA - The Ups and Downs of Global Warming

Look at the Graph the climate peaked in 1998 ~0.6 Degrees ABOVE the 160 year mean.

there is one other peak since 1998, it is 2005 (As I stated) 2005 was the year of solar Flares that occured prior to the beginning of Solar Cycle 24..

every year since 1998 save 2005 the climate has been cooler..

Now if you don't like it you can take that up with NASA.

Tony · February 10th, 2013, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TNVolunteer73

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="RedLiberal" data-cid="456852" data-time="1358913160">This isn't a discussion about climate change, but about more general things involving the environment such as pollution and runoff.

This is something that I don't get with conservatives. Conservatism is about preserving American ideals, correct? Why can't you extend that conservation principle to the environment? Why do you favor industries and corporations destroying our planet? I really can't figure out why you would want to do so.</blockquote>

climate change is a hoax.

Now You are correct about pollution,*but that is not a real problem in the US as it is in China , India, and Europe.*

Why do people rack up in protest over oil spills (etc) in petro-chemically powered vehicles????????????????????

imaginethat · February 10th, 2013, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TNVolunteer73

Acctually it has..

NASA - The Ups and Downs of Global Warming

Look at the Graph the climate peaked in 1998 ~0.6 Degrees ABOVE the 160 year mean.

there is one other peak since 1998, it is 2005 (As I stated) 2005 was the year of solar Flares that occured prior to the beginning of Solar Cycle 24..

every year since 1998 save 2005 the climate has been cooler..

Now if you don't like it you can take that up with NASA.

Nope, I've looked at your sources. You won't keep up with the evolving science of climatology. You don't want to. You don't want to understand the various factors and how they interact with each other.

Our discussion is finished. I have disproved some points you have made several times, and you just wait a while and repost them. It's all you have. Blanks.

You're happy with what you know, and you don't want to modify what you know because you're happy with it.

Be happy!!

imaginethat · February 10th, 2013, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TNVolunteer73

Acctually it has..

NASA - The Ups and Downs of Global Warming

Look at the Graph the climate peaked in 1998 ~0.6 Degrees ABOVE the 160 year mean.

there is one other peak since 1998, it is 2005 (As I stated) 2005 was the year of solar Flares that occured prior to the beginning of Solar Cycle 24..

every year since 1998 save 2005 the climate has been cooler..

Now if you don't like it you can take that up with NASA.

Good Lord, do you even READ the sources you link?

From your source:

Quote:

According to the vast majority of climate scientists, the planet is heating up1. Scientists have concluded that this appears to be the result of increased human emissions of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide, which trap heat near the surface of Earth. However, some information sources -- blogs, websites, media articles and other voices -- highlight that the planet has been cooling since a peak in global temperature in 1998. This cooling is only part of the picture, according to a recent study that has looked at the world's temperature record over the past century or more.

In their recently published research paper2 entitled "Is the climate warming or cooling?", David Easterling of the U.S. National Climate Data Center and Michael Wehner of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory show that naturally occurring periods of no warming or even slight cooling can easily be part of a longer-term pattern of global warming.

This may sound counter-intuitive at first sight, so let's take a closer look at the data. Figure 1 shows the change in the world's air temperature averaged over all the land and ocean between 1975 and 2008. The warming is obvious -- about 0.5° C (0.9° F) during that time. However, there are plenty of periods -- 1997 to 1985 and 1981 to 1989 (see insets, Figure 1), and 1998 to 2008 -- when no warming is seen, the most recent of which some global warming skeptics say is evidence that the world is actually cooling.

What's going on? To answer this question, Easterling and Wehner pored over global temperature records dating from 1901 to 2008 and also ran computer simulations of Earth's climate looking back into the past and forward into the future. They concluded that in a climate being warmed by man-made carbon emissions, "it is possible, and indeed likely, to have a period as long as a decade or two of 'cooling' or no warming superimposed on a longer-term warming trend."

I don't need to take anything up with NASA. Your source disproves your point of view.

TNVolunteer73 · February 10th, 2013, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by imaginethat

Good Lord, do you even READ the sources you link?

From your source:

I don't need to take anything up with NASA. Your source disproves your point of view.

no it does not..

1998 0.6 Degrees above 160 year mean

1999 and 2000 0.4 Degrees above160 year mean 0.2 degree less than 1998

2001-04 0.5 degrees below 160 year 0.1 degree less than 1998

2005 0.58 degrees >160 year mean 0.02 degrees below 1998

2010 (last year reported 0.48 degrees above 160 year mean...

NASA - The Ups and Downs of Global Warming

that is NASA's data.. not mine

imaginethat · February 10th, 2013, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TNVolunteer73

no it does not..

1998 0.6 Degrees above 160 year mean

1999 and 2000 0.4 Degrees above160 year mean 0.2 degree less than 1998

2001-04 0.5 degrees below 160 year 0.1 degree less than 1998

2005 0.58 degrees >160 year mean 0.02 degrees below 1998

2010 (last year reported 0.48 degrees above 160 year mean...

NASA - The Ups and Downs of Global Warming

that is NASA's data.. not mine

I quoted the NASA report.

TNVolunteer73 · February 10th, 2013, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by imaginethat

I quoted the NASA report.

I quoted the nasa Raw Data..

Sorry.. you quoted a Report that was filtered by Hansen.

Who already has been caught doctoring the reports.

if you look at the chart to the right side of the page has climates since 1970s to present graphed to the 160 year climate mean.

and every year since 1998 has been cooler than 1998.. with the excepton of 2005

You see. if Nasa reports Cooling they lose funding..

TNVolunteer73 · February 10th, 2013, 08:36 PM

Hansen on the ?standstill? | Climate Etc.

NASA's James Hansen's finally concedes 'flat' global temps: Hansen's 'remarkable' comments on global warming standstill: 'The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade...

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
No pressure environmentalism	Zack	Environment	2	October 6th, 2010 12:12 PM
Obama signs sweeping land-conservation bill	CNN	Current Events	5	March 31st, 2009 10:04 AM
The New Environmentalism	tadpole256	Environment	8	July 9th, 2008 04:48 AM

February 9th, 2013, 09:36 AM	#121
webguy4 choose life Join Date: Nov 2012 Location: Michigan Posts: 3,291	regards your revelations quote: i am not against conservation of rescources, am not against keeping the earth as clean as possible, i like my planet, i live here, my daughter lives here, all of the people i like live here, i am not motivated to spoil the earth. in the long run, those who have run this climate scare scam will do the most damage to the environment. as their house of cards falls apart and the lies are exposed the people who honestly want to protect the earth with be discredited by association and the environment will suffer as a result.

February 10th, 2013, 06:47 PM	#124
Tony Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2012 Location: Gamma Solaris Posts: 4,411	Really...what we do here on Gamma Solaris is minimal as compared to the vagaries of Sol. The one positive way to mitigate BOTH warming and heating issues is to put shades in following orbits out between Alpha Solaris and Sol. Maybe in the next thousand years we'll be able to do that. What next? Methinks a Dyson Sphere... Yes...I'm being facetious...but there's very little we can do here except treat Gaia in a respectful manner...and be as clean and as green as we can...then let the Good Karma chips fall where they may! We ain't the neatest of species!

February 10th, 2013, 08:36 PM	#133
TNVolunteer73 I'm debt free, Join Date: Nov 2012 Location: Lebanon, TN Posts: 6,701	Hansen on the ?standstill? \| Climate Etc. NASA's James Hansen's finally concedes 'flat' global temps: Hansen's 'remarkable' comments on global warming standstill: 'The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade...