Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
News flash! Polar bears have been drowning for hundreds of years. Despite that, their population has increased over the past 20 years. You should really take your defense of global warming to another forum. However, your comments reveal a significant lack of intellectual curiosity. First, the earth's climate (and yes, climate patterns) have been changing since before the "dawn" of humans. Second, islands are lost and even created every year. There are hundreds of islands being formed every year by hotspots... and vice-versa, there are islands lost every year to erosion. The island you mention, South Talpatti, was a sandbar island formation that appeared just in 1970 (150 years after the onset of the global warming claimed by its defenders). Even the Indian oceanographic agencies admit global warming "may not be" the cause. But this illustrates the point that erodes credibility of MMCC theorists: virtually every catastrophic weather event is used to claim evidence of MMCC. This is preposterous just on the assumption that climate was static for the millions of years before the Industrial Revolution of the 1800s. Everything on this topic should be taken in the context of the political power/wealth to be gained versus things like genuine improvement in the environment. Unfortunately for all those who want the latter (and I know no one who doesn't), the whole debate (and theory) has been hijacked by the political left, who use virtually everything (such as Talpatti) as a cudgel to blunt disagreement. It's a famous tactic of the left. In the end, we all lose out on possible solutions that really address any problem that may be caused by additional carbon in the atmosphere. Oh boy, I could go on about molecular concentrations in the environment ad nauseam.
Your post above suggests that you have swallowed the whole MMCC theory in whole-cloth without questioning the alternative explanations. Yes, there are brilliant scientists who have (what is really only) "consensus" on the MMCC theory. But the point made above in reference to the East Anglia "Climategate" scandal is that many brilliant scientists who disagree with MMCC and their dissent was squelched by a government entity that stood to gain a lot of money by keeping their dissent buried.
Whether you agree or not, I hope you see that it's dangerous to take "consensus" on recent data over a short period of time and apply your conclusions to a much longer period of time. It's also intellectually vacuous.
the only venue where global warming is still being debated is the political stage (including the strong opinions here).
the top global scientists have collectively moved past the global warming debate and on to discussion on its treatment/resolution.
i was just at a convention/lectures given by the leading weather forecasters across the planet. not your ordinary weather men/women- these are the individuals that have top secret government clearance, and work at hidden (and remotely backed) up labs. they use the worlds most powerful supercomputer that crunches 3 trillion (i think that was the number) calculations a second to model everything occuring in the planet's climate. their point was that on a macro level (the big picture/long term), global warming is fact.
i post this having equal likes/dislikes (probably more dislikes!) of each/all political parties, so i have no political motivation, just statement of facts (i am an engineer myself) as determined by the experts, and the interest of the well being of our planet and futures.
regarding flooding and its impact, unfortunately the u.s. has developed according to "100 year" flood calculations. meaning that every 100 years on average, there will be a flood that exceeds design conditions and causes loss of life/property/etc. interestingly, it is more common in europe to design using 1000 year flood calculations.
The weather patterns are changing. Witness the unusual ice storms in Florida this winter.
Witness the unusual weather in Nashville this recent winter. I could go on and on.
I'm guessing that you've bought into the propaganda that humans are causing climate change. BTW...The term climate change is relatively new. They stopped calling it global warming after it became clear that the public was not buying it anymore.
Lets assume for a moment that any recent climate change IS caused by man. Explain past climate fluctuations before humans were making an impact with fossil fuels. To believe that we are causing climate change means that you have to believe that the climate has remained constant from the beginning of time, and that theory has been proven wrong.
Global warming is a fact. It's not just about the planet warming--it's about climate change in general.
This flood may or might not have been specific to global warming but it is part of a trend of unusual weather events.
What about that recent tornado in Mississippi that traveled for 100 miles? That was very unusual.
I agree that floods like this happen from time to time. The Earth changes on its own and it also changes because of what we do to it. We can't control what happens naturally but we can control what damage we do.
The mayor of Nashville wisely wants to make Nashville a greener city. He knows that green is good. Good for the economy and good for the planet.
The mayor of NY is a hard-nosed businessman and yet he planted thousands of new trees in the city. Do you think he would spend that money for nothing?
The mayors of major cities are buying into the wisdom of green urban policies. These are smart men. And so are the men and women of science who all agree about climate changes caused by people. They aren't making money by dispensing that wisdom or selling books. They are without bias and they all agree about climate change.
This is not a political issue. Mother Nature doesn't care which political party you belong to.
Last edited by ThirdCoaster; 05-05-2010 at 10:23 AM..
read the emails, and then establish context for what they're talking about. take a look into the methods that are used in the gathering and analyzing of the data being discussed, and then look at the emails again. get a clue about what is being discussed, and then read the emails again. there is no scandal. the real scandal, the real questions you should be asking is why were the emails leaked in the first place and by whom for what purpose. it would be one thing if global climate change / global warming etc wasn't an opinion shared by the greater scientific community at large. It would be one thing if these people were some powerful special interest group that served as a vocal minority within the greater scientific community. They are not. Save for a few crackpots, there is nothing but consensus on global climate change. Quit watching Fox News, people.
The only big media covering this are in the UK and FOX News. This is why people have abandoned MSNBC and CNN, they want to know. And this has gone beyond looking at methods, except for the methods of withholding the data. So now it is up to you to show how these reseachers have really been transparent about showing us the data instead of engaging in coverup. WHERE IS THE DATA! See the first two words in the following link title?
You don't think the "green vote" is worth spending a few thousand out of a depleted treasury for? They may be smart, but then they are politicians. When Mayor Bloomberg spends his own money for thousands of trees in the middle of Queens, I'll concede your point. Your example by itself is evidence that this issue is a political issue. On another thread, perhaps you'd care to give us evidence that global warming is "a fact". Not even the scientist advocates of global warming will go as far as to say it is fact (they simply cannot, based on the reasoning I stated above). That's why it's a consensus of opinion among many (not all) scientists in the field. Go back to the point I made above. Trends from 1950 to 2000 showed gradual warming in many parts of the world. There has not been an increase in ten years (not surprisingly, those who would politicize the theory adopted the term "climate change" during this period). Additionally, a 50-year span does not make (and would never be) a big enough sample to support a conclusion that global warming would continue indefinitely into the future.
With all due respect, you are an unquestioning acolyte of global warming. I have stated above how dangerous is the auto-acceptance of anything that has been co-opted in the political realm (see point on politicians above in this post). Let's agree to disagree and go our separate ways. In the meantime, I'll recycle refuse, conserve fuel and power, and work to keep the environment clean because it's the right thing to do, not because I think it should be imposed on every human by oppressive taxation and freedom-eroding legislation. Why, those same politicians have not demonstrated that they're responsible with the taxes they already receive.
The Earth changes on its own and it also changes because of what we do to it. We can't control what happens naturally but we can control what damage we do.
Seeing as how climate change is a natural thing and has been happening for millions of years, there is no evidence that the "damage" we are doing is a factor at all. More to the point, no amount of money Al Gore puts in his pocket will effect it either way.
You know, poets used to be called crackpots because they wrote poems about people dying from broken hearts. Today, scientific research has convinced the traditional medical establishment that the poet crackpots were right all along--emotions influence health (the mind/body connection) and people who are grieving over lost love can and do die from "broken hearts." Of course factors such as getting depressed and not taking care of their health at that time has something to do with their deaths but it's also the emotional state--the sense of giving up. You see---the crackpots were right.
Well, global warming is the same case. We aren't advanced enough to understand the full implications of climate change yet but there have been red flags that scientists have warned about again and again.
It's okay if you don't want to listen to the global warming crackpots. They are just ahead of their time.
And it's not a political issue. There are Republicans who are also backing green policies--the issue crosses political lines.
I'm going to just agree to disagree. The next time that there's a flood I will be hugging the top of a tree. You can hug your Hummer as it floats towards the junkyard--where it belongs.
Last edited by ThirdCoaster; 05-05-2010 at 04:05 PM..
Now I am sorry I started this thread. A thread that should have had nothing to do with global warming has turned into that topic. You folks do know that we have a political forum.
Back to the topic.
Does anyone know an estimate of when Opry Mills and the hotel will reopen?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.