Couldn't 'rare' weather patterns be a sign of some sort of climate change? I would imagine that it's still worth noticing that I've seen more snow in my life in the last five or six years than I have in the previous decades of living in this part of Texas. I don't know either way; just an honest question.
Funny how someone thinks that the weather in one place somehow speaks for the planet. Today I wore shorts and sandals, where two years ago I was bundled in boots in a leather coat. The Mediterranean is definitely getting warmer. I don't mind the mild winters but summers are a killer. And as I recall, snow in my native Corpus Christi wasn't something anyone could expect to happen twice in a century, much less a decade. Anecdotal as it may be, I think I've seen plenty of climate change in my short lifetime.
google is your friend. Sorry, but this bbs opinion is not a good measure for anything. Hurricanes and global warming Heatwaves and global warming There is your proof. Pages and pages of articles contributing hurricanes and heat waves to global warming. There are many factors that can lead to global warming, from nature to man made. Its pretty foolish to take a short trend of temperature and call it science.
To me, erratic weather patterns are much more significant than trends of heating or cooling. Personally, I think scientist manipulating the weather would be more of a cause than pollution.
Proof of something that no one was wondering about. We're speaking about this in relation to the BBS. In case you don't remember.
Right now at about 9:30AM Central time the outside air temperature is 34 degrees in Minneapolis. The average for Christmas is about 10 degrees colder. Looking out my window right now there is a mixture of snow and rain. Merry Christmas to you as I get ready to go out and shovel this sloppy mess....
There are certainly AGW "alarmists" out there who will say "global warming" to any weather related phenomenon. Sometimes jokingly, sometimes more seriously. I guess what you are saying is you are the counter to that. You are a Anti-AGW alarmist - simply playing the role of the other side. For every cold day, you will sound the alarm that the alarmists are wrong. Great. As for me, I look at the data over the last 50 years and the success at which models have predicted certain effects. I also am a realist in wondering what can we achieve that won't hurt the global economy, and also what can be accomplished on a global political level - i mean, what has the world agreed to? I don't think it pays to be an alarmist either way mojoman. What we do need is to look at the data without bias either way. And that data supports AGW. It's great to poke holes in it, and that's a responisble thing to do - but geez, the holes you poke actually hurt your side of the argument because there are so off and based on such erroneous facts or interpretation of the facts that you actually are helping to persuade people that AGW is more serious of a threat than it might actually be. In other words, you're unwittingly making the other side look better. I suggest that you drop the "anti-AGW alarmist" lingo and actually do some real homework outside of ultra-conservative websites.
I worked pretty hard to write this paper. - Dr. Thompson http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=9d4b7d81149b5f6e2cbc76b2db5a545f
Ok...I'll play. 68 days over 100 degrees in Austin this summer (1 day short of the record) and a drought that has lasted for nearly 3 years. vs. 1 snow storm
The Rockets hit a totally sweet jumper off a nice swing pass in the 3rd quarter against the Magic. I didn't need to watch the first half or the fourth quarter, since it was clear that they would win the game. ... What's that you say?
Yes. you've hit the nail on the head. Rather than look at data and science, mojoman would just prefer to be an alarmist against AGW. Science be damned, if there is a rare snow storm in Texas it only makes sense to wonder if AGW could be totally false, even though the thought isn't scientific in the slightest and has no relation to global warming.
Homer: Well, there's not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol is sure doing its job. Lisa: That's specious reasoning, Dad. Homer: Thank you, sweetie. Lisa: Dad, what if I were to tell you that this rock keeps away tigers. Homer: Uh-huh, and how does it work? Lisa: It doesn't work. It's just a stupid rock. Homer: I see. Lisa: But you don't see any tigers around, do you? Homer: Lisa, I'd like to buy your rock.
Because it's is not about perspective - it's about unregulated carbon emissions being linked to climate change. It's interesting how after someone watches a day of Fox News Channel they become an expert in climatology. Makes you wonder if Fox News has an agenda...
ZOMG!!! It is snowing in the winter! That couldn't possibly happen if we were experiencing global warming.
That is an excellent illustration of the argument made by the AGW alarmists. Thank you for sharing it. No doubt Homer would believe that too.
it is also an excellent illustration of the argument you made in your initial post. you realize that you are just as ridiculous as those you are trying to mock w/ this thread, right? for all jorge's faults, he was a much more entertaining poster than you are 'mojoman'.
