AspenAdventures
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 2,889
"And I'm not buying it.
Because the climate is not static. It is constantly in a state of change. I thought we learned that in ninth-grade Earth Science class. That's why we have glacier striations in New York and seashells in the Rockies. What's up was once down and what's down was once up. The dry places were wet and the wet places were dry and where it snows now there used to be jungles.
And back and forth for thousands of years the ice sheets have expanded and contracted as the environment warmed and cooled, driven by forces we cannot begin to understand. Driven by forces we cannot begin to influence.
Here's an example.
Last week in one of the big city newspapers there was an interesting story about this glacier in Scandanavia somethere. A massive glacier. And it's breaking apart. It's retreated three miles in the last several decades and this scientist guy says that sometime in the future it will just go away. It will disintegrate.
Which gets your attention. When the glaciers start melting you figure things are in bad shape.
But there's more to this story. The glacier in question is only 300 years old. Which is pretty old for a human or guinea pig or a ham sandwich, but in the terms of earth things, it's pretty young.
In fact, in a valley through which the glacier passes, humans used to carry on advanced agriculture. It was a farm region. There were villages and barns and homes.
Within historic time it was habitable and temperate. But the climate changed. And the glacier came, clearly as a result of natural processes and weather fluctuations.
So why should its disappearance be any different? Why should a return to the historically normal condition for the valley -- no glacier -- be cause for alarm?
And why should temperature variations -- up or down, if they in fact exist -- be considered proof of human harm? Why would these not simply be meteorological phenomenon we are observing? What evidence points to human fault for something which may be nothing more than the natural decline of a minor ice age?
The oceans have risen and fallen more times than we have the ability to detect. Why is it that this prediction of ocean rise -- which has not yet even begun to occur -- be cause for either alarm or the restructuring of the economic order?
Well, there is no logical reason.
And I reject the premise. I don't believe there is man-made global warming.
In part because of the clear political agenda of its proponents.
It is clear that global warming -- and its reputed remedies -- are in the bailiwick of the socialist left, promoted with the same vigor and by the same people as women's rights and gay rights and trade unionism and animal rights.
And, coincidentally, the solutions they offer -- fewer personal automobiles, higher energy taxes, a debasement of industry, restrictions on electricity generation, centralized government planning, collective farming, mandatory mass transit, and restrictions on land usage, development and sprawl -- are exactly the things the people of the left have advocated for years.
I think it's a con.
I think nature or nature's God controls the weather. Daily and climatically.
I think we are little ants on a big blue marble. I think the global warming people are trying to slick us.
I think we ought to tell them to drop dead."
(written by a man much smarter than me......I would like not to post the reference until a few days from now because it will give liberals a chance to only make the presonal attacks on the writer and not address the subject matter above)
"One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
Because the climate is not static. It is constantly in a state of change. I thought we learned that in ninth-grade Earth Science class. That's why we have glacier striations in New York and seashells in the Rockies. What's up was once down and what's down was once up. The dry places were wet and the wet places were dry and where it snows now there used to be jungles.
And back and forth for thousands of years the ice sheets have expanded and contracted as the environment warmed and cooled, driven by forces we cannot begin to understand. Driven by forces we cannot begin to influence.
Here's an example.
Last week in one of the big city newspapers there was an interesting story about this glacier in Scandanavia somethere. A massive glacier. And it's breaking apart. It's retreated three miles in the last several decades and this scientist guy says that sometime in the future it will just go away. It will disintegrate.
Which gets your attention. When the glaciers start melting you figure things are in bad shape.
But there's more to this story. The glacier in question is only 300 years old. Which is pretty old for a human or guinea pig or a ham sandwich, but in the terms of earth things, it's pretty young.
In fact, in a valley through which the glacier passes, humans used to carry on advanced agriculture. It was a farm region. There were villages and barns and homes.
Within historic time it was habitable and temperate. But the climate changed. And the glacier came, clearly as a result of natural processes and weather fluctuations.
So why should its disappearance be any different? Why should a return to the historically normal condition for the valley -- no glacier -- be cause for alarm?
And why should temperature variations -- up or down, if they in fact exist -- be considered proof of human harm? Why would these not simply be meteorological phenomenon we are observing? What evidence points to human fault for something which may be nothing more than the natural decline of a minor ice age?
The oceans have risen and fallen more times than we have the ability to detect. Why is it that this prediction of ocean rise -- which has not yet even begun to occur -- be cause for either alarm or the restructuring of the economic order?
Well, there is no logical reason.
And I reject the premise. I don't believe there is man-made global warming.
In part because of the clear political agenda of its proponents.
It is clear that global warming -- and its reputed remedies -- are in the bailiwick of the socialist left, promoted with the same vigor and by the same people as women's rights and gay rights and trade unionism and animal rights.
And, coincidentally, the solutions they offer -- fewer personal automobiles, higher energy taxes, a debasement of industry, restrictions on electricity generation, centralized government planning, collective farming, mandatory mass transit, and restrictions on land usage, development and sprawl -- are exactly the things the people of the left have advocated for years.
I think it's a con.
I think nature or nature's God controls the weather. Daily and climatically.
I think we are little ants on a big blue marble. I think the global warming people are trying to slick us.
I think we ought to tell them to drop dead."
(written by a man much smarter than me......I would like not to post the reference until a few days from now because it will give liberals a chance to only make the presonal attacks on the writer and not address the subject matter above)
"One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
