Global Warming & Nh ?? (Hill: 2009, taxes, standard of living)

[WannaComeHome]

Originally Posted by WIMU

When politicians and celebritys who own 20,000 SF houses and fly all over the country in private jets and drive the biggest vehicles around end their hypocrisy then talk to me.

And when politicians who make documentaries and press them on schools can't tell the difference between an inch and a foot.... 11" is such an inconvenient difference

[skytrekker]

Hypocrisy notwithstanding

and to a degree there is some validity to that assertion;

The problem of global warming and climate change has enough scientific validity -'empiricism' that it does represent a threat- forget about the politics and some 'Movie Stars' and their opulent lifestyles- which I agree sets no example. Look at the problem objectively- and then we can begin to hopefully take measures to stop something that can cause our kids much pain- because of the folly of us and others.

And are the 'bombastic' proclamations of Movie stars worse then the Government/Current administration- as prompted by Oil companies attempting to stifle credible information on global warming any better? Lets try and be objective- as science is and politics is not.

[ChunkyMonkey]

I'll opt to believe in the opinions of 99% of the world's scientists who have spent their lives studying this over those on the lunatic fringe who are in denial.

That said, what is a mystery is how global warming is going to impact New England. I'm hoping for shorter winters and at least have a spring before going into summer.

[looking4home]

Don't be fooled by these so-called scientists - if you don't think there is anything in it for them, then you don't understand human nature very well. Of course there are well-respected scientists that disagree with this theory, but who's going to listen to them? We all know that liberals and their special interest groups control the media (save for Fox) so who's going to give them air time or publish their views? Every time a dissenting scientist opened his/her mouth, the GW crazies would start shouting them down, saying they were being paid off by oil companies. Hmmmm...I wonder who's paying off those 500 scientists? You can bet they are all getting lucrative grants to fund their research and pet projects.

Even as a non-scientific lay person, if you just really thought about it for awhile, you would realize what an utterly ridiculous theory GW is. To dismiss the myriad of natural occuring possibilities for climate change and to blame human beings because it conveniently fits into a political platform or agenda is embarrassingly foolish. And to think you could do something to reverse it is even worse!

[ChunkyMonkey]

I believe in logic. I don't buy the logic that all the carbon dioxide created by humans everyday just magically disappears into thin air?

No one can deny that the earth is warming based on the overwhelming amount of research and observations. I think it is likely that humans have expedited the warming in addition to the natural cycles. I don't see any harm in the government pushing for better energy alternatives. We'll have to migrate there eventually. I'm not advocating wholesale conversion, just reduce the oil dependence through better gas mileage. The car makers have the technology, they just need help in getting it implemented at lower costs. Eventually it is a win win for everyone involve. We will be less dependent on oil and the environment will benefit.

[woodchuck]

About a week ago in Belgium an international global warming conference approved a report warning of dire threats to the Earth and to mankind -- from increased hunger to the extinction of species -- unless the world adapts to climate change and halts its progress. Several reseach scientists objected to the editing of the final draft by government negotiators but in the end agreed to compromises. However, some scientists vowed never to take part in the process again. What they were upset with is that the International Panel on Climate Change report is the Summary for Policy Makers, not the full scientific report. The scientific report is being edited to agree with the summary. The politicians got together and negotiated a summary report and now the scientists have to edit their results to agree with the summary. This is how ALL of the IPCC reports are done, not just this one. That's why they release the report in segments. They release the summary, which is essentially written by politicians, and then they release the report in segments, after modification and discarding those parts that do not agree with the summary. The sad part is that they ADMIT to all of this! Then the IPCC releases this to the public as the "clearest and most comprehensive scientific statement to date on the impact of global warming mainly caused by man-induced carbon dioxide pollution".

Here is a complete list of everything caused by Global Warming to date: http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

[WannaComeHome]

Originally Posted by ChunkyMonkey

I'll opt to believe in the opinions of 99% of the world's scientists who have spent their lives studying this over those on the lunatic fringe who are in denial.

I think 99% is a bit overstating. Although an awful lot of scientists (at least those who get their opinions recorded in media) do like to agree with the current philosophy whatever it is.

I like to believe the few % of the scientists that happen to be the experts that the other scientists go to. For example, the one guy in CO who is the official hurricane expert that everyone goes to for hurricane and climate indicators: a while back the Washington Post magazine had an interview with him (amazing in itself) and he feels that anytime between now and the next 3-4 years we're going to start cooling down, a lot. More like back to the '70s. He's saying that we've been in a warming spell that's ending, these climactic things are cyclical and always has been. But since he's in the minority, very few people noticed or reported what he said, and he's the experts expert! I think I'll listen to him.

[WannaComeHome]

Originally Posted by looking4home

To dismiss the myriad of natural occuring possibilities for climate change and to blame human beings because it conveniently fits into a political platform or agenda is embarrassingly foolish. And to think you could do something to reverse it is even worse!

However, it doesn't mean that we can't try to be more responsible and work to limit what output/effect we do create. Even the Scouts have a motto about leaving a place better than they found it. Whether we're the cause or not, doesn't mean we can't try to do better.

[looking4home]

No, you are right in that respect. Fossil fuel is a finite commodity and there is certainly no harm in trying to look for alternatives that are cheaper and cleaner. I am fine with that, and I think most people would agree with that, too.

[rustman]

Originally Posted by countrylv22

Hello everyone!

For those of you that believe in GLOBAL WARMING and that have lived in NH for several years. How have you seen Global WARMING affect the state? With the weather, animals, vegetation, etc. Please give as many details as possible.
Thank you so much!
COUNTRYLV22

I agree, by the way, there was a member of the w.h.o. who had recently stated that she did not know if global warming was really a problem, but it sounded like a good idea to run with to clear the global business playing field. Now with that in mind, what happens when you kill jobs? Starvation and poverty......if we truely care about our children and grandchildren, why would we subject them to starvation and poverty worldwide? It's just another scam to keep us down.