scherzo, on 17 April 2013 - 12:32 AM, said:
"Winter with strong frosts and lots of snow like 20 years ago will CEASE TO EXIST at our latitudes..."
OK so snow should at the very least be decreasing year to year, and exactly the opposite is what happened. They then go on to attribute the INCREASED snowfall, to the same threat they previously said would eventually stop it altogether. Are we fools? Why in the world should anyone be giving these people the benefit of the doubt?.
Again, I suggest that you read the original article. The article that you link to says: "will cease to exist" the original article says: "no longer exist", present tense, not future tense. Not being familiar with snow levels at their altitude in Germany, I will take them at their word that the levels are currently lower.
What is government doing to keep up with changes in the data? Al Gore's notorious hockey stick graph nonsense was exposed more than a decade ago. The University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit's hacked emails from 2009, revealed efforts to hide declining temperatures. These are things governments around the world know full well, but their efforts to tax carbon emissions etc. are full steam ahead. This isn't doing right by the people by any measure. It's just an ongoing effort to expand their own power.
I was always taught that solid scientific results must be repeatable. You may not believe a consistent standard of evidence should be required of climate scientists. But shouldn't common sense tell us complete 180° reversals of earlier theory undermines the entire premise?
I'm not defending all governments, much less our own. I simply stated an example of how government uses weather predictions.
Yes, solid, sure results must be repeatable, but science that is still learning, working toward a 100% result, is still a work in progress.
Okay, fossil fuels do seem to be abundant, however, they are not limitless. Is it not better to be free of dependance on something that will eventually run out?
I'll say it again. Carbon dioxide is not pollution. Ridding the world of carbon dioxide, has nothing to do with cleanliness. So...saying I'm opposed to government restrictions on carbon emissions, isn't telling evil corporations it's cool to dump raw sewage in fishing lakes or whatever. Click the link in my sig and watch The Great Global Warming Swindle. It features a former member of Greenpeace who acknowledges that everything that organization originally stood for regarding pollution, was adopted decades ago by Western democracies. The current crusade to save planet Earth from "Warming" is the kind of crackpot lunacy that caused him to leave their ranks.
And I will say again, I did not mention carbon dioxide, nor did I call it pollution, I said:
I did not mention carbon dioxide, but okay, let's go with that. I completely agree with you, carbon dioxide is not pollution. However, I challenge you to breathe high levels and see how you fare. Many things are not bad or pollutants, this does not mean that high concentrations are good. Dessert is good, but a lot of dessert is bad.
So, can we let this go, now?
Now, since you ignored my question, and it is one that I always ask those who resist taking efforts to clean up the mess we make, but never get an answer to:
I will ask you one last thing, why is it bad to do what we can to keep this world clean?
And I will add: Do you make an effort? Do you recycle? Do you pick up a piece of garbage that you find on your way? Do you cut down on your water usage? etc... I do all of the above (depending on where a person lives, picking up garbage is probably not what they would want to do). I do this because I want to leave this planet better for my son and his future children. I expect no less of any business or government (and yes, governments need to do more in this matter).
Honestly, climate change is going to happen, regardless. However, I see no reason for us to dirty the quality of our air, our land, our waters. Nor do I see a need for us to possibly speed up climate change if we can help it, and we can.