The Great Global Warming Whurlitzer

XOVERX · Heavy Crude Joined: Apr 18, 2006 Posts: 175

Is global warming true if George W. Bush sez the globe is warming?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKJ2fu_Gluo&mode=related&search=

Or should we just keep our head in the sand?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7408504973132978571&q=global+warming

Do ya think fossil fuels have anything to do with all this?

dissident · Heavy Crude Joined: Apr 08, 2006 Posts: 378

What is sad is that people will believe what politicians tell them about climate science and not the climate scientists. The so-called skeptics are, by far, not scientists. The handful of scientists that go against the consensus do not have rock solid research on which they stand. Instead they come up with far fetched ideas that wither in the face of scrutiny (e.g. Lindzen's infrared iris, or the supposed lack of a warming trend in satellite observations that was touted a few years back and has been shown to be due to omitting effects from aerosols).

Kingcoal

There is scientific evidence for global warming and that evidence is reasonably credible. Most scientists will agree that the earth is getting warmer, abet slowly. What is not settled is whether or not this warming period we are now in is abnormal, let alone caused in any way by mankind. There have been many warming and cooling periods in the earth's history - and man wasn't around to cause them.

There is a point of view that I call the "it's all our fault theory," and people who subscribe to this theory label it "global warming." Global warming is simply that; warming. There is no connection to mankind there; that is a separate theory. You really need to add the two theories together and call it "human instigated global warming."
_________________
"That's the problem with mercy, kid... It just ain't professional" - Fast Eddie, The Color of Money

Lore

Then the last couple of decades of warming are a climatic and statistical oddity since they coincidently coincide with sharp increases in CO2. I ask you, what are the chances of that?
_________________
The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life.
... Theodore Roosevelt

rwwff

rwwff

NEOPO

pfft.

Earth warmest in at least 400 years, panel finds

“human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming.”

Lore

rwwff

Lore

dwenergyman · Tar Sands Joined: May 06, 2004 Posts: 52

I believe any good discussion of global warming should include the story the dimming of the sun. It is important to be aware of a factor that is currently masking the full temperature gains of higher greenhouse gas levels.

NOVA | Dimming the Sun | PBS
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sun/

dissident · Heavy Crude Joined: Apr 08, 2006 Posts: 378

This is an example of the sort of silly coverage of global warming in the media. Citing the opinion of Bernie Rayno, a meteorologist, is not equivalent to citing the opinion of a climate scientist. Mr. Rayno doesn't have the qualifications to make the ridiculous assertion that he does.

grabby · Light Sweet Crude Joined: Nov 08, 2005 Posts: 1328

On my way to work today, the globe was really warm...
It was 85 and it was only 9 am!

This global warming is pretty obvious in the summer.
_________________
___________________________
WHEN THE BLIND LEAD THE BLIND...GET OUT OF THE WAY!
Using evil to further good makes one evil
Doubt everything but the TRUTH
This posted information is not permissible to be used
by anyone who has ever met a lawyer

rwwff

gg3

The relevant question, that US voters should be relentlessly asking of our elected officials, is, "What if you're wrong?"

If the human-impact advocates are wrong, what happens is economic conversion to non-fossil energy sources e.g. nuclear, wind, solar. Downside impact minimal, since jobs and profits lost in one part of the economy are gained in other parts. And this puts us on better footing to deal with PO.

If the head-in-sand advocates are wrong, what happens is that we do nothing until the climate hits the tipping point, after which things go crash in a manner sufficiently spectacular as to make PO seem like a picnic. And in all probability, the impact would be multiplied by PO.

Either way, PO means a combination of conversion and powerdown, which would be compatible with the conversion needed to deal with climate change. The longer we wait, the fewer options remaining.

As far as economics are concerned, the choice is between "more of the same" if we do-nothing, vs. the potential for another economic boom caused by all the activity in the conversion.

Clearly the do-nothing side is gaining mightily from "more of the same."