The Real Future of our World

[Penguin]

According to Wikipedia, it ended 8,000 years ago.

-Penguin

[mthrockmor]

The indoctrination you cite Penguin has fooled many millions more experienced then you.

Where does the money come from? So many conflicted sources. GE makes billions making wind turbines fromtax payer dollars. GE funds tens of millions in research all directed at proving global warming. Government entities that desire statism direct billions down these rat holes. I've worked in this industry for 20+ years. Seen it first hand. Sorry Penguin, first hand knowledge of what I speak.

Fraud.

Boo

[Penguin]

Worked in what industry, exactly?

-Penguin

[FLOTSOM]

Gosh..I'm ignorant..when did last Ice Age end??

funny thing is the last technical ice age was actually only a couple hundred years ago....not a big one mind you, but cold enough to classify as one.

According to Wikipedia, it ended 8,000 years ago.

-Penguin

get your nose out of wiki and start reading from both sides of the fence. http://www.eh-resources.org/timeline/timeline_lia.html just for starters.....

but if you feel you must quote from the gods of the wiki try here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

lets see now....hmmmm there was a warming period.......then there was an ice age......hmmmmmm where was the industrial age of man at this time....oh yeah thats right, it didnt exist yet!!!!! so how do your global warming tree huggers explain that? how do they blame it on the evils of industrial man? oh thats right they cant so they dont mention it!!!!

listen pen, only a fool hears one side of an argument and draws his complete answers from them, if you are not willing to research BOTH sides of a discussion before mouthing your opinion then you are just a parot spouting the propaganda of others.

[mthrockmor]

Representing interests before government.

Global warming is a bigger money maker then war.

Boo

[Penguin]

Besides the fact that the "Little Ice Age" was a local fluctuation according to both sources, if you read the first one about half way you get this:

"As late as 1930 the French Government commissioned a report to investigate the threat of the glaciers. They could not have foreseen that human induced global warming was to deal more effective with this problem than any committee ever could."

That's not evidence against man-made global warming, it's evidence for it.

-Penguin

[FLOTSOM]

Besides the fact that the "Little Ice Age" was a local fluctuation according to both sources, if you read the first one about half way you get this: local????? you better reread the articles before you talk further.....it states multiple areas that are outside of europe but additionally saw weather changes during the time period

"As late as 1930 the French Government commissioned a report to investigate the threat of the glaciers. They could not have foreseen that human induced global warming was to deal more effective with this problem than any committee ever could." and that is a fool inserting a personal view into a paper, nothing more than the promotion of personal propoganda......

That's not evidence against man-made global warming, it's evidence for it.

-Penguin

i tried to keep the reading light and simple but now your being a fool, so swallow this http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/04/21/little-ice-age-in-southern-south-america/ and try to work your argument around these http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12455 your a fool who has some intelligence but only a limited amount of reading, this is about the most dangerous type of person on the planet. you speak the propaganda of others with out bothering to truly research the facts behind the statements.

so i will say this, sit in your room and believe what you want and i will go outside and rev the peebag out of my car....see you at the cataclysm party!

[Penguin]

The first article of the second post has convinced me that the Little Ice Age was indeed global, but the fluctuation caused by the "Little Ice Age" was very much less than that caused by modern CO2 emissions.  Furthermore, if you read the first article of your first post you will indeed see what I quoted.  I am not a fool, I'm just quoting what you gave me.

Now clearly there was a specific article that you wanted me to read from the second link, but it leads to a list.  While reading them all is certainly nice, I'm sure that you intended to find one that supported your point more specifically.

I have no idea why you keep calling me a fool, though.  It's like saying "potato" every few words.  It makes your argument look less like a logical conclusion and more like an insult.

-Penguin

EDIT: Style

[Hannibal]

Here you go Penguin

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8FhmuWWcGw

[DREDIOCK]

Everyone should relax and just embrace the "green" movement.

Couple reasons.

Point 1. Fossil fuels are not an infinite supply of energy. At some point we will run out.

Point 2 Even if your dont buy into MMGW (and I dont). It is undeniable that fossil fuels are massive pollutants. I certainly wouldnt mind cleaner air and water.

Point 3 and most importantly Green technologies are the next big growth industry. Growth industries bring about several things. Profits for investors. Jobs. and spinoff products and technologies. Which in turn create their own growth industries.
Growth industries are a good thing

[FLOTSOM]

Everyone should relax and just embrace the "green" movement.

Couple reasons.

Point 1. Fossil fuels are not an infinite supply of energy. At some point we will run out.

Point 2 Even if your dont buy into MMGW (and I dont). It is undeniable that fossil fuels are massive pollutants. I certainly wouldnt mind cleaner air and water.

Point 3 and most importantly Green technologies are the next big growth industry. Growth industries bring about several things. Profits for investors. Jobs. and spinoff products and technologies. Which in turn create their own growth industries.
Growth industries are a good thing

now see pen if you had approached your arguments in this manner instead of being the prophet of the next doomsday event then we would have a discussion on the matter in a less hostile fashion. i agreed with everything dred has said without reservations!

i meant read all those articles, not just one. the reason is because there are many many opinions and views not just the view of one person making one statement and basing their opinion on a very tiny set of specific facts that are removed from the context of their entirety.

i call you a fool because you are only parroting what others say without further research. like out of all the information in that article you focus only on one line and stand on that. what is even worse is that that one line, that one statement is not even supported in any fashion within the author own article. it was a personal opinion that had no place or purpose and should have been discarded and ignored by the reader when viewing the article as a whole. the article is a good light read of the events, not to techy not to over bearing, just enough to get an idea of the discussion.

don't ever be the fool or stooge of others, take nothing you are told as Gospel until you have looked over all of the pro's and con's of all sides of the arguments. be yourself think for yourself.....

let few men tell you what to think upon.....let no man tell you how to think upon it!!!!

[mthrockmor]

Dred, sorry but wrong, wrong and wrong.

1. Oil wells that have long since dried up are suddenly producing oil again. To this day it is only theorized how oil is create. Peak Oil theory has been almost as Malthusian as Malthusians. There are more known reserves now then at any time.
2. Maasive pollutants, the air, water and land is cleaner now then it was 100 years ago. Very true that in the 1970s Lake Erie burned. Complete change. America produces less CO2 now then we did a decade ago and it continues to drop without Obama's cap and tax scheme.
3. The "green" energy investment sector is collapsing. It was a bubble like the dot com that only existed with government subsidies.

Boo

[cpxxx]

Seriously Penguin, you're an intelligent person. Even if you believe in man made climate change you need to approach it with a degree of skepticism. There are far too many exaggerated doom laden prophecys based on the scientific research. When people start predicting, war, famine, flood and other end of world scenarios unless we do something NOW! Then you really need to sit back and consider why they're doing this.

The inconvenient truth is that the Earth hasn't warmed since 1998 despite all the computer models saying otherwise. Remember these computer models can't even predict the past or the present. But we're expected to believe the future scenarios. The simple truth is that whether or not the Earth has warmed in the last fifty years or so. No one can really say if it's actually linked to Co2. It's possible but it's equally possible that it's natural.

But don't listen to me. Do your own research.

On the point of space travel. I still don't believe in future moonbases, mars missions or all the other science fiction stuff.  There sheer cost of getting to the moon is enormous, staying there even more expensive and building on the moon prohibitive. All for some kind of supposed mining operation. Well it better be diamonds and gold because anything else just wouldn't be worth it.

[dedalos]

WOW, nice camouflage fro a global warming video.  Total BS since the world ends at the end of this year 

[4deck]

well as someone who lives a block from the ocean, I can see a huge difference in sea levels. When I was a kid, the jetties were about 5-8 foot above high tide. Now during high tide, some jetties are under water. Bottom line, whatever is going on with the earth, caused by us, or the sun, change is coming. Im planning on moving in the next 5 years if Im still alive.

Cheers