Oh, and you neglected this Phreddy:

As interesting as this nearly century-old article might be from a modern perspective, however, it isn't substantive evidence either for or against the concept of anthropogenic global warming. As documented elsewhere, the warming phenomena observed in 1922 proved to be indicative only of a local event in Spitzbergen, not a trend applicable to the Arctic as a whole.

Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/science/ … kELchDO.99


If you are going to use something as evidence, include the whole enchilada.  Don't be a Cherry Picking Douche.  Just Sayin'

Last edited by Dmtdust (2014-04-18 18:07:44)

phreddy wrote:

Go tell the Chinese they're going to need to shrink their growing economy for the sake of mankind.  Good luck.

It certainly had no effect on you. The Chinese, on the other hand, are busy building thorium reactors and dealing with the kind of environmental pollution you seem to revel in. Good luck indeed!

Yet another stupid thread churning the preferred political doctrine.  I prefer to listen to scientists on questions of science.

Is your point that the Post had it wrong all those years ago?  Is there any point to your point?

Actually, your point ends up being, it appears, that there is nothing that can be done about it even if part of the problem is caused by us.  So why do you bring it up?  Exactly what is full of shit here?

Last edited by Fled (2014-04-21 17:38:05)

Fled wrote:

Is your point that the Post had it wrong all those years ago?  Is there any point to your point?

My point, which you are apparently a little too thick to grasp, is that we have been through this hysteria before.  I'm sure you have no problem questioning authority, but I recommend you also question doomsayers, be they scientists or no.

Fled wrote:

Actually, your point ends up being, it appears, that there is nothing that can be done about it even if part of the problem is caused by us.  So why do you bring it up?  Exactly what is full of shit here?

In the troubled years that came before the deluge.

Some of them were angry
At the way the earth was abused
By the men who learned how to forge her beauty into power
And they struggled to protect her from them
Only to be confused
By the magnitude of her fury in the final hour

The guy linked has a few points worth keeping in mind. Some quotes below to haunt you, no matter where you stand on the ecological issues. Agree or not with him on his personal crisis of hope, we are not the masters of this destiny we blindly forge.

When you ask Kingsnorth about Dark Mountain, he speaks of mourning, grief and despair. We are living, he says, through the “age of ecocide,” and like a long-dazed widower, we are finally becoming sensible to the magnitude of our loss, which it is our duty to face.

...Movements like Bill McKibben’s 350.org, for instance, might engage people, Kingsnorth told me, but they have no chance of stopping climate change. “I just wish there was a way to be more honest about that,” he went on, “because actually what McKibben’s doing, and what all these movements are doing, is selling people a false premise. They’re saying, ‘If we take these actions, we will be able to achieve this goal.’ And if you can’t, and you know that, then you’re lying to people. And those people . . . they’re going to feel despair.”

...Naomi Klein, who has known Kingsnorth for many years, says Dark Mountain has given people a forum in which to be honest about their sense of dread and loss. “Faced with ecological collapse, which is not a foregone result, but obviously a possible one, there has to be a space in which we can grieve,” Klein told me. “And then we can actually change.”

Kingsnorth would agree with the need for grief but not with the idea that it must lead to change — at least not the kind of change that mainstream environmental groups pursue. “What do you do,” he asked, “when you accept that all of these changes are coming, things that you value are going to be lost, things that make you unhappy are going to happen, things that you wanted to achieve you can’t achieve, but you still have to live with it, and there’s still beauty, and there’s still meaning, and there are still things you can do to make the world less bad? And that’s not a series of questions that have any answers other than people’s personal answers to them.

Last edited by Johnny_Rotten (2014-04-21 20:24:33)

We have a never ending capacity for the illogical. We are so easy led any which way when we have reason to live in fear. In that dark frightful forest we are easy prey for those that would use us. Phreddy gets just as scared as any of us.

And here you go Phred, the proof is in the financials.  It's all about profits not energy security, global warming or lack thereof.


It's the P/E ratio that matters, don't you get that?

Emmeran wrote:

And here you go Phred, the proof is in the financials.  It's all about profits not energy security, global warming or lack thereof.

It's the P/E ratio that matters, don't you get that?

I'm not sure how you equate legitimate profits from a productive company with global warming.  Of course there is profit to be made in energy production.  The real crime is the speculation in the bogus carbon credit scam.  Think about it, carbon credits are issued to underdeveloped countries so they can sell them to companies in developed countries which then emit the carbon into the atmosphere.  Speculators buy and resell the credits and we pay because the companies buying them produce products or energy which we consume.  Speculators like Al Gore make millions.

Last year global carbon credit trading was estimated at $5 billion, with India's contribution at around $1 billion. India is one of the countries that have 'credits' for emitting less carbon. India and China have surplus credit to offer to countries that have a deficit.

Meanwhile India and China are ramping up their coal fired plants as I explained above.  It's all about the money alright, and it's not about the environment, except in the minds of those airheads who believe reducing their personal "carbon footprint" really matters.

OK Paul, I'll see your wacko and raise you the guy your mother named you after.  Remember the Population Bomb? 

The climate alarmists have Paul Ehrlich, that astute disaster prognosticator, to help pitch their message. 

Despite the fact that this “oblivion,” never came about, he still pushed alarmist predictions. Ehrlich claimed that scarcity of resources will get so bad that humans will need to drastically change our eating habits and agriculture. Instead, we will soon begin asking “is it perfectly okay to eat the bodies of your dead because we’re all so hungry?” He added that humanity is “moving in that direction with a ridiculous speed.” And clearly, this man knows “ridiculous.”

From the Garbage In/Garbage Out school of thought...

Seriously Phred?  Over-population and consumption remain the core problems and we really shouldn't need some left wing whack job to point that out to us.  It is now accepted science that the planet earth is a finite place with finite resources, where is the argument here?

The global warming discussion really is a renamed pollution argument which is basically the rest of us getting pissed off because people don't clean up after themselves.

Em wrote:

Seriously Phred?

Relax Em.  I'm just playing wacko one upmanship with Paulie.

Emmeran wrote:

...the manufacturing of that fucking ugly, slow-ass prius causes more environmental damage than 20 years of driving my old big block V-8.  Put on a condom and clean up after yourself and it will all be fine; oh and you don't need a new car if the old one still works.

Indeed.  I've been driving my 49 Triumph for 32 years now and it keeps on ticking, as does my 67 Sunbeam (over 31 years now), and the 67 Morris (over 10 years), 90 Miata (5 years) and 52 MG (OK, so only a few weeks on that one).  Yeah, every once in a while I throw parts at them, but afterwards they seem to calm down and press on quite nicely.  Oh, and the annual insurance for the lot is only $269.00.  Yes, all of them... and at agreed replacement value.

whosasailorthen wrote:

Indeed.  I've been driving my 49 Triumph for 32 years now and it keeps on ticking, as does my 67 Sunbeam (over 31 years now), and the 67 Morris (over 10 years), 90 Miata (5 years) and 52 MG (OK, so only a few weeks on that one).  Yeah, every once in a while I throw parts at them, but afterwards they seem to calm down and press on quite nicely.  Oh, and the annual insurance for the lot is only $269.00.  Yes, all of them... and at agreed replacement value.

I don't know Sailor.  Having owned a couple of British autos, I found you should always travel with a full tool kit.  I do, however, wish I had kept my 1952 Austin Somerset Saloon.