Anybody who denies global warming is a fool with their heads stuck in the ground.
You want to debate whether man has anything to do with current global warming? You'll probably lose that debate - the timing too closely follows our extensive use of coal & oil.
You want to debate whether we can effectively and/or efficiently do anything about it now, or if any of the proposed schemes to slow down out impact will work? Now THAT is a damn good debate....and I'd really like to find out what the correct answer will be.
The Polar Vortex we have been hearing about this Winter is the direct result of the warming of the Artic Regions and the loss of ice cover. This is forcing the cold polar air South into the lower 48. A couple of times lower Alaska has been warmer that Northern Florida.
While I don't dispute the contributions man has made to global warming in this and the last half of the past century, one only has to question what was occurring to create the Ice Age we've all become familiar with, the extremes that left deserts, etc.. When we're told on news broadcasts that temps, blizzards, rains, and drought records shattered 100-year or more records, what was happening that long ago to trigger that type of weather history phenomena? Climate change, I believe, is cyclical. Period. Can humans add to the acceleration of such cyclical change? I have to believe that's a yes. Too bad we can't go back in time and ask those that experienced the significant weather that became the records we break today what was happening then?
Blood letting, lobotomies, the Sun revolving around the Earth were all "settled science" at points in history far longer than global warming has hung on. There are only so many times a narrative can change before it loses all it's credibility, I think we are there.
"blood letting"... show me the "science" that the proponents were basing their opinions on.
"the Sun revolving around the earth"... ditto - show me the "science" that those who taught this as the truth were basing their teachings on.
Ditto for lobotomies.... Your examples are samples of, at best, old wives tales with no actual support in fact than your mother (or barber, or priest) stated it as fact.
Global warming IS a fact. Hundreds if not thousands of temperature measurement devices over decades have shown that the earth is indeed warming up. Again - folks can debate the efficacy of proposed solutions, but the existence of the warming is not up for debate to those capable of reading and comprehension.
Tim, it's called history. Not revisionist history, just plain history. The global warming/global cooling/climate change/new ice age/etc. narrative has been bouncing around since the early 70's. Predictions come and go and when they pass without the sky falling, proponents simply move the goal posts. It's garbage science that actually reverses the order of scientific theory, start with a conclusion then force feed, alter, ignore, change, or just plain make-up data to support the conclusion. If 40 something and older intellectuals actually went back and reread their 8th grade science text books, they would be embarrassed that they have fallen for this schtick. I agree with Linda that we are not doing our planet any favors with the amount of pollutants we spew and resources we waste, but I do take issue with the religious cult of Anthropogenic Climate Change pushing "settled science" when it is anything but. I can read and comprehend and what I read is that we are currently in a 15 year stagnant temperature cycle with many models actually showing a cooling trend along with a 50% increase in Arctic ice cap over the last 2 years.
I wonder who among those commenting read the NYT piece.
One of the interesting facts is that the earth's temperature hasn't risen in 15 years.
Most global warming models, according to the article, say California should get wetter, not dryer.
The question of the poll isn't whether you believe in climate change or global warming, it's weather recent events are a product of global warming.
Because here's the thing: A single event isn't a trend. As any statistician will tell you, sample size is important. One year's weather is too small of a sample size to say anything about weather trends in a world that's billions of years old. Ten years, 15 years, even 100 years of weather is too small of a sample size. It will be hundreds of years, if not a thousand, before an honest scientist can say with certainty whether there has been warming, and then its doubtful the question of whether the warming was man-made -- or the result of sunspots or other solar-system events -- is the cause.
But again, the question isn't about whether global warming is real. It's about trying to read the tea leaves of this year's weather as some sort of scientific evidence.
I know Howard started it, but please don't link to anything by Charles Krauthhammer and expect to be take seriously.... He lies worse than Karl "Turdblossom" Rove. He'll - Nixon was more truthful than CK.
Global Warming has been occuring since the last ice age.I dont believe we have reached a top temp plateau yet. It'll keep rising til the next ice age begins. If you look at the data going back to the last ice age you'll see this. Stop trying to predict the future with the past's data.
The very thought that man can change the outcome of the entire environment of the earth either for good or bad, is a testament to the arrogance of Mankind in general.
I actually read Krauthammers piece prior to the poll. He is one of a few whose positions are devoid of childish name calling and always backed with sound research. Slams against Krauthammer are nothing but veiled disablism.
Are you referring to the articles written by Krauthammer when he lied that he was a democrat or now that he is a republican? I guess it's kinda like "if you have a Dr. you can keep your Dr." or that the "IRS never targeted conservative organizations" or maybe Bengazi was all based on a video. You choose. Glass houses.
It always makes me chuckle when you progressive types do not agree with or like what someone on the other side politically says, or when a public figure disagrees with your semi utopian beliefs, you all seem to immediately resort to name calling, accusations of lying or proclamations of intellectual superiority by those who you may agree with just sort of spew out like a fountain.
My position remains the same, whether we are experiencing any warming beyond year to year spikes is irrelevant, to believe that Mankind is the sole cause or can do anything in effect to change the coarse of any weather pattern over decades is simply a demonstration of our own arrogance
Anybody who denies global
Anybody who denies global warming is a fool with their heads stuck in the ground.
You want to debate whether man has anything to do with current global warming? You'll probably lose that debate - the timing too closely follows our extensive use of coal & oil.
You want to debate whether we can effectively and/or efficiently do anything about it now, or if any of the proposed schemes to slow down out impact will work? Now THAT is a damn good debate....and I'd really like to find out what the correct answer will be.
The Polar Vortex we have been
The Polar Vortex we have been hearing about this Winter is the direct result of the warming of the Artic Regions and the loss of ice cover. This is forcing the cold polar air South into the lower 48. A couple of times lower Alaska has been warmer that Northern Florida.
While I don't dispute the
While I don't dispute the contributions man has made to global warming in this and the last half of the past century, one only has to question what was occurring to create the Ice Age we've all become familiar with, the extremes that left deserts, etc.. When we're told on news broadcasts that temps, blizzards, rains, and drought records shattered 100-year or more records, what was happening that long ago to trigger that type of weather history phenomena? Climate change, I believe, is cyclical. Period. Can humans add to the acceleration of such cyclical change? I have to believe that's a yes. Too bad we can't go back in time and ask those that experienced the significant weather that became the records we break today what was happening then?
Blood letting, lobotomies,
Blood letting, lobotomies, the Sun revolving around the Earth were all "settled science" at points in history far longer than global warming has hung on. There are only so many times a narrative can change before it loses all it's credibility, I think we are there.
"blood letting"... show me
"blood letting"... show me the "science" that the proponents were basing their opinions on.
"the Sun revolving around the earth"... ditto - show me the "science" that those who taught this as the truth were basing their teachings on.
Ditto for lobotomies.... Your examples are samples of, at best, old wives tales with no actual support in fact than your mother (or barber, or priest) stated it as fact.
Global warming IS a fact. Hundreds if not thousands of temperature measurement devices over decades have shown that the earth is indeed warming up. Again - folks can debate the efficacy of proposed solutions, but the existence of the warming is not up for debate to those capable of reading and comprehension.
http://www.humanevents.com/20
http://www.humanevents.com/2012/07/30/the-debunking-of-global-warming-c…
This is why I don't buy into "the science is settled". The science has been corrupted to benefit a political/quasi-religious cause.
http://www.currentargus.com/c
http://www.currentargus.com/carlsbad-opinion/ci_25198573/charles-krauth…
http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_article/Review_Article_HTML.php
Check out
Check out www.policymic.com/articles/82933/last-month-was-one-of-the-warmest-janu…
Tim, it's called history.
Tim, it's called history. Not revisionist history, just plain history. The global warming/global cooling/climate change/new ice age/etc. narrative has been bouncing around since the early 70's. Predictions come and go and when they pass without the sky falling, proponents simply move the goal posts. It's garbage science that actually reverses the order of scientific theory, start with a conclusion then force feed, alter, ignore, change, or just plain make-up data to support the conclusion. If 40 something and older intellectuals actually went back and reread their 8th grade science text books, they would be embarrassed that they have fallen for this schtick. I agree with Linda that we are not doing our planet any favors with the amount of pollutants we spew and resources we waste, but I do take issue with the religious cult of Anthropogenic Climate Change pushing "settled science" when it is anything but. I can read and comprehend and what I read is that we are currently in a 15 year stagnant temperature cycle with many models actually showing a cooling trend along with a 50% increase in Arctic ice cap over the last 2 years.
I wonder who among those
I wonder who among those commenting read the NYT piece.
One of the interesting facts is that the earth's temperature hasn't risen in 15 years.
Most global warming models, according to the article, say California should get wetter, not dryer.
The question of the poll isn't whether you believe in climate change or global warming, it's weather recent events are a product of global warming.
Because here's the thing: A single event isn't a trend. As any statistician will tell you, sample size is important. One year's weather is too small of a sample size to say anything about weather trends in a world that's billions of years old. Ten years, 15 years, even 100 years of weather is too small of a sample size. It will be hundreds of years, if not a thousand, before an honest scientist can say with certainty whether there has been warming, and then its doubtful the question of whether the warming was man-made -- or the result of sunspots or other solar-system events -- is the cause.
But again, the question isn't about whether global warming is real. It's about trying to read the tea leaves of this year's weather as some sort of scientific evidence.
I know Howard started it, but
I know Howard started it, but please don't link to anything by Charles Krauthhammer and expect to be take seriously.... He lies worse than Karl "Turdblossom" Rove. He'll - Nixon was more truthful than CK.
Global Warming has been
Global Warming has been occuring since the last ice age.I dont believe we have reached a top temp plateau yet. It'll keep rising til the next ice age begins. If you look at the data going back to the last ice age you'll see this. Stop trying to predict the future with the past's data.
The very thought that man can
The very thought that man can change the outcome of the entire environment of the earth either for good or bad, is a testament to the arrogance of Mankind in general.
I actually read Krauthammers
I actually read Krauthammers piece prior to the poll. He is one of a few whose positions are devoid of childish name calling and always backed with sound research. Slams against Krauthammer are nothing but veiled disablism.
Are you referring to the
Are you referring to the articles written by Krauthammer when he lied that he was a democrat or now that he is a republican? I guess it's kinda like "if you have a Dr. you can keep your Dr." or that the "IRS never targeted conservative organizations" or maybe Bengazi was all based on a video. You choose. Glass houses.
Jack, the petition project
Jack, the petition project link you posted was a fascinating read. Thanks for putting it up.
It always makes me chuckle
It always makes me chuckle when you progressive types do not agree with or like what someone on the other side politically says, or when a public figure disagrees with your semi utopian beliefs, you all seem to immediately resort to name calling, accusations of lying or proclamations of intellectual superiority by those who you may agree with just sort of spew out like a fountain.
"Global warming IS a
"Global warming IS a fact."
Tim, facts are irrefutable. Theories are statements declared yet not proved.
IF global warming / climate change / Al Gorism / is true, it will be shown in the future. Your claim of it being a fact is wrong.
"In the year 2525"
:)
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thet
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/02/21/280767153/forget-the-loc…
My position remains the same,
My position remains the same, whether we are experiencing any warming beyond year to year spikes is irrelevant, to believe that Mankind is the sole cause or can do anything in effect to change the coarse of any weather pattern over decades is simply a demonstration of our own arrogance
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/sci
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-26023166
Krauthammer.
Krauthammer. Lies.
http://www.salon.com/2014/02/25/debunking_charles_krauthammers_climate_…
4 days to find a liberal
4 days to find a liberal website that accuses Krauthammer of lying
Circular arguments hardly
Circular arguments hardly qualify as debunking.
Just follow the money
Just follow the money
Refreshing admission on the
Refreshing admission on the ends justifying the means.
http://ajae.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2014/02/24/ajae.aau001.abs…
http://crooksandliars.com/201
http://crooksandliars.com/2014/03/climate-change-abrupt-unpredictable
The headline: "Climate
The headline: "Climate Change: ‘Abrupt,’ ‘Unpredictable,’ ‘Irreversible’ And ‘Highly Damaging’"
Kind of sounds like weather.
Tim, you are 4 for 4 on using
Tim, you are 4 for 4 on using sources that are known to be in the tank for the issue you are debating. It undercuts the credibility of the argument.
Very worthwhile watch on
Very worthwhile watch on Climate Change
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7P5RW0Tmp-U