Global Warming: Is It Really a Crisis?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Of course I'm talking to the wrong person here - who picks up on sensationalist news headlines and jumps to the conclusion that they represent new and disturbing changes in social behaviour, when in reality they can prove no such thing - except through vague references that life was so much better when they were 5 years old and too young and naiive to follow the news..

Does that also apply to someone who is in their 80's and 90's? Or does their opinion not count.

I never realized that personal observation is a no no. I guess I better go back to high school and rewrite the science books to conform to #6 and Ph's standards of reasoning. While I am at it I will throw out centuries worth of 'scientific' discoveries which started off as a simple observation.

PS What research should I provide that is up to 'your' standards?

While relearning about the scientific method you may come to realize from taking a simple, 5 minute climatology refresher that climate is something patterned, defined, and observed by strata (ice, rock, capture) as having been shaped over epochs of time, not human weather observations. Weather is in a constant state of flux starting with the seasonal shifts every few months.

I am still waiting for this summer to shut a few people up.

Why would a hot summer shut anyone up any more than this cold winter would shut your side up?

It would prove nothing - but you have to admit that if it were a cold winter you'd be the first up there promoting the article.

Wrong again. I already posted a story about how this last year the global temps went down. I made it clear that one year didn't prove anything but I did see a pattern of the temps leveling off over the last 10 years.

You did in that thread - but not in others. In fact you seem to post any and everything related to your position on this issue, regardless of where it comes from.

[LaL 418]

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Global warming is 99% politics and 1% science. Why else have Al Gore as a spokesman?

Why shouldnt I beleive the guy who invented the internet?

[HAL 9000 96]

Of course I'm talking to the wrong person here - who picks up on sensationalist news headlines and jumps to the conclusion that they represent new and disturbing changes in social behaviour, when in reality they can prove no such thing - except through vague references that life was so much better when they were 5 years old and too young and naiive to follow the news..

Does that also apply to someone who is in their 80's and 90's? Or does their opinion not count.

I never realized that personal observation is a no no. I guess I better go back to high school and rewrite the science books to conform to #6 and Ph's standards of reasoning. While I am at it I will throw out centuries worth of 'scientific' discoveries which started off as a simple observation.

PS What research should I provide that is up to 'your' standards?

While relearning about the scientific method you may come to realize from taking a simple, 5 minute climatology refresher that climate is something patterned, defined, and observed by strata (ice, rock, capture) as having been shaped over epochs of time, not human weather observations. Weather is in a constant state of flux starting with the seasonal shifts every few months.

I am still waiting for this summer to shut a few people up.

Why would a hot summer shut anyone up any more than this cold winter would shut your side up?

Good question Gary, and I see where it comes from... in my opinion as a scientist with plenty of experience in the art of observation I can gather that the global warming phenomenon is much more complicated than even the actual climate scientists out there can put their actual observations in place.

As for the question-

This is called climatological homeostasis. I wouldn't be surprised that somewhere down the line actual measurements, and not pseudoscientific bargaining, showed a potentiating effect of artificial sources to weather fluctuations ON TOP OF natural cycles of weather patterning. Now, proving what percentage comes from a particular contributor, natural or artificial, is strangely and politicaly up for grabs- at this time.

This is why when summer temperatures, like LAST summer, show an upward trend in mercury, don't be so ticked off or in a hurry to blame poorly placed temperature stations. And the cycle appears to be a natural evet independent, but not isolated, from artificial effectors of weather change.

But last summer didn't show an uptick in the temps. In fact the average global temperature went down in a very dramatic way.

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...=112945&hl=

I was referring to Chicago, where it was indeed, very hot.

That's a weather observation. A climate observation is much more long term. Two very different things.

Back to the idea of homeostasis... of course the natural world will reach a point where balances are met much in the same way that actions yield opposite reactions, like the law of thermodynamics. Be the action in whole or in part artificial.

I think we need to depart from the idea of absolutes in terms of causation of particular phenomena. But once again, you need to understand what it is you are argumenting for or against in order to make a clear, concise judgement based on actual scientific understanding.

[Don_Joy's Prince 0]

I know we have had climate change since day one here on planet earth. I find it very presumptuous of us to believe we can change it ourselves, good or bad.

Does that mean we should not try to be as clean and responsible with our industries as possible? No, we should be work towards being clean.

But I find the approach that ALGORE to be reckless and a disaster for all of us. To Curb the energy 30% instead of finding innovative ways to use and advance towards our goal of efficiency is idiocy.

The economic damage would be great to ourselves and our country.

30% less energy means:

30% less food, that would mean we would have ours but we would not have any to export to the third world.

30% less jobs, without energy our industries would wither and die.

30% lower standard of living, If you really think people will quit heating their homes with natural gas and not switch to burning wood instead you forget about history. We have many here in Oregon that still use wood. Which is harder on the environment?

[AnewKINDofFEELIN 0]

Global warming is another case of desperation for funding.

We should be more concerned with preventing pollution instead of conspiring global warming to prevent pollution.

Very good point. If and when the global warming bubble pops, we're setting ourselves up for an environmental backlash. People will feel lied to and go back to leaving their TVs on all night. The best thing we can do is concentrate on the facts, rather than speculation, like global warming.

[GaryC 7]

Of course I'm talking to the wrong person here - who picks up on sensationalist news headlines and jumps to the conclusion that they represent new and disturbing changes in social behaviour, when in reality they can prove no such thing - except through vague references that life was so much better when they were 5 years old and too young and naiive to follow the news..

Does that also apply to someone who is in their 80's and 90's? Or does their opinion not count.

I never realized that personal observation is a no no. I guess I better go back to high school and rewrite the science books to conform to #6 and Ph's standards of reasoning. While I am at it I will throw out centuries worth of 'scientific' discoveries which started off as a simple observation.

PS What research should I provide that is up to 'your' standards?

While relearning about the scientific method you may come to realize from taking a simple, 5 minute climatology refresher that climate is something patterned, defined, and observed by strata (ice, rock, capture) as having been shaped over epochs of time, not human weather observations. Weather is in a constant state of flux starting with the seasonal shifts every few months.

I am still waiting for this summer to shut a few people up.

Why would a hot summer shut anyone up any more than this cold winter would shut your side up?

It would prove nothing - but you have to admit that if it were a cold winter you'd be the first up there promoting the article.

Wrong again. I already posted a story about how this last year the global temps went down. I made it clear that one year didn't prove anything but I did see a pattern of the temps leveling off over the last 10 years.

You did in that thread - but not in others. In fact you seem to post any and everything related to your position on this issue, regardless of where it comes from.

I have a point of view that I came by from educating myself with the available information. I firmly believe what I believe. Of course I am going to post things that bolster my POV.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Perhaps - but there's a great deal of guff talked about GW, generally. I wonder how much discrimination is involved in selecting the wheat from the chaff.

[Mark&Steph 0]

I do not think anyone is denying the earth is relatively warm, at the moment, but where we do disagree is what is the actual cause. There are lots of renowned scientists who disagree with the notion the humans alone are the sole cause of global warming.

As we speak there is a summit on in NYC by hundreds of scientists who disagree with humans being the cause of global warming. Yet this has almost next to no media coverage.

Not even Al Gore says that humans are the sole cause of global warming but I never see this brought up by anyone. Global warming and cooling trends are natural. We just tend to add to it.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

I do not think anyone is denying the earth is relatively warm, at the moment, but where we do disagree is what is the actual cause. There are lots of renowned scientists who disagree with the notion the humans alone are the sole cause of global warming.

As we speak there is a summit on in NYC by hundreds of scientists who disagree with humans being the cause of global warming. Yet this has almost next to no media coverage.

Not even Al Gore says that humans are the sole cause of global warming but I never see this brought up by anyone. Global warming and cooling trends are natural. We just tend to add to it.

UH OH, I just FARTED. The planet just warmed 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

000000000000000000000000000000000000th of a degree!

[Mark&Steph 0]

My ignore list is working overtime today.

[HAL 9000 96]

Perhaps - but there's a great deal of guff talked about GW, generally. I wonder how much discrimination is involved in selecting the wheat from the chaff.

There most definitely is a great deal of guff brought up about a great many things these days, GW notwithstanding.

[JVKn'CVO 11]

Saludos,

Caro