ablett Wrote:

> And i don't believe for one minute you haven't
> noticed any changes in your own environment.....

What changes? I told you, we had four weeks of high pressure in 2006, it wasnt the first time, far from it. This summer we had a very typical Swedish summer. What else am I supposed to notice? IF we are in a current cycle, it's not the first time, it's a cycle.

Its quite cold in NYC today...

Ok, so drive your Hummers and be real eco!

Its dead easy tofind problems where industry is attempting to change.

So what do you suggest? Do nothing at all, carry on as we are and see what happens?

ablett Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> possible temporary global warming??????
>
> still aint explained


ablett
I'll give it a try. at times during a cycle the crest or bottom would be the peak of the two factors. So at the crest of the heat wave-global warming-it would be temporary dor an undefined number of years, for the opposite of the cycle, the bottom would be the top of the cold wave.-again, for an undetermined period of time.

jjflash73
not a scientist

YEP! When oil runs out we will find another solution

ablett Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ok, so you had a fab summer. We had the worst
> floods on record and nearly had the whole county
> evacuated!
>
> I work as a graphic designer in the rural industry
> and on ground level there isn't one person,
> whether he's a farmer, seed merchant or scientist
> who will not confirm a very recent and permanent
> change in the climate and seasons.
>
> So believe what you will. I for one want to be
> able to say I tried if predictions come true.
>
> And i don't believe for one minute you haven't
> noticed any changes in your own environment.....


ablett
the cycle may be much longer than a human life span so we don't see the entire cycle-think bigger and larger.

Oh please, you'll be telling me that Jimmy Buffets the future of music and we should all live on a diet of steak n wear a stetson next.....

HelterSkelter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Congratulations to Al Gore for being awarded the
> Nobel Peace Prize. I don't understand people who
> think global warming isn't real. You always have
> to ask yourself who has the most to loose. So if
> Global Warming is real (as most of us believe) the
> present ENERGY industry (based on Oil, Petrol,
> Coal, Nuclear Plants, etc) has the most to loose
> because the people that want to see this planet
> survive will look for cleaner ways to creat energy
> (Solar, Wind, Hybrid, Etc.) Here in the "Sun Belt"
> (Southern California, Arizona, South Nevada, New
> Mexico, Texas, etc if everyone had solar panels on
> their roofs to cut the elecric/gas bills down
> they'd probably save a huge % in the use of
> Elecricity.

That's great. Hope it works out, and that this idea could be applied to countries in Eastern Europe like Ukraine and in China etc. The air is literary yellow brown and grey in some countries. In Northern Europe the air is perfect but Sweden is also part of the dark and depressing "Rain Belt". Four weeks of sun in 2006 was amazing let's hope for another summer in 2008.

hybrid cars-the untold story
investigate the truth of the car batteries and how much energy is used to make them.

Steak = #1!!!!

Adrian-L Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> R Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > It is absolutely the height of arrogance to
> think
> > the earth, continuously changing for millions
> of
> > years, has somehow been drastically changed by
> man
> > in the last few decades.
>
>
> Tell that to the Polar Bears


Which polar bears? The ones in Gore's propaganda piece that allegedly had to swim 60 miles to find ice? That's been proven a falsehood amongst eight other lies in the film. Look in today's newspaper - if they don't gloss over it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-10-12 20:33 by R.

Forgive me. TEN other lies.

The inaccuracies are:

The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming.  The Government’s expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.

The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years.  The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.

The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming.  The Government’s expert had to accept that it was “not possible” to attribute one-off events to global warming.

The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming.  The Government’s expert had to accept that this was not the case.

The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice.  It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.

The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant’s evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.

The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching.  The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.

The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.

The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand.  The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.





 

BINGO!

American lefties should be pushing nuclear power in a big way. Their opposition to nukes has resulted in much more fossil fuels being burned.

I'm not gonna poo poo the idea of global warming but you need better evidence than local weather patterns. Yes here in New Jersey we had days in October that were unusually warm- nearly ninety degrees but we also had days in August that were unusually cool- down to the low sixties maybe even the high fiftees at night. All in all here it was one of the coolest summers I can remember.

"Lyin' awake in a cold, cold sweat. Am I overdrawn, am I going in debt?
It gets worse, the older that you get. No escape from the state of confusion I'm in.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-10-12 21:08 by FrankM.

the weather changes every day of the year, every year. Today is a perfectly stormy autumn day. Tomorrow will be different.

First of all, global warming is one of those things that ultimately can't be proved until long after the fact. Which is why we can't really wait for the kind of cast-iron proof that would make even the most rabid neo-con turn on his heel. The risks are quite simply far too great.

The politicisation of global warming is a really weird one, and something which really makes me angry. Science, in my opinion, should never ever be politicised in this way. It's an incredibly dangerous precedent to set, because it effectively polarises a community and can utterly destroy legitimate and even necessary scientific advance. Global warming is a theory (in the scientific sense of the word) that has overwhelming scientific backing from a global consortium of scientists, and is not politically allied with any one group. The naysayers of global warming however, almost always seem to either have clear political allegiances to neoconservative interests, or are being paid for by groups with a vested interest in muddying the waters of public understanding in the issue, such as oil companies.

In my opinion, scientific consensus is so strong now that the risk of doing nothing is so great that it simply isn't an option. Whilst I'm not strongly anti-capitalist, the form of capitalism we are living in now does not have the constraints necessary to allow us to make the changes necessary in order to save ourselves. Saving ourselves would ultimately mean going against the current laws of capitalism, because capitalism by nature is short-sighted and favours short-term gain over longterm loss.

CaledonianGonzo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
....Saving
> ourselves would ultimately mean going against the
> current laws of capitalism, because capitalism by
> nature is short-sighted and favours short-term
> gain over longterm loss.



Here, in a nutshell, is the essence of the climate change crowd's REAL agenda:

The destruction of the Capitlist system and free markets.

Thank you for being so succinct.

This is the danger of the global warming crowd. What do you want to do Gonzo? Do you want to shut down the factories so there is less pollution? Problem with that is we will have clean air and nobody will be gainfully employed. Do you want to ban cars because they contribute to global warming? Maybe we can all get pogo sticks and commute to work that way.

No one is saying do nothing. We should do all we can but we should also keep our wits about us. This idea that tomorrow New York City will be engulfed by water due to global warming is Hollywood not reality.

CaledonianGonzo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> First of all, global warming is one of those
> things that ultimately can't be proved until long
> after the fact. Which is why we can't really wait
> for the kind of cast-iron proof that would make
> even the most rabid neo-con turn on his heel.

How do you know it exists if you can't prove it exists? And what has rabib neo cons with anything to do? Scientists, oceanographics etc are not rabib neo cons.

I suggest that people who want hard facts on global warming switch to CNN or BBC in stead of listening to the extremely "far fetched" theories on this board. I really can't believe what I'm reading here.
I'm switching to CNN news this very moment.

It's been a great day for global awakening on the problem of global warming. The fact that some people choose to behave like ostriches, and bury their heads in the sand and listen to oil lobbyists, is rather sad. But not surprising.

Sorry - my PC is playing up, so I might be slow in answering specific points (and I doubt I can without violating bv's no politics rule (which, to be fair, I've probably already done, for which, apologies)).

But sorry, R, I disagree that those who believe in climate change have a specifically anti-capialist agenda. The agenda is a sustainable future for the planet. Capitalism would need to be modified to facilitate that, but I can't see it happening, because I'm pretty pessimistic that those who need to change ever would. And I'd include those in denial about climate change as part of that statement.

In the meantime, have a look at New Scientist's "Climate Change - A Guide For The Perplexed", which takes the 26 main arguments used against climate change, and counters each one. It's far from complete, but is well worth reading.

[environment.newscientist.com]

This is from New Scientist:


Quote
Climate change sceptics sometimes claim that many leading scientists question climate change. Well, it all depends on what you mean by "many" and "leading". For instance, in April 2006, 60 "leading scientists" signed a letter urging Canada's new prime minister to review his country's commitment to the Kyoto protocol.

This appears to be the biggest recent list of sceptics. Yet many, if not most, of the 60 signatories are not actively engaged in studying climate change: some are not scientists at all and at least 15 are retired.

Compare that with the dozens of statements on climate change from various scientific organisations around the world representing tens of thousands of scientists, the consensus position represented by the IPCC reports and the 11,000 signatories to a petition condemning the Bush administration's stance on climate science.

The fact is that there is an overwhelming consensus in the scientific community about global warming and its causes. There are some exceptions, but the number of sceptics is getting smaller rather than growing.

Even the position of perhaps the most respected sceptic, Richard Lindzen of MIT, is not that far off the mainstream: he does not deny it is happening but thinks future warming will not be nearly as great as most predict.

Of course, just because most scientists think something is true does not necessarily mean they are right. But the reason they think the way they do is because of the vast and growing body of evidence. A study in 2004 looked at the abstracts of nearly 1000 scientific papers containing the term "global climate change" published in the previous decade. Not one rejected the consensus position. One critic promptly claimed this study was wrong – but later quietly withdrew the claim.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-10-12 22:07 by CaledonianGonzo.

"The fact that some people choose to behave like ostriches, and bury their heads in the sand and listen to oil lobbyists, is rather sad. But not surprising."

Oceanographics, scientists who dont agree with one dominating theory which cant be proved - they are not "oil lobbyists".

Congratulations to Al Gore.....at least for now (is it possible for a Nobel Prize to get stolen, like an election?)

FrankM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No one is saying do nothing. We should do all we
> can but we should also keep our wits about us.
> This idea that tomorrow New York City will be
> engulfed by water due to global warming is
> Hollywood not reality.



Agreed. A simple experiment"

Put two ice cubes into a glass of water (or bourbon if you prefer). Wait for them to melt. Do the melting ice cubes cause liquid to flow over the top of the glass?

Good grief. No - of course not. However, take a completely full glass and pour lots of melted ice and water into it (for the ice that's currently melting sits above sea level), and you'll have bourbon all over the floor.

Lukester Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Congratulations to Al Gore.....at least for now
> (is it possible for a Nobel Prize to get stolen,
> like an election?)

OMG we are still harping on the election of 2000? For Pete's sake they counted, then recounted, then recounted some more. What did you want them to do count while hoppping around the room backwards? Count while listening to Sticky Fingers? Count when the first full moon appeared?

Get over it- it was seven years ago.

Basically - after reading (most of) the thread - I gotta conclude ....let's stick to what we know something (more) about ;-)