Alfa Romeo Forums banner

2401 - 2420 of 2954 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,243 Posts
More notes:
As reported in Zero Hedge on December 28, 2018:
Angela Merkel
"Nations States Must Give Up Sovereignty To New World Order"

Control freaks will use any story to advance their prejudices.
Whatever they think will work.
In the 1970s, it was "Global Cooling".
Now it is "Global Warming".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,841 Posts
Obviously we are experiencing Global warming as a lot(if not all) of Research projects show a line of rising temperature over the world. So when the polar ice caps and inland glaciers are melting way. They expect the North pole Ice will be gone in 2050. Most concern is inland ice on Greenland, glaciers around the world and the South pole. If world does not stop this melting trend, some will get very wet feet, and tornadoes will be a lot wilder. Problem is that the rising economies in China and India are accelerating this temperature rising trend. However we cannot tell them not to improve their economy, so we have agreed that every country must do their best to reduce their pollution in order to check the warming.
Problem is that China and US pollutes so much that that its more than the rest of the world, China is working to phase out their coal driven Electric plants and also change over to Electric cars. US has dropped out of the Paris agreement and does not even believe in causing global warming. With leaders like that there is no surprise that other leaders are frustrated of this lack of leadership, saying jobs and pollution are more important! Hopefully there will come more responsible Potuses after this one!

G.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,598 Posts
When you say that some un-named research BELIEVES (not knows) that all of the ice will melt by 2050, you loose all credibility....

There have been so many scare stories (based on dubious research) that have proved not to be true. This appears to be just one more.....

Feel free to stop using cars, airplanes, oil, natural gas....let us know how that works out for you! And insist that China and all of the poor countries do the same.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,243 Posts
A headline in the "Sumpter Daily" on January 26, 1970:
"New Ice Age"
The article was very concerned that emissions of particulate carbon would screen the sun's energy, resulting in another "Ice Age".
Dr. Arnold Reitze was almost hysterical with worries in "Outlawing the internal combustion engines and outlawing all forms of combustion."
All those little molecules of carbon would rise to the sky, blocking the sun.
He was in such bad shape he exclaimed:
"We will be forced to sacrifice democracy..."

Well, Dr. Reitze please meet Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Al Gore and the "Science Guy".
Not to overlook all of the academics,reporters and bureaucrats making money out of the scam.
In the 1970s carbon caused "Global Cooling".
More lately the wonder molecule causes not just "Global Warming" but also "Climate Change".
And have I got a bridge for you!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,243 Posts
The point is that concerns about "Global Cooling" then made money for writers and publishers.
But big government could not find a way to blame it upon modern society.
They could not create the new "original sin".
However, the movement towards placing today's hysteria in perspective is gaining ground.

Had an article published today:

http://canadafreepress.com/article/reckless-mania-of-todays-socialists
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,025 Posts
The "global cooling" hypothesis lasted a few years in the 1970s. It was never a broad scientific consensus. Kind of silly that global warming denilaists are still trotting it out as some sort of definitive evidence. Just because a few scientists had an incorrect hypothesis 40 years, ago does not mean that the broad consensus today is incorrect.

You can deny AGW all you want- causality is notoriously impossible to prove scientifically for epistemological reasons. You can also dismiss the accuracy of modeling, as models are based off assumptions that may be wrong. But denying that warming has been happening at all requires ignoring or misrepresenting reams of hard data.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,841 Posts
We are really past the discussion if there is global warming. Plenty of Research has convinced the politicians all over the world that something has to be done about it.

But som are still in denial, the world cannnot wait until the last one is convinced(!), so there is a lot of action around the world to counteract the consequences. Most People care about using resources sustainable and what world we passing on to the next generation. Because they have to live with all the bad choices we have done! There is no arguement to pollute as much as we want when we know that it has consequences for the planet we live on!

G.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,656 Posts
When you say that some un-named research BELIEVES (not knows) that all of the ice will melt by 2050, you loose all credibility....

There have been so many scare stories (based on dubious research) that have proved not to be true. This appears to be just one more.....

Feel free to stop using cars, airplanes, oil, natural gas....let us know how that works out for you! And insist that China and all of the poor countries do the same.
Yes there has been corrections or problems with weather modelling, but as Gabor says I think we are 100% sure that the Earths ice is actually melting.

I 100% agree with Gabor and what annoys me the most is we have the knowledge and technology now to obtain our needs for energy from better resources, but for very short term political "gains" some countries have gone backwards ... China and India will soon be more responsible in this area than America. America is stuck firmly in the 1950s and does not want to move. Laughable if we did not all share a single planet, which is another thing that the current POTUS can't or won't acknowledge ...
Pete
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,243 Posts
It is best to focus criticism upon what a writer has posted.
I, and other skeptics, never denied that the temp has been doing.
It has been warming, thankfully since the Little Ice Age was at its worst in the late 1600s.
Warmers may not know about the LIA, because hysteria-mongers, such as Michael Mann, made it disappear.
Why did he "disappear" it?
Because he had to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period that prevailed for some 400 years until around 1300.
Why did he "disappear" the MEP?
Because it can't be explained by AGW.
Now the laws of physics have worked, invariably, for all of eternity. And if a current theory cannot explain real climate history, then the theory is wrong.
It was very ambitious of the promoters to "disappear" two important geological events.
It would have been honorable if Michael Mann had dropped the theory, instead the promoters cranked it up to Catastrophic AGW.
Talk about audacity!
If one wants a bigger picture, it has been cooling from the early Holocene when it was a whole lot hotter than recent. That was some 8,000 year ago.
In between, it was warmer than recent in the MEP as well as with the Roman Warming into around 500.
But it was a lot colder at the worst of the last glacial event some 22,000 years ago.
The very long history of climate change has been well-documented over the past 30 years of accumulating evidence.
And instructing it is simpler than teaching first-year physics labs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,656 Posts
Subtle,

Thank you for that information. Unfortunately your intelligent and logical argument is not what your current POTUS understands. Witness his recent "bring on global warming" comment about how cold it currently is/was in parts of the USA, proving he does not understand weather and how the warming of the earth caused that extreme coldness, and will cause more storms, etc.

The thing that really, really annoys me is the reopening up of dead, or what should be dead, industries just to give an EXTREMELY short term lift in employment numbers. It would be far more positive for him to help those affected find new areas of employment. The world does NOT want coal and more oil drilling, its ugly visually and whether it has anything to do with global warming/climate change or not, it pollutes the air we ALL breathe ... but now I'm getting political so will shut up ...
Pete
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,243 Posts
RE: POTUS
I'm Canadian and we have a whacko dreamer-child as PM.
Trump was using sarcasm.
Take away fossil fuels and modern society will go into very hard times.

If you read the article I posted--the argument is that both the financial bubble and the socialist bubbles have likely maxed out.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,656 Posts
Sure taking away fossil fuels will mean hard times (for the already rich oil producers [Trumps mates]), but that's life ... funny how this modern world is scared of hard times. We are now too entitled.

Dont believe Trump was being sarcastic. That is beyond him.
Pete
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
134 Posts
I live on a water front property on San Francisco Bay with a boat dock. I study tide charts daily. In the 35 years I have been here, the bay has not risen 1 centimeter. I won't comment on the the politics of this thread.
Here in California we are now experiencing the coldest winter in many years. Snow this winter in the Sierra Nevada mountains is breaking records...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,656 Posts
Interesting Calguy 17.


Okay lets consider two options raised in this thread:
1. Subtle says that the Earth is potentially warming due to a natural cycle. I have read about this too, years ago, and I also don't have a problem accepting that the temperature of the Earth is not a constant.
2. We have some scientists saying our pollution is causing the Earth's temperature to rise.

What can we do?
1. If we do nothing, and options 1 OR 2 are correct we will have a future problem with survival.
2. If we reduce our pollution (note I'm not just saying CO2 production as we bloody well have to do so much more for other reasons), and option 1 is correct we will have a future problem anyway, but if only option 2 is correct we may improve our future situation, and also improve our breathing air quality and populations attitude to resources in/on this planet, resulting in many other improvements in our sustainability. We might also improve our ability to think of others and not just "my country" ...

Conclusion:
Even if Subtle is right, there are still many advantages for ALL countries of this Earth encouraging the movement away from coal and oil. The only reason to stick our head in the sand, is to ensure the currently oil and coal rich companies/people stay wealthy.

And in response to "fossil fuel reduction will cause hard times"; I've grown-up believing that when life gets tough, you have to roll up your sleeves and get in and work. Heck I would never be restoring a 105 series Alfa Romeo if I believed all things in life are supposed to be simple and easy. Proof: Not long ago, after moving to Tauranga and discovering that I had made a miscalculation and should have sourced a job whilst in Sydney (we planned to start our own little company, but house prices in NZ doubled overnight), I spent ~2 years as a garbage collector; earning stuff all, arms elbow deep in crap. First time I've ever had defined shoulder muscles :). Thankfully I've managed to get back to into IT.

So yes, I believe we should reduce our reliance on coal and oil ... or listen to Thanos ...
Pete
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,841 Posts
Here a report from an island nation Kiribati in the Pacific from 2014 as they feared sea level rise. They planned relocation with dignity to another place, possibly NZ. These are just one of the many pointers to that there is a climate change in the world and the ice is melting resulting in higher sea Level.

These changes can be seen here also as inland glaciers that have been stable now have been melting away in a rapid rate! Sea Level has risen so the main square in Bergen, a western city in Norway is regularly flooded, which never happened before. In a Northern island named Svalbard which normally had minus 30 C degrees in the winter now we have experinced raining instead! Thats a big difference!

Anyway the sceptics about this topic, instead of keeping a debate going here should rather seek information the net. Lot of info there to convince anyone that we have to act together on this climate change!


G.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
462 Posts
"Here a report from an island nation Kiribati in the Pacific from 2014 as they feared sea level rise. They planned relocation with dignity to another place, possibly NZ. These are just one of the many pointers to that there is a climate change in the world and the ice is melting resulting in higher sea Level. "

Unless eastern Australia is also showing signs of being overwhelmed by rising sea levels (I'm sure not) I would think that the "rise" of sea levels at Kiribati is more likely due to the sinking of those islands due to the relative motion of plates within the lithosphere rather than very gradual sea level changes across the Pacific. But maybe (maybe) even that explanation isn't necessary as the alarmism just might be more of the typical misinformation:

https://stream.org/nation-kiribati-growing-not-sinking/
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,243 Posts
Gabor
No need to worry.
Svalbard, over geological time, has been blessed by the Atlantic current.
It conveys heat from the tropics to where it is lost in the north.
In November stories were published that both the numbers and size of those "threatened" islands in the Pacific were increasing.
Good grief, sea levels are up some 300 feet since the interglacial began some 13,000 years ago.
And the rate of increase over the last 1,000 years has been slow compared th what was going on some 8,000 years ago.
The point of the whole climate promotion is to make people worry.
Then they will go along with increasing taxes and regulations.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,025 Posts
Gabor
No need to worry.
Svalbard, over geological time, has been blessed by the Atlantic current.
It conveys heat from the tropics to where it is lost in the north.
In November stories were published that both the numbers and size of those "threatened" islands in the Pacific were increasing.
Good grief, sea levels are up some 300 feet since the interglacial began some 13,000 years ago.
And the rate of increase over the last 1,000 years has been slow compared th what was going on some 8,000 years ago.
The point of the whole climate promotion is to make people worry.
Then they will go along with increasing taxes and regulations.
It seems to me that you are engaging in a lot of motivated reasoning. You don't like tax or regulations. Nothing wrong with that, but I see a concerted effort to reject any evidence of a situation that might be a cause for regulation.

But really, taxes and regulation aren't going to be the solution to global warming. Economics is what drives the use of fossil fuels, and economics is what will drive the extinction of fossil fuels. We aren't abandoning coal because of regulations- we are abandoning coal because its energy density is quite poor and is labor intensive to extract. Eventually, oil and gas will be the same. Mind you, I work in the oil industry.
 
2401 - 2420 of 2954 Posts
Top