Page 1 of 7 1234567 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 89

Thread: Why Do Conservatives Deny Global Warming?

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1

    Why Do Conservatives Deny Global Warming?

    Well, I can't pretend to know the answer to that question but after I "stumbled" across the following chart, I realized that conservatives may be deluding themselves with false data. Reproduced below, this chart suggests that there has not been an increase in global temperature changes over the last 4500 or so years. The moment I saw this graph, the hair began to rise on the back of my neck. First, anybody that shows a graph without indicating the units of the y-axis has something to hide. Second, to depict something as variable and complex a global temperature as such a smooth curve suggests dishonesty. Third, the labeling of the chart with the words "Nomanic Time" in bold is bizarre What is Nomanic? Fourth, why does this data go back only 4500 years? Most sources of climate data that goes back several thousand years also include data that go much further back. Fifth where did this data come from? It looks nothing like any climate data that I have seen. Finally, who on earth are Climatologist Cliff Harris & Metereologist Randy Mann? Well keep reading if you are at all interested.

    http://longrangeweather.com/images/GTEMPS.gif


    If you look very carefully at the graph, you will find that the baseline of the graph is 57˚F (label on the far right) and there was a point labeled 58˚F for now. They are reporting huge shifts of average global temperature which vary at most a couple tenths of degrees from year to year. The absence of normal variations that one sees in temperature charts indicates that the data must have been made up. Regarding "nomanic times", the Scythians are known as "nomanic invaders" but this is a esoteric word used mostly by historians referring to an obscure Iran-Afghan race. Perhaps it was a mispelling for "nomadic" and a period when the ancient Hebrews were nomadic. This also is consistent with a mostly biblical time line of the earth. The source of the data for the graph is unclear. Finally, if you look up Cliff Harris and Randy Mann, you will find that they are two guys who run a website http://www.longrangeweather.com/About-Us.htm and that neither are trained as a climatologist or a metereologist, unless one considered appearing on television to report weather or studying geology to be training for such a field. Harris apparently is a conservative Christian who believes in looking in the Bible for clues on what the weather will be (Source).

    Here are some real data from Nasa and other sources concerning the climate change. You can see that they are very different looking from the graph above.




    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/2005cal_fig1.gif
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...Comparison.png
    Last edited by Wise Young; 11-26-2007 at 10:10 AM.

  2. #2
    Fourth, why does this data just go back only 4500 years?

    Posted by Wise
    LOL. There are a lot of folks who think the earth is only 6,000 years old. And, unfortunately, some of them are running for President. One of them might even be President.

    John
    "Hope is like a road in the country; there was never a road, but when many people walk on it, the road comes into existence." Lin Yutang

  3. #3
    Banned adi chicago's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    near dracula castle
    Posts
    9,508
    Quote Originally Posted by john smith
    LOL. There are a lot of folks who think the earth is only 6,000 years old. And, unfortunately, some of them are running for President. One of them might even be President.

    John
    hehe.....good one john.
    • Dum spiro, spero.
      • Translation: "As long as I breathe, I hope."

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by john smith
    LOL. There are a lot of folks who think the earth is only 6,000 years old. And, unfortunately, some of them are running for President. One of them might even be President.

    John
    John,

    It is one of the problems with the young earth theory. By dismissing all this data that occurred before 6000, a majority of people who believe in the young earth theory have no basis for interpreting data indicating that global warming is taking place. So, they deny it. Worse, they refuse to do anything about it and aggravate it further. And, there are those who believe the data but don't think that anything should be done about it. It is sort of like the farmers in the Southwest and Midwest who have been sucking out billions of gallons of groundwater to water their crops. It is clear now that if they continue to use water at that rate, they will completely use up all the groundwater. Their response? I heard one farmer say on NPR, "Why not? I own the land. If I don't take it, somebody else will."

    It is sad and frightening. Let me expand the discussion to another subject... fishing. I was having dinner with a leading marine biologist who has spent his life counting marine fish and other organisms. I asked him if it is true that we will have no more wild fish in the ocean within two decades. He more or less confirmed it. Biologically, the populations have gone below biological sustainability. He told two stories that were particularly alarming.
    • The oysters of Chesapeake Bay. This was once the worlds most abundant source of oysters. They were harvested by this ships dredging the oyster bars. The problem is that those dredges destroy the bars and oysters can no longer breed. In less than a century of oyster harvesting, they have now killed them all off. It turned out that there were so many oysters in the bay that they filtered the entire volume of the Chesapeake Bay every 48 hours. Now, of course, they are no longer filtering the water and the environmental consequences are huge.
    • The fish off the coast of Florida. My friend pointed out that it is not just commercial fishing that is depleting the water. In Florida, there are over 2 million registered boats and an average of 7 million trip-persons per year for fishing. They are just fishing all the fish out of the ocean and everybody seems to think that it is their god-given right to decimate the wildlife and kill off what has taken thousands of years to grow and develop. Politicians are unwilling to do anything to stop this. By the way, this is not only true of Florida but off the coast of California and Washington states. Cape Cod (named after the famous cod fish that use to be the main source of livelihood for the people who lived there) barely has any code left (Source).

    I mentioned how much Chinese love fish. In every Chinese restaurant in China, one sees aquaria filled with fish. They eat only live swimming fish. Probaby less than 10% of fish actually gets through to the restaurant still swimming. Much of the rest are thrown away or used for animal feed. A population of 1.3 billion people eating fish. It won't be long before all the fish in the Pacific are gone. China is the world's largest producer of fish, second only to Peru which is the second largest. China not only is the largest consumer but exports $3 billion of fish every year. The government of China strongly enforces treaty agreements, domestic fishing laws, and catch limits. They have forced the industry to reduce the number of fishing boats and fisherman, and have strongly promoted aquaculture. Despite these draconian policies enacted by the Chinese government to have a "zero growth" policy for wild fish catching, the pressure to get fish is decimating fish populations in the seas around China (Source).

    Actually, my friend said that the Chinese have been trying really hard. By comparison, the United States is not even trying. Politicians are unwilling to slow or limit recreational fishing. Despite years of dire warnings by scientists of ecological extinctions cause by overfishing and the serious consequences of such extinctions, the public continues to fish and then pretend to be surprised when there are no more fish left and the shores around the United States are showing the effects of the overfishing (Source). It is clear that the Magnuson-Stevens At, which required reporting of and limiting overfishing, is simply ineffective (Source) when it comes to recreational fishing. Yet, nothing is being done about the problem.

    Where is that much vaunted care and love of nature, the environment, and leaving earth a better place than when we came to it? It seems to have escaped the current generation of conservative Americans, or at least most of them. It is so sad that they are denigrating "liberals" are "tree-huggers". As a result, nothing is done until it is too late and the environment is gone. Memory is short. And you always have naysayers who won't believe the data. It is sad. There use to be a time when conservatives were in favor of preserving the environment. Now, it seems that most of conservatives are in favor of preserving the profits of the industries rather than preserving the environment. Since when was being an environmentalist relegated to the bailiwick of liberals?

    Wise.
    Last edited by Wise Young; 11-26-2007 at 11:39 AM.

  5. #5
    That... is scary. Dr. Young, just what do you think the environmental state of the world will be in - say - fifty years, besides the fish being gone?
    Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
    - Albert Einstein

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Kendell
    That... is scary. Dr. Young, just what do you think the environmental state of the world will be in - say - fifty years, besides the fish being gone?
    It's more than just the fish being gone. Dr. Wise will describe it in scientific terms..but think about it.
    Nature is a finely woven web. We have learned when even one strand of that web is destroyed the hole it leaves is much larger than that one strand.

    What about the marine life that depends on the fish in question? Do we know exactly everything each ocean inhabitant contributes to their environement? Even waste matter is important in the oceans and rivers.

    One good recent example of us not knowing what we are causing is being proven by the re-introduction of the wolf into Yellowstone Park.
    The years they were missing in action ecosytems became uninhabitable for many other species including birds.
    Many plant quit growing. Water was not being conserved. Now with the wolves back. Beavers are building dams. Missing fauna is regrowing. Birds that had given up on the area are now returning. The ecosystem is becoming healthy. Nothing else was done but the return of the wolf. Makes you wonder doesn't it.
    Life isn't about getting thru the storm but learning to dance in the rain.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    17,427

    Lindox

    Quote Originally Posted by Lindox
    It's more than just the fish being gone.
    In some time much will be gone, some say quite a few species are whipped off the earth each week, but the focus is not right, take the Canada “cruel” seal hunt thread for example, zillions of seal, still this has got more focus than the around less than 3,000 tigers soon to be whipped out in India, not a peep about that, the 1 billions seals though, ohh the seals. Peoples has to understand more, and like the wolfs in Yellowstone, it is human controlled, that’s how it is, all is human controlled on a large scale, we just have to become better, but to focus on a few thousand seals out of a bunch compared like to no focus at all as for the tigers and the trade of their bones to China via Nepal for whatever reason is actually outrageous, the ivory from elephants in Africa too, after the hunt in the sixties the herds started to increase and one could see tens of them together quite often, now this is also seldom due to pouching for ivory used in China mainly. Take the whale hunt done by some countries like mine done by the West and Japan for example, which most “environmental concerned” city folks is outrages about, the West do sincere research thus blue whales and other endangered spices are not hunted on anymore albeit the bad practice in times before. Now one only hunt whales there are plenty of to keep the balance (like Yellowstone) and due to it is responsible, still those locko environmentalists’ focuses on this instead on the real problem as for endangered species. Understand that the ones that can?

    Soon we will all be gone if we don’t start to act to see the real problems, stupid wars take the focus away, so to the hyped energy focus some politicians puts forward these days, not to say we shouldn’t find better energy sources, but to me it seems populist politician forget about the rest when dealing with this issue... I remember flying over the US and Canada, from books when the immigrants came there was just open plain fields, now most everything looks like squares/blocks in a city, the same here in Europe, and the rest of the world is squaring and following swift, how to deal with that might be the question?
    Last edited by Leif; 11-27-2007 at 05:12 PM.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Lindox
    It's more than just the fish being gone. Dr. Wise will describe it in scientific terms..but think about it.
    Nature is a finely woven web. We have learned when even one strand of that web is destroyed the hole it leaves is much larger than that one strand.

    What about the marine life that depends on the fish in question? Do we know exactly everything each ocean inhabitant contributes to their environement? Even waste matter is important in the oceans and rivers.

    One good recent example of us not knowing what we are causing is being proven by the re-introduction of the wolf into Yellowstone Park.
    The years they were missing in action ecosytems became uninhabitable for many other species including birds.
    Many plant quit growing. Water was not being conserved. Now with the wolves back. Beavers are building dams. Missing fauna is regrowing. Birds that had given up on the area are now returning. The ecosystem is becoming healthy. Nothing else was done but the return of the wolf. Makes you wonder doesn't it.
    Thanks for the response, Lindox. I definitely agree that one so-called little change to our ecosystem can produce major negatives changes. The idea of the fish disappearing in two decades - Good Gawds, that is beyond huge!

    On a slightly different note, Debbie and I have been increasingly disturbed by the increasing trend of every new business around here wanting it's own brand-new building. Heaven forbid they should take over and rehab any of the too many empty commercial buildings around here. Some have been sitting empty for at least the 5+ years we've lived in this town alone, and Im sure it's happening plenty of other places. No, they'd rather tear down more woods to build their own nice, shiny new business and destroy more natural habitat.
    Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
    - Albert Einstein

  9. #9

    Exclamation

    Quote Originally Posted by Wise Young View Post
    John,

    It is one of the problems with the young earth theory. By dismissing all this data that occurred before 6000, a majority of people who believe in the young earth theory have no basis for interpreting data indicating that global warming is taking place. So, they deny it....Wise.
    And may I ask what YOU are doing? You and your minions seem to be dismissing all the data that occurred before 500,000 years.

    The Anthropogenic Global Warming crowd is so focused on the past 500,000 years that they totally ignore 10,000 times the data. Why? Because (in the words of Jim Carrie) "It's devistating to their case!"

    The earth is roughly 5 BILLION year old. 500,000 years is merely 1/10,000th of the age of the earth. Why ignore the other 4.5 billion years of earth history?

    As a geologist I can tell you definitively that from the beginning of the Cambrian backward into geologic time our ability to derive much useful information regarding global climate is dubious at best.

    HOWEVER... from the begininng of the Cambrian forward we have very good data. And just like your illustrious Vostok Ice Cores we can determine things like global temperature and CO2 levels of the atmosphere of the earth from the indelible record of the rock.

    So let us start from that point. The AWG crowd is ignoring the past 542 million years. Why? Why do they only concentrate on the past 500 thousand to the exclusion of the rest? Here's just a few reasons why:

    There have been 4 major ice ages since the Cambrian 542 MYBP. The first was at the Siluro-Ordovician boundary. The earth was plunged into a deep ice age for roughly 25 or 30 million years. There is strong evidence to suggest permanent ice extended well south of the Tropic of Cancer! At that same time we have been able to determine via proxy and sediment data the CO2 content of the atmosphere was 5000 PPM. That is 12 times higher than it is today. How does that jibe with the notion that CO2 is the end all be all of global wamring? ??? How could there be a deep ice age with CO2 levels that high?

    Another example is the Fossil Forrest of Axel Hieberg Island (google it!). In short the earth was so warm 45 million years ago that a massive
    Coniferous deciduous forest arose merely 700 miles from north pole of this planet. This forest was a typical sub-tropical ecosystem rife with alligators much like that found in the southeastern United States (Florida, Alabama, Mississippi). That's right...as earth scientists began to study this forest (discovered by accident in 1986) they found remains of Champosaurus in the stratum of the ancient trees. This forest is currently located at 85 degrees north latitude. So what caused the warming that gave rise to this sub-tropical forest 45 MYBP at the north pole? It certainly was not man.

    The irrefutable geologic fact is the earth is warming up. SO WHAT. It has been warming up since the end of the Pleistocene (the great ice age). The earth is still in this ice age. An ice age is defined by the fact that ice even exists at the polar regions of the earth.

    Over the past 542 million years (since the closing of the pre-cambrian) the earth has only exhibited polar ice for just 50 or 60 million years. The rest of the time...480 or 490 million years the earth was very very balmy and had NO polar ice...NONE...zilch...NADA. The fact is the earth is normally warm and absent of polar ice. This is nothing new and has been the fact for at least a half a billion years.

    What caused all that warming for the past 480 million years? ??? What caused the warming that forced the permanent ice to retreat from Kansas just 20,000 years ago back into Canada? ??? Was it Cro-Magnon and his coal fired power plants? ???

    Global warming and cooling cycles are as old as the planet itself. Climate change is nothing new and has been historically speaking very radical and rapid at times. Much more so than we have observed to day. ALL these changes occured millions of years before mankind ever arrived. So if man caused this minor change in earth's climate today...what in he11 caused it all the hundreds of times in the past 542 million years?

    If anyone is "dismissing" huge volumes of data (ignoring the earth's age) it is not the looney religious right Doctor...it is the looney religious enviroMENTAL left and man made global warming zombies.

    Seriously

    George Factus

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by GeoFact View Post
    George Factus
    Why did you have to make a new username? And you're required to
    include a source when you post information from another site.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •