Billy Shafer
Well-known Member
Heard some expert from Washington. Say all this snow is caused by warmer weather. If heat makes it snow. Texas and the south west needs to start buying snow plows.
old
Well-known Member
- Location
- Camdenton Missouri
Yep has to do with all the worthless hot air that comes out of the mouths of those guys up there in D.C. So you can blame this all on them and them blowing so much hot air around. You do know they say hot air raises and cold falls so all that hot air there blowing is pushing the cold air down
Anonymous-0
Well-known Member
Oh, boy, it must be snowing somewhere today...Warm air from the southwest picks up moisture, collides with cold air coming down from Canada-presto-changeo- you get snow.
Strong El Nina in the Pacific dumped alot of warm water and humid air on the west coast, thats why theyve got floods and mudslides. Weather moved across south and ran into jet-stream that has been hanging low over the midwest and east coast. Thats why youve gotten massive storms over the east coast. Thats EXACTLY what climatologists have predicted as the climate changes due to Global Warming, bigger storms at an increasing pace, Summer AND Winter. Now, I know Glenn Bewck wont tell you that, so maybe you should get your science information from Nature, Scientific American or any real news outlet and stop swallowing everything Faux news shovels your way!
P.S. heres a fun fact: gullible Faux news zombies consistantly place dead last when quizzed over current events- or general knowledge- keep up the good work, and try not to cry too much this Summer when its hot out...
Strong El Nina in the Pacific dumped alot of warm water and humid air on the west coast, thats why theyve got floods and mudslides. Weather moved across south and ran into jet-stream that has been hanging low over the midwest and east coast. Thats why youve gotten massive storms over the east coast. Thats EXACTLY what climatologists have predicted as the climate changes due to Global Warming, bigger storms at an increasing pace, Summer AND Winter. Now, I know Glenn Bewck wont tell you that, so maybe you should get your science information from Nature, Scientific American or any real news outlet and stop swallowing everything Faux news shovels your way!
P.S. heres a fun fact: gullible Faux news zombies consistantly place dead last when quizzed over current events- or general knowledge- keep up the good work, and try not to cry too much this Summer when its hot out...
teachingscienc3
New User
Well, I guess you global warming guys have a point, warmer air does carry more moisture and therefore it can indeed cause more snow. You have a good point. But I'm still confused as to how you can explain to me how the mid west was getting so many more HUGE snows in the early 1900's before we had been driving cars very long???? All the old timers I know talk about the large snows in KS that we havent seen in my lifetime. So yes warm air will cause larger snow, but if you use this argument, then you also prove that its not us burning fuel that causes it.
My two cents
My two cents
Anonymous-0
Well-known Member
A few snowstorms more or less don't mean much.
If you can read a graph, the easiest one to find is on Wikipedia. Look up long-term temperature data on Google and it shows up. The curve turns up sharply around 1850. Still, if you've drunk the Fox News Luddite Koolaid you'll try to tell us the data is all fake.
If you can read a graph, the easiest one to find is on Wikipedia. Look up long-term temperature data on Google and it shows up. The curve turns up sharply around 1850. Still, if you've drunk the Fox News Luddite Koolaid you'll try to tell us the data is all fake.
old
Well-known Member
- Location
- Camdenton Missouri
It has been proven that weather goes in 100 or so year cycles and we are just starting into the cold cycle and will be in it for 10 years maybe more if history holds true
Yeah Jacka$$, Ignore the news about YOUR so-called scientists LYING and getting their phony stories straight through E-Mail to each other. Idiots like you believe the earth's climate should just remain a constant. Fact is, it will change, and there ain"t a damn thing we can do about it. That big bright thing in the sky, (Otherwise known as the SUN) has more effect on this planet than we EVER will. Pull your head out of your rear, GlobalWarming, Oh sorry, ClimateChange is a GIANT SCAM, who's only purpose is to take more money from us, for government to throw away as THEY see fit.
I"m so sick of clowns like you, with your smug arogance, Talking to us like we are a bunch of little kids. I"m just glad to see more people waking up to this nonsense. Maybe there is hope to shut you BigGovernmentKnowsBestTypes down.
Jack
I"m so sick of clowns like you, with your smug arogance, Talking to us like we are a bunch of little kids. I"m just glad to see more people waking up to this nonsense. Maybe there is hope to shut you BigGovernmentKnowsBestTypes down.
Jack
Aurora I don't care what you think or what you have been taught,The weather is controlled by the big man up stairs. Your collage pro.,Al Gore, CNN, and a whole lot of others are all talk. In the end the man upstairs is the one we all have to anserwer too and he will decide what the weather is going to be. NOT YOU OR ANYONE ELSE.
Anonymous-0
Well-known Member
yes, WEATHER flucuates,CLIMATE changes. No doubt, there have been warm and cold short term periods- no argument there! What the Glenn Beckinistas dont(or wont) get is that humans spewing billions of tonnes of carbon into the air will have far reaching consequences- that is simple cause and affect. The Climate is changing and the trend is towards a LONG TERM rise in temperatures.
I laugh at these paranoid folks so scared that "Big Guvermunt" is behind this fact. Please, try to explain; how did they get the trees to bloom weeks earlier, or encourage animals to migrate at earlier and earlier times? How are they melting the permafrost in Alaska, Canada and Siberia? What fantastic, unseen technology are they employing to melt Greenland and glaciers around the world? I havent seen Becky prancing around his chalkboard trying to explain any of those inconvienient truths! Why has the Defense Dept. drawn up plans to deal with future climate refugees (God, I hope folks south of the Mason -Dixion line dont try to come here, we'll have to school them in civility.... again...)?
Global warming is a fact, we are contributing to it, and we will have to eventually deal with it on a global scale- including the USA. Perhaps the deniers are willing to bet their grandkids lives on it just so they dont have to take any responsibility, but I'm not.
I laugh at these paranoid folks so scared that "Big Guvermunt" is behind this fact. Please, try to explain; how did they get the trees to bloom weeks earlier, or encourage animals to migrate at earlier and earlier times? How are they melting the permafrost in Alaska, Canada and Siberia? What fantastic, unseen technology are they employing to melt Greenland and glaciers around the world? I havent seen Becky prancing around his chalkboard trying to explain any of those inconvienient truths! Why has the Defense Dept. drawn up plans to deal with future climate refugees (God, I hope folks south of the Mason -Dixion line dont try to come here, we'll have to school them in civility.... again...)?
Global warming is a fact, we are contributing to it, and we will have to eventually deal with it on a global scale- including the USA. Perhaps the deniers are willing to bet their grandkids lives on it just so they dont have to take any responsibility, but I'm not.
"Weather moved across south and ran into jet-stream that has been hanging low over the midwest and east coast. Thats why youve gotten massive storms over the east coast. Thats EXACTLY what climatologists have predicted as the climate changes due to Global Warming, bigger storms at an increasing pace"
================================================
Wrong.
Global warming actually causes the weather to be more mild. While the world was in warming pattern in the late 1980s and 1990s hurricanes and other activity actually dropped off. The US had several of the most mild winters in a row during that period and it was used to "prove" global warming.
It appears that is now over. As you state the warm pattern moved across the US and ran into a COLD FRONT that turned a three inch rain storm into a two foot snow storm.
Climatologists actually predicted cities like Washington DC would rarely see snow in the near future. But when the facts change so do the stories.
Please note the following predictions - ALL WRONG!
"(By) 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots... "(By 1996) The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers... "The Mexican police will round up illegal American migrants surging into Mexico seeking work as field hands". - Michael Oppenheimer, The Environmental Defense Fund - "Dead Heat" 1990
Giant sand dunes may turn Plains to desert - Huge sand dunes extending east from Colorado's Front Range may be on the verge of breaking through the thin topsoil, transforming America's rolling High Plains into a desert, new research suggests. The giant sand dunes discovered in NASA satellite photos are expected to re- emerge over the next 20 to 50 years, depending on how fast average temperatures rise from the suspected "greenhouse effect," scientists believe. -Denver Post April 18, 1990
By 2000, British and American oil will have dimished to a trickle......Ozone depletion and global warming threaten food shortages, but the wealthy North will enjoy a temporary reprieve by buying up the produce of the South. Unrest among the hungry and the ensuing political instability, will be contained by the North's greater military might. A bleak future indeed, but an inevitable one unless we change the way we live.....At present rates of exploitation there may be no rainforest left in 10 years. If measures are not taken immediately, the greenhouse effect may be unstoppable in 12 to 15 years. - 5000 Days to Save the Planet - Edward Goldsmith 1991
''I think we're in trouble. When you realize how little time we have left - we are now given not 10 years to save the rainforests, but in many cases five years. Madagascar will largely be gone in five years unless something happens. And nothing is happening.'' - ABC - The Miracle Planet April 22, 1990
The planet could face an "ecological and agricultural catastrophe" by the next decade if global warming trends continue - Carl Sagan - Buffalo News Oct. 15, 1990
Most of the great environmental struggles will be either won or lost in the 1990s and by the next century it will be too late. -- Thomas E. Lovejoy, Smithsonian Institution “Real Goods Alternative Energy Sourcebook,” Seventh Edition: February 1993
Today (in 1996) 25 million environmental refugees roam the globe, more than those pushed out for political, economic, or religious reasons. By 2010, this number will grow tenfold to 200 million. - The Heat is On -The High Stakes Battle Over Earth’s Threatened Climate - Ross Gelbspan - 1996
"It appears that we have a very good case for suggesting that the El Ninos are going to become more frequent, and they're going to become more intense and in a few years, or a decade or so, we'll go into a permanent El Nino. So instead of having cool water periods for a year or two, we'll have El Nino upon El Nino, and that will become the norm. And you'll have an El Nino, that instead of lasting 18 months, lasts 18 years," he said. - BBC November 7, 1997
Scientists are warning that some of the Himalayan glaciers could vanish within ten years because of global warming. A build-up of greenhouse gases is blamed for the meltdown, which could lead to drought and flooding in the region affecting millions of people. - The Birmingham Post (England) July 26, 1999
Officials with the Panama Canal Authority, managers of the locks and reservoirs since the United States relinquished control of the canal in 1999, warn that global warming, increased shipping traffic and bigger seagoing vessels could cripple the canal's capacity to operate within a decade. CNN November 1, 2000
In ten years time, most of the low-lying atolls surrounding Tuvalu's nine islands in the South Pacific Ocean will be submerged under water as global warming rises sea levels, CNN Mar 29, 2001
"Globally, 2002 is likely to be warmer than 2001 - it may even break the record set in 1998. - Daily Mirror August 2, 2002
Next year(2003)may be warmest recorded: Global temperatures in 2003 are expected to exceed those in 1998 - the hottest year to date - Telegraph UK- December 30, 2002
(The) extra energy, together with a weak El Nino, is expected to make 2005 warmer than 2003 and 2004 and perhaps even warmer than 1998 - Reuters February 11, 2005
This year (2007) is likely to be the warmest year on record globally, beating the current record set in 1998, - ScienceDaily Jan. 5, 2007
Arctic warming has become so dramatic that the North Pole may melt this summer (2008), report scientists studying the effects of climate change in the field. "We're actually projecting this year that the North Pole may be free of ice for the first time [in history]," David Barber, of the University of Manitoba, told National Geographic News aboard the C.C.G.S. Amundsen, a Canadian research icebreaker. - National Geographic News June 20, 2008
And later someone with basic math skills showed NOAA that the warmest recorded year on record was 1934.
For the record - in 2008 the North Pole actually set a record for the smallest "melt down" recorded by satellite. The 2009-2010 winter sets the record for the largest ice coverage recorded since the early 1980s – so far.
As for the pole never having melted – I guess those pictures the navy took of two US nuclear submarines in the late 1950s surfaced at the North Pole were faked?
================================================
Wrong.
Global warming actually causes the weather to be more mild. While the world was in warming pattern in the late 1980s and 1990s hurricanes and other activity actually dropped off. The US had several of the most mild winters in a row during that period and it was used to "prove" global warming.
It appears that is now over. As you state the warm pattern moved across the US and ran into a COLD FRONT that turned a three inch rain storm into a two foot snow storm.
Climatologists actually predicted cities like Washington DC would rarely see snow in the near future. But when the facts change so do the stories.
Please note the following predictions - ALL WRONG!
"(By) 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots... "(By 1996) The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers... "The Mexican police will round up illegal American migrants surging into Mexico seeking work as field hands". - Michael Oppenheimer, The Environmental Defense Fund - "Dead Heat" 1990
Giant sand dunes may turn Plains to desert - Huge sand dunes extending east from Colorado's Front Range may be on the verge of breaking through the thin topsoil, transforming America's rolling High Plains into a desert, new research suggests. The giant sand dunes discovered in NASA satellite photos are expected to re- emerge over the next 20 to 50 years, depending on how fast average temperatures rise from the suspected "greenhouse effect," scientists believe. -Denver Post April 18, 1990
By 2000, British and American oil will have dimished to a trickle......Ozone depletion and global warming threaten food shortages, but the wealthy North will enjoy a temporary reprieve by buying up the produce of the South. Unrest among the hungry and the ensuing political instability, will be contained by the North's greater military might. A bleak future indeed, but an inevitable one unless we change the way we live.....At present rates of exploitation there may be no rainforest left in 10 years. If measures are not taken immediately, the greenhouse effect may be unstoppable in 12 to 15 years. - 5000 Days to Save the Planet - Edward Goldsmith 1991
''I think we're in trouble. When you realize how little time we have left - we are now given not 10 years to save the rainforests, but in many cases five years. Madagascar will largely be gone in five years unless something happens. And nothing is happening.'' - ABC - The Miracle Planet April 22, 1990
The planet could face an "ecological and agricultural catastrophe" by the next decade if global warming trends continue - Carl Sagan - Buffalo News Oct. 15, 1990
Most of the great environmental struggles will be either won or lost in the 1990s and by the next century it will be too late. -- Thomas E. Lovejoy, Smithsonian Institution “Real Goods Alternative Energy Sourcebook,” Seventh Edition: February 1993
Today (in 1996) 25 million environmental refugees roam the globe, more than those pushed out for political, economic, or religious reasons. By 2010, this number will grow tenfold to 200 million. - The Heat is On -The High Stakes Battle Over Earth’s Threatened Climate - Ross Gelbspan - 1996
"It appears that we have a very good case for suggesting that the El Ninos are going to become more frequent, and they're going to become more intense and in a few years, or a decade or so, we'll go into a permanent El Nino. So instead of having cool water periods for a year or two, we'll have El Nino upon El Nino, and that will become the norm. And you'll have an El Nino, that instead of lasting 18 months, lasts 18 years," he said. - BBC November 7, 1997
Scientists are warning that some of the Himalayan glaciers could vanish within ten years because of global warming. A build-up of greenhouse gases is blamed for the meltdown, which could lead to drought and flooding in the region affecting millions of people. - The Birmingham Post (England) July 26, 1999
Officials with the Panama Canal Authority, managers of the locks and reservoirs since the United States relinquished control of the canal in 1999, warn that global warming, increased shipping traffic and bigger seagoing vessels could cripple the canal's capacity to operate within a decade. CNN November 1, 2000
In ten years time, most of the low-lying atolls surrounding Tuvalu's nine islands in the South Pacific Ocean will be submerged under water as global warming rises sea levels, CNN Mar 29, 2001
"Globally, 2002 is likely to be warmer than 2001 - it may even break the record set in 1998. - Daily Mirror August 2, 2002
Next year(2003)may be warmest recorded: Global temperatures in 2003 are expected to exceed those in 1998 - the hottest year to date - Telegraph UK- December 30, 2002
(The) extra energy, together with a weak El Nino, is expected to make 2005 warmer than 2003 and 2004 and perhaps even warmer than 1998 - Reuters February 11, 2005
This year (2007) is likely to be the warmest year on record globally, beating the current record set in 1998, - ScienceDaily Jan. 5, 2007
Arctic warming has become so dramatic that the North Pole may melt this summer (2008), report scientists studying the effects of climate change in the field. "We're actually projecting this year that the North Pole may be free of ice for the first time [in history]," David Barber, of the University of Manitoba, told National Geographic News aboard the C.C.G.S. Amundsen, a Canadian research icebreaker. - National Geographic News June 20, 2008
And later someone with basic math skills showed NOAA that the warmest recorded year on record was 1934.
For the record - in 2008 the North Pole actually set a record for the smallest "melt down" recorded by satellite. The 2009-2010 winter sets the record for the largest ice coverage recorded since the early 1980s – so far.
As for the pole never having melted – I guess those pictures the navy took of two US nuclear submarines in the late 1950s surfaced at the North Pole were faked?
Anonymous-0
Well-known Member
That is the term for folks who let Faux News shill Glenn Beck think for them and believe everything that he spouts, no matter how many times its been refuted. Its kinda like a "ditto-head"- those scary types who proudly claim to let Rush limbaugh do all their thinking for them, only sadder....
Anonymous-0
Well-known Member
If you exsist then you are contributing to the so called global climate change therefor cease to exsist and you will do your part to solve this problem.
Anonymous-0
Well-known Member
In good time my friend!
Anonymous-0
Well-known Member
A more gradual curve like before 1850 would indicate a return to normal weather. It didn't happen that way.
Anonymous-0
Well-known Member
I think we all should be more proactive in our beliefs.
Anonymous-0
Well-known Member
Gee, I wish I could cut-n-paste! Like I said, try to think for yourself- if you can...
I'm not sure you read this before you posted it (from where?) but Im not seeing very many Scientific sources, mostly authors and news casters, not primary sources that are peer reviewed. Actually, if you bother to READ what you pasted here, far from being discarded the ones about hot years are pretty accurate, but they dont help your cause- again, think before you cut& paste if possible- but yes, it is getting warmer and ALMOST every year is warmer overall than the last one- your point being....? As far as the artic melting, nations are busily drawing up claims to those regions that soon will be ice free (Remember the hub-bub when the russians sent a sub to plant their flag on the artic sea floor? Surely Faux News covered THAT!). Ships now plot the Northwest Passage, a feat undoable a decade ago. Oh, and those subs surfaced in the arctic? they broke thru a few metres of ice to do it. Didnt the site you got this from include a picture of them? How strange, or maybe they dont know how to use photoshop....
I'm not sure you read this before you posted it (from where?) but Im not seeing very many Scientific sources, mostly authors and news casters, not primary sources that are peer reviewed. Actually, if you bother to READ what you pasted here, far from being discarded the ones about hot years are pretty accurate, but they dont help your cause- again, think before you cut& paste if possible- but yes, it is getting warmer and ALMOST every year is warmer overall than the last one- your point being....? As far as the artic melting, nations are busily drawing up claims to those regions that soon will be ice free (Remember the hub-bub when the russians sent a sub to plant their flag on the artic sea floor? Surely Faux News covered THAT!). Ships now plot the Northwest Passage, a feat undoable a decade ago. Oh, and those subs surfaced in the arctic? they broke thru a few metres of ice to do it. Didnt the site you got this from include a picture of them? How strange, or maybe they dont know how to use photoshop....
Greenland, How do you think it got it"s name? The Vikings hundreds of years ago lived there, built villages. How did they do that? What "CarbonSpewingMachines" did the vikings have to melt the ice away? That"s right, there wasn"t any ice to melt then. "Long term warming" you say? What, are you going by that long discredited "HockeyStickGraph"?
I remember when Mt.Pinatubo over in the Phillipeans erupted years back. It was said, that volcano blew more noxious gases into the atmosphere than man had since the indutrial revolution. One volcano, one blast, and the Earth absorbed it up with no problem.
How come the head of the UN"s IPCC stepped down? How come one of the big dogs of the GlobalWarmingScam, Phil Jones, is backing off his previous statements? Saying there has been NO WARMING for almost 15yrs.
And if you don"t believe government is pushing this nonsense for any other reason, than the $$$$ signs they imagine they could get their hands on. Then YOU are showing your ignorance.
Jack
I remember when Mt.Pinatubo over in the Phillipeans erupted years back. It was said, that volcano blew more noxious gases into the atmosphere than man had since the indutrial revolution. One volcano, one blast, and the Earth absorbed it up with no problem.
How come the head of the UN"s IPCC stepped down? How come one of the big dogs of the GlobalWarmingScam, Phil Jones, is backing off his previous statements? Saying there has been NO WARMING for almost 15yrs.
And if you don"t believe government is pushing this nonsense for any other reason, than the $$$$ signs they imagine they could get their hands on. Then YOU are showing your ignorance.
Jack
Billy Shafer
Well-known Member
aurora Kindly explain how the Earth getting hotter can make snow. Global Warming means Global not just in one part of the world. I may be a dumb southener as you said. But heat means water not snow. How can what man is doing match a volcano's output. How many metric tons of gas and dust Did mount St Helens put out.I like clean air and water as much as anybody. But Global Warming is just another scam. I see Lord Gore is still living in his mega mansion.
"Peer Reviewed" That means reviewed by the same liars behind this scam. The same liars who shut down any dissenting opinions, Not allowing them to be published in their so-called "PeerReviewed" journals. Then, those same liars claim that there is no disagreement and the "Science" is settled. Right?
Jack
Jack
Anonymous-0
Well-known Member
I said earlier that there are ocean current cycles and sunspot cycles, and I am sure there are even longer-term weather cycles, too.
I'm not wanting to get into that side of the political and emotional debate. I am just looking at what has happened. The temperature trend is up sharply and there aren't any explanations for what's happened the last 150 years or so that work without a lot of bluffing and name-calling by the deniers.
I'm not wanting to get into that side of the political and emotional debate. I am just looking at what has happened. The temperature trend is up sharply and there aren't any explanations for what's happened the last 150 years or so that work without a lot of bluffing and name-calling by the deniers.
Anonymous-0
Well-known Member
warm air = moist air. Moist air meets cold jet stream= Big Snow. Big Snow= local event.
It will still snow on the planet, as long as there are opposing weather fronts and one happens to carry water vapour and the other is below 0c, they will just become a rarer event as global temperatures steadily climb upward.
Yes, it is a very good point that volcanos release incredibally large amounts of gases into the atomosphere and can actually help warm, or COOL the planet. Historically,Krakatoa & Pintaubo's eruptions caused a temporary cooling affect due to massive amounts of dust suspended in the stratosphere. Conversely, the Deccan & Siberian Trapps eruptions warmed the atomosphere to a point where they almost killed off the entire planet with the Great Extinction at the end of the Perminan about 250 mya), but again, these are luckily rather short-lived events. So OK, we agree that a single volcano can cause changes in climactic conditions (so much for the deniers claim that our planet's atomosphere is too large to be easily affected by local events...)- now extrapolate that to a million small volcanos belching out vastly smaller amounts, but over very long term time periods. That is what humans have been doing since the industrial revolution. Can you not see the analogy- and the deniers obvious contradiction? If a short term volcanic eruption will cause Climate Change, why wont a global 200+ years practice of burning fossil carbon give the same (or worse) cumulative results?
It will still snow on the planet, as long as there are opposing weather fronts and one happens to carry water vapour and the other is below 0c, they will just become a rarer event as global temperatures steadily climb upward.
Yes, it is a very good point that volcanos release incredibally large amounts of gases into the atomosphere and can actually help warm, or COOL the planet. Historically,Krakatoa & Pintaubo's eruptions caused a temporary cooling affect due to massive amounts of dust suspended in the stratosphere. Conversely, the Deccan & Siberian Trapps eruptions warmed the atomosphere to a point where they almost killed off the entire planet with the Great Extinction at the end of the Perminan about 250 mya), but again, these are luckily rather short-lived events. So OK, we agree that a single volcano can cause changes in climactic conditions (so much for the deniers claim that our planet's atomosphere is too large to be easily affected by local events...)- now extrapolate that to a million small volcanos belching out vastly smaller amounts, but over very long term time periods. That is what humans have been doing since the industrial revolution. Can you not see the analogy- and the deniers obvious contradiction? If a short term volcanic eruption will cause Climate Change, why wont a global 200+ years practice of burning fossil carbon give the same (or worse) cumulative results?
rrlund
Well-known Member
Someday somebody has to explain to me how all this works instead of just talking politics. They do that of course,because it is pure politics. I've never believed a word of this theory since it was first raised 30 years ago. Trying to lead me through the twists and turns that believers have to navigate to even try to justify this theory is like making me believe 2+2=5. You'd have to pull the wool over my eyes in more than a few equations to make me believe that either.
Let me try something just as ridiculous. What does GHOTI spell? Common sense tells you it doesn't spell fish. But,using the same logic that keeps you believers believing through all of the twists and turns,all the manipulated statistics,it does.
If you use the GH from enouGH
The O from wOmen
and the TI from naTIon
GHOTI spells fish doesn't it.
Now explain to me how greenhouse gasses and greenhouse effect mean colder weather?
Yes,warm air holds more moisture,but you can saturate air with all the moisture that you want to,but it doesn't turn to precipitation until you have cold air to cause CONDENSATION.
Useful idiots. Hitler would be envious of what the left in this country has created.
Let me try something just as ridiculous. What does GHOTI spell? Common sense tells you it doesn't spell fish. But,using the same logic that keeps you believers believing through all of the twists and turns,all the manipulated statistics,it does.
If you use the GH from enouGH
The O from wOmen
and the TI from naTIon
GHOTI spells fish doesn't it.
Now explain to me how greenhouse gasses and greenhouse effect mean colder weather?
Yes,warm air holds more moisture,but you can saturate air with all the moisture that you want to,but it doesn't turn to precipitation until you have cold air to cause CONDENSATION.
Useful idiots. Hitler would be envious of what the left in this country has created.
Anonymous-0
Well-known Member
we are living in an interglacial period- the Holocene. Over the LONG, LONG term, the glaciers will return, in maybe 5 million years. We probably wont survive as a species long enough to worry have to about it. Its the next century we should be worrying about...
Actually I trust their numbers more. Last year I was hearing how October was the warmest year on the planet that man had ever measured and for some reason the Russian land mass was the source for all the heat.
Only after the unwashed masses were allowed to see the peer reveiwed data did Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies realize that they had simply used Russia's September numbers again in October. Kind of makes you wonder about some of their other data.
Only after the unwashed masses were allowed to see the peer reveiwed data did Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies realize that they had simply used Russia's September numbers again in October. Kind of makes you wonder about some of their other data.
Anonymous-0
Well-known Member
Oh, i forgot, its ANOTHER CONSPIRACY... Right, why is it conservatives ALWAYS resort to crying its a big bad conspriracy instead of just laying out a concise, coherent argument on the subject.
It is fairly hard (and equally useless) to debate with a person who cut & pastes their "thoughts" because they havent a clue as to what they are talking about , and this is a good example.
Please, what Scientific Journal denied what scientist's contrarian paper on Global Warming/Climate Change?? Thats the same Boo-Hoo that creationists whine about- they cant get published in real science circles because its a conspiracy to silence their beliefs- even while they dont bother to submit any...
It is fairly hard (and equally useless) to debate with a person who cut & pastes their "thoughts" because they havent a clue as to what they are talking about , and this is a good example.
Please, what Scientific Journal denied what scientist's contrarian paper on Global Warming/Climate Change?? Thats the same Boo-Hoo that creationists whine about- they cant get published in real science circles because its a conspiracy to silence their beliefs- even while they dont bother to submit any...
Anonymous-0
Well-known Member
Canadians!
Anonymous-0
Well-known Member
The two major parts of the jet stream come down from the poles. They meet air masses that are driven by warm ocean currents. We get snow.
Since Professor Jones the former director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit now admits that there has been no statistically measured warming in the last 15 years does that make him part of the conspriracy?
Who would have thought he was a conservative?
Who would have thought he was a conservative?
Anonymous-0
Well-known Member
Greenland was slightly warmer during the middle ages- and norse colonists settled there for a few centuries along the costal fjords. I believe Eric the Red called it "Greenland" rather slyly to encourage Settlement. Yes THAT disproves global warming as much as when the climate cooled during the little ice ages and they were froze out! There is no argument the planets climate fluctuates- none. What seems to put the deniers in a tizzy is the fact that adding massive amounts of carbon to the air will cause it to warm at an increasing rate- not that it is getting warmer- they seem to accept that(when it isnt snowing at their place...).
Look, you guys are very skilled at not seeing obvious facts right in front of you and dancing around the subject, but fancy me this- What possible benefit does the defense dept have to draft plans to deal with "climate Refugees", or.... wait.. Is it a conspiracy to put us all in FEMA camps???!!!
Look, you guys are very skilled at not seeing obvious facts right in front of you and dancing around the subject, but fancy me this- What possible benefit does the defense dept have to draft plans to deal with "climate Refugees", or.... wait.. Is it a conspiracy to put us all in FEMA camps???!!!
Anonymous-0
Well-known Member
Ya know, they have to do something with all those empty trailers.
I actually read most of the way down through the posts on this one...
It finally dawned on me that this is an issue because a bunch of urban people got their undergarments in a knot due to a heavy snowfall!
I've got issues with having our economy and lives so intimately tied to comsuming 'fossil fuels', but not because of 'climate change'. I have come to the decided opinion that this hysteria is overblown fear-mongering. Unfortunately, it'll probably be sometime next century before it is finally put to rest as the 'scientific' aberration that it really is.
I guess what I'm saying is that it gets hot and it gets cold, it gets wet and it gets dry. Sometimes the hot is more hot than other times, sometimes the dry is more dry than other times. In the end it all balances out.
One more thing. I've heard that it was reported that the fossil fuel damage has already been done to the climate. If so, then it is already too late to do anything about it. Why the fuss?
Oh yeah, one final thing. I've encountered many heavy duty sales pitches in my life. There's is always an intensity to making a decision right NOW! Anytime I've responded to such a sales pitch, I've always deeply regretted it later.
Christopher
It finally dawned on me that this is an issue because a bunch of urban people got their undergarments in a knot due to a heavy snowfall!
I've got issues with having our economy and lives so intimately tied to comsuming 'fossil fuels', but not because of 'climate change'. I have come to the decided opinion that this hysteria is overblown fear-mongering. Unfortunately, it'll probably be sometime next century before it is finally put to rest as the 'scientific' aberration that it really is.
I guess what I'm saying is that it gets hot and it gets cold, it gets wet and it gets dry. Sometimes the hot is more hot than other times, sometimes the dry is more dry than other times. In the end it all balances out.
One more thing. I've heard that it was reported that the fossil fuel damage has already been done to the climate. If so, then it is already too late to do anything about it. Why the fuss?
Oh yeah, one final thing. I've encountered many heavy duty sales pitches in my life. There's is always an intensity to making a decision right NOW! Anytime I've responded to such a sales pitch, I've always deeply regretted it later.
Christopher
rrlund
Well-known Member
The believers are going to have to prove it in court pretty soon. NCBA,the Farm Bureau and the State of Texas have all filed lawsiutes against the EPA calling for them to prove it or shut up.
Just ranting about Fox News,that drunk Beck or that useless druggie Limbaugh ain't gonna win the arguement this time around.
Just ranting about Fox News,that drunk Beck or that useless druggie Limbaugh ain't gonna win the arguement this time around.
Anonymous-0
Well-known Member
See "Hydraulic cycle". Snow/rain falls, runs off into streams, drains into river reaches ocean.Sun beats down on ocean, evaporates water. set, repeat. Ocean levels are actually up slightly due to melting ice and thermal expansion ( oceans warm, warm water expands).
mnoliverguy
Member
HI Guys,
My ? is are you guys walking to work? are you only awake during daylight? Do you use all of the modern tech? Like your computer??? If you answered yes to the last ? you are just as guilty as the person you are condeming.
My ? is are you guys walking to work? are you only awake during daylight? Do you use all of the modern tech? Like your computer??? If you answered yes to the last ? you are just as guilty as the person you are condeming.
Anonymous-0
Well-known Member
And what about...
...the fridge or freezer keeping your food at a safe temp?
...the electronic equipt. that "needs" 24x7 power, small as that amount may be?
Your using electric even when your sleeping.
As that ever optomistic cartoon character would say,
It'll never work. We're all doomed. (real big grin).
Have fun....don t. ....
...the fridge or freezer keeping your food at a safe temp?
...the electronic equipt. that "needs" 24x7 power, small as that amount may be?
Your using electric even when your sleeping.
As that ever optomistic cartoon character would say,
It'll never work. We're all doomed. (real big grin).
Have fun....don t. ....
JimW in OH
New User
Years ago, the area I live in was covered by glaciers. The Great Lakes were formed by these glaciers. What happened? The climate changed. It warmed up. The glaciers receded. The Great Lakes were filled. Man had absolutely nothing to do with the global warming then and nothing to do with it now. This is a hoax to raise taxes and nothing more. Anyone who believes this lie is a fool. God is still in control.
Anonymous-0
Well-known Member
The earth is presently in a roughly million year glacial cycle. Our civilization has arose in an interglacial period we call the Holocene. The glaciers will return long after humans have gone extinct and wipe clean the rubble we leave behind. Thats the LONG TERM scheme of things. In the SHORT TERM we are filling our atomosphere with pollutants and CO2 that is raising the temperatures at an unatural rate. Over the next few centuries this will cause glaciers to melt, seas to rise and mass extinctions of species. Yes, the climate has changed over the evolution of this planet, but never at a rate like we are seeing now. were going to have to start dealing with that fact, or leave it to our kids & grandkids to deal with it and wonder how we could have been so stupid.
oliver power
Member
HEY! I don't consider myself as an old timer! I do remember very well the BIG snows we use to get. Yes, many many people today have never seen a big storm in thier lifetime. Yet, it wasn't that long ago. The climate IS changing. That's a fact! I feel the difference every year. Not in a global warming (temperature rise), but in the intensity of the suns rays. I remember many days years ago where the temps were higher than I've seen in recent years. All the pollution being dumped into the atmosphere can't be helping any. EVERYONE has an opinion of "Global Warming". And you know what they say about opinions.........That's right, everyone has one.
Rod in Forfar
Member
That's it. Some readers prefer a one-word answer.
What scares me about global warming is, in fact, centered in Northern Canada. If that permafrost melts, there's a huge amount of methane ready to enter the atmosphere. As the snow cover recedes, more sunlight gets through. Thus I believe in the concept of a tipping point, beyond which things will change very quickly.
What scares me about global warming is, in fact, centered in Northern Canada. If that permafrost melts, there's a huge amount of methane ready to enter the atmosphere. As the snow cover recedes, more sunlight gets through. Thus I believe in the concept of a tipping point, beyond which things will change very quickly.
randy hall
Member
go to intellicast.com and read an honest weather scientist reports. "dr dewpoint" tells the truth not the manipulated government repoerts. it is nice that the truth is finally coming to light. the left wing 'educated' people like aurora are really clawing and kicking to support the government lies so we can have more people become billionares by buying and selling carbon credits. be sure and vote these crooked idiots out of office.
MarkB_MI
Well-known Member
- Location
- Motown USA
Weather is not climate. If don't at least make an attempt to understand the difference, then you probably shouldn't comment on climate change.
It's all very good to smugly say that climate change is bogus, but you, I and every one else here will be dead within the next seventy years. So whatever mess we leave behind will be for our children and grandchildren to deal with.
Let's suppose that climate change is hokum. What are the consequences if we take steps to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels? Well, we'll reduce our need to import foreign fuels. We'll reduce the amount of crap we put into the environment. And we'll leave a lot more gas, oil and coal for our descendents to use for things where there are no good alternative energy sources.
Now, if the climatologists are right, it may be too late already. I'm sure I won't live long enough to find out the real answer, but my grandchildren will.
It's all very good to smugly say that climate change is bogus, but you, I and every one else here will be dead within the next seventy years. So whatever mess we leave behind will be for our children and grandchildren to deal with.
Let's suppose that climate change is hokum. What are the consequences if we take steps to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels? Well, we'll reduce our need to import foreign fuels. We'll reduce the amount of crap we put into the environment. And we'll leave a lot more gas, oil and coal for our descendents to use for things where there are no good alternative energy sources.
Now, if the climatologists are right, it may be too late already. I'm sure I won't live long enough to find out the real answer, but my grandchildren will.
Bull$h!t, CO2 doesn't raise atmospheric temps. CO2 has been in higher concentrations in years past. But, the global temps were lower. Now how's that?? You are talking about a trace gas (CO2), that is around 300 PPM. PartsPerMillion, That's MILLION, a trace gas. You get an pickup in CO2 concentrations, What you get from that is increased plant growth, and from that you get more O2, more oxygen, and what's wrong with that?
If, and I mean IF the planet"s temp is truly going up, it has more to do with the SUN, and it's activity, or lack of it. There has been alot of talk lately about the lack of sun spot activity. And when you are talking about a DEGREE of temp differance. Look to the sun, that has alot more to do with things than this BS of ManMadeGlobalWarming. A degree of average temp rise, and SHEEP like you want to add a whole new set of TAX burdens on all of us.
This whole so-called science is now being exposed as a giant hoax. Being driven by a bunch of LIARs looking to get more government grants for their respective universities. Now you see world governments getting involved, because all they see is the huge potential TAX moneys they can steal from easily led sheep like you.
WAKE UP
Jack
If, and I mean IF the planet"s temp is truly going up, it has more to do with the SUN, and it's activity, or lack of it. There has been alot of talk lately about the lack of sun spot activity. And when you are talking about a DEGREE of temp differance. Look to the sun, that has alot more to do with things than this BS of ManMadeGlobalWarming. A degree of average temp rise, and SHEEP like you want to add a whole new set of TAX burdens on all of us.
This whole so-called science is now being exposed as a giant hoax. Being driven by a bunch of LIARs looking to get more government grants for their respective universities. Now you see world governments getting involved, because all they see is the huge potential TAX moneys they can steal from easily led sheep like you.
WAKE UP
Jack
The atmosphere today is actually cleaner now than 40yrs ago. Thanks to the increased use of scrubbers added to the smoke stacks of industry. greatly reducing sulfides and CO emissions. That, along with added catalytic converters to improve car emissions. Remenber all the talk of AcidRain years ago? You don't hear about it anymore because of the improvements I stated above made. Mark, alot of money and effort has been made, and it's paying off. Check it out for yourself. Don't be drawn into this hoax of ManMadeGlobalWarming.
Jack
Jack
MarkB_MI
Well-known Member
- Location
- Motown USA
Jack,
You bring up a good point. Yes, we have made improvements in emissions. But we haven't reduced the amount of carbon fuels we are CONSUMING. The carbon from those fuels has to go somewhere, and most of it goes into the atmosphere.
You mentioned lower carbon monoxide emissions, but how is that accomplished? By converting the CO into carbon dioxide, and it's CO<sub>2</sub> that is supposedly the problem.
Take a look at the chart below. Almost every year we use more fossil fuel than the year before.
<a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a0/World_Energy_consumption.png/800px-World_Energy_consumption.png">
![800px-World_Energy_consumption.png" border="0](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a0/World_Energy_consumption.png/800px-World_Energy_consumption.png" border="0)
</a>
Wikipedia on world energy consumption
You bring up a good point. Yes, we have made improvements in emissions. But we haven't reduced the amount of carbon fuels we are CONSUMING. The carbon from those fuels has to go somewhere, and most of it goes into the atmosphere.
You mentioned lower carbon monoxide emissions, but how is that accomplished? By converting the CO into carbon dioxide, and it's CO<sub>2</sub> that is supposedly the problem.
Take a look at the chart below. Almost every year we use more fossil fuel than the year before.
<a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a0/World_Energy_consumption.png/800px-World_Energy_consumption.png">
Wikipedia on world energy consumption
Correction to above, (That's what I get for going from memory). CO2 levels rose, were not higher than now, from 1940-70, While global temps decreased, that's right DECREASED. That was what gave rise to the coming IceAge scare of the 70s. There is plenty of info out there about CO2/Temp relationship. Look at it and see that CO2 levels directly affecting temp is a load of manure.
Jack
Jack
Anonymous-0
Well-known Member
uh, i think it was "BIG GOVERMUNT" that forced industries to install scrubbers, limit emmissions and force automakers to adopt emmision controls such as cats in the exhaust systems.
They also made oil companies cut lead out of gasoline and banned CFCs in propellants. Yeah, and now the air is much cleaner (as far as these compounds are concerned...) due to those well crafted EPA laws that even conservatives grudgnly admit worked.
Thanks for making my point that industries have to be regulated or else they'll do the least as far as safety of their products to make the most money. Now if you could just apply that logic to CO2 output....
Im glad were reaching some agreement here, now, we just got to come up with a global iron-clad treaty to regulate carbonization of our air!
They also made oil companies cut lead out of gasoline and banned CFCs in propellants. Yeah, and now the air is much cleaner (as far as these compounds are concerned...) due to those well crafted EPA laws that even conservatives grudgnly admit worked.
Thanks for making my point that industries have to be regulated or else they'll do the least as far as safety of their products to make the most money. Now if you could just apply that logic to CO2 output....
Im glad were reaching some agreement here, now, we just got to come up with a global iron-clad treaty to regulate carbonization of our air!
Anonymous-0
Well-known Member
Dr Dewpoint, AKA Joe D'aleo is a well known, and somewhat confused skeptic/ Denier. Back in the real world, he actually founded the weather channel. He accepts the fact the planet is warming, he just cant figure out how... He thinks it is naturally warming, but cant really explain why it is happening so fast. Actually, he can, he just doesnt want to accept the facts as that would destroy his position as a darling of the deniers on the right.
He's pretty well been sidelined by his fellow climatologists for his inability to articulate a coherent theory that explains Global Warming without including an anthropogenic CO2 factor. When are you going to bring up fellow traveller/denier extrodinaire Dr. Richard lundzen?
He's pretty well been sidelined by his fellow climatologists for his inability to articulate a coherent theory that explains Global Warming without including an anthropogenic CO2 factor. When are you going to bring up fellow traveller/denier extrodinaire Dr. Richard lundzen?
Anonymous-0
Well-known Member
We are above 300 and rapidly rising. 350-400ppm will cause significant and substained planetary warming. If CO2 output is not regulated, one scenario (IPPC-RCP8.5) forecasts a 1370ppm blanket by 2100. That is an extreme, worst case view, assuming emmissions will increase as they have up to this point and no meaningful regulations are enacted. Other, milder models suggest ranges from 490 ppm up to 850ppm by the end of this century even with regulations and cuts in out gassing.
We will wreak havoc on future generations at any of these levels and it will take further centuries (barring some unforseen future technology- but we can only hope...) to bring CO2 levels back to "normal" levels.
It will just come down to who's going to have to pay for our stupidity and selfishness, and when, not if. The sooner we act, the less it will cost and the sooner levels will stabilize and eventually decrease, although it will be far beyond our lifetimes before our fossil-fuel legacy dissapates
We will wreak havoc on future generations at any of these levels and it will take further centuries (barring some unforseen future technology- but we can only hope...) to bring CO2 levels back to "normal" levels.
It will just come down to who's going to have to pay for our stupidity and selfishness, and when, not if. The sooner we act, the less it will cost and the sooner levels will stabilize and eventually decrease, although it will be far beyond our lifetimes before our fossil-fuel legacy dissapates
Anonymous-0
Well-known Member
Permafrost in the Tiaga is a giant wild card. So much carbon has been sequestered in the ice that just a fraction of this being released will indeed cause a runaway effect that will make Global Warming even harder to slow down, to say nothing about losing the snow's ability to reflect radiant heat....
Doing away with fossil fuels just isn't going to fly, no matter what you want. We've had a century of enjoying the easy life made possible by the leverage of cheap energy. There is no going back. Even if we as a nation agree to go back to horse and buggy days and living off recent solar energy, there are billions of people around the world who want their share of the good life.
As far as saying that someone who cannot tell the difference between climate and weather should keep their mouths shut, well, that just isn't how a democracy works. If you are asking a person to sacrifice, it is up to you to convince them of the need. If you fail to do so, it is not their fault but your own. It could also mean that you might not be entirely right, also. To shove sacrifice down the throats of those unwilling to accept it is a different form of government than I was taught in school.
As I said in a different post, I've got problems with tying ourselves so intimately to fossil fuels, but I still remained unconvinced about the cause of 'climate change'.
Christopher
As far as saying that someone who cannot tell the difference between climate and weather should keep their mouths shut, well, that just isn't how a democracy works. If you are asking a person to sacrifice, it is up to you to convince them of the need. If you fail to do so, it is not their fault but your own. It could also mean that you might not be entirely right, also. To shove sacrifice down the throats of those unwilling to accept it is a different form of government than I was taught in school.
As I said in a different post, I've got problems with tying ourselves so intimately to fossil fuels, but I still remained unconvinced about the cause of 'climate change'.
Christopher
Dale in WV
Member
From my wife"s grandparents diaries, photographs and re-told stories, back in the "day" -- lets say from the 1920"s and later -- on the family farm in eastern WV, they had an Ice House. Simple construction, eventually torn down when newer technology replaced the need. They would use a saw to cut blocks of ice from the frozen river (we still call it a Creek), pull it up on runners to the Ice House, and pack it in sawdust. The last time I remember the ice even being thick enough on this 75" wide creek to simply "walk" across was in the early 1960"s. To me, it means our weather pattern - lack of cold winters - changed to a warmer pattern. I can"t speak of CO2, but I do have a real creek, half-mile from my home, still not ice=covered to the depth they would have harvested ice, for the past 40 years. Dale in WV
Anonymous-0
Well-known Member
The greatest mistake we ever made was basing our entire society, our primary energy sources, our culture, our agriculture practices and everything else on a finite resource that cannot be replaced or replenished at the rate we consume it
Anonymous-0
Well-known Member
You read "National Review" for your science, I read "Nature" and "Science"- no wonder we disagree...
MarkB_MI
Well-known Member
- Location
- Motown USA
Jack,
I read the article, and in general I agree with some of the points made. It is a fair statement that increasing CO<sub>2</sub> in the atmosphere has not been proven to be the direct cause of global warming. But what can't be disputed is that 1) the earth is warming, and 2) we continue to burn more fossil fuels each year than we did the year before.
Going back to my original post: Reducing our reliance on fossil fuels is a good thing, even if it turns out that there is no relationship between CO<sub>2</sub> and climate change.
I read the article, and in general I agree with some of the points made. It is a fair statement that increasing CO<sub>2</sub> in the atmosphere has not been proven to be the direct cause of global warming. But what can't be disputed is that 1) the earth is warming, and 2) we continue to burn more fossil fuels each year than we did the year before.
Going back to my original post: Reducing our reliance on fossil fuels is a good thing, even if it turns out that there is no relationship between CO<sub>2</sub> and climate change.
MarkB_MI
Well-known Member
- Location
- Motown USA
No need to blow your brains out, Schmuck. You will certainly die of natural causes before the effects of climate change force you to change your lifestyle. But perhaps for the sake of your grandchildren you might be persuaded to change.
When I was a kid in the 1950s most people used coal to heat with.So in the winter about everywhere you looked there was smoke coming out of a chimney.Before that from 1900 until the 1940s there were trains that used coal and there were lots of trains.Also a lot of people had a car that was wore out putting smoke in the atmosphere.If you needed to find somebody running a tractor out in the field if it was a diesel you just parked at the end and watched for smoke.So all of this is better now.At least if smoke was making it snow.Also I have been to plenty of places where it snows still.It seems like it was about normal when I was a kid for it to snow more and get cold and stay that way longer,but there were times it would warm up in the winter.I remember when it was 60 degrees on Christmas day in Kansas City in about 1970.I also read that the government did a study on all the climate data since the late 1800s and cant find any warm up at all.Of course there arent any of the media saying anything about that government study because of the crooks who want to tax carbon.
The question is does man by what he does cause the climate to change?I would say if man causes the climate to change its not much.If you think about the difference from the 1800s until now,and there is no temperature change at all overall,then whatever man does to climate is not much.Especially since we have 250 million cars now.Also I read where 11 supertankers put out more emissions than all of the cars on Earth.I bet you wont see a catalytic converter on one of them either.The whole thing is so you pay some crook a tax and the big money people that run equipment like super tankers are in the scheme with the crooks.They dont care if what man does causes climate change,but they are going to scam you out of your money anyway,even if it doesnt.
The question is does man by what he does cause the climate to change?I would say if man causes the climate to change its not much.If you think about the difference from the 1800s until now,and there is no temperature change at all overall,then whatever man does to climate is not much.Especially since we have 250 million cars now.Also I read where 11 supertankers put out more emissions than all of the cars on Earth.I bet you wont see a catalytic converter on one of them either.The whole thing is so you pay some crook a tax and the big money people that run equipment like super tankers are in the scheme with the crooks.They dont care if what man does causes climate change,but they are going to scam you out of your money anyway,even if it doesnt.
Well You are right about Glen Beck.The CO2 thing is a bunch of crap.CO2 has been higher in the past.What man does cant effect the climate as much as one volcano erupting.
Now as for your climate shift problem you should read Zechariah Sichens and others books about our Planet turning because of another Planet in our solar system coming close enough with Earth to have even tore the moon out of it.That is going to screw things up way worse than man burning fossil fuels.Plus this happens real often.Like every 3600 years and it has been written about and its been translated for over 100 years.Of course they arent telling you about that.They are scamming you about carbon.
Now as for your climate shift problem you should read Zechariah Sichens and others books about our Planet turning because of another Planet in our solar system coming close enough with Earth to have even tore the moon out of it.That is going to screw things up way worse than man burning fossil fuels.Plus this happens real often.Like every 3600 years and it has been written about and its been translated for over 100 years.Of course they arent telling you about that.They are scamming you about carbon.
Phil Jones, One of the top "Scientist" of the global warming SCAM. Just said a week or so ago, that there has been no warming for the last 15yrs. You can show all you want about increased use of fossile fuels. But, as I said in an earlier post. Our atmosphere is the cleanest it's been in a long time. This planet eats emissions, and it has been doing it without our help for a loooong time.
Sure, in a perfect world, we'd all have a solar panel on our roof and a windmill in the backyard and would not even have to pay for electrity. Our cars would be electric, and go 1000 miles on a charge. But it's not going to happen, not in our lifetimes. But one thing is for sure, We don't need the yoke of Cap+Tax on our necks. All in the name of a SCAM.
Jack
Sure, in a perfect world, we'd all have a solar panel on our roof and a windmill in the backyard and would not even have to pay for electrity. Our cars would be electric, and go 1000 miles on a charge. But it's not going to happen, not in our lifetimes. But one thing is for sure, We don't need the yoke of Cap+Tax on our necks. All in the name of a SCAM.
Jack
We sell tractor parts! We have the parts you need to repair your tractor - the right parts. Our low prices and years of research make us your best choice when you need parts. Shop Online Today.
Copyright © 1997-2025 Yesterday's Tractor Co.
All Rights Reserved. Reproduction of any part of this website, including design and content, without written permission is strictly prohibited. Trade Marks and Trade Names contained and used in this Website are those of others, and are used in this Website in a descriptive sense to refer to the products of others. Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy TRADEMARK DISCLAIMER: Tradenames and Trademarks referred to within Yesterday's Tractor Co. products and within the Yesterday's Tractor Co. websites are the property of their respective trademark holders. None of these trademark holders are affiliated with Yesterday's Tractor Co., our products, or our website nor are we sponsored by them. John Deere and its logos are the registered trademarks of the John Deere Corporation. Agco, Agco Allis, White, Massey Ferguson and their logos are the registered trademarks of AGCO Corporation. Case, Case-IH, Farmall, International Harvester, New Holland and their logos are registered trademarks of CNH Global N.V.
Yesterday's Tractors - Antique Tractor Headquarters
Website Accessibility Policy