| Michael Goore |
| ||
|
This is about as clear a summary as I've seen on the topic: http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2012/05/daily-chart-1 |
| truth hurts when you're wrong |
| ||
|
Ok, first off, the temperature was 20 degrees under normal here two days ago. How does the chart explain that? IT DOESN'T. Anyone can make up a chart and say, LOOK! GLOBAL WARMING! Uh Oh! Better penalize those mean, ol' nasty greedy corporations. All they want to do is destroy the environment and steal from the poor. Second thing. Who funded this study??? I'll give you one guess as to whose political party they donate to. Serisouly, you might as well label that chart Money Donated Against Corporations vs. Ignorance vs. Liberal voters. Finally, please, PLEASE show me any significant unbiased data that proves anything. I'm open-minded, and I'm waiting. |
| Magic 8 Ball |
| ||
|
Thank God someone has shown that for the last 52 years there has been a warming trend. The Earth is approximately 4.5 Billion years old. Calling 52 years a "pimple on a gnat's ass" is actually kind of generous. But you're right we should do something about it. We, as in Americans. As in 1/20th of the world's population. Yeah, we can make a difference. But hey, I drive a hyrid, recycle religiously, and use CFLs in my house. I'm doing my share because it's the right thing to do, not because some crappy chart showing a blip in time is a convincing argument. I don't deny the climate is changing; I just don't necessarily believe the science has shown that man-made greenhouse gases are to blame. |
| fgfg |
| ||
|
Like the guy who save the world from MBP has no friend I'm sure. |
| XC Skater |
| ||
|
Fact - we are not currently in an ice age. That bring 2 options: A- We're coming into the next one B- We're still leaving the last one Since we can't really tell, and temp measurementment have been more fraud than science, we might as well be rightt in the middle. Oh no! Glaciers are melting. Not all of them are. And they've done so every time between the other dozens of ice ages. In the 70's the powers that be were seriously preparing to push the global gcooling agenda. They're tax us for wasting oil, basically, and taking a dump. They decided on global warming though, and blamed CO2. CO2 didn't come to court, and was prosecuted. Impossible to claim or deny that this inert gas is the reason for all trouble. Wildlife did pretty well when CO2 levels were higher before (yes, they were). Trees did better. And man was still in (please cover up) deerhides, not exactly industrializing. So who to blame for the high CO2 levels? Dino farts? But wait, CO2 was good then, right? Look how rich Al Gore is getting fro his little carbon trade scheme. And how its designed is for poor countries to slide off the scale even more. Are we now officially trusting anything coming out off the UN and people in suits? Oh, Greenpeace is just a name, it's not what it was. It's just the UN's propaganda outlet now. I almost volunteered for them, and luckily got a new job. Then I started reading, and was not pleased with what I found. Our grandchildren wil read about this age. Where banks ruled the world, the rich got richer, the poor poorer. Creating fuel for trees to grow was taxed, because of environment. Running a car on HHO was illegal, because of safety. No way you place a windmill on that roof Sir! It's a very, very dark age we live in. I only wonder how it will be called. One powerful world. Like renaissance was, and holocaust. Maybe it'll be Secret War. Or Silent Enslavement. Runners play their part in the info war. They act dumb and litterally run their heels into the ground. I used to be one off those. Running like the shoe salesmen told you to run. Think like your teacher taught you to. Vote like you were told to. Consume, endebt, pollute all you want (but pay for your inert CO2 please). Dark, so dark... Spot the light with me, I see a sparkle on the horizon, ever so faint bbut it's there! |
| Blowme |
| ||
|
It's a natural warming trend, so what? I actually like the fact that it's warmer. Of course it'll still be a thousand years or more for it to warm to my liking but that's just me. If you're so worried about what might happen to people thousands of year from now then you should consider the fact the a major asteroid strike is far more likely to have a devistating effect on earth that a few degrees of warming. But please, continue. Piss and moan if you feel the desire to do so. After all, you seem to have nothing better to occupy your time with. |
| ajdsad |
| ||
Do you feel better now? |
| even when its not truth |
| ||
|
open minded? you've just derided someone's research on the basis of where you presume the funding to have come from. Would a republican funded study produce unbiased results? No... they are in the pocket of the oil companies. The article says the data set was started in 1959. Do you think some liberal was thinking back then, "hey I hate oil & coal companies so I 'm going to fund a research project to show that atomospheric and oceanic C02 levels are going up over the next 50 years and it will have a devastating effect on global climate" ?? Do you seriously think you can burn all the fossil fuels over a few hundred years and not completely f%$k up the world in some way or another?? Get a grip. At least for your children's sake. |
| asdfe |
| ||
What? |
| Blowme |
| ||
Do you drive a car? |
| No Way |
| ||
Still don't get the whole climate vs weather thing eh? There's a slow one in every group |
| No Way |
| ||
|
We're 1/20th of the population, but 1/5 of greenhouse gas emissions...Yeah I think we can make a difference.
|
| Blowme |
| ||
Do you drive a car? |
| Precious Roy |
| ||
Come to Texas and see what "warmer" looks like. Millions of acres burned in wildfires (which are starting up again in West Texas), millions of trees killed by an epic drought and heat wave last year, billions of dollars lost due to damage to farming due to the drought and heat wave (a generation of new cattle lost due to no breeding over last summer). Effects are real and here and now. A repeat of the 2011 drought and heat wave would radically alter agriculture in Texas as well as the landscape. Or if you do not like Texas, go to India where over 200,000 farmers have committed suicide over the past few years because the regular monsoon rains have been disappearing as ocean temps warm, leaving farm lands in ruin without any crops. |
| oldXChasbeen |
| ||
Yes, I seriously think we can. |
| No Way |
| ||
|
It has already had that effect in Russia. It wiped out the grain harvest, causing global prices to double in a single season. They won't return to normal any time soon. If a similar heat wave had been centered around Chicago, we wouldn't be able to feed ourselves. People think a few degrees warmer would be good for everyone, but it really isn't. Just like proteins in your body stop working over 98.6 degrees, photosynthesis in plants stops. You know the "hairs" on an ear of corn? Each one of those is connected to a single kernel. Each one has to be pollinated in order for that kernel to develop. At around 95 deg F those "hairs" become dessicated and the pollen is no longer viable. It doesn't kill the plant so a few days here and there aren't a bid deal, but a heat wave of 95+ deg days in a row will destroy a corn yield. Wheat yield is cut in half when temperatures exceed 94 deg F. Rice is more heat resistant and grows well up to 96 deg, but is mostly grown in coastal regions where rising seas can destroy the yield. These are our three biggest crops. No one is going to die of global warming obviously, but they will die of starvation.
Come to Texas and see what "warmer" looks like. Millions of acres burned in wildfires (which are starting up again in West Texas), millions of trees killed by an epic drought and heat wave last year, billions of dollars lost due to damage to farming due to the drought and heat wave (a generation of new cattle lost due to no breeding over last summer). Effects are real and here and now. A repeat of the 2011 drought and heat wave would radically alter agriculture in Texas as well as the landscape. Or if you do not like Texas, go to India where over 200,000 farmers have committed suicide over the past few years because the regular monsoon rains have been disappearing as ocean temps warm, leaving farm lands in ruin without any crops.[/quote] |
| Stupidity Alert |
| ||
Do you drive a car?[/quote] And that is relevant how, exactly? I guess it is useful to know where you are coming from. You have personal issues that have you seeing any call for us to do something differently as some sort of personal attach. Therefore, you become defensive about it and make up bizarre reasons for believing that hypotheses that the scientific community believes are very unlikely must be more likely than those that the scientific community believes to be more probable. Then, you try to discount folks by throwing out completely irrelevant nonsense like "Do you drive a car?" Please try to get a grip. It is not a personal attack on you. And the scientific community is not largely a vast conspiracy trying to control you (or tell you that you are a bad person). |
| No Way |
| ||
Do you drive a car?[/quote] I know what your point is, so yes, I own a car, I'm a part of the problem. All of my points are invalid and because I own a car I can do nothing to help the environment. It doesn't matter that I get 36mpg, drive it about twice a week because I live a quarter mile from where I work, that I make a large effort to reduce my consumption in other aspects of my life, or any of the other things I try to do to make a difference. Feel better now? All of your opinions are justified. |
| Wow you're right |
| ||
Yup, published by that well known lefty journal, The Economist - that bastion of commie, tree hugging, anti-capitalist tools! |
| rjru |
| ||
|
My rhetoric prof once defined a useful argument as one in which all the parties involved could say, sincerely, "But I could be wrong." Climate-change discussions, at least on this board, rarely seem to fulfill that criterion. By failing to do so, they fall into the religious-argument category: "I *cannot* be wrong and, because you disagree with me, you are not simply in error but ignorant, an idiot, or evil--most likely all three." |