Hunting and fishing and the global warming

Fabrication at it's finest!

I see it this way:
No way we can dump milions of tons of EXTRA green house gas onto the air every single year and not cause a problem.
I have no idea how severe the problem is, but I would bet my life there is indeed a severe problem, and its going to snowball at some point.

Its all about oil.
And it is just that simple.
It has been all about oil for 70+ years.
And as long as there are billions of dollars of the stuff left to sell, there will be ample evidence provided to refute global warming.

All the planets have warming and cooling cycles, and oil has nothing to do with Mars warming up, that is a fact.
But it may have a great deal to do with HOW MUCH MORE Earth warms up this time around.
Its all cycles, but this will be the first warming cycle that ALSO includes billions of tons of additional green house gases along with the normal warming trend.

It is said by scientists that there is more CO2 in the air now, than has been in the air in millions of years, from the results from their ice core samples.
They seem quite positive, and woried about it.
It is rather hard to argue that something may be amiss here.

We have always had 'cycles'of change in climate,but if it were true we were causing it theres nothing we can do,China is growing rapidly in oil use,everyone wants a dang car there now,and so do all the other 3rd world countries who are just beginning to 'catch up' with American way of life.

Al Gore wants to make you go back to the stone ags,He wants us to get back to horses!,its in a book he wrote.

There is no question now that the world is warming at an alarming rate. From what I have read, the vast majority of scientists agree that the warming earth is in direct correlation with the rising c02 levels. Take the time to find unbias sceintific information before you make up your mind.

"Mention that to a Greenhouse activist sometime. The response is telling. They don't want to diminish GHGs as much as they want to Socalize us into abject agrarian poverty... with them in charge of course. "


That sounds like quite a stretch to me! LOL Actually what they are saying is, they believe humans are causing global warming and they are asking everyone to do their part to cut down on energy use.

I'm not ragging on you personally John, but here's a bit of history. The last paragraph is instructive. In a way, I suppose, you could say that your contention about the PertoCartels & Government could be exactly what this writer was hoping for...

The Cooling World
Newsweek, April 28, 1975

There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars’ worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.

To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”

A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.

To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth’s average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras – and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the “little ice age” conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 – years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.

Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery. “Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data,” concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. “Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions.”

Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases – all of which have a direct impact on food supplies.

“The world’s food-producing system,” warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA’s Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, “is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago.” Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during past famines.

Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.
--------------------------

Just for grins, you might want to read about the Maunder Minimum (again, described much more entertainingly by Jerry Pournelle in "Fallen Angels". Dr. Pournelle is not known for fudging his science.

As for how to "fix" the enviornment without ceeding everything to an overarching Watermellon State (green on the outside, red on the inside), you may want to check some of the more interesting works on "the Commons" done by various Anarchocapitalists.

Well, I was here in the 70's also, and I remember a great many things.
I remember a government sponsored brainwashing show pushed off on the kids in which the world population was at epidemic proportions by 1980.
I remember the 'ice age' predictions, and I also remember no one gave them any serious thought that I was ever aware of.
Now, you have given two quite long and well thought out replies, but you have not yet given a single reason you are against America stepping up to the plate and cleaning up what we can, global warming or no global warming.
You see, I do not CARE what is stopping it from happening.
I do know the government is corrupt, and from top to bottom.
We should have 10 times the number of nuclear power plants we have, and we should have 1000 times the number of wind turbines.
Do I want more government?
As much as I never thought I would ever say it, concerning this YES I sure do.
It should have been made mandatory that no new houses would be built without energy saving technology 30 years ago.
In the same manner as the electrical codes, plumbing codes, fire codes and all the other codes have been made mandatory.

Oil, just like hunting land, is not infinite.
What we have today is all we will ever have.
I am not advocating living in a cave and eating raw meat, but there are dozens of ways to live just as well as we already live, and use much less energy.

I do not want more corrupt government.
What I want is codes covering energy efficiency just as we currently have codes for electrical standards and fire codes.
Are you trying to say our electrical and fire codes are authoritarian/statist?
That is not entirely accurate.
It almost sounds like you feel we need no rules or laws at all.
After all, any rule or law fits your definition exactly, which means it is invalid.
There is no more wrong with requiring energy efficient housing, than there has been in any other code that has been established over the years.
Just because it adds another complication to your job, does not mean it is a bad thing.