Started by somatichypermutation, November 22, 2013, 07:22:22 AM
Quote from: West of the Rockies on November 22, 2013, 02:30:30 PMYou're cherry-picking data to support your position. I could do the same thing but have no interest in doing so because it won't change your mind and, to be honest, I have better stuff to do.I hope you are right. I wish there were no climate change. I'll be thrilled if it turns out that Al Gore is, indeed, an over-weight huxster. (I mention his weight because that seems to be of special significance to most global-warming naysayers. Funny how none of them are concerned about Rush's weight in terms of how intelligent/honest he is.)However, I think the preponderance of evidence is clear and inescapable. Climate change is real; its impact may very well prove devastating.
Quote from: somatic hypermutation on November 23, 2013, 04:14:37 PMI don't, and since you don't have any data in your post it is impossible to refute. I put up data, and you say it is cherry picked - data from the last few ice ages and the best temp data on the plant - and you claim cherry picking. Pretty amazing.
Quote from: Juan on November 27, 2013, 05:17:54 AMWhat you lose is rights to use your property as you choose, jobs, freedom of movement, privacy, etc.Plus, we've been working at reducing pollution for about 50-years. Things are much cleaner than they were in the 1960s. What has been the effect of cleaning up? Is the earth better off now than then? The rhetoric of environmentalists seems to say no, we are not better off. If not, then what effect does anything mankind does have?
Quote from: onan on November 27, 2013, 07:29:11 AMWell, rivers aren't catching on fire.
Quote from: Juan on November 27, 2013, 03:46:58 PMI'd like to know why mercury levels are higher in fish. Is it because there is more mercury in the water? If so, it would seem that someone would have produced statistics. Is it because the huge factory ships are fishing in waters that were previously avoided because of high mercury levels? Is it because of some other stupid reason?
QuoteBefore this work, some scientists hypothesized that methylmercury in the open ocean was geologic in origin and associated with deep-sea spreading centers. Data and modeling results from this paper support the notion of a Mercury Methylation Cycle, in which much of the methylmercury in the open ocean is the result of biologically mediated transformation of mercury into methylmercury. Most of the mercury originates from atmospheric fallout to the ocean surface and the subsequent transport of the mercury to greater ocean depths (200 to 700 meters) where the methylmercury production process occurs. At these depths, naturally occurring bacteria decompose organic matter, which is largely comprised of settling algae (commonly referred to as ocean rain) that are produced in the sunlit waters near the surface (the photic zone). However, the decomposition of organic matter
Quote from: Juan on November 30, 2013, 07:24:30 PMSorry you are unable to understand.
Quote from: Little Hater on November 23, 2013, 05:22:51 PMThe Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway.Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.- Washington Post, 1922
Quote from: 21st Century Man on December 02, 2013, 02:29:31 AMLOL! Its funny to see that as early as 1922, the mainstream news elites were trying to convince the people that there was man-made global climate change. Back then, of course, there was very little scientific data that they could manipulate to advance such a proposition. Now, of course they have climate stations across the world that of course are being accurately "setup" and "monitored"(nudge-nudge, wink-wink)
Quote from: NowhereInTime on December 01, 2013, 10:27:56 PMWTF are you talking about? What rights are you losing?
Quote from: Juan on November 27, 2013, 05:17:54 AM...we've been working at reducing pollution for about 50-years. Things are much cleaner than they were in the 1960s. What has been the effect of cleaning up? Is the earth better off now than then? The rhetoric of environmentalists seems to say no, we are not better off. If not, then what effect does anything mankind does have?
Quote from: Yorkshire pud on December 02, 2013, 02:45:18 AMCan you point to the part where it states the 'mainstream news elites' were trying to convince the people that there was man made global climate change? I've read the piece twice and I can't find it.
Quote from: 21st Century Man on December 02, 2013, 07:04:29 PMUm, the story is from the Washington Post. 'Nuff Said