HawkShack.com

You be the judge:

"Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Monday praised the Arctic region -- and its rapidly shrinking levels of sea ice -- for its economic opportunities, despite continued warnings about the catastrophic effects of climate change.The Arctic is at the forefront of opportunity and abundance," Pompeo said in remarks in Rovaniemi, Finland. "It houses 13 percent of the world's undiscovered oil, 30 percent of its undiscovered gas, an abundance of uranium, rare earth minerals, gold, diamonds, and millions of square miles of untapped resources, fisheries galore. Steady reductions in sea ice are opening new passageways and new opportunities for trade," he continued. "This could potentially slash the time it takes to travel between Asia and the West by as much as 20 days. Arctic sea lanes could become the 21st century Suez and Panama Canals."

We're in a warming trend and he's focusing on the positive developments. What confused you??

Who said anyone was confused?

I-5 wrote:Who said anyone was confused?

You asked if it was an Onion article, but you even cited who it was from before editing it out. That looks like confusion to me.

Sorry. It was a rhetorical question, I thought that would be clear.

NEWS ALERT!!! NEWS ALERT!!! NEWS ALERT!!! NEWS ALERT!!! NEWS ALERT!!! NEWS ALERT!!! NEWS ALERT!!! NEWS ALERT!!! NEWS ALERT!!!

We are no longer in an ice age where ice covers 90% of the earth. Just for those who didn't know, we've been warming for literally millions of years. Who knew?

NEWS ALERT!!! NEWS ALERT!!! NEWS ALERT!!! NEWS ALERT!!! NEWS ALERT!!! NEWS ALERT!!! NEWS ALERT!!! NEWS ALERT!!! NEWS ALERT!!!

I-5 wrote:Sorry. It was a rhetorical question, I thought that would be clear.

It would have been had his remarks been nuttier. Your implicit assumption (that everyone thinks a warming trend means The End of Times™ in 12 years or whatever) isn't shared by as many people as you think.

Ok this is not a rhetorical question. Burrrton and id, do you think all or most of Trump’s supporters think the idea of humans accelerating warming to be a left wing conspiracy?

I-5 wrote:Ok this is not a rhetorical question. Burrrton and id, do you think all or most of Trump’s supporters think the idea of humans accelerating warming to be a left wing conspiracy?

Not necessarily. I actually believe that the climate will go back to a "Global Cooling" alarm like it was in the 70's. We were absolutely convinced that the world was cooling and that we'd all be frozen over before the turn of the century. I think the world is much more resilient than they left gives it credit for. I also believe that short of killing a lot of humans or sending them back to caves there's not much we are going to be able to do about the cooling or warming.

The current strategy is to spend our fortunes on green initiatives so we can prevent the globe from warming 1 degree fahrenheit by 2100. HELLO!!!! Really? Human gas will have far surpassed the cow farts by then. Do we outlaw humans for farting? Maybe the global plan for new travel routes and fisheries from the melting arctic is designed to provide enough food for the world population.

So is it a hoax? I don't really know because anytime someone counters an alarmists study they get shouted down and not allowed to provide information/evidence to the contrary. What I do know is it won't be my problem after another 20-30 years. Maybe we'll have colonized Mars by then. That's a problem for future generations to solve.

Before anyone goes attacking me for being callous, think about how far we've come in the last 100 years. We were still fighting wars on horseback and the introduction of a biplane was the only air power. (think of the red barron in WW1). No rockets, tanks, space travel, cell phones, helicopters, etc were invented just 100 years ago. Heck the telephone was just getting its legs under them and electricity was no where close to what it is now. No nuclear power, etc, etc, etc. The world is not going to stop inventing stuff or slowing down with new inventions - if anything the progression will accelerate exponentially as technology continues to grow. Have faith, the sky is still above and its not falling. At least not yet....

I-5 wrote:Ok this is not a rhetorical question. Burrrton and id, do you think all or most of Trump’s supporters think the idea of humans accelerating warming to be a left wing conspiracy?

I don't know what "Trump supporters" think, so can't speak for them, but conspiracy? Er, no.

What I *can* tell you is that some of us have been listening to *precisely* the same doomsday predictions (always a decade or so away- surprise!) for literally our entire lives, so can tell you without a doubt that these people have little idea what they're talking about with anything approaching the certainty with which they give you their doomsday predictions.

Learn where batteries come from, learn where electricity comes from for what will likely be the next century or two, buy a hybrid if you want, but QUIT. TELLING. EVERYONE. THE. WORLD. IS. ENDING.

You sound ridiculous.

It's not ending anytime soon, and all you're doing is scaring the kids, and they're only going to resent you more for your hysterics once they realize that yet again, your prophecies were BS just like they've been for time eternal.

I-5 wrote:You be the judge:

"Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Monday praised the Arctic region -- and its rapidly shrinking levels of sea ice -- for its economic opportunities, despite continued warnings about the catastrophic effects of climate change.The Arctic is at the forefront of opportunity and abundance," Pompeo said in remarks in Rovaniemi, Finland. "It houses 13 percent of the world's undiscovered oil, 30 percent of its undiscovered gas, an abundance of uranium, rare earth minerals, gold, diamonds, and millions of square miles of untapped resources, fisheries galore. Steady reductions in sea ice are opening new passageways and new opportunities for trade," he continued. "This could potentially slash the time it takes to travel between Asia and the West by as much as 20 days. Arctic sea lanes could become the 21st century Suez and Panama Canals."

I heard this on the radio live. Unbelievable. Its much the same as the attitude that a crazy should be felon in the white house is OK if the economy is good. Hey lets make some dough off global warming and climate change!!!! All us rich white fat cats will be dead long before it all burns up anyway, live the high life!!!!!I'm sure the 100% climate change denier Prez was happy with his stooge Pompeo.

Our nations political leadership in a nutshell. Too bad for our grand kids.

I actually believe that the climate will go back to a "Global Cooling" alarm like it was in the 70's

That was never a thing.

I actually believe that the climate will go back to a "Global Cooling" alarm like it was in the 70's

c_hawkbob wrote:That was never a thing.

To be fair, I can recall that there was some very limited discussion back in the 70's as to whether or not the Earth might be on the cusp of entering the next ice age, but certainly not anywhere near the veracity that the concern over global warming has been expressed. To call it an "alarm" is a completely inaccurate way of describing what was nothing more than a random theory with very little scientific evidence to support it.

I'm not for going back to the stone age or subscribing anywhere close to the arguments that AOC is making in her "Green New Deal" in order to deal with global warming, but you have to be an ignoramus not to at least recognize that it's real. The idea that the Earth will suddenly "go back" to the extent that it would cause an alarm is laughable.

For those of you who think the global cooling was not an alarm, you probably were not working on a farm in Idaho milking cows at 5am before school in -30+ degree weather. Add to that the fact that you and your two brothers were sleeping on a porch because your military retired father couldn't afford a larger house. Thank God for electric blankets - another invention that came over the last 100 years.

When you are in a situation as I've laid out above and you watch the nightly news (because there were only 3 channels back then and your Dad wanted to watch the news not to mention it was news on all three channels) where they report that the world may be cooling, then it is an alarm. I realize that everyone doesn't have the same experiences as my childhood but certain things like freezing to death can and will forever imprint on your brain.

As Cbob has pointed out over the years on multiple occassions, I shouldn't have to state that what I write in here is my opinion. Everything written in these threads are each poster's opinion.

I-5 wrote:Ok this is not a rhetorical question. Burrrton and id, do you think all or most of Trump’s supporters think the idea of humans accelerating warming to be a left wing conspiracy?

Just to point out a pet peeve of mine, this quote exemplifies one of my biggest peeves. I see this happen on the liberal news channels all the time where they ask someone to speak on behalf of the American people. Or the commentator will say, "...The American people...Blah blah blah". How can they speak on behalf of the American People? I can't speak for other Trump supporters and if I tried I'm sure a number of them would disagree with my characterization of their opinion. I'd rather they quote how many (in percent or something similar) support their position rather than trying to speak on behalf of all Americans or xxx group (e.g. Trump Supporters).

idhawkman wrote:When you are in a situation as I've laid out above and you watch the nightly news (because there were only 3 channels back then and your Dad wanted to watch the news not to mention it was news on all three channels) where they report that the world may be cooling, then it is an alarm. I realize that everyone doesn't have the same experiences as my childhood but certain things like freezing to death can and will forever imprint on your brain.

As Cbob has pointed out over the years on multiple occassions, I shouldn't have to state that what I write in here is my opinion. Everything written in these threads are each poster's opinion.

I was in high school and college during the 70's, was very aware of current events and used to watch the evening news every night, and I don't have any recollection at all about a nation wide discussion centering on global cooling. There might have been a random report here and there that escaped my attention, but I can say unequivocally that what you are referring to as an "alarm" never took on national proportions, was never entertained by any of the pols of the day, and was not discussed extensively in the scientific community anywhere close to the same degree as global warming has been over the past 30-40 years. To suggest otherwise is pure fantasy.

RiverDog wrote:I was in high school and college during the 70's, was very aware of current events and used to watch the evening news every night, and I don't have any recollection at all about a nation wide discussion centering on global cooling. There might have been a random report here and there that escaped my attention, but I can say unequivocally that what you are referring to as an "alarm" never took on national proportions, was never entertained by any of the pols of the day, and was not discussed extensively in the scientific community anywhere close to the same degree as global warming has been over the past 30-40 years. To suggest otherwise is pure fantasy.

I'm an intelligent person but I can not speak on behalf of your recolections from approx. 45 years ago. I never said that it was in equal verve to the now Global Warming farce but it was there, it was national and I do remember it. Sorry, I can't speak on your behalf of how you saw it.

Maybe you can consider that my position on Global cooling is equivalent to I-5's position on Global warming today. And vice versa. My concern on warming is, to put it in terms of your above statement, forgettable vs I-5's position of alarming.

Burrrton, you actually don’t support this president?

idhawkman, I do agree with you about labelling or stereotyping. It does happen on both sides, I’m sure you know, right here on this forum. But I do like that there is no ad hominem attacks or name-calling here.

I-5 wrote:Burrrton, you actually don’t support this president?

idhawkman, I do agree with you about labelling or stereotyping. It does happen on both sides, I’m sure you know, right here on this forum. But I do like that there is no ad hominem attacks or name-calling here.

We agree on this. Thank you also for considering what I wrote.

Burrrton, you actually don’t support this president?

Generally speaking, I don't support the person, I respect the office, just as I did with Obama and Bush et al. I support the things that person does that I think are positive for this country, and I don't support those that I think are negative.

RiverDog wrote:I was in high school and college during the 70's, was very aware of current events and used to watch the evening news every night, and I don't have any recollection at all about a nation wide discussion centering on global cooling. There might have been a random report here and there that escaped my attention, but I can say unequivocally that what you are referring to as an "alarm" never took on national proportions, was never entertained by any of the pols of the day, and was not discussed extensively in the scientific community anywhere close to the same degree as global warming has been over the past 30-40 years. To suggest otherwise is pure fantasy.

idhawkman wrote:I'm an intelligent person but I can not speak on behalf of your recolections from approx. 45 years ago. I never said that it was in equal verve to the now Global Warming farce but it was there, it was national and I do remember it. Sorry, I can't speak on your behalf of how you saw it.

Maybe you can consider that my position on Global cooling is equivalent to I-5's position on Global warming today. And vice versa. My concern on warming is, to put it in terms of your above statement, forgettable vs I-5's position of alarming.

I wasn't suggesting that you speak on behalf of my memories from the 70's. I was simply saying, in the same context as you were regarding your own memories from that time frame, what it was that I could recall and that they were not anywhere near the same as yours.

I'm not exactly sure what your opinion of global warming is. But if you're equating it with this so-called global cooling alarm that you supposedly heard about back in the 70's then I would suggest that you haven't been paying attention for the past 45 years or so. We can debate what the cause of global warming is, whether it be sunspot activity, human activity, or part of a natural process, but it's pretty hard to deny basic observations like temperature readings, snow and ice coverage, glacier shrinkage, etc, without joining in on some major world wide conspiracy theory.

RiverDog wrote:
I wasn't suggesting that you speak on behalf of my memories from the 70's. I was simply saying, in the same context as you were regarding your own memories from that time frame, what it was that I could recall and that they were not anywhere near the same as yours.

I'm not exactly sure what your opinion of global warming is. But if you're equating it with this so-called global cooling alarm that you supposedly heard about back in the 70's then I would suggest that you haven't been paying attention for the past 45 years or so. We can debate what the cause of global warming is, whether it be sunspot activity, human activity, or part of a natural process, but it's pretty hard to deny basic observations like temperature readings, snow and ice coverage, glacier shrinkage, etc, without joining in on some major world wide conspiracy theory.

Fair points. My contention on the warming are a few things.

1. The globe has been warming since the last ice age. There are some time periods like from the 40s to 70s where it cooled but over the long haul, it has warmed. Thus, we no longer have feet of ice covering our great nation's land. I don't see anything the humans are doing to stop this from happening.

2. The last real hard winters were before Chernobyl blew one of its reactors. I didn't make this observation myself. When I was stationed in Kiev, Ukraine (approx. 80 miles south of Chernobyl), the locals pointed this fact out to me. That reactor is still melting down to this day and it is said that it will continue to melt down for a million years. The scary part is once it hits the water tables it will feed directly into the Dniepro river and feed directly down through the Crimea and into the oceans. To me this is a much more serious issue to global ecosystem than anything else.

3. I don't trust reports by environmentalists making predictions that only secures their fat bank accounts with initiatives that only target the U.S.

My official position is that I don't think there's anything we as humans can do to stop, slow or change the environment let alone make all the changes to only the U.S. E.g. China and India pollute exponentially more than we do and it isn't close. So demolishing our economy to try and reduce the global warming trend by 1 degree in 80 years is folly.

idhawkman, if we can't do anything to stop, slow, or change the environment (I disagree), does that include our role in the ecosystem of the world? In your view, is it pointless to have any regulations at all around commercial fishing or forestry, for example? One thing we can establish is that humans DO have an effect on certain plants and animals who have recently become or will soon be extinct. Maybe we don't feel it now, but who knows what the world will be like without them, especially when it affects how we are able to procure natural resources in the future?

idhawkman, if we can't do anything to stop, slow, or change the environment (I disagree), does that include our role in the ecosystem of the world?

I agree with you (if I'm reading you correctly) that we have a non-zero impact on the planet's climate, but this statement is a good example of why it's tough to have a rational conversation about this.

What do you mean by "stop, slow, or change the environment"?? Do you mean stop or slow the climate changing? What did anyone say that led you to believe their position was that we could do nothing to change the environment?

I don't mean to jump all over an offhand remark if that's all that was, but it sounds a lot like "YOU'RE A CLIMATE DENIER!" As if there is someone that "denies the climate" (whatever the hell that means).

I-5 wrote:idhawkman, if we can't do anything to stop, slow, or change the environment (I disagree), does that include our role in the ecosystem of the world? In your view, is it pointless to have any regulations at all around commercial fishing or forestry, for example? One thing we can establish is that humans DO have an effect on certain plants and animals who have recently become or will soon be extinct. Maybe we don't feel it now, but who knows what the world will be like without them, especially when it affects how we are able to procure natural resources in the future?

I think you misunderstand I-5. We can't do anything about the ecosystem as small as we are but that doesn't mean we ignore managing what we can. E.g. regulations about replanting trees after harvesting is a good thing. Yes, that costs the paper/wood companies money but it renews their resources for future harvesting also. Over fishing is similar. We need to make sure we aren't fishing more than what we need and we must ensure that the resource is replenished by hatcheries, etc. Please don't confuse that with Global warming though.

burrrton wrote:I agree with you (if I'm reading you correctly) that we have a non-zero impact on the planet's climate, but this statement is a good example of why it's tough to have a rational conversation about this.

What do you mean by "stop, slow, or change the environment"?? Do you mean stop or slow the climate changing? What did anyone say that led you to believe their position was that we could do nothing to change the environment?

I don't mean to jump all over an offhand remark if that's all that was, but it sounds a lot like "YOU'RE A CLIMATE DENIER!" As if there is someone that "denies the climate" (whatever the hell that means).

Interesting take on my post. I'll try to explain. I have not seen a single solitary proposal to stop the earth's temperature rising by 1 total degree over the next 80 years. Even if we go back to living in caves and burning wood to cook and heat our caves to keep us from dying we won't change the fact that the earth is going to warm 1 degree over the next 80 years. I think the environment is much more resilient than these scientists want us to believe. I often wonder how many of them are totally invested in selling carbon credits, what consitute a carbon credit or their jobs are in peril if we don't have warming. Are you or I going to be around in 80 years to say, "hmmmm.... I guess they were wrong about all this. Sorry about that! How big is your cave? Do you have enough wood for this winter?"

In 80 years the human population of this planet will dwarf what it is now and our farts will way out "rank" farts from cows.

Quick question, does anyone remember the aerosol cans poking holes in our atmosphere? What happened to the size of those holes? Here's a hint, "They've Healed thyself" as Oral Roberts would say.

If people would stop referring it to as "global warming" or "global cooling" and just call it "climate change"...it would solve at least a few arguments. Things ARE changing, so we can't deny that. Canada is on fire, California is burnt to a crisp, WA is seeing the worst smoke ever, seasons seem to be out of whack, etc. Obviously humans are a factor, but to what degree is the question. There's a lot of money on both sides of the debate.

If people would stop referring it to as "global warming" or "global cooling" and just call it "climate change"...it would solve at least a few arguments.

Well, I don't know if it would solve anything, but what you bring up exposes one of many of the head-scratchers some of us have noticed over the years.

In 2000 or so, we were told with certainty we were in the midst of unstoppable "global warming" (an "inconvenient truth", you might call it- someone even made a movie about it!***), with an unchecked increase in temperatures, hurricanes, tornados, and such, in store for the next decade or two (surprise!).

What did we see instead? A 10-year *dearth* in them (triggering the switch from "global warming!" to "climate change?"), and a full retreat from the former to the latter. Someone with good Google-fu can even find experiments in other phrases ("climate chaos!", etc) and the upsurge in the claims that both more snow and less snow, and more rain and less rain, and more tornados and fewer tornados (etc, ad nauseum) were proof positive that the planet is overheating.

It was almost embarrassing to watch the hamstrings that were pulled backpedaling from those predictions.

Things ARE changing, so we can't deny that.

Serious question: do you know of *anyone* who claims the Earth's climate is static?


***And has continued to make money off it- another big surprise!

idhawkman wrote:Fair points. My contention on the warming are a few things.

1. The globe has been warming since the last ice age. There are some time periods like from the 40s to 70s where it cooled but over the long haul, it has warmed. Thus, we no longer have feet of ice covering our great nation's land. I don't see anything the humans are doing to stop this from happening.

True, we are in a warm period. The last ice age was some 10,000 years ago, and you're right, there was a dip that seems to have corresponded with WW2 and the immediate aftermath but it didn't last to the 70's:

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/gl ... mperature/

But I don't understand your last sentence. You don't see anything the humans are doing to stop this from happening? Taken literally, what you are saying is that you don't see any catalytic converters, no unleaded gas, no moves towards renewable energy, no reductions of fluorocarbon aerosols, etc. Or do you mean that you don't believe we humans can change the environment, in which case does that mean that you believe that humans aren't responsible for the change in the first place, that what we are seeing is a natural phenomenon?

idhawkman wrote:My official position is that I don't think there's anything we as humans can do to stop, slow or change the environment let alone make all the changes to only the U.S. E.g. China and India pollute exponentially more than we do and it isn't close. So demolishing our economy to try and reduce the global warming trend by 1 degree in 80 years is folly.

So once again, if you believe that humans do not having any ability to stop, slow, or change the environment, does that mean that you do not think that global warming is related to human activity?

I'm an intelligent man, but I can't speak to your points until you make yourself a little more understandable.

burrrton wrote:In 2000 or so, we were told with certainty we were in the midst of unstoppable "global warming" (an "inconvenient truth", you might call it- someone even made a movie about it!***), with an unchecked increase in temperatures, hurricanes, tornados, and such, in store for the next decade or two (surprise!).

What did we see instead? A 10-year *dearth* in them (triggering the switch from "global warming!" to "climate change?"), and a full retreat from the former to the latter. Someone with good Google-fu can even find experiments in other phrases ("climate chaos!", etc) and the upsurge in the claims that both more snow and less snow, and more rain and less rain, and more tornados and fewer tornados (etc, ad nauseum) were proof positive that the planet is overheating.

It was almost embarrassing to watch the hamstrings that were pulled backpedaling from those predictions.

Yea, those predictions were goofy. We can thank the Inventor of the Internet for many of those forecasts. Any severe storm tracker worth their weight will tell you how difficult it is to predict the frequency of hurricanes from season to season. Even when all the conditions are ripe, you don't necessarily get a hurricane.

But let's not confuse predictions with observations and root causes. The overwhelming scientific evidence points to an undeniable increase in global temperatures, particularly over the past twenty years, and at least some role by humans as a major contributing factor in that increase.

Once we can agree on that proposition, then we can debate what, if anything, we should do in an attempt to mitigate that change.

But let's not confuse predictions with observations and root causes.

As I think I've stated elsewhere, merely observing that we're in a warming trend is only the first, and *easiest*, question to answer.

Predictions are ultimately the only things that matter, and if you're going to run around telling children the world is ending in 12 years, and advocate for a complete takeover of the world's economy as well as jacking the cost of energy through the roof, you sure as *hell* better be nailing those predictions.

Problem is they're not, and nobody is going to support their ridiculous prescriptions when they don't even know the range of symptoms nor the prognosis.

But let's not confuse predictions with observations and root causes.

burrrton wrote:As I think I've stated elsewhere, merely observing that we're in a warming trend is only the first, and *easiest*, question to answer.

That's true, but there was a second part to my proposition. Once we can all come to the conclusion that A) global temperatures are experiencing a warming trend and B) that humans are at least part of the cause, then we can debate what, if anything, should be done to mitigate it. Not everyone is in agreement that human activity is one of the causes.

burrrton wrote:Predictions are ultimately the only things that matter, and if you're going to run around telling children the world is ending in 12 years, and advocate for a complete takeover of the world's economy as well as jacking the cost of energy through the roof, you sure as *hell* better be nailing those predictions.

Problem is they're not, and nobody is going to support their ridiculous prescriptions when they don't even know the range of symptoms nor the prognosis.

I agree with you about some of these off the wall predictions. Al Gore, for example, tends to embrace the most aggressive, radical predictions in order to make his point more dramatic. They're nothing more than scare tactics, and they do the cause more harm than good as they serve as a hat rack for those that are looking for an excuse to deny that there are some undesirable long term consequences if the trend continues.

But to be fair, the right has done their fair share of confusing the issue by highlighting the most insane and radical predictions and acting as if the entire scientific community subscribes to Gore's predictions.

They're nothing more than scare tactics, and they do the cause more harm than good as they serve as a hat rack for those that are looking for an excuse to deny that there are some undesirable long term consequences if the trend continues.

True, but it's not yet clear those consequences are the inevitable endpoint of a degree or three of warming over the next century, and it also underscores their ignoring the positive effects that might come about (like the 'greening' we've seen over the last few decades, etc).

We have no reason to believe our current temperature, whatever that is, is the absolute optimum for human existence.

They're nothing more than scare tactics, and they do the cause more harm than good as they serve as a hat rack for those that are looking for an excuse to deny that there are some undesirable long term consequences if the trend continues.

burrrton wrote:True, but it's not yet clear those consequences are the inevitable endpoint of a degree or three of warming over the next century, and it also underscores their ignoring the positive effects that might come about (like the 'greening' we've seen over the last few decades, etc).

We have no reason to believe our current temperature, whatever that is, is the absolute optimum for human existence.

IMO many of the consequences can be accurately estimated. For example, there is a known amount of water volume in the artic ice caps, land glaciers, etc, and a corresponding rise in sea levels can be accurately predicted if they were to melt. The problem is in figuring out how fast that melting will occur as there's hundreds of variables.

Just for the mere fact that fossil fuels are a finite resource and at some point will be consumed anyway, it makes sense to move away from them. My problem with most environmentalists is that they not only want to move away from fossil fuels, they don't want to consider, or rather remove, non polluting methods from the mix, such as hydro and nuclear.

Just for the mere fact that fossil fuels are a finite resource and at some point will be consumed anyway, it makes sense to move away from them.

Agreed.

The problem is that we're not anywhere close to being able to even consider doing so, and even EVs and the like have their own issues (batteries aren't made of unicorn poo and have finite lives themselves, etc).

RiverDog wrote:
But I don't understand your last sentence. You don't see anything the humans are doing to stop this from happening? Taken literally, what you are saying is that you don't see any catalytic converters, no unleaded gas, no moves towards renewable energy, no reductions of fluorocarbon aerosols, etc. Or do you mean that you don't believe we humans can change the environment, in which case does that mean that you believe that humans aren't responsible for the change in the first place, that what we are seeing is a natural phenomenon?

Fair questions Riv. I believe it is mostly natural phenomenon and humans can be a small contributor to the issue but nothing more than that. So if we acknowledge that its mostly natural and humans have a small contributing factor to the natural state, what are we going to do to stop this all from happening? Maybe I would change my mind if we could actually do something to NOT increase the temperature by 1 lousy degree over 80 years. I mean, how much of our wealth in the US do we want to sacrifice fighting to keep the earth 1 degree cooler? Do we want to sacrifice our leadership role in the world because you know China, Japan, EU, India are never targeted with these whacky green new deals and they will continue to expand their carbon emissions unchecked allowing them to easily overtake the US's position in the world. OR... Do we want to limit the number of humans being born into the world to slow our footprint? As I've stated many times, there will be over 1Billion people living in the US by 2100. Each one of them adding to the carbon footprint. So to reduce that, do we limit how many children you can have to limit the population growth and thus the carbon footprint? Or... We can take away people's rights like driving their own car or having a camp fire or etc, etc. If we do that, we have the Haves and the Have Nots to deal with which will eventually lead to a revolution as it always has in the past. (E.g. Al Gore buying carbon credits so his lifestyle doesn't have to change, just those lowly peasants have to change theirs so he can buy their carbon credits).

So I go back to my position that I have not seen a viable solution to what we can really do to curb the little impact humans have on the grand scale of Climate change, global warming or whatever you want to call it.

So once again, if you believe that humans do not having any ability to stop, slow, or change the environment, does that mean that you do not think that global warming is related to human activity?

I'm an intelligent man, but I can't speak to your points until you make yourself a little more understandable.

You are close to my position on this but to clarify, no, I don't think humans can stop it and what little we can do to slow it down is going to be infantecimal compared to the natural progression. I think that "IF" humans are adding to the warming it is negligable if any at all. Again, we are talking about 1 degree over 80 years.

RiverDog wrote:
Just for the mere fact that fossil fuels are a finite resource and at some point will be consumed anyway, it makes sense to move away from them.

I don't subscribe to this assertion. We were suppose to run out of oil in the middle east and globally already and now we find that there's more oil in the US than all of Saudi Arabia? I believe that fossil fuels are like energy, you can't destroy it, it can only be changed in form. Same with oils. Your body, animals, plants etc all produce oils which are eventually added back to mother Earth.

My problem with most environmentalists is that they not only want to move away from fossil fuels, they don't want to consider, or rather remove, non polluting methods from the mix, such as hydro and nuclear.

I agree with this. Not sure why they want to discount those alternative methods but if we look deeper into their motive we may find that they have an vested interest in wind or solar. speaking of which, I wonder how much hotter the planet would get after the sun is reflected off the solar panels. I see where the solar farms in Vegas are cooking birds as they fly over their fields now....

Regarding nuclear, I see this as a viable alternative but there are risks. I think the meltdown of Chernobyl's 4th reactor has caused a lot of the warming over the past few decades so we need to make sure that any future reactors are strictly regulated to prevent another mishap like that. In the meantime, we need to get the Ukrainians to shut down the other 3 reactors at Chernobyl that were built on the same designs and technology.

idhawkman wrote:You are close to my position on this but to clarify, no, I don't think humans can stop it and what little we can do to slow it down is going to be infantecimal compared to the natural progression. I think that "IF" humans are adding to the warming it is negligable if any at all. Again, we are talking about 1 degree over 80 years.

An inch doesn't sound like a large distance, but depending on the scale, it can represent hundreds of miles.

A degree of temperature, figured as a global average, represents a MASSIVE amount of energy and can have a dramatic effect on weather conditions.

RiverDog wrote:An inch doesn't sound like a large distance, but depending on the scale, it can represent hundreds of miles.

A degree of temperature, figured as a global average, represents a MASSIVE amount of energy and can have a dramatic effect on weather conditions.

and in 80 years there will be new inventions to deal with it. We didn't even have air conditioning 80 years ago.

I think you misunderstand I-5. We can't do anything about the ecosystem as small as we are but that doesn't mean we ignore managing what we can. E.g. regulations about replanting trees after harvesting is a good thing. Yes, that costs the paper/wood companies money but it renews their resources for future harvesting also. Over fishing is similar. We need to make sure we aren't fishing more than what we need and we must ensure that the resource is replenished by hatcheries, etc. Please don't confuse that with Global warming though.

Are you certain there is no relationship between resource management and climate change? If for example, overgrazing leads to soil erosion, would that affect not just the ecosystem, but also the geography and temperatures? That's just a tiny example of which there are plenty more.