Search found 7 matches
Return to “Guns are like Climate change...”
- Thu May 07, 2015 10:41 am
- Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
- Topic: Guns are like Climate change...
- Replies: 91
- Views: 11326
Re: Guns are like Climate change...
Biofuels such as corn actually use more energy, cost more, and emitt more CO2 than fossil fuels. When looking at the effect, you have to account for costs and effect of production as well as use. It takes a lot of fuel and pesticides to plant, grow, and harvest that biomass. Even the processes using grasses have the same issue.
- Mon May 04, 2015 10:38 pm
- Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
- Topic: Guns are like Climate change...
- Replies: 91
- Views: 11326
Re: Guns are like Climate change...
On CO2, the effect of increasing CO2 as a green house effect decreases on a logorythmic scale. the net affect of additional CO2 get smaller very quickly. The point where increasing CO2 stops helping plant growth and/or becomes a problem for us would see the "greenhouse effect" not a great deal more than it is now. The models generally assume some runaway atmospheric effect the causes temperatures to continue to increase.
- Mon May 04, 2015 10:28 pm
- Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
- Topic: Guns are like Climate change...
- Replies: 91
- Views: 11326
Re: Guns are like Climate change...
It has not been warming since the industrial revolution began. The trend doesn't continually rise. Also, we happened to be coming out of the Little Ice Age at the beginning of the industrial revolution. A rising trend was already happening. The temp had been on the low end. Another point, during the Medieval Warm Period the temperature was warmer than today. The current temperatures are not particularly high.
(Okay, on review, I realize you were trying to quote another post. )
(Okay, on review, I realize you were trying to quote another post. )
Strat9mm wrote:Quote: When conducting solid analysis (not cherry-picking convenient years), there has been about 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit warming since 1880, and about two-thirds of that was in the last forty years. If you look at the historical record, there has been a clear upward acceleration since the industrial revolution. This isn't a time frame that fits my argument, it is history starting today and going back for up to thousands of years.
Yes, there have been ice ages and warmer periods, but that is not the issue. The issue is that we humans have become a prominent factor that has accelerated the warming since we started burning coal as fuel.
What I have posted here is simply the facts.
(End Quote)
Facts eh?
Fact 1: Put some ice in a glass of water. What happens? Does the water overflow as the ice melts? No, it stays at pretty much the same level. The ice displaces the same volume as it melts. So what if all the polar ice melts? Nothing will happen, except that formerly frozen-over passageways will make it MUCH easier and faster to transport people and goods. The Piri-Reis map shows the Northern polar passageways in the 1500's, ICE FREE. So either there were aliens who mapped it all out for someone (unlikely), or the northern pole was mostly ice free around the 1500's and we know this because someone TRAVELED THROUGH and MAPPED it. Funny thing, 'scientists' (so-called) have 'proven'(*snicker*) through core samples that the poles were ice free not 500 years ago, but 5000 years ago. Who you gonna believe? Scientists so-called, or an actual map made by human beings with functioning brain-cells who recorded what they actually saw?
Fact 2: CO2 is about 0.03% of the worlds atmosphere. For someone to think that 0.03% of the worlds atmosphere can have such a great effect on the planet, is akin to those morons who think the wings of a butterfly can affect anything significant like the weather. With a clap of the hands, the butterfly dies, and life goes on, and the sun keeps shining. What did that wing flap have to do with anything? All due respect to butterflies, and none to the 'scientists' and their easily disprovable so-called 'theories'.
Fact 2a: Young trees have the greatest growth rates, consume the most carbon dioxide and generate the most oxygen. Old growth trees grow very little and produce VERY LITTLE oxygen. Logic dictates that old growth forests be harvested while being replaced with new growth plantings. As a matter of fact, this alone would mean we would have MUCH LESS CO2 as the fast-growing trees consume larger quantities of CO2 while producing large quantities of oxygen. So much for 'environmentalists' so-called, who are against lumber usage and harvesting, and whose sole purpose seems to be to cause the most harm to human beings. Their own actions and words prove they understand nothing about how the planet and nature operate. These hypocrites deny any of it that contravenes their goals. With all the attacks they make on flatulating cows, one wonders if soon they'll be crying out for the eradication of all HUMAN life on earth! After all, we produce CO2 also! Given their beliefs and actions, a visitor to this planet would easily see environmentalists care nothing for their fellow human beings, and understand nothing about the planet. And people think environmentalists are NOT nut jobs? Please! They should all be put in strait-jackets and locked up so they don't hurt anyone else OR the environment! So much for those hypocrites who call in death threats just because they don't understand that the caribou can walk AROUND an oil pipeline support. And so much for those EVIL hypocrites who call in death threats simply because someone won't serve them some cake or pizza. What is worse, exercising your rights to deny service when it contravenes your beliefs, or threatening someone with death just because they won't sell you a dang pizza? Is anyone who threatens another with death over some pizza, or cake, ACTUALLY SANE? Why aren't those people who want pizza so bad caught and put in jail for their death threats and run through a psych evaluation? Same with 'environmentalists' who threaten and have actually harmed and taken human lives. Such 'people' as described should have no credibility whatsoever.
The 'posters' quote above showed that the planet has warmed 1.4 deg F since 1880.
Fact 3: Average temperature of NORTH POLE in SUMMER: 0 deg C / 32 deg F
Fact 3a: Average temperature of SOUTH POLE in SUMMER: - 25.9 deg C / -15 deg F.
Fact 3b: Melting point of ice: 0 deg C.
Conclusion: NOTHING is melting at the poles year round, EVEN IN SUMMER.
SO WHAT if the PLANET has warmed 1.4 deg F since 1880.
Oh my! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!!! AHHHH!!!! We're all going to die!!!! AHHHHH!!!!!
Oh wait, I forgot. The MELTING POINT OF ICE is 0 deg C. So what is happening as a result of 1.4deg F increase in temp?
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
So we had to wait 135 years to get 1.4 deg F of warming?
How many HUNDREDS OF YEARS will it take for the temperature at the poles to increase SIGNIFICANTLY ABOVE FREEZING so that ice melts could be significant? Several centuries or so?
Given current events, 'radicalized' islamists will have already been here and taken our heads and enslaved and enforced the JIZZYAH tax (no joke!) on the rest of us left alive WELL BEFORE that even has a chance of happening. Certain prominent individuals who are now indicating we should be fearing and avoiding all robots, also seem to have no idea of what 'radicalized' islamists want to do to the West, Christians and Jews. And they're doing more and more of it on a daily basis and slowly making their way into this country. 2 ISIS camps are now just across the southern border. The robots are coming! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES! Yeah, right. Perhaps they should stop watching movies like Terminator and Ex Machina. After all, we don't let young children watch horror movies for the same reasons. Anyway...
Again, even IF the ice melted, so what? Sea levels will remain the same, and nothing will happen except perhaps a chance for some lower prices on consumer goods, and ocean cruises.
Fact 4: Several 'scientists' and scientific organizations (NOAA, NASA) have been CAUGHT FALSIFYING temperature data in order to 'prove' their global warming theories. If the data had to be falsified, what does tell us about their THEORIES? It tells us their theories were FALSE, and that the falsifiers are frauds and liars who at the very least need to be fired if not outright JAILED for their FRAUD. Al Gore anyone? He's made millions on his lies about global warming. Isn't that called fraud? Talk about FEAR-MONGERING!
Fact 5: If companies such as Solyndra, and many others, who focused on renewable energy technologies, have FAILED, what does that tell us? It tells us that renewable energy technology is NOT ECONOMICALLY VIABLE. Period. If it was, all our electronic devices and homes would all be running on solar or wind energies for MUCH LOWER PRICES than we currently pay. I don't see everyone's home covered in solar cells. I don't see wind farms all over the place. Last I checked, it cost much more to produce practical electric vehicles and corn-based fuel than regular cars and regular fuel. We're wasting corn and harming our economy on practices which make NO ECONOMIC sense. Whose idea was this? Someone needs to apologize to everyone who bought a Prius (or a Volt) and thus HARMED the environment, and to the rest of us for destroying all that corn and wasted so much money making ethanol. In fact, someone needs to apologize and get fired for FORCING car companies to produce electric vehicles which are NOT economically OR ENVIRONMENTALLY viable. It would have been better for us, our national economy, as well as gas prices, to just buy a truck and use regular unleaded.
Fact 6: Anyone who espouses false and EASILY DISPROVABLE THEORIES such as global warming, has either been deceived, or IS A LYING FRAUD and DECEIVER.
The reader needs to decide which group they belong to.
So, which one are you?
Hopefully, you haven't been fooled by a pack of manipulative liars and frauds.
Have a nice Day.
[Edits made for clarity and grammar]
- Tue Apr 28, 2015 10:40 pm
- Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
- Topic: Guns are like Climate change...
- Replies: 91
- Views: 11326
Re: Guns are like Climate change...
Wind and solar are dilute, intermittent, and expensive. They will never replace other power options beyond a few percent in a free market without heavy subsidies or regulation.
Everyone always forgets nuclear which is probably the cheapest and most global warming friendly energy source. All the environmentalists still hate it I guess.
Everyone always forgets nuclear which is probably the cheapest and most global warming friendly energy source. All the environmentalists still hate it I guess.
- Tue Apr 28, 2015 10:34 pm
- Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
- Topic: Guns are like Climate change...
- Replies: 91
- Views: 11326
Re: Guns are like Climate change...
$4 dollar per gallon gas has more to do with consumer push for fuel efficiency. Gas is expensive and people want more range also. I like basic laws on air pollution, but that is not the same thing. CAFE standards probably had an effect, but consumers want fuel efficiency and that is driving things mostly.
- Tue Apr 28, 2015 10:30 pm
- Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
- Topic: Guns are like Climate change...
- Replies: 91
- Views: 11326
Re: Guns are like Climate change...
Cb1000rider, Dr.Hansen who is the big researcher at NASA is a Global Warming activist. He is not objective at all on the subject. After repeated attempts to get his raw data, he finally said it was gone. Other data that has been widely cited from other sources has also been found to be fudged. Since there is no true average temperature of the Earth, the researchers have to average out the data, and some have been proven to have manipulated the data, withheld data, or set up averaging algorithms that give the same result no matter what input is included. The known scandals alone are enough the whole idea should be discredited. If it wasn't for the political push and fundind behind it, I think it would have.
I am almost finished with The Mad Mad Mad World of Climatism by Steve Goreham. It is certainly anti-global warming, but it does a good job of covering the problems with the science, the research, the economics, and the political aspects in a book that isn't too long and names plenty of sources and quotes. I would recommend it if you want to read the other side.
I also disagree with your assumption that we are creating all this heat. I really don't think what we create is very much compared to total solar input and natural sources. I have never heard any global warming proponents talk about that at all.
I am almost finished with The Mad Mad Mad World of Climatism by Steve Goreham. It is certainly anti-global warming, but it does a good job of covering the problems with the science, the research, the economics, and the political aspects in a book that isn't too long and names plenty of sources and quotes. I would recommend it if you want to read the other side.
I also disagree with your assumption that we are creating all this heat. I really don't think what we create is very much compared to total solar input and natural sources. I have never heard any global warming proponents talk about that at all.
- Tue Apr 28, 2015 4:26 pm
- Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
- Topic: Guns are like Climate change...
- Replies: 91
- Views: 11326
Re: Guns are like Climate change...
"Science" and "consensus" are incompatable. There is no consensus in science. It is either tested and proves true or not. Anything less than that is speculation and hypothesis. I get the impression some people want to get rid of the scientific method.
On the other side, why would scientists be an authority on gun issues at all? They might be very knowledgeable in the very narrow scope of their field of study, but there are lots of posters on this site who have more knowledge of the technical and political issues around guns than most if not all of those scientists.
On the other side, why would scientists be an authority on gun issues at all? They might be very knowledgeable in the very narrow scope of their field of study, but there are lots of posters on this site who have more knowledge of the technical and political issues around guns than most if not all of those scientists.