Global warming -- America's greatest threat!

Page 1 of 5  
The forecast for tonight, here in the Midwest, is for the low to be in the single digits and the wind chill to be in the negative single digits.
I hope this doesn't start another discussion about W I N D C H I L L.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 17 Nov 2014 20:36:55 -0600, "Albert Gore, Jr." <There's a sucker born every minute.> wrote:

Throw all that wind and the ice and snow to follow in the ocean and see if sea level drops.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/17/2014 10:20 PM, snipped-for-privacy@invalid.com wrote:

Due to global warming (and our failure to act) ISIS or ISIL will likely soon be active in the USA, along with all those Mexicans and OTM. It's our fault of course, driving cars and using air conditioners.
Last night I forgot to put the towel in the crack under the door, and it sure is global warming in the living room this morning. Western NY is about 18F of global warming, and I'm not eager to step out.
I'm part of the problem, using a natural gas furnace to stay warm. I'm so evil, I should use solar panels.
Been 100% overcast for last several days, not likely to do much good. I need government subsidies, that's it. Government money.
- . Christopher A. Young Learn about Jesus www.lds.org .
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/18/2014 07:24 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:

Mr. Handyman could fix that crack for you.
http://www.mrhandyman.com/
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/18/2014 4:34 PM, Brock O'Bama wrote:

This crack is far too big for handyman, requires a plumber.
- . Christopher A. Young Learn about Jesus www.lds.org .
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/18/2014 05:53 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:

Oh ok. Here ya go:
http://www.mrrooter.com
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Albert Gore, Jr.;3309852 Wrote: > The forecast for tonight, here in the Midwest, is for the low to be in

While that may be true, Australians are baking in 40+ degree Celsius temperatures. That's over 104 deg. F.
The highest temperature I've ever experienced here in Winnipeg is 37 deg. C, or 98.6 degrees F, and that was about 20 years ago. Coldest was -52 deg. Farenheit, when I was a kid and before Canada went metric.
Winter is not the best time to be looking for evidence of global warming.
--
nestork


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday, November 18, 2014 1:17:11 AM UTC-5, nestork wrote:

Winter isn't the best time, but it's as good a time as any other. Whether it's warmer in winter or summer doesn't matter.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 17 Nov 2014 20:36:55 -0600, "Albert Gore, Jr." <There's a sucker born every minute.> wrote in

Man-made climate warming/change is quack science used by big-government tax and spend politicians and special interest groups to justify massive new taxes and government control (think gas cans, light bulbs and carbon taxes). Indeed, many of the UN-IPCC input data assumptions used in the Global Warming Climate Change computer models are egregiously unrealistic, e.g. CO2 uptake via the global ocean/air interface, effects of solar activity, very limited data sampling, sub-surface ocean current movement changes, chronic underestimate of methane effects, variability of volcanic ash and CO2 ejection, methane overestimation, etc. There are many others. As the developers of computer models like to say: "Garbage in, garbage out".
The IPCC previous report, in 2007, was so grotesquely flawed that the leading scientific body in the United States, the InterAcademy Council, decided that an investigation was warranted. The IAC duly reported in 2010, and concluded that there were "significant shortcomings in each major step of [the] IPCC’s assessment process", and that "significant improvements" were needed. It also chastised the IPCC for claiming to have "high confidence in some statements for which there is little evidence".
Indeed, A peer-reviewed climate change study released in Sept 2013 by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change finds the threat of man-made global warming to be not only greatly exaggerated but so small as to be "embedded within the background variability of the natural climate system" and not dangerous.
Want more? How about: “The dysfunctional nature of the climate sciences is nothing short of a scandal. Science is too important for our society to be misused in the way it has been done within the Climate Science Community.” The global warming establishment “has actively suppressed research results presented by researchers that do not comply with the dogma of the IPCC.” -- Swedish Climatologist Dr. Hans Jelbring of the Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics Unit at Stockholm University.
Last, but not least, is additional dissonance added to the debate regarding the many beneficial aspects of warming, regardless or who or what is causing it.
A new report from the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), written by an international collection of scientists and published by the conservative Heartland Institute, claims just that, declaring that humanity's impact on climate is not causing substantial harm to the Earth.
For a sample of big-media bias on this issue, read "LA Times bans letters from climate skeptics" (you will have to search for it because this site doesn't allow posting of links.)
Permission granted to freely copy/paste the above.
--
Web based forums are like subscribing to 10 different newspapers
and having to visit 10 different news stands to pickup each one.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Per CRNG:

How do you suppose the people behind it managed to sell the idea to China's Central Committee? Not exactly a hotbed of tree huggers.
How about Xi Jinping?
--
Pete Cresswell

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday, November 18, 2014 11:19:25 AM UTC-5, (PeteCresswell) wrote:

The Chinese didn't buy anything. All they did was take Obama over the barrel, just like everyone else. It's not a treaty, it's not binding. It's just a bad agreement, where the US is supposed to reduce our emissions by 25% by 2025. The Chinese in turn "say" they will stop increasing their emissions by 2030. You think that's a good deal? Obama wants to pretend it is, because he's desperate to grasp at straws.
If you like that deal, wait until next week, when they conclude dealing with the Iranians. He'll probably let them build the bomb and declare that a historic agreement too.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Xi Jinping's ideology is not unlike our liar-in-chief's, he'll say what he believes the world wants to hear and then he'll do what ever the hell he wants. What's your point?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Last night I was listening to some "expert" talking about global warming, and he was saying that current forecasts suggest that it won't be until 2080 or thereabouts that the use of fossil fuels will start diminishing. That is, the use of fossil fuels for energy is going to keep increasing until 2080, and then start to subside. A lot of this is because of all the people in China, India and Brazil that are making their way out of the lower class into the middle class and wanting to buy cars. Also, many countries have abundant coal resources and don't want to be importing oil and LNG as long as they can use their own coal reserves to provide the energy they need.
This week, Barak Obama and the Chinese Prime Minister signed a deal saying that both countries would begin reducing their carbon footprints by 2030. Obama is a lame duck president and he knows that anything he signs will not bind the next President of the USA. The Chinese Prime Minister knows that he's not likely to still be in power by 2030 either.
The bottom line here is that our society is based on fossil fuels. Our cities have suburbs where people live 10 or more miles from the city centers where they work. If it were not for cars and gasoline, those suburbs would not be practical. Also, cities are growing, and most new houses and buildings use fossil fuels for heat and use electricity produced by burning fossil fuels for air conditioning. That's simply because using fossil fuels for heat costs less than electricity, and will for the foreseeable future. And, while we may be able to use electric cars to commute to work, what will aeroplanes be powered with except hydrocarbon fuels? Our entire society runs on fossil fuels, and it's going to take several generations to change to a non-carbon based society. It's easy enough for people to complain about the problem, but changing our society to a carbon neutral one is going to be a very slow process if it happens at all.
--
nestork


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday, November 18, 2014 1:17:16 PM UTC-5, nestork wrote:

Wrong. Under the agreement, the USA is to reduce it's emissions starting immediately and have them down by ~25% by 2025. China? They can keep increasing their emissions until 2030 and only then start reducing them. There are no penalties, it's not even a treaty. In other words, it ain't worth the paper it's printed on. And even if it were, it's a bad deal for the USA.
Obama is a lame duck president and he knows that anything he

Bingo. Plus the Chinese president doesn't have to change for him to just say "never mind" a few years from now. Hell, he could do it next year, tell Obama to get lost, and Obama would call that a historic achievement too.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Per Gordon Shumway:

That he is closer to a dictator than an elected official and a very tough character who I wouldn't think cares very much about what the world wants to hear.
Likewise, I would not see The Central Committee as being driven by public opinion. Witness Tiananmen Square and the hundreds-if-not-thousands of people in prison for saying the wrong thing.
Bottom Line: if somebody is calling global warming some sort of hoax, they have to explain why the Chinese government is buying in to it.
That doesn't mean an explaination is not there - just that I have not yet heard one that makes sense.
--
Pete Cresswell

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 17 Nov 2014 20:36:55 -0600, "Albert Gore, Jr." <There's a sucker born every minute.> wrote:

Yes, freezing on the east coast as well. But that's why the name changed to "Climate Change", because certain people point out the cold extremes and say puff to global warming. Weather does not equal Climate (<> or != depending on the computer language).
I think that climate change is real and is caused by use of fossil fuels, and I certainly hope that I (and the vast majority of climate scientists) are wrong. I think not.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/18/2014 1:31 PM, dgk wrote:

I think that climate change has been happening since long before humans discovered fossil fuels. I don't think there is a cause and effect bit that fuels cause change. Rather, changes in weather dictate more or less use of fuels to keep our homes comfortable.
- . Christopher A. Young Learn about Jesus www.lds.org .
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2013/09/09/heartland-institute-nipcc-fail-the-credibility-test/
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/18/2014 1:42 PM, dgk wrote:

I pointed out in another ng that there are other "Grubber's" than the one being talked about in lying about Obamacare.
You can bet that there are many of them in the government climate change movement.
Where are the most climatologists employed but in the government? These scientists are just like any other people that know that the way to get along is to go along and give the boss what he wants.
I saw it happen here in Delaware when the state climatologist said when Mother Nature comes along, get out of her way. The Democrat government had a hissy fit because they wanted him to say we must stop using fossil fuels. He's no longer the state climatologist.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday, November 18, 2014 2:51:19 PM UTC-5, Frank wrote:

An interesting observation. I agree. If the global warming controversy were over, I would not be surprised to see some similar Grubers come forward to admit they were fudging, distorting, lying. After all, like Gruber and Obama, they are smarter than the rest of us, know what's best, and anything is justified to further the cause.

Another interesting thing. I have to fast forward through the first five minutes of the nightly national news about half the time now. The lead story is the weather. A wind storm here, some heavy rain there, a small tornado that blew over one building, etc. Ten years ago, that was just normal stuff of little consequence and they didn't even cover it. Now it's the lead story. They even give the forecast for the days ahead as the top story. I'm sick of it. They don't directly try to link it to global warming, but clearly they have an agenda and are desperately trying to portray the weather now as somehow radically different.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.