Another Denier Wakes up and smells the coffee,,

Probably only as much as you've considered what would happen to yourself it you're wrong about the Koran.

 

Good point. Over and out.

 

I prefer the ones a little farther down the page, relating to selling your daughters and beating slaves. That, by far, is my favorite part of the Bible.

Tom

 

Don't forget the part about getting to kill your insolent children... they had it coming...

 

That may be so in your neck of the woods but here 2009 / 2010 winter, we had 4 snow falls greater than 24 inches, thats 3 more than normal!!! But one could argue that it is climate change also, not global warming.

 

More snow != cooling. In fact, more snow is associated with warmer temps (that remain below freezing) as the warmer air is able to hold more moisture - and thus snow.

So I might expect to see more snow on average in your neck of the woods like last year.

 

So less snow a few years ago was due to global warming, but now we're suddenly getting more snow that's down to global warming too?

 

It depends on where in the world you are located... but yes.

 

I'm ready, bought 4 new Firestone winterforce UV snow tires for the 4x4, and a brand new 357cc craftsman snow blower to replace the one pictured above which is only 195cc. Global warming or cooling, I will be prepared, I even picked up some sunblock SPF 100+ in case we don't get snow and things go the other way.

 

lol

 

So if you get an unusual amount of snow then "ah, that was predicted", but then you focus on an area where they didn't get the usual amount and say "ah that proves global warming".

This might make sense to you, but it sounds like a crock of ***t to me. You just pick and choose the areas that fall in with your fantasy, sorry facts about global warming.

You might have the scientific background, you might have the Phds, but you arn't convincing 80% of the population out there.

 

That is a problem, isn't it. 80% of the population doesn't know whether the Earth goes around the Sun or vice versa, or doesn't believe evolution is real, yet they are supposed to approve of (or at least not complain too much about) fixing global warming. By the time it becomes obvious to a majority of the Joe and Jane Twelvepacks of this world it'll be too late to prevent much of the damage.

 

Well perhaps the educated ones in the know should stop preaching down to Joe and Jane and belittling them and then maybe Joe and Jane will stop treating the 'educated ones' with contempt.

 

So are we debating global warming or man's contribution to it? The former seems pretty obvious, given rising sea levels in the Arctic, an open water Northwest Passage, glaciers disappearing in North America and Europe... but maybe not.

Our releasing fossil fuels in a few centuries that took millions of centuries to create- I don't see how you can argue with the idea that there is going to be an effect on the planet. Its a giant chemistry experiment. I for one don't really like planet-wide chemistry experiments. I'm willing to change my lifestyle to help the planet (and the people who have health problems related to pollution). What's the big deal?

 

People believe what they want to. I think global warming (or climate change as some call it) is a natural cycle and nothing to do with man. I have however, cut my fuel consumption signiciantly for other reasons and, to pardon the pun, already have my house in order.

Now you can speak reason to Joe and Jane Twelvepack in a way they understand or even want to understand. Or you can preach down at them saying that you're more educated than them so you know better and that they're fools for doing nothing - which appears to be the currect path.

Have a guess which way will have the desired effect and which way is counter productive.

 

Global climate change models predict extremes. Some areas get hotter, others colder; some dryer, some wetter. The term "global warming" is unfortunate, and gives a false and simplified impression.

Unfortunately you are correct when complaining about cherry-picked facts. The global climate is so complex that it is easy to pick and choose among facts to prove a point. There is no question that global climate change is largely driven by natural events and cycles. There is also no question that man has contributed to the effects. The only real question is how much, and how serious are the effects.

Tom

 

Just to put this in the context of data, yes, we in the mid-Atlantic did have a snowy winter. Snowiest ever in many parts of the DC to NYC corridor. To emphasize your point, let’s look at some records. First, for BWI (Baltimore) airport—go to National Weather Service Sterling. From the menu, check “Monthly Weather Summary (CLM)â€, select Baltimore, and pick any month in the last year. Oct. 2009 was 0.1 deg. F. below normal, and Feb. 2010 was 3.9 deg. F. below normal, but every other month has been above normal—even December 2009, when we had a 2-foot snowstorm in Baltimore. From March 2010 on, the mid-Atlantic and Northeast US has been way warmer than normal—the hottest summer ever in most of this area. Granted, February 2010 was cold and snowy in Baltimore (OK, not by your standards in northern Michigan, Tom), but, go to http://www.weather.gov/climate/index.php?wfo=car and retrieve the same data for Caribou, Maine, and you’ll see that Feb. 2010 was 10.7 deg. F. *above* normal--a huge departure. So it seems that it may have been more the jet stream and storm track, not an absence of global warming, that made for such a snowy winter in the mid-Atlantic.

Of course, all this is could really be more “weather†than “climateâ€â€”there have always been hot summers and cold winters since people started keeping records. But with an ever-increasing string of warmer than normal, globally record warm years, the preponderance of evidence suggests that what looks in bits and pieces like the variability of weather is beginning to look like collectively a lot like a warming climate. Has the climate warmed and cooled in the past without humankind’s intervention? Of course. Do we know exactly what amount of the current warming is anthropogenic, beyond doubt? Of course not. Do atmospheric scientists have a pretty high level of confidence as to the physical effects of various gases and pollutants in the atmosphere--warming in the case of CO^2, CFCs and some others, and cooling in the case of sulfates and particulates? You bet. But you’ll rarely, ideally never, hear the word “prove†used in a scientific context. I’ve testified a number of times on water quality issues here in Maryland and it infuriates the lawyers to no end when I will not say that beyond any doubt, for example, that pile of chicken manure sitting 50 feet from that stream is absolutely, positively, unequivocally and solely responsible for the algal blooms and fish kills downstream. It is certainly my best professional judgment as a water quality scientist that the manure is indeed the cause; can I "prove" beyond doubt that no one has been sneaking out, under cover of dark, dumping fertilizer in the stream? No, I cannot.

So, what does this have to do with global warming (or climate change, if you prefer the term)? Well, there will never be enough “proof†to convince everyone. Does that mean that we as a society should not take steps to mitigate the issue, or wait for this scientific “proof†that by its very definition will never arrive? In my opinion, no, it does not; I think the stakes are too high if we wait too long, and the benefits of acting—environmentally, economically, and from the standpoint of national security—are too great to ignore. Others of course have different opinions (as is their right). And, more so in the US perhaps than anywhere else it seems, it is very difficult to convince society to spend money now for benefits to be accrued in the future.

Another item I just have to get off my chest—and I apologize for getting a bit political here—to those who insist it is all A Bunch Of Greedy Scientists Perpetrating the Greatest Hoax in History in Pursuit of Research Grant Money, let me ask one question: Who do you think makes more money, and has more of a vested interest whatever it might be—some climatologist, or the CEO of BP, Massey Coal, Exxon/Mobil or any other fossil energy big-head? You say “follow the money†and I’ll say “go, man, go, I’m with you 100 percent.â€

Lastly, I have to agree with GCabbie and others who, here and in other threads, have made the point that one does not win over converts (whatever the cause, be it global warming or smoking cessation) by being nasty to those whom one seeks to convince—few people ever say “well gee, thank you for rescuing me from my ignorance.†A little respect goes a long way. (For that matter, this applies to videos depicting gory, exploding, seemingly boneless children, despite the fact that my inner 17-year-old found it mildly amusing in a Monty Python-esque sort of way…).

Peace,
~T

 

This is all funny. Excuse me I was just looking aroun the website and I cam across these talks abotu the environment.

You people who don't believe in the Lord think that the dinosour was walking around in the stoneage. What cause that to get from the iceage? My duely and tractor?

So my thinking is if I think along your line is this is natural occurance over time. How come stoneage was around before four wheel drive made it so?

God created man and the earth is there for man to use. Don't worry about the future you will be in better places if you are right with the Lord and those left that are right with Lord will be take care of. :rockon: