Buffalo hits record high total snowfall for 1 day in month of October.

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Craig234
BlancoNino, I can't link it, but I've seen the head of the National Academy of Sciences say that global warming has a broader consensus among scientists globally, with stronger evidence, than any other issue he's seen in several decades.

Al Gore's movie cites the several hundred credible studies supporting it, with zero on the other side.

The hundreds of millions spent by the oil companies to attack the science are well-documented, for example, here's one expose:

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/05/some_like_it_hot.html

Your turn, to show the long list of credible climatoligists on the other side.

Craig, the problem with Gore is that he has been saying for 10 years that if we don't do something within ten years we will be suffering major consequences. Well it's been 10 years since he first said that and nothing much has changed.

To much of global warming has become scare tactic based. Environmentalists trying to push an agenda and "bending" the facts to fit thier views.

Why there may be some consensus that temperatures are rising, there is tons of debates on the why and what we can do to stop it.
I saw some place where a scientist was talking about how sun spot activity has raised recently and that this increased activity could result in warming. Then there is the natural cycle of the earth warming and cooling, we ARE in an ice age.

The earth and the environment is such a large system that trying to determine what is going on and cause and effect is very very tough. Just look at the Hurricane predictions, we did not get one storm worth talking about this year. The prediction was 10-12 Hurricanes with 5? major ones, and we got none.

If they can't even predict how many Hurricanes one little part of the earth will get in a three month time how can they predict what will happen to the entire earth in 50 years from now.

In my opinion, whether global warming is happening or not is irrelevant. We should be taking steps to save the environment simply because it is the right thing to do. Better gas mileage, cleaner power, reusable energy and all that. And we should be helping poorer countries do the same, especially China and India who have such growing economies that if we don't help them get clean our little 300 million people will create nearly no pollution compared to their 2 billion people.

Ps. We should also save the environment because I happen to like a very cute vegetarian animal lover, and doing so might help me get a date

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: DonVito
Again, how are we to assess the credibility of these people? I am an attorney. I could circulate a petition among excellent attorneys, or, if I chose, one among bottom-dwellers, each of whom had been disciplined by the bar. They would all have "J.D." after their name, and no layperson would know the difference, but one petition would have validity, and one wouldn't. Unless you can show me who these people are, I have no way of knowing whether they are reputable climatologists (and, I hasten to point out, only about 15% of them are climatologists at all).

Moreover, as I am now saying for the third time, this petition DOES NOT SAY that global warming doesn't exist - it relates only to causation, which I never mentioned in the first place.

All of this, I guess, is a long way of saying that you are not the last intelligent person in P&N.

How can we assess the credibility of anyone who buys into the hype of global warming?

BTW, these people on the website deny major effects to the planet (negative ones at least).

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

How can we assess the credibility of anyone who buys into the hype of global warming?

BTW, these people on the website deny major effects to the planet (negative ones at least).

They deny major effects based on CO2 release caused by human activity. This alone does not imply there will be no harmful effects caused by global warming as a whole.

It would be interesting, particularly given the age of that petition, to poll these people on whether they believe global warming exists, and what they believe its effects will be (you will recall these are the two issues I was talking about originally, and this poll addresses neither).

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Craig234
BlancoNino, I can't link it, but I've seen the head of the National Academy of Sciences say that global warming has a broader consensus among scientists globally, with stronger evidence, than any other issue he's seen in several decades.

Al Gore's movie cites the several hundred credible studies supporting it, with zero on the other side.

The hundreds of millions spent by the oil companies to attack the science are well-documented, for example, here's one expose:

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/05/some_like_it_hot.html

Your turn, to show the long list of credible climatoligists on the other side.

Craig, the problem with Gore is that he has been saying for 10 years that if we don't do something within ten years we will be suffering major consequences. Well it's been 10 years since he first said that and nothing much has changed.

To much of global warming has become scare tactic based. Environmentalists trying to push an agenda and "bending" the facts to fit thier views.

Why there may be some consensus that temperatures are rising, there is tons of debates on the why and what we can do to stop it.
I saw some place where a scientist was talking about how sun spot activity has raised recently and that this increased activity could result in warming. Then there is the natural cycle of the earth warming and cooling, we ARE in an ice age.

The earth and the environment is such a large system that trying to determine what is going on and cause and effect is very very tough. Just look at the Hurricane predictions, we did not get one storm worth talking about this year. The prediction was 10-12 Hurricanes with 5? major ones, and we got none.

If they can't even predict how many Hurricanes one little part of the earth will get in a three month time how can they predict what will happen to the entire earth in 50 years from now.

In my opinion, whether global warming is happening or not is irrelevant. We should be taking steps to save the environment simply because it is the right thing to do. Better gas mileage, cleaner power, reusable energy and all that. And we should be helping poorer countries do the same, especially China and India who have such growing economies that if we don't help them get clean our little 300 million people will create nearly no pollution compared to their 2 billion people.

Ps. We should also save the environment because I happen to like a very cute vegetarian animal lover, and doing so might help me get a date

There has been a change. Weather has become more severe since he said that. Not only severe, but weather patterns have changed and for many places the abnormal has become the normal.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: DonVito
Again, how are we to assess the credibility of these people? I am an attorney. I could circulate a petition among excellent attorneys, or, if I chose, one among bottom-dwellers, each of whom had been disciplined by the bar. They would all have "J.D." after their name, and no layperson would know the difference, but one petition would have validity, and one wouldn't. Unless you can show me who these people are, I have no way of knowing whether they are reputable climatologists (and, I hasten to point out, only about 15% of them are climatologists at all).

Moreover, as I am now saying for the third time, this petition DOES NOT SAY that global warming doesn't exist - it relates only to causation, which I never mentioned in the first place.

All of this, I guess, is a long way of saying that you are not the last intelligent person in P&N.

How can we assess the credibility of anyone who buys into the hype of global warming?

BTW, these people on the website deny major effects to the planet (negative ones at least).

Peer review.

 

[ProfJohn]

Am I smart or what, I mention sun activity as a reason for global warming and BAM there is a thread about that here
Sun activity as a means to global warming

Edit:
to what sand said

There has been a change. Weather has become more severe since he said that. Not only severe, but weather patterns have changed and for many places the abnormal has become the normal.

I think this is based more on allegorical evidence than real study.
Most snowfall in 1 day in history, must be proof of weather change. But it really doesn't prove anything.
Every year we see record highs and record lows for certain days, been that way forever.
The bad Hurricanes are a result of a 60? year cycle and we are in the upswing of that cycle. etc etc

 

[Craig234]

Craig, the problem with Gore is that he has been saying for 10 years that if we don't do something within ten years we will be suffering major consequences. Well it's been 10 years since he first said that and nothing much has changed.

You know better by now, John - links to his specific quotes of predictions by the year 2006, and whether they're true or not?

I think the right has had more than its share of misquoting Gore, and it's time to ask them to use accurate quotes.

Ps. We should also save the environment because I happen to like a very cute vegetarian animal lover, and doing so might help me get a date

Your motive for favoring climate change is revealed - but I don't think that's what she meant when she said she'll go out with you on a cold day in hell.

(Sorry, just kidding).

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Am I smart or what, I mention sun activity as a reason for global warming and BAM there is a thread about that here
Sun activity as a means to global warming

Edit:
to what sand said

There has been a change. Weather has become more severe since he said that. Not only severe, but weather patterns have changed and for many places the abnormal has become the normal.

I think this is based more on allegorical evidence than real study.
Most snowfall in 1 day in history, must be proof of weather change. But it really doesn't prove anything.
Every year we see record highs and record lows for certain days, been that way forever.
The bad Hurricanes are a result of a 60? year cycle and we are in the upswing of that cycle. etc etc

The amount of High records, the normalization of Heatwaves in Europe where Heatwaves have never occured before, even in North America where Heatwaves are not uncommon, they have become more common affecting larger areas and have extended to lengths rarely seen before.

It's here, you just have to choose to see it.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Craig, the problem with Gore is that he has been saying for 10 years that if we don't do something within ten years we will be suffering major consequences. Well it's been 10 years since he first said that and nothing much has changed.

You know better by now, John - links to his specific quotes of predictions by the year 2006, and whether they're true or not?

I think the right has had more than its share of misquoting Gore, and it's time to ask them to use accurate quotes.

Ps. We should also save the environment because I happen to like a very cute vegetarian animal lover, and doing so might help me get a date

Your motive for favoring climate change is revealed - but I don't think that's what she meant when she said she'll go out with you on a cold day in hell.

(Sorry, just kidding).

ROFL that was awesome dude, and I thought liberals had no sense of humor

And to be correct, it seems it was Ted Danson that said that if we didn't do something about the oceans we would see a huge change and all that. (I think one thing we can agree on is that Gore has a history of exaggerating i.e. inventing the internet, the flip flop on tobacco, him and Tipper as the inspiration for ?Love Story? etc.)

My point is that there is a lot of fear mongering going on for political reasons and not enough sound science and looking at cause and effect and how to best come up with working solutions.

Kyoto is worthless, punish the US but leave China and the rest alone. I believe that the US is already the cleanest country in the world when you look at pollution vs. GDP, or close to the cleanest. Certainly we can do better, but let?s do it in a way that makes sense. Let?s not hamstring our economy with over bearing restrictions that have little effect.

Step one in saving the environment should be more nuclear power plants. We should set a goal that in 20 years all of the electricity used in our homes will come from 100% domestic sources. Either natural gas, coal, Nukes or ?clean? power sources. From there we can work on better gas mileage and cleaner running cars.

 

[dahunan]

Christians shouldn't care if Global Warming is true or not .. this is the Devils Planet and environmentalists are devil worshipers

 

[dmcowen674]

The hot air in this thread alone is enough to melt the polar caps.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Roll back to my 3rd grade teacher. (About 26 years ago) Maybe this explains my skepticism? Who knows...

If the world worked on the time frame she presented to us in her class...

1. We would have run out of oil five years ago
2. There would be about 5 years of coal left
3. The last tree in the Amazon basin would have been cut down some time last year


Global warming? Wasn't much of a topic in 1980 so she didn't have anything to say about that. Point is, all the doom and gloom that was supposed to be happening right now didn't happen. And it wasn't like she was a kook or anything. I seem to remember her estimates being fairly commonly held at the time.

So I don't know. I usually just ignore the OMGWE'REALLGONNADIEWTF crowd. I can see myself that things are different than when I was a kid. We used to have our first snow in late September or early October and by mid October we had a permenent layer of the white stuff. It wouldn't fully melt until the middle of May.

Now, it's 45 outside. It looks like we won't see any significant snow until November. And lately, it's all been completely melted by late April. Winter is almost a month shorter than it was when I was a kid. (Whoo hoo!)

But do we know enough to state that humans alone are causing this? The world has been a lot warmer. It's also been a lot cooler. And it has cycled many many times without human interference. There has been a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere in the past and there has been less. And as it turns out, temperatures don't seem to correlate well to atmospheric CO2.

Temps were rising in the late 1300's at a rapid rate (was that man-made global warming as well?) until the little ice age hit and plunged North America and Europe into a deep freeze for over 400 years. An event that some say we are still climbing out of to this day.

The people who stand there and tell me "THIS" is what's really happening, I ignore. Nobody can speak in absolutes on this topic. Anyone who tries is operating from an agenda as far as I'm concerned. And agenda based science by its nature must ignore contrary facts to preserve the agenda. The rational voices tend to get lost on both sides because it's the sensational fear mongers that get all the grant money.

The net result is that people put about as much thought into the issue as they do on abortion. They just pick sides and leave no room for debate. In a subject like this there should be a LOT of scientific debate and sadly, there is very little. Ideas unrelated to human influence are dismissed or derided. Rarely do they ever rate a sniff from the GW crowd.

Much like the fundies and their issues, you are not allowed to challenge the global warming dogma. And both are about equal when you rate the science their beliefs are based on and the science that is ignored to keep those beliefs intact.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Corbett
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WEATHER/10/13/ny.snow.ap/index.html

Interesting to see that amongst all of the "global warming" crap that was being spewed ove the summer, we now have record snow fall in Buffalo. Here I thought snow was gone for good! [/sarcasm]

I have said it before I will say it again, what do you people POSSIBLY have to gain by ignoring the obvious facts and fool heartedly proclaiming it does not exist? It totally boggles my mind. Are you that daft that you think that snow in October (lake effect btw brainchild) is somehow a nail in the coffin of this whole "global warming theory" :roll: