GloBal Warming Hoax

[sauerkraut]

http://www.theotherpaper.com/articles/2009/02/07/front/doc498b07c3e889d326202045.txt This guy is a weather expert and has tons of degrees on the subject. Al Gore has zero degrees. Jym Ganahl studied weather for 30+ years. Did I mention he has tons of degrees so he knows what he's talking about. Unlike Al Gore he also debates people on the subject too.[]

[sauerkraut]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Io-Tb7vTamY  This video is also pretty intresting. We had one of the coldest winters on record. Brrrr!

[Hoss]

Counterpoint:

http://norvig.com/oreskes.html

I'd say these institutions hold some weight:

'This conclusion is endorsed by the National Academy of Sciences, The American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union and its parent organization, the American Institute of Physics, the national science academies of the G8 nations, Brazil, China, and India. and the American Association for the Advancement of Science.'

Why don't you and Jim Inhofe go have lunch...oh, wait a minute, he's not your representative seeing that you're not from Tulsa!

[:O]

[sauerkraut]

Let's focus on the facts about global warming not political agendas. Scientists do not agree with Al Gore.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfHW7KR33IQ&feature=related

[Hoss]

quote:Originally posted by sauerkraut

Let's focus on the facts about global warming not political agendas. Scientists do not agree with Al Gore.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfHW7KR33IQ&feature=related

How was the previous a political agenda?  I'd say the only agenda here was yours and Jim Inhofe's.  But let's not let the National Academy of Sciences, The American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union and its parent organization, the American Institute of Physics, the national science academies of the G8 nations, Brazil, China, and India. and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have any credence here.  Your agenda smacks somewhat of isolationism.

But then again, I guess you can't get people in Columbus to listen to you, so you turn your attentions to that place you haven't lived in 20 years.  Not surprising.

[xx(]

[waterboy]

It seems fairly easy to line up experts, professional associations and government agencies on each side of this issue. The politics of it is immense. Did you vote for Gore? I side with the preponderence of scientific thought which is that climate change is already upon us and is easily measurable. Denying it is more political than scientific. Now, how to adjust to that change is a different, arguable matter.

The reading I did about this subject gave me a couple of key words and phrases to look for when deciding if the user is conversation worthy. The first key is the term itself. The term Global Warming is misleading. People think that it means we should be experiencing warmer weather, easier winters etc. So when that doesn't happen and you hear someone mention record cold winters (your post) or a cool summer you know you got a dead fish on the line.

The warming of the planet sets off extremes in weather conditions and changes in set patterns. An extremely cold winter, an increase in hurricanes and tornadoes (or their intensity), dry mild summers punctuated with blazing hot periods, snow in the South of France are all symptoms of that warming.

The truth may be that a weather man with 30yrs experience may trump all the other viewpoints. If so Gary England in OKC should be on the lecture circuit. But, science is always evolving. Questioning each side is fine as long as you're willing to suffer the consequences of the defeat. If Global Warming proponents are wrong and we have invested in efforts to clean the air and water while adjusting lifestyles in response to perceived change, there seems to be little loss. In fact it may stimulate new industries and improve life.

However, if the proponents were right and we invest little in those efforts, we may evaporate as a species or be very uncomfortable as we battle each other to survive.

Hmmm. I'll risk it all on Door #1.

[sauerkraut]

If global warming makes it colder why is it called "global warming" instead of "global cooling"? back in the 1970's this same stuff was going but they called it global cooling switch the words in todays talk and it's the same stuff from the  1970's recycled.

[we vs us]

quote:Originally posted by sauerkraut

If global warming makes it colder why is it called "global warming" instead of "global cooling"? back in the 1970's this same stuff was going but they called it global cooling switch the words in todays talk and it's the same stuff from the  1970's recycled.

QED.

[Hawkins]

Didn't I hear on the news that yesterday, Feb. 6th, we had a record high temperature for Tulsa?

Today's record high is 78, and its currently 74...

[Hoss]

quote:Originally posted by sauerkraut

If global warming makes it colder why is it called "global warming" instead of "global cooling"? back in the 1970's this same stuff was going but they called it global cooling switch the words in todays talk and it's the same stuff from the  1970's recycled.

Get out and read a book about it or do some research on it aside from regurgitating anti-climate-change talking points.  I think you and Fatstrat need to make a club.

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by sauerkraut

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Io-Tb7vTamY  This video is also pretty intresting. We had one of the coldest winters on record. Brrrr!

"We" may have had one of the coldest winters on record, but that doesnt mean that the poles are colder or that other places in the world arent warmer. Remember, its the entire globe that is being talked about, its "global warming" not US warming only lol. This is one reason they have shifted to "climate change" to describe whats going on. It may be that areas of the world get colder, but on average, the entire earth will be warmer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAkKHet16Sc&feature=related

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by sauerkraut

Let's focus on the facts about global warming not political agendas. Scientists do not agree with Al Gore.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfHW7KR33IQ&feature=related

Who gives a crap about Al Gore? Most people have loooong forgotten about the guy. And whats your continued fascination with him anyway lol? I didnt believe a lot of what the guy had said, and it doesnt change my views on global warming and whether its real or not, nor should it change anyones, one way or the other.

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by sauerkraut

If global warming makes it colder why is it called "global warming" instead of "global cooling"? back in the 1970's this same stuff was going but they called it global cooling switch the words in todays talk and it's the same stuff from the  1970's recycled.

We have been over this before. Course your hoping that everyone else has forgotten.

Back in the 70s scientists were just starting to consider the impact that humans could be having on the global environment.

Remember smog? Remember seeing all those pics of California and the Grand canyon where you could barely see the sun lol? Low level ozone cools the earth. We cleaned up our act on smog and its not nearly as bad as it was in the US. Plus as they started to look into the matter further they noticed that cars and industry were putting out other stuff that you couldnt see... aka Greenhouse Gasses. They started calculating the impacts those would have and discovered that over time they would counter the smog. Plus Smog doesnt last as long in the atmosphere where as greenhouse gasses do. So at first glance it looked like the earth could cool, then they realized as they took more into consideration, that the over all impact would be warming. Since then scientists have learned more and more and more... and are getting more and more detailed. Some things cool a bit, some things warm, this counters that, this add to the other, etc. but the more they keep learning, the over all balance keeps leaning ever more assuredly towards the warming side of things.

One other thing about smog. China is producing a lot of it so is producing a lot of cooling effects. But they are also producing a lot of longer lasting, warming gasses as well. As they  become "cleaner" the cooling effects will lessen and the heating effects will increase. If they werent producing as much air pollution/smog as they are now, we would currently be seeing even more warming.

Yes the media hypes, distortes and misrepresents stuff all the time. They did it in the 70s too. They always seem to leave out the qualifying words which are very important because they can make the difference between what is being said meaning one thing or entirely another lol. Its frustrating to see because then Kooks like you point to their hype and distortions as proof that scientists are wrong. And indeed many scientists themselves are wrong or use inaccurate language to describe things. As they did in the 70s. But over all, science is self correcting and after a while concensus builds, information builds, things are challenged and corrected, and you get closer and closer agreement. In the beginning when science is just starting to ask a question, the various pieces of info can produce wild swings to the answers. Is the earth 50,000 years old, perhaps even as old as a million years, hundreds of millions, Billions?  At first the answers and debates swung wildly. Then the swings get less dramatic and concensus builds and settles on ever more precise answers. Now the general consensus is that it is Billions of years old and the entire universe is not just the solar system, or just the galaxy (as it was assumed even as recently as during Einsteins lifetime). As I have watched the climate change debate unfold over the last decades, I have seen more and more info being gathered, science learning more on so many fronts, and during the last several decades especially,,, the "swings" are so much smaller and settling out to the concensus that we are warming the global climate.  

As for, "the climate changes, always has and will". No duh. Its the amount of change and the rapidity of that change, currently being considered, that is important.

I know those answers seem to be a lot for some people to handle lol. But thank goodness there seems to be a good number of people who can grasp it lol.

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by sauerkraut

Let's focus on the facts about global warming not political agendas. Scientists do not agree with Al Gore.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfHW7KR33IQ&feature=related

The men you are talking about as "scientists" are two TV weatherman, one of which doesn't even have a degree in meteorology or any other related discipline. These are not scientists.

There really isn't a lot of debate in the scientific community about this. Just on conservative talk radio and in Jim Inhofe's head.

[Red Arrow]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

It seems fairly easy to line up experts, professional associations and government agencies on each side of this issue.

My experts are better than your experts. (Doesn't matter which side I/you support.) []

Now, how to adjust to that change is a different, arguable matter.

I saw on TV (Animal Planet, Discovery, or History, I forget which.) that Polar Bears evolved as a response to global cooling many years ago.  Before then, there were only brown/grizzly type bears.  That's about adjusting  to the change. Whether we can affect/stop the change is another topic. That depends on whether you believe the change is caused by mankind or not.


The reading I did about this subject gave me a couple of key words and phrases to look for when deciding if the user is conversation worthy. The first key is the term itself. The term Global Warming is misleading.

So far we have only been able to check spot areas and their history, not the entire globe. That can lead to cherry picking of data by either side.  I believe some recent satellites have been launched that will better be able to measure the true balance of energy transfer to and from the entire earth.  The results will be interesting either way.

Questioning each side is fine as long as you're willing to suffer the consequences of the defeat. If Global Warming proponents are wrong and we have invested in efforts to clean the air and water while adjusting lifestyles in response to perceived change, there seems to be little loss.

Clean air and water are a worthy goal indepent of Global Climate Change. As long as the environmental wackos are kept in check by the other side, I agree the overall effect will be beneficial. The cost may be another issue.  Ethanol from corn is a knee jerk reaction only feasible through government subsidies.  How much is this taking away from research for a real sustainable alternate fuel?

However, if the proponents were right and we invest little in those efforts, we may evaporate as a species or be very uncomfortable as we battle each other to survive.

It may be that we are unable to control the change. Period.  It might be better that some money is spent figuring out how to adapt to the change rather than a futile effort to control the change.

Hmmm. I'll risk it all on Door #1.

I think I'll invest in Door #1 but not bet the entire farm on it.