Some climate damage already irreversible *cough* BULLSHIT *cough*
Courtesy of Breitbart.com
WASHINGTON (AP) - Many damaging effects of climate change are already basically irreversible, researchers declared Monday, warning that even if carbon emissions can somehow be halted temperatures around the globe will remain high until at least the year 3000.
"People have imagined that if we stopped emitting carbon dioxide the climate would go back to normal in 100 years, 200 years; that's not true," climate researcher Susan Solomon said in a teleconference.
Solomon, of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Earth System Research Laboratory in Boulder, Colo., is lead author of an international team's paper reporting irreversible damage from climate change, being published in Tuesday's edition of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
She defines "irreversible" as change that would remain for 1,000 years even if humans stopped adding carbon to the atmosphere immediately.
The findings were announced as President Barack Obama ordered reviews that could lead to greater fuel efficiency and cleaner air, saying the Earth's future depends on cutting air pollution.
Said Solomon, "Climate change is slow, but it is unstoppable"—all the more reason to act quickly, so the long-term situation doesn't get even worse. Continued here
Where on doomed earth do I begin? Yet more evidence that most people think the world revolves around them. I never cease to be disturbed by the arrogance of the global warming crowd. The earth is warming (in itself a questionable assertion) so of course it must be the result of human activity. It takes a "special" kind of person to ignore a giant fusion powered ball of energy that could hold 1.3 million earths inside it and assume that man is the likely cause.
Question: If global warming is real and such a dangerous threat, then why do NONE of the plans advocated by governments actually stop global warming? If they were serious, they would propose solutions. "Climate scientists" will openly admit that cap and trade, as well as other proposed taxes on carbon, would not stop the progression of global warming according to their models. This doesn't pass the smell test. If I had evidence that there was real global warming that would threaten the survival of humanity I would advocate solutions that would stop or reverse global warming. Instead politicians and scientists advocate programs that would not stop the global warming threat, but would massively redistribute wealth while increasing the coffers of those in power. Why would they do such a thing?
Perhaps their real agenda is based on political opportunism. The politicians know that fear is the most effective tool for getting people to approve really horrible ideas. They use the dire "predictions" of "climate scientists" to scare people, motivate voters, and raise large amounts of money. The scientists in turn realize that they are dependent on government funding for their research budgets. This provides an incentive for them to make worse case scenario predictions. If a scientist said, "my research shows there is no danger and as a result there is no need for further research" he's out of a job. If you don't think this influences scientists, you're naive.
Climate science is far from a "hard" science. As someone who was educated and trained as a social scientist I can attest to the difficulty of establishing predictive models when dealing with a large number of variables. Complex human behavior is especially difficult to predict in the aggregate due to the high number of variables and their sometimes transitory nature. The number of variables that influence the earths climate is astounding. Air current patters, water current patterns, variance in the radiance of the earths surface, clouds, human activity, plant activity, solar activity, electromagnet forces and the effects of shifts in/on those electromagnetic forces.
In short the variety of potential factors are truly breathtaking in their scope, while "climate science" is an extremely young field of research. Do we react like frightened children to perceived dangers or do we act as rational beings before we drastically change our way of life, that has brought us to this proud point in our evolutionary process? I choose the latter and I do so soberly. I love this planet, because it has been the vehicle for our human civilization. But I will not fall subject to a new religion that is rooted in fear and ignorance.
WASHINGTON (AP) - Many damaging effects of climate change are already basically irreversible, researchers declared Monday, warning that even if carbon emissions can somehow be halted temperatures around the globe will remain high until at least the year 3000.
"People have imagined that if we stopped emitting carbon dioxide the climate would go back to normal in 100 years, 200 years; that's not true," climate researcher Susan Solomon said in a teleconference.
Solomon, of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Earth System Research Laboratory in Boulder, Colo., is lead author of an international team's paper reporting irreversible damage from climate change, being published in Tuesday's edition of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
She defines "irreversible" as change that would remain for 1,000 years even if humans stopped adding carbon to the atmosphere immediately.
The findings were announced as President Barack Obama ordered reviews that could lead to greater fuel efficiency and cleaner air, saying the Earth's future depends on cutting air pollution.
Said Solomon, "Climate change is slow, but it is unstoppable"—all the more reason to act quickly, so the long-term situation doesn't get even worse. Continued here
Where on doomed earth do I begin? Yet more evidence that most people think the world revolves around them. I never cease to be disturbed by the arrogance of the global warming crowd. The earth is warming (in itself a questionable assertion) so of course it must be the result of human activity. It takes a "special" kind of person to ignore a giant fusion powered ball of energy that could hold 1.3 million earths inside it and assume that man is the likely cause.
Question: If global warming is real and such a dangerous threat, then why do NONE of the plans advocated by governments actually stop global warming? If they were serious, they would propose solutions. "Climate scientists" will openly admit that cap and trade, as well as other proposed taxes on carbon, would not stop the progression of global warming according to their models. This doesn't pass the smell test. If I had evidence that there was real global warming that would threaten the survival of humanity I would advocate solutions that would stop or reverse global warming. Instead politicians and scientists advocate programs that would not stop the global warming threat, but would massively redistribute wealth while increasing the coffers of those in power. Why would they do such a thing?
Perhaps their real agenda is based on political opportunism. The politicians know that fear is the most effective tool for getting people to approve really horrible ideas. They use the dire "predictions" of "climate scientists" to scare people, motivate voters, and raise large amounts of money. The scientists in turn realize that they are dependent on government funding for their research budgets. This provides an incentive for them to make worse case scenario predictions. If a scientist said, "my research shows there is no danger and as a result there is no need for further research" he's out of a job. If you don't think this influences scientists, you're naive.
Climate science is far from a "hard" science. As someone who was educated and trained as a social scientist I can attest to the difficulty of establishing predictive models when dealing with a large number of variables. Complex human behavior is especially difficult to predict in the aggregate due to the high number of variables and their sometimes transitory nature. The number of variables that influence the earths climate is astounding. Air current patters, water current patterns, variance in the radiance of the earths surface, clouds, human activity, plant activity, solar activity, electromagnet forces and the effects of shifts in/on those electromagnetic forces.
In short the variety of potential factors are truly breathtaking in their scope, while "climate science" is an extremely young field of research. Do we react like frightened children to perceived dangers or do we act as rational beings before we drastically change our way of life, that has brought us to this proud point in our evolutionary process? I choose the latter and I do so soberly. I love this planet, because it has been the vehicle for our human civilization. But I will not fall subject to a new religion that is rooted in fear and ignorance.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Melina on -
As if the Earth needs our help destroying or renewing itself. It's been here what, 5 billion years or something? And we've been here for 5 minutes and we're somehow causing a problem? Yeah right, man has the ability to control the Sun, the Moon, volcanoes, bacteria, diseases, the magnetic field, solar winds, earthquakes. Yup! That's all us.
-
Permalink Reply by StickeeNotes on -
Things that Obama's koolaid drinkers believe. Things that Al Gore has tattooed on his lower back. Things the head of the EPA moans while she's being sodomized by a midget.
Sorry, I was pretending we were playing a game of 100,000 dollar pyramid :P
-
Permalink Reply by StickeeNotes on
-
if you published it online you might be able to find it since google caches pages.
-
Permalink Reply by The Anticrat on -
"Yet more evidence that most people think the world revolves around them."
An excellent thought... Global Warming is nothing more than the manifestation of western man's vanity about itself...
We really think we are sooo great that the Earth is at our disposal, when the exact opposite is the reality ...
A single rumbling volcano in Alaska right now, has done more than man ever will to alter our climate... Funny that you don't see more about that in the news... You used to...
-
Permalink Reply by Stony the Pony on -
The Earth is ruled by certain concepts. "Survive and Adapt"..."Eat or be Eaten"..."Deal or No Deal"...
The planet has endured numerous "global warming" and "global cooling" cycles in its inexorable path around Sol (the astronomical name of our yellow dwarf star). Organisms that could adapt (bears, crocodiles, corals, Helen Thomas) flourished. Organisms that couldn't adapt (mammoths, mastodons, saber-toothed cats, the Archies) died off into extinction. If man is TRULY the major cause of planetary global change, man ultimately will face the same dilemma. "Limiting factors" control any population of organisms...amount of food, water, shelter, breathable air, the ability (as a species) to reproduce, and the ability to successfully respond to the environment (immunity from disease and tool-using for example) will determine our success. Ultimately, it's not global warming or cooling that will test the human population...it will be starvation, disease, and thirst...just like the bears, crocodiles, mammoths, and mastodons.
Of course, Sol could go into its "red giant" phase in time. Will humans be responsible for using too much "solar energy" and hasten the march towards gravitational hyper-oblation? Nope...I didn't think so. Get over yourselves, global warming idiots. Spend your time on a more efficient cause...like "P.E.T.A. is Responsible For De-Forestation".
-
Permalink Reply by StickeeNotes on
-
And that's coming from the horses mouth.
-
Permalink Reply by Steve Lee on -
"Perhaps their real agenda is based on political opportunism." Absolutly, and now they are trying to control the whole American Economy with the Cap-and-Trade. Have you ever wondered where politicians get most of their, Click Link:
Bad Environmental Ideas?
Now the Democratic Congressmen that are sponsoring the "Cap-and-Trade" Bill that will raise prices at the pump are adding the, Click Underlined Link: Smart Electricity Grid That Will Raise Utility Bills For Americans
-
Permalink Reply by StickeeNotes on
-
Excellent links, Steve. What works in Denmark, a tiny nation with a homogeneous population, has little application to a sprawling nation like the United States. Nuclear energy is an excellent alternative, but environmentalists, for the most part, refuse to consider broadening its use. As discussed in the latest issue of Reason Mag, the waste that is produced could be limited even further with the use of fast-breeder reactors. Sacrificing our energy consumption would cripple our economy even further ... perhaps that is the underlying goal, given that an increase in poverty translates into an increase for government services.
About
Change™
The AntiCrat Shop
The Evil List
© 2010 Created by The Anticrat on Ning. Create a Ning Network!
