Another Ice Age?

[Zeb_Carter]

Science stands corrected. Thank you, Heritage Foundation for providing our friend here with oogles of factoids. For shame, Kyoto Accord and thousands of scientists around the world who have little to gain and a lot to lose, but are nevertheless willing to pull this cruel, baseless hoax on real scientists, like Dark.

Mmmmm....you mean the scientists funded by the government? The ones whose funding depends on the government believing them? The politicians who oversee their funding and express a need to know that what they believe is fact....those scientists?

 

[The_Darkness]

Seriously, Dark, even us tree-huggers value our own conveniences above the interests of the Eloi, for christsake! For all any of us know, the human race thousands of years from now might be all floaty and wan-looking like those thin uber-blondes who donned togas and early Beatles haircuts in the Rod Taylor version of The Time Machine. They did nothing but pluck apricots and lie around, making daisy chains and waiting to be eaten by their herdsmen. If they expect me to use mass transportation and adjust my air conditioning to save them from extinction, they can bite me.

Not to belittle your point, but that was damn funny!

I could be flat out wrong. I'll admit it. Hell, I fucked up at work three times today because I looked at a CAD printout wrong. It happens.

But. We're talking about the total faliure of a global climatactic system as influenced by mankind. We could do it. We really could, but it would take every single nuclear weapon in our arsenal short of the one Doomsday Device we have.

Back in the 50's or 60's, and no, I don't have the article handy either, the US Gov't detected the Van Allen Radiation Belt. That was back in the day when the army was in control of nuclear launch. We'd seen the effects of enough bomb tests and uses to know that radiation is bad, m'kay. So what did the army do in its infinite wisdom? They launched multiple warheads at it from California. Did that kill the planet as most global warming folks are saying it would today? Nope. Didn't even notice it.

The earth is unbelievably huge. The portion that we live on is so very tiny compared to the rest of the whole of the world. While I'm not advocating that we should cut down the rest of the Amazon and plant more soybeans, or go through and eradicate species of plant and animal life for sport, I'm saying it's no where near as bad as what we've been told. The Earth is full of cycles, and the data from those ocean floor samples proves over and cover again that these cycles continue regularly, having no reguard for meteor impacts, volcanic eruptions, or other general forms of strife that are devastating to man kind.

We will not kill the planet unless we really, really want to; and even then, I'm not convinced we could destroy it to a point to make it uninhabitable for future generations without completely annihilating it.

Go ahead and enjoy the AC, revel in your starbucks, and drive your 1969 Camaro at dangerous and excessively fun speeds. Just remember to recycle, turn the AC off when you're out of the house for more than a day, and remember, when the po-po's take away your license, you need to put the Camaro away for the winter.

In all of life's great experience, moderation is the temperment between utilitariansim and hedonism. The environment is no exception, for nature's beauty if not the ability to enjoy a summer afternoon at the swimming pool.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

No. Just this:

Harvard University Press

Allow me to highly the most important part:
The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.

The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.

Somehow, I don't think your incomplete blog really compares.....

And I read an article that said that the IPCC reports didn't agree with each other. (I'll try and find it but it's been a long time...that IPCC report was published in the '90s.)

 

[shereads]

Pay for it with my hard earned taxes.

I see. So it comes down to greed. Because the question, 'what if you're wrong and the other side is right,' means 'what if your grandkids' generation is going to suffer terrible consequences for something we might have changed if we'd begun now?' And your answer indicates that it doesn't matter much, compared to your bank balance.

That pretty much says it all. This isn't a debate among scientists. It's a debate between those who are and are not willing to give up certain things for the good of others. Your side has scrounged up some scientists to keep the debate going until the other side can 'prove' global warming to your satisfaction, which is impossible because you will never agree to a reasonable standard of proof - by reasonable, I mean a standard that doesn't rely on time the other side says we don't have. As long as there is anyone with a college degree willing to say that global warming is a hoax, and to throw out facts that no one but a scientist who understands the theory is qualified to accept or refute, you will say there's no proof, and therefore no justification for making any changes in your lifestyle, particularly not in the way your taxes are spent. Taxes are needed for more important things, like bringing democracy to Iraq and winning the war on terror, both of which are delivering an excellent return on your investment.

God forbid you should actually consider the gravity of the question, 'What if you're wrong," and respond as if you had actually given it some thought, and gave a damn.

 

[The_Darkness]

Science stands corrected. Thank you, Heritage Foundation for providing our friend here with oogles of factoids. For shame, Kyoto Accord and thousands of scientists around the world who have little to gain and a lot to lose, but are nevertheless willing to pull this cruel, baseless hoax on real scientists, like Dark.

shereads, I don't have a beef with you and I really don't mean to down play whatever beliefs you have on this. You're normally a level headed individual, and I've enjoyed talking with you in the past.

But, even with all that in mind, they're going off the same 30 years of study, and with the data at hand, they're coming up with the same answer. What they're not doing is listening to the historians that are fuming at them that there is natural cycles that are unpredictable given the data that can be gathered through the human experience of life on Earth. We need better data, like these oceanic samples that give a more complete picture, and instead of 500 to 1000 years at absolute best like ice core samples give us, they give us 50,000 to 100,000 years of data. These Paleoclimatologists should really be listened to; they have a far better understanding of what's going to happen in the next 50 to 5000 years (short of outside intervention ala major meteor strike or other serious disaster) than meterologists and modern climatologists can ever hope to imagine having.

 

[shereads]

And I read an article that said that the IPCC reports didn't agree with each other. (I'll try and find it but it's been a long time...that IPCC report was published in the '90s.)

Heritage Foundation. They'll have it, guaranteed. If there's a minority argument that alleges to refute what a majority accept, the Heritage Foundation has it. It's what they do. It's why they make the big bucks.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

I see. So it comes down to greed. Because the question, 'what if you're wrong and the other side is right,' means 'what if your grandkids' generation is going to suffer terrible consequences for something we might have changed if we'd begun now?' And your answer indicates that it doesn't matter much, compared to your bank balance.

That pretty much says it all. This isn't a debate among scientists. It's a debate between those who are and are not willing to give up certain things for the good of others. Your side has scrounged up some scientists to keep the debate going until the other side can 'prove' global warming to your satisfaction, which is impossible because you will never agree to a reasonable standard of proof - by reasonable, I mean a standard that doesn't rely on time the other side says we don't have. As long as there is anyone with a college degree willing to say that global warming is a hoax, and to throw out facts that no one but a scientist who understands the theory is qualified to accept or refute, you will say there's no proof, and therefore no justification for making any changes in your lifestyle, particularly not in the way your taxes are spent. Taxes are needed for more important things, like bringing democracy to Iraq and winning the war on terror, both of which are delivering an excellent return on your investment.

God forbid you should actually consider the gravity of the question, 'What if you're wrong," and respond as if you had actually given it some thought, and gave a damn.

I do give a damn. I drive a fuel efficent automobile, about two to three times a week. I work from home. I live in a modest three bedroom ranch. I have a compost heap in the backyard. I recycle. I just think the Kyoto accords go way too far. And what they do is penalize us while giving the rest of the world a break so they can catch up to us, economically.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Heritage Foundation. They'll have it, guaranteed. If there's a minority argument that alleges to refute what a majority accept, the Heritage Foundation has it. It's what they do. It's why they make the big bucks.

Thanks. Checking.

 

[The_Darkness]

God forbid you should actually consider the gravity of the question, 'What if you're wrong," and respond as if you had actually given it some thought, and gave a damn.

I do. I'm holding my 7 month old son in my arms and I'm looking out the window. I see green grass (we finally got rain this weekend), I see kids playing across the street, their parents grilling supper. I see a pale blue sky filled with high-level clouds that look like they might have rain in them for Minnesota or Wisconsin, but none for us.

I care about the car I drive. I care about the gas I put in my car. I have reasonable expectations of changing my life, my life style, and getting rid of conveinences that might endager my child's happiness. I play the "what if" game about me being wrong every day. What if I'm driving too fast and some drunk asshole smokes my car and cripples me and my family? What then? What if I develop carpal tunnel syndrome from typing all the time? What if 7000 years is nothing but a complete sham and nothing written before 1900 on anything is right? Those are all serious questions and they're things I consider on a regular basis. Those things can seriously impact my life, from its general happiness and wellbeing, to pissing 4 years of college down my leg and having to go back for something else. Those issues all also affect future generations, and their future generations.

I understand that you're upset about this and that you take the issue extremely seriously. No one is checking you on that. No one is belittling your beliefs on the subject, there are those of us who simply respectfully disagree on multiple levels, siting multiple sources, some of which carry as much or more weight than current sources using the same data to approach nearly identical conclusions.

 

[The_Darkness]

I do give a damn. I drive a fuel efficent automobile, about two to three times a week. I work from home. I live in a modest three bedroom ranch. I have a compost heap in the backyard. I recycle. I just think the Kyoto accords go way too far. And what they do is penalize us while giving the rest of the world a break so they can catch up to us, economically.

Hey Zeb, not to be a prick, but define "fuel efficient" for me, could you? I always find it interesting to know what folks are calling that these days. My Monte Carlo (V6, 2.1L) got consistently over 30mpg with 10% Ethanol, usually about 35 mpg if I changed the oil every 2000 miles and kept the maintenance up on it. My Buick does slightly worse than that, averaging 30, but usually more than the 25mpg it's rated for.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Heritage Foundation. They'll have it, guaranteed. If there's a minority argument that alleges to refute what a majority accept, the Heritage Foundation has it. It's what they do. It's why they make the big bucks.

It wasn't in the Heritage web site but I found it and although it wasn't debunking the IPCC report but a report by Dr Michael Mann of the Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts. Who was the primary author of the GRL paper, and in one scientific coup overturned the whole of climate history.

Link

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Hey Zeb, not to be a prick, but define "fuel efficient" for me, could you? I always find it interesting to know what folks are calling that these days. My Monte Carlo (V6, 2.1L) got consistently over 30mpg with 10% Ethanol, usually about 35 mpg if I changed the oil every 2000 miles and kept the maintenance up on it. My Buick does slightly worse than that, averaging 30, but usually more than the 25mpg it's rated for.

A 2000 Monte Carlo, 30 mpg. Don't have to fill the tank but once a month as I don't do much driving anyway. It's kept in good shape, oil changes every 3000 miles, tune-ups once a year whether it needs it or not. I live in urban Chicago Metro area and have to have the emissions checked once a year. Pass every year.

 

[The_Darkness]

A 2000 Monte Carlo, 30 mpg. Don't have to fill the tank but once a month as I don't do much driving anyway. It's kept in good shape, oil changes every 3000 miles, tune-ups once a year whether it needs it or not. I live in urban Chicago Metro area and have to have the emissions checked once a year. Pass every year.

Good man!

You folks enjoy the debate and consider each other's positions! I'm out to go hang out with a friend....take it easy, all!

 

[shereads]

shereads, I don't have a beef with you and I really don't mean to down play whatever beliefs you have on this. You're normally a level headed individual, and I've enjoyed talking with you in the past.

But, even with all that in mind, they're going off the same 30 years of study, and with the data at hand, they're coming up with the same answer. What they're not doing is listening to the historians that are fuming at them that there is natural cycles that are unpredictable given the data that can be gathered through the human experience of life on Earth. We need better data, like these oceanic samples that give a more complete picture, and instead of 500 to 1000 years at absolute best like ice core samples give us, they give us 50,000 to 100,000 years of data. These Paleoclimatologists should really be listened to; they have a far better understanding of what's going to happen in the next 50 to 5000 years (short of outside intervention ala major meteor strike or other serious disaster) than meterologists and modern climatologists can ever hope to imagine having.

Excuse me, but what makes you and your sources more qualified than 'they' are to determine what evidence is needed and how best to interpret the evidence that exists? By "they," I assume you mean some of these little outfits who putter around in their basements producing evidence that global warming is a real threat and is making itself felt already:

the director of NOAA's National Climactic Data Center
the Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Center (Norway)
the panel of New Zealand physicians whose study on behalf of the Wellington School of Medicine supports a relationship between global warming and the increased frequency of outbreaks of Dengue Fever and other tropical diseases in the South Pacifica
the Scripps Institution of Oceanography
the National Oceangraphic and Atmospheric Administration's Coral Reef Watch
William Krabill, the NASA scientist who headed a study of disappearing ice caps and rising sea levels and was discouraged from presenting an interpretation of the study results that supports global warming
the Harvard study linked in this thread by a prevous poster
the World Meteorolgoical Organization cited by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
marine biologists presenting evidence of global warming as a major cause of the world's mass die-off of coral reefs, at the Ninth International Coral Reef Symposium
the World Health Organization/London School of Hygeine joint study linking 160,000 deaths from malnutrition and malaria to the effects of global climate change
The National Geographic feature linking global warming with a dramatic reduction in krill, sea algae and sea lice - the major food sources for fish, squid and other ocean animals that people eat
a Seychelles study which connected rising termperatures to the die-off of plankton, which depletes oxygen in sea water as it decays, causing other marine life to suffocate
the National Center for Atmospheric Research study which proved an immediate increase in air- and water-born mercury contamination as a result of biomass burning by both natural (wildfire) and man-made causes (land clearning) disproving the notion that human activity needs centuries to cause a substantial degradation in the environment
A study of Australia's worsening draught by its Bureau of Meteorology, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) and Monash University, working with the U.S. Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research and the British Antarctic Division on the Antarctic vortex, which linked global warming to the increased velocity of wind spinning up from Antarctica and changing Australia's climate. How? Since you asked, by "measuring pressure differences between high latitudes over the Antarctic continent and mid latitudes in the Southern Ocean near Australia" and arriving at a conclusion obvious to any kindergarten student: that the wind is going all whirly and drying up Australia because you and Zeb don't want to admit you use too much cheap gasoline.

That's what they said, I swear. Don't make me look for the link again.

Back to my question: what makes you so sure that your sources and your reasoning are credibly superior to the other side's sources and reasoning? I don't ask you to be entirely sure; just sure enough that you can justify risking disastrous consequences for future generations.

In summary, I present another googled scientist: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Administrator D. James Baker: “Our climate is warming at a faster rate than ever before recorded. Ignoring climate change and the most recent warming patterns could be costly to the nation. Small changes in global temperatures can lead to more extreme weather events including, droughts, floods and hurricanes.”

You okay with that?

 

[shereads]

I do. I'm holding my 7 month old son in my arms and I'm looking out the window. I see green grass (we finally got rain this weekend), I see kids playing across the street, their parents grilling supper. I see a pale blue sky filled with high-level clouds that look like they might have rain in them for Minnesota or Wisconsin, but none for us.

I care about the car I drive. I care about the gas I put in my car. I have reasonable expectations of changing my life, my life style, and getting rid of conveinences that might endager my child's happiness. I play the "what if" game about me being wrong every day. What if I'm driving too fast and some drunk asshole smokes my car and cripples me and my family? What then? What if I develop carpal tunnel syndrome from typing all the time? What if 7000 years is nothing but a complete sham and nothing written before 1900 on anything is right? Those are all serious questions and they're things I consider on a regular basis. Those things can seriously impact my life, from its general happiness and wellbeing, to pissing 4 years of college down my leg and having to go back for something else. Those issues all also affect future generations, and their future generations.

I understand that you're upset about this and that you take the issue extremely seriously. No one is checking you on that. No one is belittling your beliefs on the subject, there are those of us who simply respectfully disagree on multiple levels, siting multiple sources, some of which carry as much or more weight than current sources using the same data to approach nearly identical conclusions.

What you don't seem to understand is that the cost if you're wrong and get your way, is dramatically more serious to your opponents than the cost to you if we get our way and it turns out to have been an elaborate practical joke.

Your stubbornness stands in the way of stopping a disaster that could make life on earth miserable for your kid's kids as they compete with kids in other countries for what's left. We urge changes that might be inconvenient and even costly to you and us, and yes, might even let other countries catch up to our standard of living - heaven forfend! That would be awful; maybe the price is too high to pay without absolute proof, after all.

Zeb, my taxes are as hard-earned as yours. I don't have or plan to have children. Yet I'm willing to part with some cash and live slightly less on top of the rest of the world if it means protecting your children's future. That's liberals for you.

Go figure.


EDITED TO ADD: Sad to say, I'm nearly always accurate in my gloomiest predictions. I pegged the cost of a Bush/Cheney win in 2000 and again in 2004, right down to the Halliburton logo on Saddam's prison lunch tray. I've been right six times out of six in predicting the closure of companies I worked for, based on nothing more than vaguely worded memos or the body language of the new president or general manager or client-side marketing director at his first staff meeting.

Being proven right by virtue of the worst-case scenario coming true, when it might have been prevented if you'd been able to persuade anyone of your near-infallible Doom Predictor is not rewarding. Even the I-told-you-so's go unheard if people are trying to slap together resumes they should have written when I first warned them, or if they are dead. Ask Richard Clark. Being wrong can't be nearly as painful as being right and helpless to change things.

So you see, Dark, you could simplify your life and prevent this headache from reaching DEFCON 3 and save billions of adorable baby plankton from the predatory spotted owl, simply by taking my word for global warming - as you suggested earlier we might do with your theory in opposition.

Don't make me crawl out of my flooded hovel to whimper, 'I told you so' just before we both drop dead from Dengue fever.

 

[The_Darkness]

What you don't seem to understand is that the cost if you're wrong and get your way, is dramatically more serious to your opponents than the cost to you if we get our way and it turns out to have been an elaborate practical joke.

Your stubbornness stands in the way of stopping a disaster that could make life on earth miserable for your kid's kids as they compete with kids in other countries for what's left. We urge changes that might be inconvenient and even costly to you and us, and yes, might even let other countries catch up to our standard of living - heaven forfend! That would be awful; maybe the price is too high to pay without absolute proof, after all.

Zeb, my taxes are as hard-earned as yours. I don't have or plan to have children. Yet I'm willing to part with some cash and live slightly less on top of the rest of the world if it means protecting your children's future. That's liberals for you.

Go figure.


EDITED TO ADD: Sad to say, I'm nearly always accurate in my gloomiest predictions. I pegged the cost of a Bush/Cheney win in 2000 and again in 2004, right down to the Halliburton logo on Saddam's prison lunch tray. I've been right six times out of six in predicting the closure of companies I worked for, based on nothing more than vaguely worded memos or the body language of the new president or general manager or client-side marketing director at his first staff meeting.

Being proven right by virtue of the worst-case scenario coming true, when it might have been prevented if you'd been able to persuade anyone of your near-infallible Doom Predictor is not rewarding. Even the I-told-you-so's go unheard if people are trying to slap together resumes they should have written when I first warned them, or if they are dead. Ask Richard Clark. Being wrong can't be nearly as painful as being right and helpless to change things.

So you see, Dark, you could simplify your life and prevent this headache from reaching DEFCON 3 and save billions of adorable baby plankton from the predatory spotted owl, simply by taking my word for global warming - as you suggested earlier we might do with your theory in opposition.

Don't make me crawl out of my flooded hovel to whimper, 'I told you so' just before we both drop dead from Dengue fever.

Here's the trick to all of that, that and your previous post. How do you know that man has caused that? Just because it's happened since man has been in various places? Can we assume that everything was serene and pristine before it was touched by explorers or natives with fire and metal? To do so would be as ludicris as saying that chickens are born from rocks.

The hard data that reflects thousands upon thousands of years of global climactic record clearly lays out that the Earth changes in climate and population on a fairly regular schedule. Further more, there are many small cycles in that schedule, which have cycles upon cycles under them. There is a map, I forget where it is now, that was first seen by western eyes in the 1500's. A noble in the middle east had it before that and he stated that it was "ancient." For years, it was thought to be a fanciful map of the lost continent of either Mu or Atlantis. It was not until the 70's that we realized it was an incredibly accurate map of Antarctica with no ice on it. All of the islands were present, the continent itself, even rivers that can be detected through the ice that is on the continent today.

During the Jurassic and Triassic periods, oxygen levels were 2 to 4 % higher than they are today, caused mostly be the global climate being more tropical and huge rainforests covering most of the massive super-contients that were working on splitting apart.

These so called experts are Plato, Aristotle, our friends the fossils, and people wanting better knowledge about what has happened, so we can see whether or not this phenominon of global warming / global cooling is going to get better or worse, and how we will have to deal with it.

Not only that, but most of the experts start listing information that is counter intuitive. Greenhouse gasses, most noteably CO2 and CO are on the rise, right? I mean we've been monitoring that, and for the last 30 years or so, those gasses are in higher concentrations than they were when the tests were first run. Why are plants dying? Plants use CO2 for breathable air in the same way most animals need 02 to breathe. So I ask again, why are the plants dying?

I cannot give you an assurance that little Michael Rohan will live in a world that has green grass and blue skies. I can give you the assurance that the little tiny bit that man has contributed to whatever global cycle we are currently in is infintessimally small compared to the cycle itself.

The Earth is in constant change, and the changes it goes through take millenia to unfold except for little hicups here and there. It has almost every single characteristic of a living creature except the ability to reproduce itself....the only other thing that we know of that can say that is fire, which lacks only a metabolism; otherwise it, too, presents a strong case for a living creature.

If you're looking for a cut and dried answer of who's right, and who's wrong on either where we're going as a planet and why we're getting there, I strongly encourage you to examine the fact that globally, we are in one of the coldest stages the earth has been since its formation. Geologic timelines do not move as human timelines. In the time it takes the Pacific ocean to shrink 100 yards, 3,600 years have passed. In the long run, it's not going to matter whether or not the human race has even ever existed on this planet. After we pass from the surface of this earth, as all species within the last 60 million years (plus or minus a million or 5) have, a million years after we're gone there won't even be a trace of us that can be seen on the surface. You'd have to dig, and dig deep, to even know we were here.

But as I've said, that's no reason to litter, or drive SUV's (unless you really need to take your Cadillac off-roading for some insane reason), or use styrofoam, or anything else. I will never deny that the climate is shifting; it's always shifting, it always has been shifting, even if it's too slow for any creature to examine it. I will however, remain extremely skeptical that human beings can even come close to impacting the rate of change short of the destruction of 80% of the plantlife in the oceans. That event, and that event alone, would be catastrophic enough that life as we know it would no longer exist on Earth.

But as for our kids needing to wear sunblock so they don't get cancer before they're 20....who knows. We can only analyze patterns and make the best guess, exactly like the weather forecasters do today. Personally, I've found trusting the weather prediction for more than 3 days out to be sketchy at best. 20 years is extreme. Maybe if we manage to interrupt the 500 year cycle of worsening huricane activity or the 2000 year cycle of activity in the Ring of Fire, or the 300 year cycle of drought in the US....maybe, just maybe, I'll believe man has an impact on the climate.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

You know I'm proud of where I live and the country I live in. I support a strong military to protect what we have and to keep the barbarians at the gate from getting in and destorying our way of life.

I don't begrudge them their right to raise themselves to our standard of living but, not at our expense. If they want it, let them find the way to get it, without penalizing us.

I am also not a doomsayer, the sky is not falling nor is it anywhere near too. In the last century the temperature has risen one degree. Why? Us humans. That's laughable. The sun has gotten hotter, the earth closer to the sun. What would you expect to happen if you move your hand closer to the candle? The surface temperature would rise.

So please don't expect me to join you in crying wolf just yet.

 

[Oblimo]

How about the History degree holder chiming in?

Tell 'em about the long rain of 1315!

 

[Oblimo]

How do you know that man has caused that?

That's the difference between a historian and a scientist: a scientist considers the above question meaningless, because, in overbroad terms, science does not allow for knowledge, only evidence.

Just because it's happened since man has been in various places? Can we assume that everything was serene and pristine before it was touched by explorers or natives with fire and metal? To do so would be as ludicris as saying that chickens are born from rocks.

To deny even a mere correlation between the unprecedented rapidity of the accelerating concentration of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the increased burning of fossel fuels is absurd. Granted, maybe the fringe fellows are right and the offgasing of peat bogs are going to kill us all in our sleep, but the fact that scientific theories change over time is not a valid justification for disregarding the reasonable evidence and theories we have now. Humanity is a natural phenomenon that affects the atmosphere like any other.

 

[Liar]

Ok, I turn away from the thread for 2 secs and what happens? It explodes into a here-comes-the-science extravaganza, and it starts talking about pollution and stuff.

Just for the record, I never said anything about man-made global warming. There might be that. But either way, there seems to be a rather decent consesus among climatologists that the way this ball is set up to work, a swift temperature raise can tilt the heat distribution system in the oceans, which would indeed make the polar areas colder.

 

[The_Darkness]

Ok, I turn away from the thread for 2 secs and what happens? It explodes into a here-comes-the-science extravaganza, and it starts talking about pollution and stuff.

Just for the record, I never said anything about man-made global warming. There might be that. But either way, there seems to be a rather decent consesus among climatologists that the way this ball is set up to work, a swift temperature raise can tilt the heat distribution system in the oceans, which would indeed make the polar areas colder.

Yup. It's a very dynamic system like that.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Hooray for Global Warming
Surf’s up!

By James S. Robbins

Every time we have a summer heatwave invariably the media go crazy with talk of global warming. You would think they would be used to the phenomenon of seasons by now. But it is great fodder for the features producers, and since the weather is on everybody’s mind you might as well go with a segment on climate change. It’s a nice respite from the real problems in the world.