PDA

View Full Version : Global Warming Hoax is Now Killing People



KDawg
02-13-2012, 10:49 PM
By Friday, February 10th, an estimated 500 Europeans had died from the freezing weather gripping the continent. This is the price they and British citizens are paying for embracing the global warming hoax, spending billions for wind power when they should have been building coal-fired and other sources of energy to heat their homes and businesses.http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/44602

Death for the joke that is political correctness.

Barry Morris
02-13-2012, 10:59 PM
Global warming?? Not sure.

Climate change?? Well, DUH!!!

Anapeg
02-13-2012, 11:46 PM
Our climate is/has been constantly in a state of flux and forever shall be so. Our Great Lakes have gone from a river flowing where the lakes now be to an inland sea and everything in between. The beat goes on. Nothing new to see here, move on folks.

Barry Morris
02-13-2012, 11:49 PM
Our climate is/has been constantly in a state of flux and forever shall be so. Our Great Lakes have gone from a river flowing where the lakes now be to an inland sea and everything in between. The beat goes on. Nothing new to see here, move on folks.

Hope you're right.

Maybe I SHOULD fix my snowblower, is that what you're saying?? :) :) :)

Anapeg
02-14-2012, 01:20 AM
Hope you're right.

Maybe I SHOULD fix my snowblower, is that what you're saying?? :) :) :)

Sort of, more like what goes around comes around.

Barry Morris
02-14-2012, 09:14 AM
I've never seen a satisfactory explanantion for this.

Apparently, long, long ago, vegetation died off, trapping carbon dioxide in the earth for millions of years. Now, we are releasing that CO2 into the atmosphere with all our industry and vehicles by burning oil.

To think that this will have no effect whatsoever on the climate is just naive.

Another recently read tidbit was that, millions of years ago, there was a time that many animals died off because CO2levels rose over a period of time. CO2 levels are rising now at 10 times that rate.

And it still seems that those with a vested interest in the status quo continue poo-pooing climate change.

Interesting times.

Koss
02-14-2012, 09:18 AM
Why don't you tell me what level of education you have in the sciences Lebowski and what work you have completed in this study. Or is this just a gut feeling you have because you don't like what the scientist are telling you?

Barry Morris
02-14-2012, 10:49 AM
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/44602

Death for the joke that is political correctness.

Didn't people die of the heat somewhere last summer??

Anapeg
02-14-2012, 11:34 AM
Didn't people die of the heat somewhere last summer??

People die from exposure year round all over the globe. We measure our weather at anything from "normal" through "extreme". This is considered a common year and a year without "extremes" would be note worthy. This is as with loosing species . Evolution still at work but man now accelerates the process and oft time sets it in motion. The only constant on our planet is change. Something once thought of has proved to have more impact on out climate than believed is El Nino. Our problem emanates from our own definitions of the word "normal". We record weather for a few hundred years and deem this as "norms" for an earth millions of years old. "Norms" contain everything from desert to raging floods combined with species dying, we simply need embrace this. The CO2 we have pumped into the air must on some level compare favourably with what volcanoes emit in a similar or lessor time frame. We are no better or worse than what has come before, surly?

Barry Morris
02-14-2012, 01:51 PM
Who you callin' "surly"???

Barry Morris
02-14-2012, 01:52 PM
Interesting that you say this:

"Evolution still at work but man now accelerates the process and oft time sets it in motion."

And yet man can't affect nature??

Wait a minute.....

Anapeg
02-14-2012, 01:55 PM
Interesting that you say this:

"Evolution still at work but man now accelerates the process and oft time sets it in motion."

And yet man can't affect nature??

Wait a minute.....

You took that out of context, my point being not any worse than nature itself.

Barry Morris
02-14-2012, 01:59 PM
Aha!!

dancingqueen
02-14-2012, 06:42 PM
I've never seen a satisfactory explanantion for this.

Apparently, long, long ago, vegetation died off, trapping carbon dioxide in the earth for millions of years. Now, we are releasing that CO2 into the atmosphere with all our industry and vehicles by burning oil.

To think that this will have no effect whatsoever on the climate is just naive.

Another recently read tidbit was that, millions of years ago, there was a time that many animals died off because CO2levels rose over a period of time. CO2 levels are rising now at 10 times that rate.

And it still seems that those with a vested interest in the status quo continue poo-pooing climate change.

Interesting times.

Your statement would have more relevancy if our environment where a static thing, as in from decade to decade, century after century etc... it stayed completely the same, since we are still alive as a race today, I would suggest it is fairly safe to say we do not live in a static environment, seems like everything within it, it evolves, or adapts in order to maintain itself. So, I don't believe anyone is saying that we are having no effect on the environment, so quit with the hyperbole. I know, I know, you need to blow everything out of context and proportion in order to make any point, but doing so looses the point.

Barry Morris
02-14-2012, 08:22 PM
So are you saying that the effect of man on the environment is insignificant??

dancingqueen
02-15-2012, 04:46 AM
So are you saying that the effect of man on the environment is insignificant??

Why don't you show me where I said that.. or anything at all similar in the slightest way...
Did you even read my post?

Barry Morris
02-15-2012, 11:08 AM
Why don't you show me where I said that.. or anything at all similar in the slightest way...
Did you even read my post?

Yes I read your post, over and over.

Obviously I didn't understand what you are saying.

So are you saying the opposite, or will you re-phrase??

dancingqueen
02-15-2012, 02:59 PM
Yes I read your post, over and over.

Obviously I didn't understand what you are saying.

So are you saying the opposite, or will you re-phrase??

What I am saying is that it is quite evident from where I stand that the environment is a constantly evolving structure, and changes with the organisms and contaminants inside of itself, so to the contrary, I would say we have a large impact on the environment, however, I suggest the effect we have is not a negative one that the global warming enthusiasts would have you believe.

Barry Morris
02-15-2012, 03:51 PM
What I am saying is that it is quite evident from where I stand that the environment is a constantly evolving structure, and changes with the organisms and contaminants inside of itself, so to the contrary, I would say we have a large impact on the environment, however, I suggest the effect we have is not a negative one that the global warming enthusiasts would have you believe.

Got it. Thanks.

But what about the burning of fossil fuels, in effect putting into the environement CO2 way over and above what would normally be present?? I believe that to be a negative effect.

Anapeg
02-15-2012, 05:03 PM
Got it. Thanks.

But what about the burning of fossil fuels, in effect putting into the environement CO2 way over and above what would normally be present?? I believe that to be a negative effect.

How much CO2 comes from a volcanic eruption of any sizable magnitude? I have to believe it at least comparable if not more than humans have ever pumped into the environment.

dancingqueen
02-15-2012, 06:20 PM
Got it. Thanks.

But what about the burning of fossil fuels, in effect putting into the environement CO2 way over and above what would normally be present?? I believe that to be a negative effect.

Well, I am not an environmentalist, geologist, or really any kind of scientist, so I couldn't really begin to tell you how this works, but so far, it seems to be working.... The environment is still there, after all this significant damage would have likely buckled already...
But, we like to exercise control in everything as humans, controlling and dominating... it goes in all kinds of directions.

NewCasa
02-15-2012, 09:07 PM
I'm all for conspiracy theories. I'm thinking we should blame the Dutch. They're a nasty bunch.

Barry Morris
02-15-2012, 09:16 PM
Well, I am not an environmentalist, geologist, or really any kind of scientist, so I couldn't really begin to tell you how this works, but so far, it seems to be working.... The environment is still there, after all this significant damage would have likely buckled already...
But, we like to exercise control in everything as humans, controlling and dominating... it goes in all kinds of directions.

Yes the environment is still there.. Of course, if it was polutted to the point of being uninhabitable it would still be there!!!

I read a story that mentioned the possibility of a "greenhouse cliff". Basically, things seems to gradually worsen to a certain point. Then the accumulative effect of man's abuse of the environment radically accelerates beyond any hope of control.

We hope that guy was wrong.

KDawg
02-15-2012, 11:24 PM
The climate has been changing since there's been a climate on earth.

To force countries to build wind-power or solar power farms instead of EFFECTIVE coal-fired plants is retarded to the extreme.

Barry Morris
02-16-2012, 11:30 AM
The climate has been changing since there's been a climate on earth.

To force countries to build wind-power or solar power farms instead of EFFECTIVE coal-fired plants is retarded to the extreme.

And how many die as a result of coal pollution, as compared to wind power, or nuclear??