We got 3-6 inches here in the Vegas Valley. Myth Busted....
It's been colder than I ever remember at my place. Only 14 F yesterday. I cannot for the life of me recall when it was this cold in December. It's been snowing again today. It's usually in the 30's in December and not into the 20's until late January to February.
Thank God for Global Warming or else it would really be cold!
We got snow! It melted before hitting the ground though.
I woke up it looked like it wasnt gonna stick but now the roads are even collecting the snow about 3 inches in my front yard.
I'll do you one better. I threw a balloon in the air and it didn't go down. BOOM! I just busted the Theory of Gravity. Balls to you, Newton!
Im not a global warming advocate by any stretch, but that was funny.
I may have to change my screen name now.
its called climate change you turd
from global cooling to global warming and now global climate change. will you guys make up your minds.
what's next? Global cracking?
They finally understand that the climate always changes. They just won't admit it.
actually it's global checking and global cashing.
20 yrs
Colder winters is a result of global warming.
I guess I'll throw my two cents in.
According to the majority of scientists, humans do have some effect on global warming. I don't know, because I'm not a scientist. I'm willing to go with the majority on this issue.
Could it just be that we're in a time of warming? Maybe.
The other issue is, can we actually do anything about it? Some people argue that we can't, so why bother. Others argue that we can and should suffer through drastic changes to save ourselves.
I'm more inclined to go the latter route than the first, but I don't think it's an either-or option. I'd rather err on the side of, you know, trying to keep global temperatures somewhat stable so as not to mess up a bunch of , then to just think, "Ah, we're ed anyways, let's not bother!"
that's like the time I ordered a shake at Burger King and the worker told me my shake would taste like vanilla but it was chocolate. That made a lot of sense.
Apples and oranges.
Burger King is out to make money.
The Government is out to save us.
DUHHHHHH
I'm not even sure it's a majority anymore. nevertheless, the numbers are shrinking daily.
cooling now.Could it just be that we're in a time of warming? Maybe.
first we need to discover cause and effect. No carbon footprint has ever been found.The other issue is, can we actually do anything about it? Some people argue that we can't, so why bother. Others argue that we can and should suffer through drastic changes to save ourselves.
the alarmist are a whole lot more radical than that.I'm more inclined to go the latter route than the first, but I don't think it's an either-or option. I'd rather err on the side of, you know, trying to keep global temperatures somewhat stable so as not to mess up a bunch of , then to just think, "Ah, we're ed anyways, let's not bother!"
reading comprehension is a beautiful thing.
Hopefully Gore was able to shelter the money he made from Global Warming somewhere the economic collapse could not touch as harshly.
There is Global warming and there is what is called climate change that could be caused by global warming but you all seem to be oblivious of that fact like it's to hard for your little minds to absorbed.
I guess my point is... I'm not a scientist, and I really have no f'ing way of knowing who's right. Therefore, I'm just siding with what seems like the current majority. If that makes me a sheep, then baaaaa. That's why we have experts, to figure this stuff out. If I was running a business, and 4 of my 7 experts said to go with something, I would most likely run with it.
Global warming is far down my 'things we need to fix' list.
From a speech Michael Chrichton gave in 2003 at Cal Tech
I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.
In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of. Let's review a few cases.
In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth . One woman in six died of this fever. In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no. In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no. In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent "skeptics" around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.
There is no shortage of other examples. In the 1920s in America, tens of thousands of people, mostly poor, were dying of a disease called pellagra. The consensus of scientists said it was infectious, and what was necessary was to find the "pellagra germ." The US government asked a brilliant young investigator, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, to find the cause. Goldberger concluded that diet was the crucial factor. The consensus remained wedded to the germ theory. Goldberger demonstrated that he could induce the disease through diet. He demonstrated that the disease was not infectious by injecting the blood of a pellagra patient into himself, and his assistant. They and other volunteers swabbed their noses with swabs from pellagra patients, and swallowed capsules containing scabs from pellagra rashes in what were called "Goldberger's filth parties." Nobody contracted pellagra. The consensus continued to disagree with him. There was, in addition, a social factor-southern States disliked the idea of poor diet as the cause, because it meant that social reform was required. They continued to deny it until the 1920s. Result-despite a twentieth century epidemic, the consensus took years to see the light.
Probably every schoolchild notices that South America and Africa seem to fit together rather snugly, and Alfred Wegener proposed, in 1912, that the continents had in fact drifted apart. The consensus sneered at continental drift for fifty years. The theory was most vigorously denied by the great names of geology-until 1961, when it began to seem as if the sea floors were spreading. The result: it took the consensus fifty years to acknowledge what any schoolchild sees.
And shall we go on? The examples can be multiplied endlessly. Jenner and smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine, repressed memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement therapy…the list of consensus errors goes on and on.
Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.
Liberal, Philip Scott on "consensus"
The notion of the incompatibility of consensus and science is interesting. However, something like global warming will probably never be proved to the satisfaction of everyone. Global warming is just a theory. Theories demand consensus, not fact.
What troubles me, though, is that a lot of the momentum behind the global warming "consensus" is political. And I'm not just talking about Al Gore. If a scientist disagrees with the "consensus," he's labeled a stooge of big oil and ignored, or worse. But a scientist who believes in the "consensus" has plenty of opportunities to get grants to fund research to explore man's impact and what to do about it. In other words, if you don't believe in the "consensus," you basically assert that man-made global warming is a lark and that's that. But if you do believe in the "consensus," you can basically make a whole career out of trying to "prove" your theories. ($$$$$.)
Certain scientific theories--like evolution--are basically harmless, regardless of whether they're right or wrong. Teaching evolution in school may upset some Bible-thumpers, but that's a small problem, really. But implementing government policy based on the theory that man creates global warming is serious business. Once you start down the path of "not having an impact on the environment," where do you stop? Will we have special taxes on beef and charcoal? Heck, will beef be outlawed altogether? I mean, that would surely cut down on cow farts and deforestation. Will we be forced to ride bicycles to work? Will we eliminate the use of all petroleum-based products, like plastic? Maybe we should outlaw the military and its moster-sized carbon footprint. That would result in a severe cut in carbon emissions, right? Why not live in caves?
Environmental policy, almost by definition, is a jobs killer. Don't give me this about "green collar" jobs. If there's a market for it, then great. But the government putting the brakes on the economy to save the environment will NOT create jobs. If we're going to "do something" about global warming, we first need to know whether global warming is real, whether it's a problem, whether man is causing it, and what can actually be done to address the problem.
So you would have believed the earth was flat a few hundred years ago?
The Earths been increasing and decreasing for more than 10,000 years in tempeature. Right now, we are slightly above average of that fluxuation:
I only see one significant man made contribution to global warming. Asia's burning of coal in large quanities without using clean burning technologies. The soot is ac ulating on the norther ice, melting it. The polar region now absorbs about 90% of the sunlight recieved instead of reflecting about 90% of it.
Then nuke China.
24F and snowing today at 1:56 PM, almost 2 ft deep. 12/21 at 10:23 AM:
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
