Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Extras | All Access e-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Why I believe in the future

May 28, 2013

I have written before that the universe is obviously controlled, and that control does not happen without purpose. I can hear you saying, “OK, Mr....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(45)

225522

May-30-13 9:16 PM

What happened to the ice at the end of the ice ages? I think it got hot. The earth is going to do what it will do. Lookat the weather forecasts....where the hottest and coldest day for that date is listed. some records were set way, way, back.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

PR24601

May-30-13 10:07 AM

Further - to illustrate what a joke the Weather Channel has become - they are now part of NBC, vaunted liberal outlet that pushes the "go green" cause non-stop. They have abandone all meteorological ethics in pushing first global warming, now "climate change" and using "severe weather" coverage to back up their claims. Who better to brainwash dumbed down America than a channel that has the resources to - ding ding - cover weather 24/7! Ha! A joke. Read about the number of meteorologists that have left or been fired from TWC because they won't push the agenda because they don't believe it.

Anecdotal story - search on YouTube and find the video of TWC lackey Mike Seidel covering Sandy, leaning into the wind and screaming into the mic as if he's barely able to stand up.. what appears in the background? A couple college kids goofing off and jumping around in the street, unhindered by the very same wind! What a fraud!

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

PR24601

May-30-13 9:58 AM

@judeye, again you're just rambling. Increase in severe weather? Where's your evidence of this? There is no increase in severe weather! Just because the Weather Channel bombards you with "storm coverage" 24/7 doesn't mean there's an increase - it just means it's covered more. Same with all media hype, 24/7 news outlets, sports around the clock.

The classification of "storm" by over-hyped outlets like the Weather Channel has changed. 3" of snow is now a "winter storm". Good grief. They act like a nor'easter that dumps a foot of snow in NE is a 100-year storm. It's not. People don't remember that back in 70s you didn't have this crap. When Buffalo was inundated by 3 FEET of snow it barely registered outside the northeast and was a blip on the back page west of the Mississippi.

News flash - just because it's in our face 24/7 and TWC is motivated by ratings doesn't make it more severe or any worse than yesteryear.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

judeye

May-30-13 8:28 AM

I think it is a shame that this SCIENTIFIC issue has become political.

I am not concerned about climate change because the Democratic Party tells me to be. I am concerned...ALARMED really....due to the massive scientific evidence that I have read, the videos on this subject that I have watched and the lectures from reputable scientists that I have attended.

Watching the ice melt from Greenland, the rise in sea levels, the increase in severe weather, the melting of glaciers which I have walked....all contribute to my great concern.

However, there are many who have spent millions on trying to debunk the scientific evidence. wonder why...Look no further than greed pure and simple. THEIR greed.

The time to act is NOW (really yesterday)

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

judeye

May-30-13 8:20 AM

DKexpat...I vote Republican but believe in global warming?

Didn't used to be. Remember when the GOP was the INTELLECTUAL party? When they were the leaders in education, scientific study, and intellectual pursuits?

I miss that party. It looks like many within the GOP miss that party as well.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Steiner

May-30-13 8:05 AM

Hey judeye, especially for you. quote a study, here it is. The infra red machines, made by Perkin elmer in the late 40's are key to identifying chemical compounds by heat absorption. water, methane and all hydrocarbons are great heat absorbers. CO2 aint. Known since inception and ignored by all the learned posters here. A really skilled analytical chemist can tell a mountains worth of data from a scan. I have run 5000. So judeye and you posters, understand this if ou can. The climate change theory is a scaam. It is based on not one whit of heat absorbing capability of CCO2. This fact is ignored as it sinks the whole theory. So does quantum physics. the most unlearned people in the world are trying to force tech guys like myslef a thing that is false at its foundation. I would be fired and people would die if i used such poor technique in the chemical world.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Steiner

May-30-13 7:58 AM

The unlearned libs are believing in nothing,. Let me say again as you liberals do not know science. CO2 does not absorb heat. This from infra red scans and there have been hundreds of millions of them done. DK, judeye and the libs are tilting at windmills. There is no problem with co2 in the air. You do not know what you are talking about, judeye quotes studies, i quote the work i have done and the analyrical chemists I know. They worked on problems in the market place with products you buy everyday. So the libs show again and again how little they know.what part of this dont you understand libs ? it is science . the science that runs the chemical plants, forensic investigations etc. What part of this dont ya understand libs ? All of it apparently.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

joew

May-29-13 4:15 PM

Dkexpat-I agree and Congress need only be in session for two months in the spring and two months in the fall.(exception being a national emergency)Should be part time and then back home and nose to the grindstone like the rest of us!

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DKexpat

May-29-13 2:34 PM

@PR24601, I agree with you in that Congress is more interested in being reelected – and we idiots reelect them to the tune of around 98% - than they are in doing what’s best for the country.

They’re more worried about “offending" their party leaders and facing a primary fight in their gerrymandered districts than they are in bipartisan cooperation to move the dial.

I don’t think we should let them “global-warm their seats” for more than two terms in the Senate and six terms in the House.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

PR24601

May-29-13 12:43 PM

@DK - the fall to political lines on issues such as this is disturbing. It shows that both sides are comprised of non-thinking, fall-in-line, members - and I do believe there is some of that "well, my party supports X so I have to support X" mentality.

The two party divide is no more obvious than within social contexts, which is ridiculous as the government should control fiscal, transport, military, and foreign affairs and should not really be in the business of dictating morality.

"I'm a minority I haVe to be Democrat".. really? Is this what you believe? You want to support the party that says you can't do it on your own, you'll always be poor, and we'll give you exactly what you need? Same for southerners and falling inline with the GOP - their lax corporate regulations have done a ton of damage the southern flare mom&pop market - think Wal-Mart.

Both sides are pathetic and no one thinks anymore.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DKexpat

May-29-13 11:41 AM

I’d wager none of us are climatologists (at least I’m not), so we go by what we read and what we hear.

What to do and when and to what extent? Or to do anything at all? I dunno – and none of us will be around long enough to see what action or inaction will bring.

What’s disappointing is the topic – climate change or not – falls prey to political leanings rather than scientific discourse. Is it an oxymoron to say I vote Republican but believe in global warming?

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

judeye

May-29-13 11:09 AM

PR24601...would you cite a specific study that you have read in which you question the scientific process they used?

I will side with the 98+% of ALL climate scientists who agree that climate is changing...that humans are at least in part responsible for it..and that we must act now.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

PR24601

May-29-13 10:00 AM

Final thoughts - I read somewhere that all of the Earth's people and man-made structures could be lumped together and put into an area the size of Texas. A big state, but just .13% of the Earth's surface. If you don't think Mother Nature can take care of herself, since she has the other 99.87% to herself, well... you over-estimate the impact that man really has on this Earth.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

PR24601

May-29-13 9:56 AM

@judeye, I've read a lot about climate change. The main point I can't get past is the fact that scientists have abandoned scientific principles when discussing climate change (as it relates to human activity).. they are falling in lock-step with theories and deciding that "X number of people believe it therefore it's true". This is not science.

Regarding measurements, all attempts to extrapolate based on core samples, etc. are simply that - extrapolations. Carbon dating, etc. are all estimations with varying degrees of accuracy. Without recorded measurement - at the time - one cannot under any circumstance state estimation as fact.

Based on those same samples, the Earth is in a generally cooling period over the alst 2000 years anyway. Once the wild warming of the 80s/90s/00s completed the Libs had to change "Global Warming" to "Climate Change" to accommodate that little problem with their theory.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

judeye

May-29-13 9:46 AM

Love it when I see a disagree...on something that I post that is FACT not my opinion.

Some people just cannot tell the difference.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

joew

May-29-13 9:43 AM

Judeye-we have already. Compare pollutant emission's from 20 years ago to today. You think China is going to agree with anything we propose? Now how can we change the earths orbital inclinations as there are many studies that show that to be a cause of climate change as well. That's how the ice age ended according to some studies because there sure weren't lots of factories and automobiles around back then. Maybe it was the methane gas from the dinosaurs?

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

judeye

May-29-13 9:15 AM

joew..we need to do something...why not start right here in our own Country?

As for me, not only start to decrease the levels..but we must start to think about what we are going to do to combat the effects that are coming. Or should we just wait until we are in crisis?

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DKexpat

May-29-13 9:02 AM

"Dk takes a pol and thinks it is science."

No, it's tens of thousands - tens of thousands - of experts in the field.

Ask the 29,083 scientists in the Institute of Physics article, or ask the 33.690 scientists in the Powell study.

Just checked - Alcoa is down 5 cents in early trading, so I guess you have all the aluminum foil you need...

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

joew

May-29-13 8:58 AM

Well Judeye we can change it one of two ways,either nuke China or stop buying their products since they are far and away the biggest polluter. Which would you prefer? Another thing we can do is change the way the earth orbits the sun. Check with Steiner on how that can be accomplished.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

judeye

May-29-13 8:45 AM

Is there solid evidence the earth is warming? Dems – 79%; Repubs – 38%; Tea Party Repubs - 19%

Is it somewhat/very serious? Dems – 82%; Repubs – 41%; Tea Party Repubs - 23%

Thanks for this data. Amazing and very scary. Why do you think that some people refuse to accept scientific information? Why is it divided along political lines as if politics has anything to do with science? Most importantly, how can we change this?

It is SCIENCE...not a belief or a matter of faith.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

judeye

May-29-13 8:42 AM

Sorry about that I clicked post..too early...

American Physical Society:

American Chemical Society

U.S. National Academy of Sciences:

International academies

National Research Council of the National Academies,

U.S. Climate Change Research Program

Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change, Peter T. Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman

Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change, Naomi Oreskes

Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis,

This should be a good start. Will you take the time to read these? Will you be open to the thought that our climate is changing..and changing at a very rapid rate now...and much of it is due to human activity. Most importantly, will you then demand that our government start to address the issues that will certaintly result from increased sea levels, more severe storms, droughts, food shortages, displaced persons, and all the other social results from climate change.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

judeye

May-29-13 8:35 AM

I went to the article by Dr. Drallous..interesting.

I suggest you read some of the scientific conclusions from others...you might want to start here with the Union of Concerned Scientists that has in one article links to many others..including...

Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations

American Meteorological Society

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

judeye

May-29-13 8:26 AM

PR24601...it is called SCIENCE. Good grief really you do not understand that we can indeed measure and date things by use of various scientific measures?

As for scientific evidence that disputes climate change caused in a great part by humans, please cite them. And I do not mean Beck and Rush..but REAL SCIENTISTS

I do realize that there are still some who believe our earth is flat. Just did not realize how many lived in this community.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Steiner

May-29-13 8:22 AM

I just gotta say one more thing cuz it is relevant to what westlund believes. Controllers in the universe. Why did the apostle Paul persecute the christians at first ? He knew nothing of Ahura Mazda, the sun god who became christ. The Apostles were not the sharpest tools in the shed. Paul knew only of the earthly forces, a kind of democrat, believing the earth exists by only its own forces, like CO2 in the air. He knew nothing of zoroastrianism like the Magi did and nearly sunk Christianity. Mr westlund, this is so very important as the bible scholars cannot reconcile Paul to the gospels, he is strangely different from them. This is why . All of this would have been known to a small inner circle of early scholars, now nearly lost to history.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Steiner

May-29-13 8:14 AM

Hey dk, the libs could not say ban water could they ? every engineer or anyone who boiled water knows how much heat it takes.How much water is on the planet ? the nitrogen in the atmosphere is there for what purpose ? Libs, your theory is full of holes. Cows belch methane , a great heat absorber. Any C-H bond is . Thats why the libs hate methane, CH4 from belching cows. water should not even be liquid at room temperature with its low molecular weight. By any measure, CO2 induced climate change is junk science bought to you by the scam producing people the liberals. Take a poll dk, out this on your cork board and see what else you can say.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 45 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web