Here we go with the personal attacks. If this is what passes for thoughtful commentary from you, then that raises some serious questions about your thinking, now doesn't it? If you have something that is actually thoughtful to add, your comments are welcome, at least by me. It does not matter if you agree or disagree with what I have said, as these kinds of topics would become awfully boring if everyone was in exact agreement, responding only with different versions of "yup" and "I concur". Is is disappointing to me that there are such a large number of posters in this forum who do not seem to appreciate that. The intolerance that many of you people show towards posters whose opinions differ from those you regard as politically correct does not speak well of you. This is the behavior of narrow, closed minded people. Is that who you people are? Come on, surely you all can do better than that. I welcome an open dialogue. We can agree or disagree, either way. But trying to restrict the conversation to only one perspective only makes us all smaller. What do you guys say? Are you up for it? Or is an open dialogue just too much of a threat to your preferred world view for you to tolerate?
Long term trending indicates you are incapable of intelligent thought, small perturbations notwithstanding. Now go away and struggle to comprehend the connection.
The ownage is duly noted. Space Ghost, at least try to bolster your silly "Clutch BBS liberal conspiracy" arguments before you post them as fact. I cannot recall, through pages upon pages of global warming ridiculousness in this forum, anyone ever citing a heat wave as evidence of global warming. What I have seen, undeniably, is a ****load of the opposite.
This is a problem when a scientific issue affects policy. There is a legitimate wide range of scientific debate regarding how much Global Warming there and as a theory there is always the possibility that the theory could be wrong. When we are talking about policy though then we have to decide with should we do something about it or not and that is where it gets boiled down.
the key issue isnt whether or not global warming exists, its the degree to which humans contribute to it...from what i have seen, humans account for about 10% - the rest is natural causes like the solar radiation. that doesnt mean we can keep going about like we have been and green technology is important, but i dont think it warrants all the new regulations and taxes and cap and trade (indulgences, anyone?). alot of it is hysteria and hype imo and there are alot of people who stand to become very rich by propagating it. and to me the bigger, more tangible, long-term issue that can effect on our daily lives like water polution and genetically modified foods are being put on the back-burner in favor of the whole 'global warming' thing. the earth is always warming and cooling - there was a period a few thousand years ago where all of the united states was covered in a sheet of ice a mile thick. but the tread starters proposal that global warming doesnt exist b/c west texas is getting snow is ridiculous. obviously, 'mojoman' created this thread as a 'strawman' or 'snowman', if you will, against those he thinks cry global warming everytime there is a heat wave...even though there is nobody on here actually making those claims.
I never suggested anything of the kind. In fact, I was quite explicit about this point. Here is the first sentence of the Original Post that I started this thread with: [RQUOTER]No individual event in this thread is intended to be conclusive on its own about global warming one way or another, so there is no need for anyone to have a cow.[/RQUOTER] If you would like me to share my remarks with you about global warming generally, please let me know and I will be happy to post those for you. Your characterization of my perspective on this issue is just plain wrong.
actually your full quote was this... this is a glenn beck/fox news tactic and its very trasnparent. "im not saying barack obama is a muslim, im just 'wondering' if he's one!" im sure you accidentally left that last part out though, right 'mojoman'! do you still think that snow in west texas is enough to make one 'wonder' about whether or not global warming exists?
Dear Mojoman: Just because you are obviously an idiot, as was pointed out previously, does not mean that everyone else on this forum is similarly mentally challenged. If you would like such an experience, might I direct you to the GARM?
I do believe global warming exists. I have spoken to this point repeatedly, as have a number of other posters on this board who largely share my views on this topic. But since you insist on wrongly and grossly mischaracterizing my intentions on this point, I am reposting my comments on this topic, yet again. Hopefully after this latest reposting, you will at least try to get it right from now on. As previously posted in an earlier thread: It is important to differentiate between "global warming" and "antropogenic global warming" (or AGW for short). Anthropogenic global warming is the man-made part. That is really the only part that is disputed, and rightfully so. As far as "global warming" goes, the Earth has been warming and the Arctic ice sheets have been melting since the last ice age. Here is a depiction of what the Earth may have looked like around 12,000 years ago: Clearly, the Earth was colder then, and it is warmer now. The observation that the Arctic ice cap is melting is an observation that goes back around 12,000 years. Nearly all of the melting that has occurred, occurred prior to the industrial age (which goes back less than 200 years). All of the melting that occurred prior to the beginning of the industrial age is obviously not a result of "anthropogenic global warming". And now, over the last 10+ years, the Earth has actually cooled a bit. We are not at all time highs even within our lifetimes. Here is an article from the BBC on the topic: What happened to global warming? If the effect of CO2 that has been and is being pumped into the atmosphere is as compelling and dangerous as the AGW alarmists suggest, then how is it possible that the Earth has actually cooled over the last decade? If you take the predictive climate models used by Al Gore and his associates at the United Nations seriously, then we are in a state of crisis, the situation is dire, the need for corrective action is urgent and their is no time for delay. But truth be told, none of these predictive climate models used by Al Gore and the UN predicted the cooling period that we are now entering. But here it is anyway. What are we to make of that? What these people have been preaching to us is not reliable science. It is agenda-driven propaganda. Once again, the Earth has certainly warmed. But the so-called science surrounding the claims of the AGW alarmists is weak and not sufficiently substantiated to warrant betting our economic futures on. There needs to be a lot more work done on this.
I think there is plenty of debate on what the figure is but 10% in a system as large as the climate is a huge amount. As far as solar radiation my understanding is that solar radiation has actually been decreasing due to another phenomenon called global dimming where particulates, man made and otherwise have been reducing the amount of solar radiation gets to the Earth. Also according to the information from solar activity has been declining the last few years. http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/ As I noted earlier this is where we get into problems regarding what sort of policies we use to address it. I don't think cap and trade is an ideal system but it does seem like a way to use market forces to address the problem and a similar cap and trade program worked very well for reducing sulfur emmissions. As far as people getting rich off of cap and trade and / or green technology what's wrong with that if results, lower emissions, are delivered? I agree those things should be addressed but there is nothing that says that only one environmental issue can be dealth with at a time. That's true but I don't think our economy would be doing well if the US was under a mile thick sheet of ice. Our civilization has developed under a fairly narrow climate range and even relatively minor changes in that could have disastrous affects. While we can probably never control that it doesn't make much sense to me to be tampering with it in essentially an uncontrolled way as we are doing by dumping tons of carbons and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. I agree and thank you for making a substantive argument.
I see this all the time from the global warming deniers. When they feel insulted by your argument, they just turn things around like this, even where it clearly doesn't work the other way around for a large gap in the logical symmetry. It is a little more subtle than a four year old on a playground, but it really does just come down to that old standby of elementary school, "I know you are but what am I?".
Welcome to four days ago ... and your typical ignoring the content of posts. Did you have a bad christmas or something? I hope things get better for you.
You said you believed that Earth has warmed up and you threw out that article? While it may be true that 1998 has one of the highest temps, that article intentionally mislead by omitting the trend data over a longer period. One example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
Ummm yeah, I guess I am "ignoring content" - if by "ignoring content" you mean "directly addressing/deconstructing the primary point of your post".
