Hawking warns: We must recognise the catastrophic dangers of climate change

[Stinger]

Perhaps not, but you certainly spout the stereotype of one.

Again, no premise, just more attack

More attack

some spin

More spin

More attack and disregard for the actual argument.

Avoiding the question

more spinning

lack of rebuttle noted.

Yes to ask the ppl of NO whether or not Katrina was a threat to them.

Red Herring, any hurricane that comes close is a threat, you were blaming it on global warming making it more a threat, I live here they were threats when temps were cooling and when they warming.

The frequencies are about to get much worse.

Pure conjecture on your part and they naturally cycle as to the numbers of them.

More attack with disregard to the argument.

More lack of rebuttle and when did you suddenly come to the belief that anytime someone did rebut your arguments it is an attack. You sound like Hillary.

More spin

More lack of rebuttle.

I answered that it was never my argument to begin with, it was your spin. My premise was clearly and consistantly that GW leads to higher frequencies of tropical storms.

Which is supposition not supported by fact.

Somehow the heartland institute is now a peer reviewed scientific publisher? Koch Family funded. Perhaps you know who kock is? The US's largest energy producer?

Aha, when you can't rebut attack the messenger. I cited several experts, your conclusions are not a concensus by the experts by any means. And I can cite more.

The author of this Nature paper is Kerry Emanuel of MIT. And here's the full paper in pdf format.

Ahhh from his homepage


1.) Q: Is global warming causing more hurricanes?
A: No. The global, annual frequency of tropical cyclones (the generic, meteorological term for the storm that is called a tropical storm or hurricane in the Atlantic region) is about 90, plus or minus 10. There is no indication whatsoever of a long-term trend in this number.



http://wind.mit.edu/~emanuel/anthro2.htm



And in the LETTER you cite, he clearly states that we can better measure the intensity now compared to earlier years which most hurricane experts attribute to what appears to be an increase in intensity .

Also here's another more recent publication
Atlantic hurricane trends linked to climate change. EOS, 87, 233-244

From your own cite.
ftp://texmex.mit.edu/pub/emanuel/PAPERS/EOS_mann_emanuel_2006.pdf
Some recent studies
[e.g., Goldenberg et al., 2001] have attributed
these increases to a natural climate cycle
termed the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation
(AMO),

That GW is causing an intensity or increase in hurricane activity is pure speculation.

There you go again.

Yep rebutting your assertions and conjecture, I guess you will say I'm attacking you again.

 

[jfuh]

Red Herring, any hurricane that comes close is a threat, you were blaming it on global warming making it more a threat, I live here they were threats when temps were cooling and when they warming.

Is warm water the fuel for hurricanes? YEs or no?

Pure conjecture on your part and they naturally cycle as to the numbers of them.

I'm not discussing natural cycles.

More lack of rebuttle and when did you suddenly come to the belief that anytime someone did rebut your arguments it is an attack. You sound like Hillary.


More lack of rebuttle.

more attack with avoidance to the argument

Which is supposition not supported by fact.

Obviously you did not read the papers I cited.

Aha, when you can't rebut attack the messenger. I cited several experts, your conclusions are not a concensus by the experts by any means. And I can cite more.

You cited one single journalists, not a scientists. I've cited two peer reviewed scientific articles.

Ahhh from his homepage


1.) Q: Is global warming causing more hurricanes?
A: No. The global, annual frequency of tropical cyclones (the generic, meteorological term for the storm that is called a tropical storm or hurricane in the Atlantic region) is about 90, plus or minus 10. There is no indication whatsoever of a long-term trend in this number.



http://wind.mit.edu/~emanuel/anthro2.htm

If you read further down the page:

9) Q:

OK, maybe we won’t see global warming effects in landfalling hurricanes for another 50 years or so, but shouldn’t we still be worried about it?

A: The answer to this question is largely a matter of one’s geographical and time horizons. For U.S.-centric concerns over the next 30-50 years, by far the most important hurricane problem we face is demographic and political. Consider that Katrina, as horrible as it was, was by no means unprecedented, meteorologically speaking. More intense storms have struck the U.S. coastline long ago. The big problem is the headlong rush to tropical coastlines, coupled with federal and state policies that subsidize the risk incurred by coastal development. Private property insurance is heavily regulated by each state, and political pressure keeps rates low in high-risk regions like tropical coastlines, thus encouraging people to build flimsy structures there. (Those living in low-risk regions pay for this in artificially high premiums.) Federal flood insurance pays for storm surge damage, and like private insurance, its rates do not reflect the true risk. We are subsidizing risky behavior and should not be surprised at the result.
On the other hand, if one’s view is not confined to the U.S. but is global, and/or one’s time horizon is more than 50 years, global warming may indeed begin to have a discernible influence on hurricane damage, especially when coupled with projected increases in sea level.

The very premise of the former two papers which I've cited. As I said, you only view the short term and the present, never the long term. Warmer weather of course leads to warmer ocean surface temperatures, which of course would fuel more tropical storms with higher evaporation rates. Seems your common sense spins the other direction.

And in the LETTER you cite, he clearly states that we can better measure the intensity now compared to earlier years which most hurricane experts attribute to what appears to be an increase in intensity .

:lamo, more spin

From your own cite.

Some recent studies
[e.g., Goldenberg et al., 2001] have attributed
these increases to a natural climate cycle
termed the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation
(AMO),

That GW is causing an intensity or increase in hurricane activity is pure speculation.

Like I said, no one is attributing the current trend to GW. What my argument has consistantly been is that GW will lead (future tense) to higher frequencies as has been shown in the two articles I've cited.

Yep rebutting your assertions and conjecture, I guess you will say I'm attacking you again.

You've done nothing but run away and spin with dishonest half truths.

 

[Stinger]

Is warm water the fuel for hurricanes? YEs or no?

Partly, which proves nothing.

I'm not discussing natural cycles.

:rofl you're desperately trying not to.

more attack with avoidance to the argument

I've addressed it directly and your senseitivety to having your positions refuted is BORING.

Obviously you did not read the papers I cited.

Yes I did, speculation.

You cited one single journalists, not a scientists. I've cited two peer reviewed scientific articles.

I cited YOUR source.

:lamo, more spin

From you yes.

Like I said, no one is attributing the current trend to GW.

Then we have nothing further to discuss, you agree with me.

 

[jfuh]

Partly, which proves nothing.

So what's another fuel for hurricanes?
Actually if you understood the matter, if warm water fuels hurricanes as you accept, and global warming contributes to even warmer waters, then it's not hard to connect the two dots together.

you're desperately trying not to.

Why need I? There's nothing natural about the current trends.

I've addressed it directly and your senseitivety to having your positions refuted is BORING.

More attack and avoiding the argument.

Yes I did, speculation.

The papers were hardly "speculation".

I cited YOUR source.

My source agrees with my position. If you read it thoroughly you would understand this.

From you yes.

Pathetic, yes you did, no you didn't, yes you did. Tell me when you graduate from elementary stinger.

Then we have nothing further to discuss, you agree with me.

:lamo, there you go again. taking meaning out of context.
First off, you never had an argument to present other than - no it's not, yes you are. I'm right your wrong. As these posts have shown, you've done precisly nothing at all but to show just how much a partisan hack you are. No facts, bias sources and deceitful mis-quotes. On the same page you last posted where the author said Katrina had nothing to do with GW - which I never claimed. The same author also says - as I quoted - that global warming will indeed cause higher frequencies. The matter is tense - one is present one is future.
The mis-information you give is that global warming causes hurricanes, where as no one has ever said nor claimed the GW does so. What GW does do is cause higher frequencies of hurricanes with the effect of GW to cause warmer ocean surface temperatures which you agree fuels hurricanes. As well as all the literature states.
Yet you cherry pick out bits and pieces irrelevent to the discussion to spin the data out from it's original context as well as sickly twisting the argument all together.

Hurricanes are a threat to coastal areas - especially low lying regions. You have higher frequencies of them because of warmer waters you increase the chance for landfall of such storms. Global warming increases surface temperatures creating warmer water, thus allowing for more instances of hurricanes as well as stronger hurricanes. Hence one example of the many threats to mankind from global warming.
The only way you have of making an argument is by taking apart your opponents post and putting each and every word under a microscope or just responding to part of an argument. It only shows of your total lack in ability to present a rational argument of your own because you know that you are dead on wrong. Yet being the neocon apologetic, you must continue this non-sense of political hacking.

Let me know when you can present a sound argument without dissection under a microscope and spinning.
As with what you have presented thus far, you've utterly lost this argument.

 

[jfuh]

Some recent studies
[e.g., Goldenberg et al., 2001] have attributed
these increases to a natural climate cycle
termed the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation
(AMO),

That GW is causing an intensity or increase in hurricane activity is pure speculation.

To show just how dishonest you are, you cite this single quote but then it's interesting how you refuse to post the very title and the conclusion of the paper here

Title: Atlantic Hurricane Trends Linked
to Climate Change
conclusion: There is a strong historical relationship
between tropical Atlantic SST and tropical
cyclone activity extending back through the
late nineteenth century. There is no apparent
role of the AMO. The underlying factors appear
to be the influence of (primarily anthropogenic)
forced large-scale warming, and an offsetting
regional cooling overprint due to late
twentieth century anthropogenic tropospheric
aerosol forcing. These findings have implications
for potential impacts of various alternative
possible future anthropogenic forcing scenarios
on Atlantic tropical cyclone trends.

As well as the remainder of the AMO.

if the AMO were indeed responsible
for anomalous recent tropical North
Atlantic warmth, the THC should have exhibited
a trend toward anomalous strength in
recent decades, since model simulations
indicate that tropical North Atlantic surface
warmth associated with the AMO is in phase
with the strength of the North Atlantic THC
[see, e.g., Figure 3 in Knight et al., 2005]. Yet
the only direct oceanic measurements available
suggest a decrease, not an increase, in
the THC between the late 1950s and the past
decade [Bryden et al., 2005].

Very representative of the exact dishonesty you have presented here.

 

[Stinger]

Scientists Debunk 'Global Warming' Effect on Hurricanes

The experts include Dr. James O'Brien, professor of meteorology & oceanography at the Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies at Florida State University; Dr. Gary Sharp, scientific director at the Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study; Dr. Anthony Lupo, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Missouri - Columbia; Dr. David Legates, associate professor of climatology at the University of Delaware; and George Taylor, Oregon State climatologist.
Scientists Debunk 'Global Warming' Effect on Hurricanes -- 09/15/2004

So what's another fuel for hurricanes?

The primary one, the sun.

The actual peak in hurricanes in the last 100 years when we've been able to measure them was in the 1940's not now.

Why need I? There's nothing natural about the current trends.

According to hurricane experts and climatologist you are factually wrong.

The papers were hardly "speculation".

The positions were speculative, what they think might be able to happen but they don't know and could be wrong, there is no evidence to support that any changes in the climate have effected on hurricane or that and future so-called global warming will effect them.

My source agrees with my position. If you read it thoroughly you would understand this.

He specifically debunked it.

Pathetic, yes you did, no you didn't, yes you did. Tell me when you graduate from elementary stinger.

Tell me when you want to have an adult conversation.

Oh and here from some more experts:

"
Until last week, that is. Geophysical Research Letters has just published a paper by a combination of climate modelers and paleoclimatologists testing this hypothesis. They found a realistic AMO signal in climate model run with constant level of external forcings (i.e. no changing greenhouse concentrations) for 1400 years. In fact, they found oscillations in SST patterns in the Atlantic that were similar to the AMO in the 20th century. They reported, “Our 1400 year model simulation exhibits multidecadal climate variability with a similar pattern and amplitude to that of the AMO in observations. Together with the similarity of the simulated 70-120 year period to the observed 65 year period, and the range of periods derived from paleodata (40-130 years), this suggests the model simulated a realistic AMO. Its presence over many centuries in the model supports the suggestion from observations and proxy data that the AMO is a genuine repeating mode of global-scale variability.”
The authors even go on the make a prediction that the AMO will stay in its current warm state for another couple of years and then slowly decrease over the next couple of decades. This should have the effect of lowering tropical North Atlantic SSTs and thus decreasing the frequency of intense hurricanes."

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/i...s-and-global-warming-do-not-believe-the-hype/

 

[jfuh]

Scientists Debunk 'Global Warming' Effect on Hurricanes

The experts include Dr. James O'Brien, professor of meteorology & oceanography at the Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies at Florida State University; Dr. Gary Sharp, scientific director at the Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study; Dr. Anthony Lupo, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Missouri - Columbia; Dr. David Legates, associate professor of climatology at the University of Delaware; and George Taylor, Oregon State climatologist.
Scientists Debunk 'Global Warming' Effect on Hurricanes -- 09/15/2004

1. the article is from 2004.
2. you might as well quote from the weekly standard. Another BS article from a right wing outlet.

Cybercast News Service (CNS) is a subsidiary of the conservative news monitoring group, the Media Research Center (MRC). Originally calling itself the "Conservative News Service," CNS changed its name to Cybercast in 2000. - source

I asked you for papers, you give me another opinion article. This is your "science"?

The primary one, the sun.

So why don't we see hurricanes in Kansas?

The actual peak in hurricanes in the last 100 years when we've been able to measure them was in the 1940's not now.

Who has said anything about peak?

According to hurricane experts and climatologist you are factually wrong.

What experts, what climatologists? What science? You've done nothing of the sort.

The positions were speculative, what they think might be able to happen but they don't know and could be wrong, there is no evidence to support that any changes in the climate have effected on hurricane or that and future so-called global warming will effect them.

more spin and lies.

He specifically debunked it.

debunked what?

Tell me when you want to have an adult conversation.

Oh and here from some more experts:

"
Until last week, that is. Geophysical Research Letters has just published a paper by a combination of climate modelers and paleoclimatologists testing this hypothesis. They found a realistic AMO signal in climate model run with constant level of external forcings (i.e. no changing greenhouse concentrations) for 1400 years. In fact, they found oscillations in SST patterns in the Atlantic that were similar to the AMO in the 20th century. They reported, “Our 1400 year model simulation exhibits multidecadal climate variability with a similar pattern and amplitude to that of the AMO in observations. Together with the similarity of the simulated 70-120 year period to the observed 65 year period, and the range of periods derived from paleodata (40-130 years), this suggests the model simulated a realistic AMO. Its presence over many centuries in the model supports the suggestion from observations and proxy data that the AMO is a genuine repeating mode of global-scale variability.”
The authors even go on the make a prediction that the AMO will stay in its current warm state for another couple of years and then slowly decrease over the next couple of decades. This should have the effect of lowering tropical North Atlantic SSTs and thus decreasing the frequency of intense hurricanes."

World Climate Report » Hurricanes and Global Warming: Do Not Believe the Hype

There you go again, spinning. This has already been answered for you formerly, who's talking about the current scenario?
Finally, when you have an actual paper that you can post honestly from as opposed to bias websites or "blog" sites for the science. Then there's a debate. Otherwise it's just you spinning non-sense. Nothing at all that you have been spinning here on hurricanes does not debunk the thread topic.

 

[Kasmos]

Let's get the facts out there now. We KNOW that the climate is changing, and we KNOW that it "correlates" with the massive amounts of CO2 emissions over the past few decades.

But whatever, lets put that all aside. It really bothers me that people like you Stinger are trying to say that we can't do anything about the current climate change. Yes, the climate may be changing on its own, but it is a FACT that human CO2 emissions is CONTRIBUTING to global climate change. It may not be the only factor, and it may not be as big of a factor as countless scientists believe, but why not take their scientific advice and start planning for the future?

Why sit here, arguing on this forum about who is right and who is wrong, and simply support funding for alternative fuels; change your lightbulbs to more electrical efficient bulbs; don't go out and buy a Hummer or a 10 MPG truck. Why not take a SAFE approach to the future, which will effect mine and your kids, instead of wishing that we had listened when it is too late.

Because if you do not realize this or not, whether it happens due to human emissions or not, there is a point of no return when it comes to global climate change. Once we get past that point, whether the efforts that we do or do not take help at all, there is no return.

So why not try anyway?

 

[Stinger]

Let's get the facts out there now. We KNOW that the climate is changing, and we KNOW that it "correlates" with the massive amounts of CO2 emissions over the past few decades.

No we DON'T know all that becaues it doesn't correlate with CO2 it correlates more with the activity of the Sun.

But whatever, lets put that all aside. It really bothers me that people like you Stinger are trying to say that we can't do anything about the current climate change.

Even if we instituted ALL the Kyoto accords it would have minimal effect on the climate.

Yes, the climate may be changing on its own, but it is a FACT that human CO2 emissions is CONTRIBUTING to global climate change.

Well every breath you breath CONTRIBUTES to CO2 emissions.

It may not be the only factor, and it may not be as big of a factor as countless scientists believe, but why not take their scientific advice and start planning for the future?

The issue here is the overblown rhetoric and unsubstantiated statements of fact.

Why sit here, arguing on this forum about who is right and who is wrong, and simply support funding for alternative fuels; change your lightbulbs to more electrical efficient bulbs; don't go out and buy a Hummer or a 10 MPG truck.

And you are perfectly free to do so.

Why not take a SAFE approach to the future, which will effect mine and your kids, instead of wishing that we had listened when it is too late.

go for it

Because if you do not realize this or not, whether it happens due to human emissions or not, there is a point of no return when it comes to global climate change.

Facts without evidence.

Once we get past that point, whether the efforts that we do or do not take help at all, there is no return.

Facts without evidence, and you were doing so good there for a couple of lines.

So why not try anyway?

Go for it.

 

[Stinger]

1. the article is from 2004.

So?

2. you might as well quote from the weekly standard.

You might try reading it and getting a more balance view.

Another BS article from a right wing outlet.

Wow that was an intelligent response.

I asked you for papers, you give me another opinion article. This is your "science"?

As opposed to your "Letter"?

So why don't we see hurricanes in Kansas?

You don't know?

Who has said anything about peak?

Went over your head?

What experts, what climatologists? What science? You've done nothing of the sort.

Yes I have.

 

[jfuh]

So?
You might try reading it and getting a more balance view.Wow that was an intelligent response.

The bible would be less bias about christianity then what CNS spews.

As opposed to your "Letter"?

I've posted more than one source

You don't know?

Your claim is that warm water is but one of the fuels of hurricanes and that the primary fuel is the sun. So if that is the case, why don't we see hurricanes in Kansas? Or for that matter why do hurricanes continue even at night? WHy is it that the moment a hurricane or typhoon hits land it dissipates? The sun's still shinning.
Come on stinger, tell us all how that works?

Went over your head?
Yes I have.

And here we have the clear admission by yourself that you have neither. You can't explain it, you can't fight it, so you're now backing out of the argument but still want to make the last say.
Fine, I accept your admission of your err. When you can post some science to support your premise that there is no warming and humans can not impact the environment, we'll have something to discuss.

 

[Stinger]

The bible would be less bias about christianity then what CNS spews.

If you want to quote the bible go ahead but it won't impress me none.

I've posted more than one source

As I have to

The experts include Dr. James O'Brien, professor of meteorology & oceanography at the Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies at Florida State University; Dr. Gary Sharp, scientific director at the Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study; Dr. Anthony Lupo, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Missouri - Columbia; Dr. David Legates, associate professor of climatology at the University of Delaware; and George Taylor, Oregon State climatologist.

here's another

Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide

Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?

By Timothy Ball
Monday, February 5, 2007
Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition.“Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg.” . For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.


Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?

Your claim is that warm water is but one of the fuels of hurricanes

Actually it's not even a fuel, it's a transporter of the energy that originates from the sun.

and that the primary fuel is the sun.

Where do you think the energy comes from?

So if that is the case, why don't we see hurricanes in Kansas?

Because in Kansas there is not a large enough body of water to transport the energy it collects into a low pressure area.

Or for that matter why do hurricanes continue even at night?

The more accurate question is why do they tend to weaken at night and strenghten during the day. AND water can store heat for a time.

WHy is it that the moment a hurricane or typhoon hits land it dissipates?

Because it loses the energy supplied by the sun through water that was evaporating into it.

The sun's still shinning.
Come on stinger, tell us all how that works?

Why don't we have hurricanes in cold weather when the energy from the sun is lower?

And here we have the clear admission by yourself that you have neither. You can't explain it, you can't fight it, so you're now backing out of the argument but still want to make the last say.
Fine, I accept your admission of your err.

Are you off your pedestal now?

When you can post some science to support your premise that there is no warming and humans can not impact the environment, we'll have something to discuss.

See above.

 

[jfuh]

If you want to quote the bible go ahead but it won't impress me none.

As I have to

The experts include Dr. James O'Brien, professor of meteorology & oceanography at the Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies at Florida State University; Dr. Gary Sharp, scientific director at the Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study; Dr. Anthony Lupo, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Missouri - Columbia; Dr. David Legates, associate professor of climatology at the University of Delaware; and George Taylor, Oregon State climatologist.

First off, this is the first time in this thread that you've ever cited these ppl. Second off you've never shown any of their papers. 3rdly these ppl are industry pocket fabricators with no credibility. This list is from your so called letter you keep referencing source
Try again.

here's another

Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide

Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?

By Timothy Ball
Monday, February 5, 2007
Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition.“Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg.” . For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.


Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?

Oh you mean this tim ball? Source

Actually it's not even a fuel, it's a transporter of the energy that originates from the sun.

:lamo, so then why don't we have hurricanes in Kansas stinger; hell why not have hurricanes in the polar regions?

Where do you think the energy comes from?

AS all energy with the exception of nuclear energy comes from or rather came from - the sun. But that's another spin from you again. That was not the question to you. Answer this simple question, can you have hurricanes without warm water?

Because in Kansas there is not a large enough body of water to transport the energy it collects into a low pressure area.

No large body of water, check, so water is needed. So why then do we not have hurricanes in the north/south Atlantic or polar regions stinger? Sunlight still reaches there and we also have large body of water. So what's missing stinger? Could it be warm water?

The more accurate question is why do they tend to weaken at night and strenghten during the day. AND water can store heat for a time.

Water from where stinger? The Arctic?

Because it loses the energy supplied by the sun through water that was evaporating into it.

Ahhh, hence, warm water stinger. You need warm water for there to be a hurricane. Without warm water and evaporation there can be no hurricane. The faster the evaporation rate the the more energy a hurricane receives hence the more destructive a hurricane becomes. Warmer waters thus dictate more occurances of tropical storms. The more storms, the higher that probability that these storm systems would merge and form hurricanes/typhoons thus resulting in higher frequencies of hurricanes as a result of warmer waters. Global warming retains more heat within the atmosphere and thus keeping ocean waters warmer than would be otherwise. Thus, global warming would lead to higher frequencies of tropical depressions and so on. Took only what 50 posts?

Why don't we have hurricanes in cold weather when the energy from the sun is lower?

Less evaporation from the ocean surface due to colder surface temperatures. What? did you expect something different?

Are you off your pedestal now?
See above.

Industry paid lobbiests? An article from Tim Ball posted in the CFP a Canadian equivalent of Weekly standard here in the states. I asked for science not garbage. Try again.

 

[DeeJayH]

while Hawking makes some tremendous assumptions
History will judge how great he is
I find his thoughts most intriguing
but he is hardly the end all be all of everything
especially since he believes we should not explore space or try to contact others on other worlds because they will probably be meanies
he is a genious
cant really doubt that
but there is a fine line between genious and insanity----remember this

until proven, it is all speculation
perhaps itis only mans bigges6t true test to survive the natural climate cycle that occurs regularly

 

[DeeJayH]

damn
i thought this was going to be another awesome thread

but it is just another Stinger/Jfuh thread

 

[Middleground]

Smoking cigarettes was at one point considered a healthy thing to do. Yup, right up there with eating your veggies. Even some doctors recommened the cancer sticks in health campaign ads. I bet they even recommended smoking to their ailing patients.

For some time, the debate raged on. Some people wondered how inhaling smoke could be healthy, while others poo-pooed that common sense. After all, freaking doctors were recommending them, right? And if anyone knew about health, heck, it was a good ole doc, right?

It took years for the data to come in, and it turns out that those who thought with common sense were right on the money. Inhaling smoke into your lungs = bad. Now, the evidence is irrefutable... at the expense of many who chose to smoke for health reasons.

The way I see it, common sense tells me that spewing all kinds of crap in our atmosphere has the same freaking effect. Those with open minds can easily see it. And the evidence is mounting. I say in about 5 years, most people will realize that the evidence is too overwhelming to doubt. For instance, our oceans are dying because they are CO2 sponges. The water is slowly turning acidic from the CO2 levels, which in turn cause the death of plant life, fish and the bleaching of corals. This is just one of many pieces of evidence that's currently at our disposal.

Those who go down kicking and screaming will be those who stand to lose monitarily. I say money will not matter on a dead planet. As a citizen of this world, I have a right to breathe clean air.

And Stinger, I have no doubts that you'd have been on of those that thought cigarettes were healthy. I've been on these boards enough to know how you think.

 

[DeeJayH]

Smoking cigarettes was at one point considered a healthy thing to do. Yup, right up there with eating your veggies. Even some doctors recommened the cancer sticks in health campaign ads. I bet they even recommended smoking to their ailing patients.

For some time, the debate raged on. Some people wondered how inhaling smoke could be healthy, while others poo-pooed that common sense. After all, freaking doctors were recommending them, right? And if anyone knew about health, heck, it was a good ole doc, right?

It took years for the data to come in, and it turns out that those who thought with common sense were right on the money. Inhaling smoke into your lungs = bad. Now, the evidence is irrefutable... at the expense of many who chose to smoke for health reasons.

The way I see it, common sense tells me that spewing all kinds of crap in our atmosphere has the same freaking effect. Those with open minds can easily see it. And the evidence is mounting. I say in about 5 years, most people will realize that the evidence is too overwhelming to doubt. For instance, our oceans are dying because they are CO2 sponges. The water is slowly turning acidic from the CO2 levels, which in turn cause the death of plant life, fish and the bleaching of corals. This is just one of many pieces of evidence that's currently at our disposal.

Those who go down kicking and screaming will be those who stand to lose monitarily. I say money will not matter on a dead planet. As a citizen of this world, I have a right to breathe clean air.

And Stinger, I have no doubts that you'd have been on of those that thought cigarettes were healthy. I've been on these boards enough to know how you think.

and yet common sense tellls me that the miniscule amount of affect that humans have on the planet are NOTHIGN compared to the known changes teh climate has gone thru from the beginning of this planet
99% of all species are extinct due to Mother Nature
man can not touch the destruction of Nature
and if the libs really wanted to make a difference
they would allow the construction of more nuclear plants, wind farms, etc..
but it always comes down to 'not in my backyard'
if mother nature is going to wipe us out there is nothing we can do to stop it
but I believe this whole debate is nothing more than proof that man needs to expand from our planet to the entire galaxy/universe
nothing lasts forever