A tool for your arsenal


MT, member12 is a troll. An honest troll, but still a troll.
Member12 is correct that the “global warming” is a crock.
Still a troll though.
Am I wrong member12?


I am going to google tomorrow (too tired tonight) and find predictions the global warming alarmists made in the late 80s-early 90s and see just how many if any came true. I thought of this yesterday. It seems to me that they are quickly changing the name from global warming to global chaos. Which tells me that they are running out of global warming ideas to scare us with.


hmmmm. Thanks for the warning. Still looking for some response to my questions.


Here’s a white paper that might help, it is not an ‘anti global warming’ source:
CRU Information Sheet no. 10: Sea level rise

And this one is:
Global Warming Hoax: News

I believe that is entirely possible that the overall world temperature has risen over the last 100 or even 1000 years, and that it might be in a period of decline now. The real question is why? And how is man responsible?
There have been great ice ages through the eons. That’s why we have the Great Lakes, etc… But then that ice disappeared, and has been much farther back than it is today. I don’t think the Neanderthals had SUV’s… so my deduction would be that there is a natural reason for the changes.

I imagine that there is some wiggle room in all the climate models that are being used to shore up the predictions of looming disaster. Not too hard to think that a Prof who has his livelihood and professional reputation staked on a theory would find a way to make the models say what he needs.
Of course I could be wrong, we all know how unbiased Academia is now a days…

Here is a link to a climate scientists presentation that wraps up most issues well:
Global Warming Hoax: Content / Global Warming Myth / Hoax Videos / Professor Bob Carter (Australian geologist)


[quote=“mtemptyspace2008, post:20, topic:8587”]
Okay, I don’t understand why then is the sea levels rising. I understand, (correct me I’m wrong) that shorelines are being washed away. Coral life is dieing. It also seems that the Hurricane’s that are devastaing the gulf and other places seem more powerful than in past decades?

Help me understand this.
[/quote]I don’t know about changes in sea level, but shoreline erosion is a natural process of the water movement (waves, tides, etc.). It’s been happening throughout history.

[quote=“smichellen, post:21, topic:8587”]
MT, member12 is a troll. An honest troll, but still a troll.
Member12 is correct that the “global warming” is a crock.
Still a troll though.
Am I wrong member12?
[/quote]I think you’re wrong, Smichy. I don’t think Member 12 is a troll, at least based on anything I’ve seen. Like RWNJ said in that conspiracy thread, he appeared to be just joking. I haven’t seen evidence of trollish behavior.


Thanks KSMEDMAN. I will read more on the referred links.


FC, if you are right then I need to apologize to Member12.


[quote=“mtemptyspace2008, post:27, topic:8587”]
FC, if you are right then I need to apologize to Member12.
[/quote]I’ve since seen another post of his in the abortion thread, and I can understand why Smichy would suspect him of being a troll. For myself, I’m going to take a wait-and-see attitude.


I made a formal apology. Yes, a wait and see attitude. You are fair.


The rising sea level is possible, but I really don’t believe it’s manmade, just like I don’t think global warming is caused by man.

That said, we do need to make some changes in our business and personal practices.
For example, I grew up in a state where oil companies implemented practices called key holding, where they dig canals into the marshes to set up barge based oil rigs.
Granted, I won’t complain since my family financially benefits from these leases, but this method of drilling causes salt water intrusion into local rivers, streams, lakes, and marshes…all the fresh water vegetation dies and the shore goes through a massive amount of erosion.

This practice is over, but there are still other problems that face the gulf coast region that is caused by man:

  1. The artifical course that the Mississippi River is taking now
  2. Levees that keep rivers from depositing into the flood plain
  3. Population increase causes a massive construction boom on the coast that puts more people and property at risk that in the past- this is along the gulf coast and also applies to the geological and forest fire events on the west coast.

There’s also a natural erosion process that, over the course of millions of years, will flatten mountains and deposit silt in floodplains. Mankind is responsible for hindering some of this.

I won’t stand in the way of progress, and I’m not one of these types that blames the home buyer for their suffering during a forest fire or hurricane. I can’t deny that as our population grows, we move farther and farther out increasing personal and propety damage when natural disasters occur.

It’s like the “sky is falling” deal. I just don’t buy into global warming.


Great Link Thanks


India’s mangrove island on the Bay of Bengal, Lochachara has sunk below the waves. Whether or not it’s because of human caused global warming is up for debate, but the sea levels are rising.

I’m looking into the evidence. Either way, I encourage you to look into ocean acidification and coral bleaching. I’m not entirely certain why no one addresses these points on the left.


…because coral is’nt cute and cuddly like polar bears stranded on ice floes…:yes:


Could be =P

That Professor Bob Carter made an interesting presentation. I’ll have to look into it more, but he seemed rational, if not a bit angry.




It seems from reading this thread that most Americans on this forum believe that global warming (climate change) is a hoax. I can’t share that opinion and here’s why. It’s not only that the huge majority of science is supporting the notion of global warming but also many of those who deny global warming are inconsistent. In the denialist’s rush to denial they will talk about non-AGW one day as being real but another day they will talk about global cooling. Not all deniers are this way but many are. This kind of disingenous denial of mainstream science destroys some people’s credibility in my opinion. It demonstrates to me at least that some people are not really as interested in learning the facts as they are in taking a side for their own personal reasons.

But what I have said above is not taken from any of the comments on this forum or from any of you people. It is just my observation and some may not agree of course. One thing does appear to betray people who are not being objective and honest about the question though is how they approach the debate. I’ve introduced the question here in an honest effort to see how both sides approach the question of global warming. This I believe can be instuctive to those who are still not completely decided.


Few of the “scientists” promoting “global warming” are even climatogists. You have one in Canada who is a geneticist. I can’t remember his name, but the Viking has mentioned him.


You may be right Susanna but I think there’s little doubt that the pro side has the most “experts” of the two.

I’ve spent considerable time in trying to come to a conclusion and I have decided to be on the pro side. Not to say that I’m entirely certain but at some point in time I had to give it to the scientists who support the notion of global warming. I did so because I just felt that I had to eventually defer to their knowledge and their understanding of the issue. I also came to the conclusion that those on the con side seemed to be acting in a less credible manner. For instance, when I started to hear sarcastic comments from the con side on global cooling that didn’t do much for their credibility IMO. Such as the rather cold winter weather which is now taking place in the central US. This demonstrated to me an unwillingness to try to understand what is happening.

I’ll leave it at that for now and see if there is any more interest in a discussion on the topic. But just to add, when one decides to favour the pro side then the big question becomes one of what to do about it. Of course they are two separate questions and the one questin must be kept entirely separate from the other. Nobody should decide on the first if he/she is only influenced by the second and the impact of acting on the first. Agreed?


I know there are members here will dispute the preponderence/qualifications of the alledged experts on the yes-global-warming-is-happening side. Having said that, I personally don’t know enough about it to argue it myself with certainty.


That’s honest of you! But personally I have made an effort to understand because I think it would be irresponsible to not.