Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?

[guido911]

Stop swimming until next summer....

Well said.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Well said.

Or better yet - and what I plan to do - is build a nice little covered room over the pool.... I have stayed in a hotel somewhere up north - can't remember where - that had this, with a water surface wall that led to outside part of the pool.  4 season use.  And the glass room was amazing to swim in when there was a snowstorm going on!!  It probably deserves a place in a top ten list of most excessive, decadent experiences that one can enjoy! 

[guido911]

How bad has global warming gotten? This bad:

Severe cold throughout the state is having an impact, starting with a Duluth area ski resort closing Sunday because of "extremely low temperatures and intense windchill factors."

http://www.startribune.com/local/287449321.html

[ZYX]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/2014-officially-hottest-year-on-record/

[guido911]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/2014-officially-hottest-year-on-record/

Well Minnesota certainly did not get that memo.   I guess if it is a thousand degrees on one continent for a summer the whole globe is warming...

[Townsend]

Well Minnesota certainly did not get that memo.   I guess if it is a thousand degrees on one continent for a summer the whole globe is warming...

Got anything to support how the temperature of Minnesota brought down the global temps or are you just tossing cow patties in the air?

[cannon_fodder]

Well Minnesota certainly did not get that memo.   I guess if it is a thousand degrees on one continent for a summer the whole globe is warming...

I ate a full breakfast and full lunch today. Therefore starvation is fictional.   *   *   *   *    I was cold today, therefore Global Warming isn't real.
I really can't believe this thread, let alone this entire debate is still going on.

97+% of scientists and a corresponding proportion of peer reviewed journals agree on global warming. The consensus of scientists agreeing it is either man-made or heavily contributed to by man is nearly as large. There is a greater consensus on climate change than there is on the theory of gravity (which remains un-unified) or on the tobacco-cancer link. Global warming is a scientific fact.

You can say you don't like that. You can argue that you think there is nothing we can do about it, so why try. But arguing against the fact that the earth is warming is simply wrong. Arguing that man did not heavily contribute to is contrary to  (if not outright cause) our vast body of science. It is believing in a conspiracy of academia and science against industry. Of thousands of labs, universities, and institutions all conspiring against massive corporations. Even the US Defense department acknowledges climate change as a strategic threat and has plans to deal with it.

Like all science, it is subject to revision upon the discovery of better data. That's what science is. But I'm not about to jump off of a bridge because the "theory of gravity" is subject to revision (maybe I WONT accelerate on 9.8m/s^2 this time!).

I can't argue GMOs are safe because science says so, that evolution and germ theory should continue to be utilized to progress medicine, or that vaccines don't cause autism because science says so... and then choose to disregard the science that doesn't agree with what I want it to say. That's why science is so great. Your opinion doesn't matter.

[RecycleMichael]

According to a Gallup Poll from a few years back, 18% of Americans thought the Sun revolves around the Earth.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/3742/New-Poll-Gauges-Americans-General-Knowledge-Levels.aspx

3% of scientists don't believe in global climate change? I am surprised it is that low. Especially when there is money to be made in denial.

Remember, one out of five dentists recommend sugared gum to the patients who chew gum.

[heironymouspasparagus]

According to a Gallup Poll from a few years back, 18% of Americans thought the Sun revolves around the Earth.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/3742/New-Poll-Gauges-Americans-General-Knowledge-Levels.aspx

3% of scientists don't believe in global climate change? I am surprised it is that low. Especially when there is money to be made in denial.

Remember, one out of five dentists recommend sugared gum to the patients who chew gum.

Mmmm....gum!!


Polls aren't surprising at all....look at the clown show we elect here in Okrahoma - over 50% !!

[Red Arrow]

Remember, one out of five dentists recommend sugared gum to the patients who chew gum.

I believe that is a false assumption based on 4 out of 5 dentists recommending sugarless gum to patients who chew gum.  You are assuming that the remaining 20% will not recommend something else like not chewing gum at all.

[Red Arrow]

Global warming is a scientific fact.

Like all science, it is subject to revision upon the discovery of better data. That's what science is.

You seem to be a bit inconsistent here.

But I'm not about to jump off of a bridge because the "theory of gravity" is subject to revision (maybe I WONT accelerate on 9.8m/s^2 this time!).

Go jump off a really high mountain.  You will accelerate just a bit less than 9.8 m/s^2 (32.17 ft/s^2 for us old-timers). Gravity is not constant, just nearly so where we inhabit the earth.

[Red Arrow]

Well Minnesota certainly did not get that memo.   I guess if it is a thousand degrees on one continent for a summer the whole globe is warming...

Localized cold does not get entered into the statistics.  Only the warm localized temperatures get entered into the statistics.  You should know that by now.

[cannon_fodder]

You seem to be a bit inconsistent here.

No sir. I'm merely trying to use precise language. Under the scientific method, even "facts" are subject to revision upon new information.  A fact is, most basically, a scientific theory that has been so well research and such a degree of agreement has been reached, we feel confident that it is true. BUT, it was a "fact" for many years that energy could not escape black holes... which it turns out was not true (not by coincidence, today is Dr. Hawking's birthday).

From the "National Academy of Sciences":

In science, a "fact" typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions.

[Red Arrow]

I ate a full breakfast and full lunch today. Therefore starvation is fictional.   *   *   *   *    I was cold today, therefore Global Warming isn't real.
I really can't believe this thread, let alone this entire debate is still going on.

I say keep it going.  You never know what new evidence will show up.  Resting on "facts" in the specific definition you presented is not acceptable.   I remember when the now accepted primary cause of stomach ulcers was treated as heresy.  There was talk of taking away the doctor's license, as I remember it.

A bacterium called H. pylori—not spicy cuisine or stress—is most often the cause of stomach ulcers.

http://www.livescience.com/34799-stomach-peptic-gastric-ulcers.html

[Gaspar]

I say keep it going.  You never know what new evidence will show up.  Resting on "facts" in the specific definition you presented is not acceptable.   I remember when the now accepted primary cause of stomach ulcers was treated as heresy.  There was talk of taking away the doctor's license, as I remember it.
http://www.livescience.com/34799-stomach-peptic-gastric-ulcers.html

Funny you would mention that.  Many docs back in the day, my dad included, started treating ulcer patients with erythromycin because it worked.  The hospitals and insurance companies would have nothing to do with it, so docs would simply add a secondary diagnosis for minor prophylactic treatment of _____ infection if the patient wanted insurance to cover it, or the hospital/nursing home to accept it.  This was in the early 80s when docs knew ulcers and even mouth cankers were bacteria related.  This happens more than you think in medicine, where the practitioners are in disagreement with the academics.  Okay, it happens in every profession. 

In medicine, we see the same today with statin drugs.  Most physicians are now aware that LDL cholesterol levels are a result of vascular inflammation rather than a cause of cardiovascular disease.  After over 20 years of prescribing statins, there is no evidence that higher LDL cholesterol levels lead to heart attack or stroke. The folks that have been taking statins all that time exhibit the same incidence of cardiovascular disease and death, except they are more likely to develop dementia because they have been blocking their body's ability to produce cholesterol in the brain where it acts as the primary antioxidant.

Starting in the 70s and 80s this started having a major effect on what we eat.  We were taught that high cholesterol and saturated fat foods lead to high blood cholesterol levels, and that a fatty diet caused obesity. Again, there was and is no correlation.  Most of the cholesterol in your body is produced by your liver in response to inflammation.  Prick your finger and you develop a scab.  Inflame your blood vessels and you generate more cholesterol.  When you eat fat, your body does not just slap it onto your hips.  Fat from a cow, chicken, or aardvark are not the same as human fat.  Your body has to break all of that fat down, then convert it into sugar, then your cells convert it into human fat.  Basically it takes much more work to turn bacon into love handles than sugar or starch.  Also, eating a slab of bacon does almost nothing to insulin production, so if you want to gain weight, you would need to add a few twinkles to the mix to produce the insulin necessary to make your body store it.

Many docs have known this for quite a while, Atkins was just the first to break the silence about it, even though he really didn't completely understand all of the mechanisms himself.   Now with a growing folio of research even academics are beginning to understand that spikes in blood sugar (and therefore insulin) caused by high carbohydrate diets, and refined sugars, cause immediate and lasting inflammation in the vascular system, and that inflammation is what contributes to heart disease, and a whole host of other ailments including many cancers.  The increase in insulin production from our high carbohydrate diets is what has made us a nation of blimps, not our Spam intake.

Personally I lost 39lbs this last year, basically eating a simi-PALEO diet.  I probably eat twice as much as I did before.  I really don't keep track any more. I like meat and eggs and butter and cheese and vegetables, and nuts and just eat with abandon. My cholesterol (which was always borderline high) is now in the mid to low range, and about 6 months ago I got my old cardiologist dad doing the same thing. He's about 20lbs down and in better shape than ever. 

That ribeye steak will do you no harm, it's that donut that's going to kill you!
Give this a peek.  If you've got Amazon Prime, it's free:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Perfect-Human-Diet/dp/B00AX4QEAS/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1357502705&sr=8-2&keywords=the+perfect+human+diet