He had to mention it - schmobal Global Warming!
Dagbladet today has an article about snowfall in England that are creating headaches for the English, the link line with us here at home every time the snow falls. Kjekkt to know, always fun to read about how late we are in today's society, we run after time in our regular boring commercial habits, and minimum interference, and it all goes in dass!
In Russia, freezes them, and sweat them in Australia, great differences in temperature just! But funny to read that there are different things to take care of if you want to go out these days, such as Skiing or swimming!
But, then it is a little luring to interview to foprklare us all! Klimaforsker Erik Kolstad has this to say about the heat wave in Australia:
- Weather in the different regions tend to vary in any year basis. It gives like periods of 20-30 years that are warmer than normal. You may think that Australia is in such a regional phase.
What annoys me is that he then shoots in, should one believe Dagbladet:
- This NOK had not happened, if it had not been for global warming.
Well, what are you saying Erik Kolstad? In one moment you tell us that this is a natural phenomenon that happens every 30 years, and even here in Southern, it was the Texas cap on the 20 figure. Globally, 1894 was also a year to notice, but for all I know this probably was the result of the Industrial revulusjonen that was gaining?
Vindruer in Southern and lush nature in Greenland!
In the Iron Age (around 1000's) we can read in history books that we cultivated vindruer for Southern Norway. Recent findings reveal, however, that it was really hot the past, in Greenland, it was in fact not only warmer - fossils tell us that it was a fertile and lush scenery! I do not know, but this is not "today it is full of Ice and Snow! It has therefore not always been so, let us now take it in the calculation every time people proclaims this global warming!
Having said that - so do not say Erik Kolstad that it is human-made, to it's definitely very good! It is actually so good that the kudos to him for it! But there is no doubt that today's media has managed to create the consensus that global warming = human-made warming, I also see that Erik Kolstad agree that the sun, believe it or not, affect the temperature of the earth because he has great interest in the tanker around solskjold etc. to protect the earth's heat ling in the future. (see questions about Sol and heating). Scientists under the direction of the evil forces will have us believe that the sun does not affect the temperature here on Earth, only to see what these guys manage to come up with ... "Experts believe the sun does not affect the temperature of the earth ..."
Another person who has been in the crusade for human-made global warming is David Mayer de Rothschild, who comes from a rather "small rich families" who obviously do not have economic benefits in one or taxation model ... This man scored the pot in full sun to defend ability to not affect the planets in our solar system. In explanation of why March experiencing global warming, according to NASA - Since March is closer to the sun a jorda stupid!
Of course, does not affect the solar and temperature in the sun the earth. No in the same way as if the sun was gone, so it would have been fuckin 'cold in the earth - the sun is warmer so it's warmer here, too! A light bulb is 60watts to a warmer one 40watts light bulb, where there is a logical shortcoming here do not I, but the sun in other words, it has such a one.
Why not prepare them?
Another thing, about the country soon will sink under water because the poles melts ... Why do we not at the world's countries are working together to prepare for the coming times? Netherlands, why not build them higher dikes and the dam? Seems to me that the only thing that the politicians are concerned to establish that his carbon tax! Oh it is the store of, to the lubrication of all researchers and the media in recent years must be allowed to hope for some return!
My dillemma:
If it now can be proved that there either are no media created or human-made global warming, but that it does not come at all or would come anyway, because where there's not our responsibility. Then we can only proceed forward in the same track that we've run the last couple hundred years.
But to say it can be proven that warming is actually manmade. Chances to be able to reverse the trend within one hundred or two years hudnre are microscopic. It would demand that we ban all driving, all air traffic, all boat traffic, all oil-and coal-fired power plant ... from tomorrow the day, all over the earth. It is of course totally unrealistic. There simply is too late, whatever we do (within the limits of what is realistic to do).
So what do we do then? Letting it go to hell for the first class?
There are many suggest (at least seemingly). Maybe it is just as well? Or is it extremely immoral, is to not even TRY, even when it is hopeless? Is it equivalent to say to their children: "Well, we did what we could to restrict it", or "We know that it goes to hell anyway, so we thought it was better to enjoy life while the maximum is even possible - it is not long left now! "?
Maybe it to "do what we could" only a avlat for improving our conscience when it still goes to hell, that it really does not have any value, and our task for our children and grandchildren is to get them to understand that when it was just as well that we had the most fun while it lasted.
The easiest way would of course be if the climate turned, and sommerne was sunny and winters came with a beautiful sparkling snøkrystaller of disintegrated, just as on Christmas cards. Then we have obviously no problems. We should hope that we are so, so do we dillemmaet.
Well, it seems to me that you do not see my point. I see you, "it may, we're wrong, but you can afford to take the risk" method. For me it is ridiculous when people who are in breach of human-made global warming is wrong on so obvious errors (such as that the sun does not affect the earth) - and the solution is in the assessment ...
So, I suspect we have an industry with lobbyists that aims to create human-made warming so we can tax to make more money without solving anything.
You also mention "to hell in a hand basket" point, or to hell first class. My point is - if there is such that our participation on the ground does not affect the temperature - is it correct that we must pay to change your life for something that others make money? Is not this just a new way to get the public finger extra good in rompa? But we like it may very well, to these days, can we really trust politicians and the police ... The world is in good shape susende money and the whole, corruption and greed is not something that characterizes humans, No!
But perhaps an immediate solution is to introduce the food summit in all countries over carbon tax - for there is little doubt that the future will be far better if we are slightly fewer people here!
You have some points, certainly. I have lived in Australia for 16 years (Is now Australian citizen), and each year we have over 40 days in Melbourne and Victoria btw (I live in Ballarat), it is normal for the summer. What year is a little extra is that we have had 4-5 consecutive days with over 40, but when you live here and experience it, it is a little over dramatization when eg VG uses the headline "Nordmenn fight against the heat", and even worse when they use some tullete students probably have been here a year or so, and that drinking lots of cheap beer and playing cards inside. Is not really so hard "battle", it is. Forest fires, we have every year, iår there have not been so bad, the worst forest fires period I've experienced here was in 1994.
Helt enig, kimss! When you consider that the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere is below 0.04%, it is rather odd that they can add weight / assess this so violently. Here in the house, we looked at some alternative energi-/oppvarmingsmuligheter, and talked with our "lighthouse" council on further support to the development of this. In this connection it is interesting to look a little closer at what is and is not supported, and guess what! A whole bunch of "environmentally friendly" installations, such as heat pumps, etc, are supported, as this really all use electricity, which the state makes money on. Solar energy for example, there are almost no established to support, when we, after all, have not yet introduced a solbruksavgift .... but it does well ....