Hate to say I told you so or gloat, but it's just like I've been saying for at least 3 years now.
Check this out:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm

Stupid Politics


I hate them.

quote:

Originally posted by mortoma:
Hate to say I told you so or gloat, but it's just like I've been saying for at least 3 years now.
Check this out:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm

The realities of climate change are far more complex than the cartoon version of 'global warming' in the media.
However you are still a long way from right.

Of course it fluctuates but you have to look at the trend - the overall increase or decrease in the direction as plotted on a graph.
No one said that it wasn't a very complex system(the world's weather)
The temperatures in southern Australia were the highest on record last summer (40 to 45 degree C)for over a week and look to be possibly the same this year with associated extreme bushfire problems.
Haven't the fires in California and other
places in North America been extreme also?

The op's tone mimics what folks might have been saying while Noah built the ark.....

quote:

Originally posted by Crazy_Goanna:
Of course it fluctuates but you have to look at the trend - the overall increase or decrease in the direction as plotted on a graph.
No one said that it wasn't a very complex system(the world's weather)
The temperatures in southern Australia were the highest on record last summer (40 to 45 degree C)for over a week and look to be possibly the same this year with associated extreme bushfire problems.
Haven't the fires in California and other
places in North America been extreme also?

The fires here in Cali have far more to do with people not allowing smaller fires to take their toll than anything that the climate can do. The underbrush in the forests keeps building up, and with no small fires to clean it out, eventually it just becomes a firestorm that runs out of control.

I understand that but with higher temperatures and increased forest floor fuel loads drying out from high temperatures fires are always going to be stronger and more destructive
BTW doesn't California have f1res every year?

yeah - whatever happened to it?

It was supposed to happen overnight - go to sleep in moderate weather and then wake up in 200 degree heat. WTF right? isn't that what the conservatives understanding of 'global warming' is??? same as a two year old?

My friend has property in the SO.Cal mountains - his house was surrounded by oak trees, 50' tall and quite healthy in 1975 when he bought the land....now they are dried up and dead where they stand.

Diminishing rainfall and drought has dried up many of the trees and caused the premature death of whole groves of trees - extended warm months have also lead to larger and longer insect swarming - bark beetles for instance - that has lead to even more dead vegetation and fire fuel.

global warming is a long term reference to a general increase in average mean temperatures over time along with (or causing) systemic changes to weather patterns - as we've seen with more flooding in what were areas less prone to it - and more drought in areas that used to be more verdant.

To understand the concept - you first have to believe that it is possible - then look with an open mind at the whole picture.

If you prefer to believe that it is a political trick - and you refuse to look objectively at the facts for yourself - then you can only <edit> spew idiocy.

it may take another 10-20 years - but after the full effects of these changes begin to really cause more obvious problems, no one will doubt it is real. By then it will be a 150 year old accumulation of toxic effluence generated by the industrialized people and quite difficult to reverse.

the earth is finite


Edit: Watch the profanity Heywood.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Tully__,

quote:

Originally posted by heywooood:
yeah - whatever happened to it?

It was supposed to happen overnight - go to sleep in moderate weather and then wake up in 200 degree heat. WTF right? isn't that what the conservatives understanding of 'global warming' is??? same as a two year old?

My friend has property in the SO.Cal mountains - his house was surrounded by oak trees, 50' tall and quite healthy in 1975 when he bought the land....now they are dried up and dead where they stand.

Diminishing rainfall and drought has dried up many of the trees and caused the premature death of whole groves of trees - extended warm months have also lead to larger and longer insect swarming - bark beetles for instance - that has lead to even more dead vegetation and fire fuel.

global warming is a long term reference to a general increase in average mean temperatures over time along with (or causing) systemic changes to weather patterns - as we've seen with more flooding in what were areas less prone to it - and more drought in areas that used to be more verdant.

To understand the concept - you first have to believe that it is possible - then look with an open mind at the whole picture.

If you prefer to believe that it is a political trick - and you refuse to look objectively at the facts for yourself - then you can only <edit> spew idiocy.

it may take another 10-20 years - but after the full effects of these changes begin to really cause more obvious problems, no one will doubt it is real. By then it will be a 150 year old accumulation of toxic effluence generated by the industrialized people and quite difficult to reverse.

the earth is finite

At one time where I live used to be a glacier, then it was a lake, now it is a desert. I thought the earth was cooling for the last ten years or so? I just am not convinced that man is the cause.

That said, I think it is good for us to be conservative in how we use our resources, and we should be finding healthier ways of living.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Tully__,

Every time I hear about Global Warming, I have to laugh.
For starters, there are scientists out there who think we can actually cause a global change in climate.
It wasn't long ago that they were saying it was the warmest summer in Europe in something like 500 years, which means 500 years ago it was warmer and humanity was certainly not doing anything that would have impacted the climate back then.
Next, all scientists will agree that there was an Ice Age. This being the case, then it is real easy to understand that the global climate changes over time, and we have nothing to do with it.
Wasn't it just back in the late 70's when scientists were warning of another Ice Age? Now look at what the scientists have gotten the world in a clamor over with this new warming stuff. Maybe we will have another Ice Age now

quote:

Originally posted by Choctaw111:
Every time I hear about Global Warming, I have to laugh.
For starters, there are scientists out there who think we can actually cause a global change in climate.
It wasn't long ago that they were saying it was the warmest summer in Europe in something like 500 years, which means 500 years ago it was warmer and humanity was certainly not doing anything that would have impacted the climate back then.
Next, all scientists will agree that there was an Ice Age. This being the case, then it is real easy to understand that the global climate changes over time, and we have nothing to do with it.
Wasn't it just back in the late 70's when scientists were warning of another Ice Age? Now look at what the scientists have gotten the world in a clamor over with this new warming stuff. Maybe we will have another Ice Age now

I think that the thing that must be remembered is that a lot of these 'experts' and 'media correspondants' sole qualification for writing about the issue is that they once read a book...

In order to really know anything about the subject is to ignore the media, and start actually learning and understanding geology/climate science.

I'm no expert in the climate change issue, I've read a bit of the literature and talked to a few of the scientists involved, including people like Willie Broeker. From all this it is clear that noone has the answer, (science rarely deals in absolutes anyway) and the only way we are going to learn anything is by continued questioning of either side of the issue.

That isn't to say that possible global warming COULD BE a threat, and perhaps precautions through directing technological change, and by making these options more feasable to the public, instead of the fear mongering everyone seems to indulge in.

In the 70's the chant was all about the great impending ice age. Ten years later that was all suddenly shunted aside and replaced by the great anthropogenic global warming crisis. In both cases, pervasive media hype far out-weighed any really persuasive science. Contrary evidence has been ignored or suppressed. Computer meteorological modelling has been demonstrated to be totally unreliable as a predictive tool. The latest blow has been the discovery that the fundamental research behind the great and famous global warming "hockey stick" graph was cooked.

If you want to understand why this man-caused global warming campaign has remained such a persistent presence in the public eye ..... follow the money. Dow Chemical alone has predicted that they will earn 4 to 6 billion dollars through cap and trade.

Everyone must understand that the threat of Global Warming and the measures to curtail it are going to require spending a lot of money, and these people who will receive the money currently have enough power to make everyone believe it.
There was no money to be made on an Ice Age. Not really.

THIS is the cause of Global Warming..


and this is the cause of the Ice Age...

I think one of the most revealing comments about this topic was Owls:

quote:

Stupid Politics

A debate about a scientific theory ought on the face of it not be about politics at all, but clearly it is. Personally I find the case for anthropogenic global warming fairly persuasive, but then I would, wouldn't I. But why is it that the left tends to accept the theory while the right tends to reject it? I could speculate, but my speculations would be shaped by my politics. How do those of you on the right explain this politicisation of a scientific debate? Perhaps if we can find an answer to this, we might be able to be a bit more objective about the whole issue.