http://www.accuweather.com/news-story.asp?partner=accuweather&traveler=0&article=2

Uh Oh, Mother Nature is not cooperating with Al Gores agenda....

Yeah, that's right, one odd thing equals global warming a fake, geesh.

I'm not a supporter or denier, but know that one winter's worth of weather is just one small sample in the grand scheme of things and really doesn't matter.
For all we know, this winter is a statistical oddity. Or, it could be el Nino (que the Chris Farley clip)


Now, I'm no expert, but my basic understanding of that global climate change/ warming leads to more extreme weather, both hot and cold. But, again, this winter doesn't prove or disprove. It is just one more point in the grand scheme of things.

"All the Global Warming talk was a bunch of 'hot air'."

Caused in part by man or not the earth has been getting warmer and it's in our best interests to try and curb that.

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2007-131

Decent article from NASA.

Honestly, this is a very serious question. Who stands to make the most money from "global warming"? and who is the most vocal proponent of it?

I Wear Pants wrote: Caused in part by man or not the earth has been getting warmer and it's in our best interests to try and curb that.

How exactly are we supposed to stop the Sun from making the Earth warmer? Blow it up?

ptown_trojans_1 wrote: Yeah, that's right, one odd thing equals global warming a fake, geesh.

I'm not a supporter or denier, but know that one winter's worth of weather is just one small sample in the grand scheme of things and really doesn't matter.
For all we know, this winter is a statistical oddity. Or, it could be el Nino (que the Chris Farley clip)


Now, I'm no expert, but my basic understanding of that global climate change/ warming leads to more extreme weather, both hot and cold. But, again, this winter doesn't prove or disprove. It is just one more point in the grand scheme of things.

The exact same argument can and should be made for the proponents of Global Warming. 50-100 years of data doesn't mean diddly squat in the Billions of years lifetime of this planet. Even just going from the time humans arrived, it's insignificant.

The sun, tidal forces caused by the moon, and the earth itself are far, far more likely to cause global warming - I mean - climate change than humans.

While we should certainly be good stewards of the planet with which God has entrusted us via recycling and common-sense reduction of toxic emissions, man-made global climate change in itself is largely a hoax created by world socialists for redistribution of wealth via bogus back-door international taxation schemes like cap & trade.

It drives me crazy when I hear liberals claim that "the current cold-snap is caused by global warming." Uh-huh.

Global warming and cooling cycles are normal, naturally-occurring and have been around a lot longer than the wacky leftists who have decided to "capitalize" on it by using it as a tool to combat - well - capitalism.

believer wrote: The sun, tidal forces caused by the moon, and the earth itself are far, far more likely to cause global warming - I mean - climate change than humans.

While we should certainly be good stewards of the planet with which God has entrusted us via recycling and common-sense reduction of toxic emissions, man-made global climate change in itself is largely a hoax created by world socialists for redistribution of wealth via bogus back-door international taxation schemes like cap & trade.

It drives me crazy when I hear liberals claim that "the current cold-snap is caused by global warming." Uh-huh.

Global warming and cooling cycles are normal, naturally-occurring and have been around a lot longer than the wacky leftists who have decided to "capitalize" on it by using it as a tool to combat - well - capitalism.

Wasn't there supposed to be another Ice Age in the 70s? How'd that work out?

^^^Yep I remember it well! Here's an example: http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

It's February in Ohio. Why is everyone acting so surprised that it is cold and snowing?

tk421 wrote: The exact same argument can and should be made for the proponents of Global Warming. 50-100 years of data doesn't mean diddly squat in the Billions of years lifetime of this planet. Even just going from the time humans arrived, it's insignificant.

Exactly. Just as long as people do not take this winter and say, "Ah, seee global warming is false!" Or, " Ah, global warming is true!"

It doesn't matter at this point if it's "true," "false" or something in between. The credibility of the AGW "science" has been destroyed. The movement is essentially over.

If you don't think this winter has damaged the credibility of the theory of global warming to a good portion of independent minded people, you are being very naive. Even people I know who are "left of center" are starting to cast doubt. There is snowfall in 49 of the 50 states, with record snowfalls in places like Washington DC, Baltimore, MD, Dallas TX, and Louisiana.
I believe if the left tries to push this agenda further they are going to be met with a lot more resistance than they anticipated.

Little Danny wrote: If you don't think this winter has damaged the credibility of the theory of global warming to a good portion of independent minded people, you are being very naive. Even people I know who are "left of center" are starting to cast doubt. There is snowfall in 49 of the 50 states, with record snowfalls in places like Washington DC, Baltimore, MD, Dallas TX, and Louisiana.
I believe if the left tries to push this agenda further they are going to be met with a lot more resistance than they anticipated.

Again, you cannot take 1 winter and say, look global warming is false. It is one plot on the statistical scale. Anyone who has taken five minutes of Stats knows this.

Also, as I understand it, global warming means extremes on both ends of the scale, meaning hotter summers and colder winters.

But, I'm not a supporter or denier of global warming, just stating that one cannot come to a conclusion after 1 winter of weather.

I understand what you are saying, ptown. However, the American public does not think that way. The American public has a 15 minute attention span. They will remember this winter the next time the talk of man made global warming is brought up and proposals that affect their wallet are made.

Little Danny wrote: I understand what you are saying, ptown. However, the American public does not think that way. The American public has a 15 minute attention span. They will remember this winter the next time the talk of man made global warming is brought up and proposals that affect their wallet are made.

I believe Americans are smarter than that.

But, if what you say is true and next winter is like last winter, a mild one, will the people start to believe in global warming? It makes no sense to build an argument for or against a policy on 1 season.

Whether or not the current rise in temps seen in the last 100-200 years is caused by man can be debated, but what really confuses me is when people see it snowing outside and say that global warming can't be happening (thank you fox news). Also, why wouldn't we want to curb emissions? I mean, have you seen a picture of the haze over LA and other big cities? Do you think that has no negative effect on the environment or people? With new technologies come new jobs, so I can't wrap my head around people who are against moving in the direction of reducing man-made emissions...I just don't get it. What is the downside? Cost? That's a short-term side effect that will soon be negated by increases in technology and demand, just like with anything else...

Here's a chart of the avg temp anomaly over the last 2000 years...now I'm sure this is made up and Glen Beck knows more about this then the people studying it, but whatever...is the sun causing the spike? Maybe, so what? Does that still mean we shouldn't try to lead the world in new green technologies that bring jobs and a better environment?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

I Wear Pants wrote: Caused in part by man or not the earth has been getting warmer and it's in our best interests to try and curb that.

Actually it's been cooling for a decade or so. It's why they use "Climate Change" now instead of "Global Warming".

WebFire wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote: Caused in part by man or not the earth has been getting warmer and it's in our best interests to try and curb that.

Actually it's been cooling for a decade or so. It's why they use "Climate Change" now instead of "Global Warming".

not as of 2004, unless the graph I posted is wrong

ptown,
You say that you are neither a supporter or denier of man made global warming. Are you not sure? Is there not enough evidence for you to say one way or the other? Are you in favor of a cap and trade bill?

iuhoosier11 wrote: ptown,
You say that you are neither a supporter or denier of man made global warming. Are you not sure? Is there not enough evidence for you to say one way or the other? Are you in favor of a cap and trade bill?

I'm on the fence as there is not enough scientific evidence to convince me, but I still leave open the possibility that man made carbon has an effect. Like most issues of which I take an opinion, I see many shades of gray and note that both sides have good points on the issue.

Am I in favor of the cap and trade bill, sort of. I see many good things in it. I do think cap and trade is a moderate idea that needs explored. But, I still could see some concerns from over taxing, or putting loopholes in the legislation. I'd have to see the final proposals to have a firm opinion.

ptown_trojans_1 wrote:

iuhoosier11 wrote: ptown,
You say that you are neither a supporter or denier of man made global warming. Are you not sure? Is there not enough evidence for you to say one way or the other? Are you in favor of a cap and trade bill?

I'm on the fence as there is not enough scientific evidence to convince me, but I still leave open the possibility that man made carbon has an effect. Like most issues of which I take an opinion, I see many shades of gray and note that both sides have good points on the issue.

Am I in favor of the cap and trade bill, sort of. I see many good things in it. I do think cap and trade is a moderate idea that needs explored. But, I still could see some concerns from over taxing, or putting loopholes in the legislation. I'd have to see the final proposals to have a firm opinion.

This is generally where I shake out. One cold winter or one hot summer doesn't mean much, and it's only an issue to people who failed stats or don't understand the big picture. If you get your info from Al Gore on the left or Rush on the right, you're going to see the issue in very narrow terms and miss the nuances.

Virtually everyone acknowledges that there is some risk of global warming, and that there is some risk that climate change could be catastrophic. Even if we think this isn't likely, it still makes sense to do a cost-benefit analysis of steps we can take now to lessen that risk. That's what the debate is really about--trying to figure out a way to take minimal steps now to minimize risk for future generations. As humans, we're quite terrible about discounting the costs of something that has a low probability of happening but massive consequences when it does. That's why the debate is important.

Think of it as life insurance. I'm 26 and unlikely to die in the next few years. Yet I reduce my current standard of living by a nominal amount now to account for that possibility, not because I think it's likely to happen, but because I want to make sure Mrs. FFT and baby FFT are taken care of if it does. That's the general idea behind climate change---taking small steps now to address the worst of the problems down the line.

Sure, whackos on the left things we should go luddite and get rid of everything to save Mother Earth, while whackos on the right think we should ignore it completely and assume that any problem will be fixed by technology in the future. Both of those opinions are unrealistic and dangerous, which is why I was happy to see both 2008 presidential candidates come out in favor of reasonable approaches to climate change.

ptown_trojans_1 wrote:

Little Danny wrote: If you don't think this winter has damaged the credibility of the theory of global warming to a good portion of independent minded people, you are being very naive. Even people I know who are "left of center" are starting to cast doubt. There is snowfall in 49 of the 50 states, with record snowfalls in places like Washington DC, Baltimore, MD, Dallas TX, and Louisiana.
I believe if the left tries to push this agenda further they are going to be met with a lot more resistance than they anticipated.

Again, you cannot take 1 winter and say, look global warming is false. It is one plot on the statistical scale. Anyone who has taken five minutes of Stats knows this.

Also, as I understand it, global warming means extremes on both ends of the scale, meaning hotter summers and colder winters.

But, I'm not a supporter or denier of global warming, just stating that one cannot come to a conclusion after 1 winter of weather.

5 mins of stats when there is only what 3 hours of stats. There has only been about 130 years of so called man made global warming. Cars were invented in what the early 1900's. Or when did we start burning coal for electric at a massive stage(maybe the 1880s) to start this so called global warming. This planet has a been around for billions of years and your telling me in 130 years we have changed the world forever? Also it is not just one year of a bad winter. Last winter there was not much snow but it was really really cold and this past summer I believe we only had three days of over 90 degrees.

Emmett Brown wrote: This planet has a been around for billions of years and your telling me in 130 years we have changed the world forever?

I'm not sure why this is so hard to believe. We've done plenty of things to change the world forever over the past 130 years. E.g., PCBs, TCE, nuclear fallout/widespread radiation, extensive logging, etc. The idea that we haven't been around long enough to have a meaningful effect on mother earth is kind of silly when we've obviously had an effect in all sorts of areas.