[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by bradclark1

You don't understand past the first two words of the title. Forget about
presentation. I'll settle for you reading the first sentence....
Where do you get a reversal in trend from that? What, if each consecutive
year isn't hotter then the last it is a reversal in trend? How many millions
of years old is Earth? That one year can mark a reversal? Please try to
think a little harder.

Where do you get that it means thermal runaway. If anything, it shows that there is variation in temperature that is seemingly impossible to predict. And yes, it is a reversal of what many in that movement say. In that global temperature rise is directly related in magnitude to C02 emissions, and is cumulative. This article goes against that grain. You still do not understand the implications of what they reported. And just because there have been recent warmer years, doesn't mean it will increase that way to infinitum. Year 2007 shows that. Unfortunately, you are too dense to see it. You want to be told we're going to die, and nobody's going to get in your way of creating a mindset of doom for yourself or give you hope in anyway. Facts be damned. That is crazy. The article doesn't say anything that supports your "man-made global warming...we're all going to die" positions...although I admit, you can twist it that way as you seem to do. But it clearly shows that these people cannot trend, track, forecast what things will be like in 20 years or more out. And the people of 35 years ago who thought we were all going to freeze to death made all the same mistakes. If you wish to be gullible and accept their gloom and doom without question or reason...feel free.

No. It's according to the UN, China and India. Again, how are you going to
make them? I gave no explanation I gave you the facts as they are. I have
zip power over the U.N., China nor India. I'm flattered that you think I do.
So according to you simple logic that gives the U.S. reason to disregard
controlling our own emissions? Sounds like the logic of a K grader.

That's the rub isn't it. The UN and climate agreements in general basically say that they're exempt from the get go. They do not even address the point. And that makes me wonder why it's necessary in the first place. If they won't participate fully, then screw the agreements. We should go about our own business in this matter, which is what we're doing now. We did the right thing by ignoring Kyoto. It wasn't my logic to say we should control or not control our emissions based on what China does. But if they build agreements which punish us, while at the same time letting other nations with huge pollution problems and a large manufacturing capacity get away with murder, then yes, we should not enter into that harmful agreement. Seems you don't care much about the USA and it's own interests when entering into agreements. And you have absolutely no power over the unelected, unaccountable UN. It's a shame that too many people put so much faith in that corrupt organization and their agreements to begin with.

I haven't read anything where anybody says we can get by without fossil
fuels on this list or the news networks. Thats your imagination overworking
again. What I have written is that alternatives have to be found. I don't think I attached a complete by 2008 date or anything.

Well I'm glad to see you say that. Congratulations. Finally. I've been trying to get you to admit this for two threads and you finally got here.

One of the main problems with your kind of logic is that you can't see past
"You are all black or you are all white" Your simple reasoning can't get past if you are green you should drive a mule and generate power by squirrels on treadmills or something stupid like that. I can only shake my head.

OK. Then one must ask why all the noise by those in the man-made global warming movement? I mean, if cars are the problem, do you advocate that we stop driving? If not, why? They pollute, right? And there are millions on the road, right? So not driving so much maybe? Who would enforce that and how? What about jet aircraft? Shall we mandate that people travel less? Give everybody a Soviet style travel voucher of sorts? Should everyone be forced to dump their current automobiles and buy hybrids? What logic do you have? Other than your generic "we need to seek alternatives"? What alternatives? Nuclear plants? Geothermal? Solar cells across every major city? Who will pay for all this stuff? What if there are problems implementing the stuff? How will we scrap the old stuff? Won't the manufacture of all this new alternative technology create tons of more emissions? If done as quick as many in the warming movement want, it's quite obvious it will. You talk of timeframes. Are you looking at 50 - 100 years to change and transition to a fully renewable society? 20 years? 10 years? 5? The problem is, you can't see some of the progress that has been made, because you are one of these alarmists. It's all or nothing for you. And you simply cannot see it.