The First 100 days

Discussion in 'West Mall' started by theiioftx, Nov 10, 2016.

  1. OUBubba

    OUBubba 5,000+ Posts

    I've always stated that what we're going to see is migration of things like the jet stream and more variations in weather. I think we'll see some colder temps due to all of this stuff. I do know one group of the government that makes global warming and being green a priority...the pentagon...because it's a reality and they only deal with those things.
     
  2. iatrogenic

    iatrogenic 2,500+ Posts

    And back to this tired argument again. Yes, gomer, the weather changes.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  3. Garmel

    Garmel 5,000+ Posts

    There's nothing happening on earth right now that hasn't happened on earth in the last 10,000 years. In fact, there have been 4 time periods in the last 10,000 years that were warmer than today with much less CO2. Also, looking through earth's history we've had ice ages with much higher CO2 than we have today. There are countries out there that will severely damage their own economies for this CO2 boogeyman. Unbelievable.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  4. humahuma

    humahuma 1,000+ Posts

    Yeah do not look at temperature over the last 100 years, I am a geologist we had temperature changes over millions of years. Since the last ice age 15,000 ago years we could be on a warming cycle even with the cold weather. The earth could be on a warming cycle or could be cooling cycle who knows. At one point there was a snow ball earth, there might be a temperature curb for earth which dictates the temperature, who knows. Volcanoes erupt which cooled the earth before industry. The fact is that nobody has a model which predicts all the cycles of temperature of the earth. So either side could be right, we will not live to see it.
     
  5. humahuma

    humahuma 1,000+ Posts

    In Trumps first year I like what he has done. Yeah, the tweeter account needs to be monitored by someone. The wall.... well in areas, but born in raised in Texas there needs to be drone and other tech for the rest of the border. I do believe in open conversation for everything. So Bubba and Seattle, I do read your post and respect your opinion.
     
  6. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    I'm not going to jump into a climate change discussion because it's pointless, but the Pentagon deals with non-realities all the time.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. ProdigalHorn

    ProdigalHorn 10,000+ Posts

    Because the Obama administration dictated that they do so. In progressiveland, everyone has to be focused on progressive issues, and the army doesn't have any issues that progressives like, so they are refocused on more important things, like shooting CO2 with tanks.

    Exhibit A of why bureaucrats and politicians ruin government. They're more concerned about throwing resources at a problem than actually having the individual departments do a better job at what they're supposed to do. Too many turf wars, too much cross-departmental conflict, but hey, we care! So that's good...
     
    • Like Like x 4
  8. OUBubba

    OUBubba 5,000+ Posts

    I listened to an interview with a former head of the Defense Dept. and he talked about how a Seal Commander told him how much they appreciated some of the new "green" toys that did nothing but make them more stealthy - which made them more dangerous and safer at the same time.
     
  9. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    I'm generally a Trump critic, but it's hard to blame him for this, because the climate change position is a fast-moving target. This is why I stopped identifying as a climate change believer and started identifying as a climate change agnostic.

    When it's hot, people blame climate change. When it's cold, people blame climate change. When there's a drought, people blame climate change. When there's a flood, people blame climate change. When there's terrorism, at least the nuttiest advocates blame climate change.

    Back when I was doing the Work of the Lord, there was a question that I used to ask of every defense expert. "What set of facts, if true, would discredit your opinion?" He would answer, and then I would go through a list of my own facts that I thought should discredit his opinion and force him to take a position on them. The purpose of this line of questioning is to avoid the "moving target" and force a degree of intellectual honesty. For example, when Al Gore and the alarmists were claiming that we wouldn't have polar ice caps by now, somebody should have been saying, "so if that doesn't happen, then people should doubt your theories, correct?" Nobody did.

    In 25 years of hearing people talk about the phenomenon formerly known as global warming and previously known as the greenhouse effect, I've never heard anyone ask that question, or frankly, any question that wasn't entirely deferential.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    Last edited: Dec 31, 2017
  10. OUBubba

    OUBubba 5,000+ Posts

    I generally agree with you. I think the majority of heat or lack thereof relates to solar variance. Sea levels have been rising for centuries. Look at Venice. I do worry that we're hampering the earth's ability to adapt as it was designed and, for lack of a better term, heal itself. I compare it to an amputation of a foot. The wound of a 19 year old in a car wreck heals like magic. On the flip side, the amputation of a diabetic 65 year old with gangrene heals very slowly. I think that we're making the world a 65 year old diabetic. I don't know how that became a liberal viewpoint these days.
     
  11. mchammer

    mchammer 10,000+ Posts

    In many respects like the amount of forests the earth is like an 18 year old again. In many areas, population is declining. China will hit peak pop in 2025, and is post peak for prime working age (the biggest consuming cohort). India to follow in 20 years.
     
  12. OUBubba

    OUBubba 5,000+ Posts

    The internet doesn't report that. Says we're losing up to an amount equivalent of England or Panama annually. Also, Brazilian rain forests may be gone within the next 100 years. It is slowing down.
     
  13. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    That's possible, and frankly, there's nothing wrong with finding ways to protect the environment and to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels. What bugs me is when I hear phrases like "settled science" applied to the issue when the so-called experts have gotten so much wrong on the issue, when it's only discussed on the most laughably superficial bases, and when skeptics are scoffed at and summarily dismissed.

    It became a liberal point of view, because it can be used as a justification for enacting liberal policy. If you accept the Left's view of climate change and environmental issues in general, it invites empowering global authorities at the expense of national sovereignty, onerously regulating business activities, and redistributing resources away from the capitalistic West to more politically preferred parts of the world. Liberals favored that kind of policy long before climate change was an issue, so it only made sense that they'd co-opt environmentalism as an ideological vehicle to drive what already was their policy agenda.
     
    • Like Like x 4
  14. mchammer

    mchammer 10,000+ Posts

    B0453BC4-A1AF-4935-8128-1F18D32A7A1D.png

    Deforestation is essentially zero today.

     
  15. OUBubba

    OUBubba 5,000+ Posts

    That's not the data that I found on the first page of the google search. Is that Brietbart's science section?
     
  16. mchammer

    mchammer 10,000+ Posts

    You can be a real *** sometimes.

    https://ourworldindata.org/forests/
     
  17. Garmel

    Garmel 5,000+ Posts

    You can't convince a liberal that we're not destroying the earth no matter the evidence. The extra CO2 in the atmosphere is booming plant life around the world as well but I'm sure they don't believe that either.
     
  18. OUBubba

    OUBubba 5,000+ Posts

    • Like Like x 1
  19. iatrogenic

    iatrogenic 2,500+ Posts

    If you want to save the forests, quit fighting the use of fossil and nuclear fuels.
     
    • Like Like x 4
  20. huisache

    huisache 2,500+ Posts

    been away for a while-----glad to see you guys have got this hashed out and settled
     
    • Like Like x 7
  21. UTChE96

    UTChE96 2,500+ Posts

    Now if that pesky North pole would hurry up and melt.
     
  22. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    It takes time. The alarmists were overly alarming. ;)
     
  23. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    Shut up. It's settled science. The North Pole already melted. Only flat-earth, science-hating religious nuts think it's still there.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  24. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    And it's ok to be wrong. Even the greatest scientists get things wrong for years before they discover truths, but let's not call this "settled science" and pretend that people who ask legitimate questions are idiots and science-haters.
     
    • Like Like x 5
  25. ProdigalHorn

    ProdigalHorn 10,000+ Posts

    Deez you just made a polar bear cry. I hope you're happy now.
     
    • Like Like x 5
  26. theiioftx

    theiioftx Sponsor Deputy

    • Like Like x 2
  27. OUBubba

    OUBubba 5,000+ Posts

    If the anti warming scientists sounded less like the same scientists who were trying to distance tobacco from cancer, it would probably work a little better.
     
  28. Phil Elliott

    Phil Elliott 2,500+ Posts

    Will they reward Trump for it at election time? A few will, but I predict most will not.
     
  29. OUBubba

    OUBubba 5,000+ Posts

    Some may hold the "there are good people on both sides....both sides" against him.
     
  30. OUBubba

    OUBubba 5,000+ Posts

Share This Page