2012 was the warmest year ever for the U.S.

I think the AGW debate is a prime example of mass liberal idiocy. For years now, these people have propped up this false crisis, manipulated data, and played fast and loose with general logic and the truth. Whenever we've had a period of warm weather, it is suddenly "the warmest in history" even though, basic understanding of how our planet was formed, completely contradicts this, it has been much, much warmer on Earth. Whenever we have a period of extremely cold weather, it's because "global warming" is really "climate change" and the extreme cold is somehow caused by warming also. The icecap at the North Pole is melting, we see the clips of glaciers falling into the ocean, and a lone polar bear floating on an iceberg, with nowhere to go! Poor polar bear! Us mean old humans are destroying his habitat with our global warming! Meanwhile, nothing is mentioned of the South Pole icecap, which is growing. Too bad glaciers don't spring up from the sea, we might have some dramatic video of that! But it wouldn't matter, you see... in the liberal AGW mind, this would be one of those quirky side-effects of global warming. They've built an argument that is impossible to defeat with logic.

Carbon dioxide emissions seem to be the main culprit. This "harmful" element man is producing, is causing a "greenhouse effect" and thus we have "global warming." A couple of little problems emerge with this simplistic theory. First of all, yes we do have a "greenhouse effect" and it's largely the reason plants and vegetation grow and thrive on the planet. Without this "greenhouse effect" our planet would be dry and arid, and nothing would grow. The predominate "greenhouse gas" is basic water vapor, and as long as the planet is mostly water, and the same distance from the sun, this is always likely to be the case. Oh but the charts and graphs all show that CO2 amplifies the greenhouse effect, resulting in catastrophic global warming.... but CO2 is an essential element in the nutrition of all plant life. You want to talk about a catastrophe, how about a world without plant life?

Speaking of plants and trees and CO2, the people who study the tree rings and how plants or trees have evolved through history, have determined that up until about 600 years ago, plant life on Earth was actually "starving" for more carbon dioxide. Most of us are familiar with a certain violin known as a Stradivarius. It is world-renown for unique quality which has never been duplicated in the instrument. What you may not know is this, much of the unique attributes of the Stradivarius is related to the wood used to built them, which is no longer available on this planet. I'm not talking about the species of wood, it is still widely available, but the actual molecular structure of the wood itself. Back when Strady built his violins, he used a wood that grew to maturity during a period of relatively low CO2 in the atmosphere, and it caused the molecules of the wood to form closer together, giving the wood a unique quality that can't be duplicated today.

Then we also run into the problem of a non-compliant Mother Nature, who doesn't care what kind of carbon tax you impose, or how may protests you stage or summits you convene, she is going to do what she pleases, regardless. Volcanic eruptions over the past 50 years, have dumped more carbon and other more harmful toxins into the atmosphere than man could produce in a million years, if that was all we ever did. These catastrophic eruptions have actually effected climate on the planet, in early 1800s, the result was a bitter cold year where the US literally didn't have a Summer! Google; 1816 The Year With No Summer, and see for yourself. If ever the planet was in peril, with regard to climactic changes, that was certainly it. Of course, this was well before the industrial age, there were no internal combustion engines, no fossil fuels being burned... just a freaking big volcanic eruption, which blocked the sunlight and caused a massive cooling of the planet. For all intents and purposes, the "greenhouse effect" stopped working, as there was no heat reaching the surface to produce it. I just don't know how we all managed to survive, without liberal morons there to tell us all what we needed to do!

One thing the planet seems to have proven, is it's resilience and ability to recover. Something wiped out the dinosaurs, we know that. Many speculate it was an asteroid or meteor, which stuck the Earth, causing the planet to change climatically overnight. Long periods of brutal cold, severe weather, no sunlight and very little vegetation, spelled doom for the dinos. Maybe if Liberals had been there to raise taxes on the dinosaur, they'd still be around? But our planet survived, and it lived on in spite of this abrupt change. The AGW crowd doesn't seem to comprehend any of this, it's amazing how delicate and fragile they believe the Earth to be, given known history.
 
Dixie said:
I think the AGW debate is a prime example of mass liberal idiocy. For years now, these people have propped up this false crisis, manipulated data, and played fast and loose with general logic and the truth. Whenever we've had a period of warm weather, it is suddenly "the warmest in history" even though, basic understanding of how our planet was formed, completely contradicts this, it has been much, much warmer on Earth. Whenever we have a period of extremely cold weather, it's because "global warming" is really "climate change" and the extreme cold is somehow caused by warming also. The icecap at the North Pole is melting, we see the clips of glaciers falling into the ocean, and a lone polar bear floating on an iceberg, with nowhere to go! Poor polar bear! Us mean old humans are destroying his habitat with our global warming! Meanwhile, nothing is mentioned of the South Pole icecap, which is growing. Too bad glaciers don't spring up from the sea, we might have some dramatic video of that! But it wouldn't matter, you see... in the liberal AGW mind, this would be one of those quirky side-effects of global warming. They've built an argument that is impossible to defeat with logic.

Carbon dioxide emissions seem to be the main culprit. This "harmful" element man is producing, is causing a "greenhouse effect" and thus we have "global warming." A couple of little problems emerge with this simplistic theory. First of all, yes we do have a "greenhouse effect" and it's largely the reason plants and vegetation grow and thrive on the planet. Without this "greenhouse effect" our planet would be dry and arid, and nothing would grow. The predominate "greenhouse gas" is basic water vapor, and as long as the planet is mostly water, and the same distance from the sun, this is always likely to be the case. Oh but the charts and graphs all show that CO2 amplifies the greenhouse effect, resulting in catastrophic global warming.... but CO2 is an essential element in the nutrition of all plant life. You want to talk about a catastrophe, how about a world without plant life?

Speaking of plants and trees and CO2, the people who study the tree rings and how plants or trees have evolved through history, have determined that up until about 600 years ago, plant life on Earth was actually "starving" for more carbon dioxide. Most of us are familiar with a certain violin known as a Stradivarius. It is world-renown for unique quality which has never been duplicated in the instrument. What you may not know is this, much of the unique attributes of the Stradivarius is related to the wood used to built them, which is no longer available on this planet. I'm not talking about the species of wood, it is still widely available, but the actual molecular structure of the wood itself. Back when Strady built his violins, he used a wood that grew to maturity during a period of relatively low CO2 in the atmosphere, and it caused the molecules of the wood to form closer together, giving the wood a unique quality that can't be duplicated today.

Then we also run into the problem of a non-compliant Mother Nature, who doesn't care what kind of carbon tax you impose, or how may protests you stage or summits you convene, she is going to do what she pleases, regardless. Volcanic eruptions over the past 50 years, have dumped more carbon and other more harmful toxins into the atmosphere than man could produce in a million years, if that was all we ever did. These catastrophic eruptions have actually effected climate on the planet, in early 1800s, the result was a bitter cold year where the US literally didn't have a Summer! Google; 1816 The Year With No Summer, and see for yourself. If ever the planet was in peril, with regard to climactic changes, that was certainly it. Of course, this was well before the industrial age, there were no internal combustion engines, no fossil fuels being burned... just a freaking big volcanic eruption, which blocked the sunlight and caused a massive cooling of the planet. For all intents and purposes, the "greenhouse effect" stopped working, as there was no heat reaching the surface to produce it. I just don't know how we all managed to survive, without liberal morons there to tell us all what we needed to do!

One thing the planet seems to have proven, is it's resilience and ability to recover. Something wiped out the dinosaurs, we know that. Many speculate it was an asteroid or meteor, which stuck the Earth, causing the planet to change climatically overnight. Long periods of brutal cold, severe weather, no sunlight and very little vegetation, spelled doom for the dinos. Maybe if Liberals had been there to raise taxes on the dinosaur, they'd still be around? But our planet survived, and it lived on in spite of this abrupt change. The AGW crowd doesn't seem to comprehend any of this, it's amazing how delicate and fragile they believe the Earth to be, given known history.
Click to expand...

Actually the Strad's unique sound is believed to be because the trees were growing during the Maunder Minimum period of extremely low sunspot activity which resulted in much colder weather than normal for that part of Italy. Because it was colder and more cloudy this caused the tree rings to grow much closer together than normal and hence the wood grain to be denser as a result.
 
Last edited:
Aoxomoxoa said:
Actually the Strad's unique sound is believed to be because the trees were growing during the Maunder Minimum period of extremely low sunspot activity which resulted in much colder weather than normal for that part of Italy. Because it was colder and more cloudy this caused the tree rings to grow much closer together than normal and hence the wood grain to be denser as a result.
Click to expand...

Same basic thought, just a variation on theory. During the Maunder Minimum, there was certainly lower concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, which contributed to the molecular structure found in that specific wood. Yes, the wood was more dense, but this wasn't strictly due to the cold, or we could have found wood similar to this at other times in other places, and that isn't the case.
 
Dixie said:
Same basic thought, just a variation on theory. During the Maunder Minimum, there was certainly lower concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, which contributed to the molecular structure found in that specific wood. Yes, the wood was more dense, but this wasn't strictly due to the cold, or we could have found wood similar to this at other times in other places, and that isn't the case.
Click to expand...



If you don't believe me then maybe you will accept National Geographic magazine's word on it?

Instruments crafted from the late 17th century onwards by revered violin maker Antonio Stradivari sell for millions of dollars today, and musicians and scientists have long sought to explain their superb sound quality. Now, American scientists have come up with a possible explanation: A dramatic European cold spell may have enhanced the quality of wood from which the instruments were crafted.

A sharp dip in temperatures between 1645 and 1715 coincided with a reduction in sunspots and the sun's overall activity known as the Maunder Minimum. Researchers say those factors may have slowed tree growth, thereby creating the ideal building material for violins later manufactured. The research is described in the current issue of the tree ring science journal Dendrochronologia.
Click to expand...

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/01/0107_040107_violin.html
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
If you don't believe me then maybe you will accept National Geographic magazine's word on it?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/01/0107_040107_violin.html
Click to expand...

I guess, whenever you believe that we are having an argument and you are winning, your dick must get hard and blood rushing from your brain causes you to lose sight of what is actually being said. I didn't say I didn't believe you, and I don't dispute the National Geographic. That being said, other researchers (obviously not affiliated with NG) have gone a step further and found a correlation between the unique quality of the wood and cellular structure of wood grown in low-CO2 environments. In other words, it wasn't just about the cold spell. I can't recall the specifics of the research, and I don't have online links, I am presenting this from memory. The scientist who conducted the research was very familiar with the theory you have presented, but he was baffled as to why no other wood in the world from any other extended period of cold weather (there have been several others), produced the same results. Like MANY theories, he merely added his own findings, there is nothing "conclusive" here, we are talking about theories. His theory was, it wasn't just because there was less sunlight, the wood was more dense, it was related to the lower levels of CO2, which helps plants retain moisture, and this reduced level of CO2 caused the molecules in the wood to be more closely joined, creating a unique quality that has never been duplicated and can't ever be duplicated again. It made sense to me, but if you want to reject it because I said it, then I can't help you there.
 
Dixie said:
I guess, whenever you believe that we are having an argument and you are winning, your dick must get hard and blood rushing from your brain causes you to lose sight of what is actually being said. I didn't say I didn't believe you, and I don't dispute the National Geographic. That being said, other researchers (obviously not affiliated with NG) have gone a step further and found a correlation between the unique quality of the wood and cellular structure of wood grown in low-CO2 environments. In other words, it wasn't just about the cold spell. I can't recall the specifics of the research, and I don't have online links, I am presenting this from memory. The scientist who conducted the research was very familiar with the theory you have presented, but he was baffled as to why no other wood in the world from any other extended period of cold weather (there have been several others), produced the same results. Like MANY theories, he merely added his own findings, there is nothing "conclusive" here, we are talking about theories. His theory was, it wasn't just because there was less sunlight, the wood was more dense, it was related to the lower levels of CO2, which helps plants retain moisture, and this reduced level of CO2 caused the molecules in the wood to be more closely joined, creating a unique quality that has never been duplicated and can't ever be duplicated again. It made sense to me, but if you want to reject it because I said it, then I can't help you there.
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with you per se, I have just never heard of that theory. I would also stress that it is a theory and may be wrong anyway, there is another that says it has to do with the varnishes he used. and yet another that 300 years of aging is responsible.
 
Last edited:
It never ceases to amaze me the way cooler temperatures are always the results of natural variation, but warmer temperatures are always the result of CO2.
I never knew that all of nature's variability went one way only.
 
Last edited:
Aoxomoxoa said:
It has nothing to do with you per se, I have just never heard of that theory. I would also stress that it is a theory and may be wrong anyway, there is another that says it has to do with the varnishes he used. and yet another that 300 years of aging is responsible.
Click to expand...

Well the whole point was to illustrate that our climate has undergone some dramatic changes in history. We've had long periods of cold and hot, we've had periods with low CO2 and high, our atmosphere has been dense and less dense, but the planet always finds a way to regulate itself over time.
 
earth-roasting-n.jpg


eco-fighting-govt.jpg

Since Obama will never have to face the voters again
maybe someone could remind him he's a Democrat?

earf-In-Trouble.jpg
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top