Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
You might check a little deeper into the provenance of that graph. It purports to be based upon data from the satellite temperature data research done at the University of Alabama Huntsville. There are two scientists who lead that efforts John Christy and Roy Spencer. Christy has concluded that their data support anthropogenic climate change, Spencer is a skeptic.
We have two collegues looking at atmospheric temperatures and coming to different conclusion. What they do agree on is this joint statement.
So there seems to be a 2.5 degree temperature change per CENTURY.
Without question, it CANNOT be alleged that this is all man-made. What it really shows is that the earth goes through centuries-long (thousands of years long?) global climate changes.
By all means, we should ALL seek to live as "green" as possible. But by the same token, we should not be so presumptuous as to try to screw with centuries-long variations in the earth's atmosphere and climate. How stupid can we be?
So there seems to be a 2.5 degree temperature change per CENTURY.
Without question, it CANNOT be alleged that this is all man-made. What it really shows is that the earth goes through centuries-long (thousands of years long?) global climate changes.
By all means, we should ALL seek to live as "green" as possible. But by the same token, we should not be so presumptuous as to try to screw with centuries-long variations in the earth's atmosphere and climate. How stupid can we be?
No one is alleging that man is the only factor. The concern is that we are adding a dangerous amount of warming to the natural oscillation. We are already "screwing" with the centuries long variation. We need to slow or stop that.
BTW 2.5 average global temperature change per century is something we should be concerned about. Especially because all our indications are that this is an exponential equation, not a linear one.
No one is alleging that man is the only factor. The concern is that we are adding a dangerous amount of warming to the natural oscillation. We are already "screwing" with the centuries long variation. We need to slow or stop that.
BTW 2.5 average global temperature change per century is something we should be concerned about. Especially because all our indications are that this is an exponential equation, not a linear one.
The first thing that needs to become part of the equation is this: HONESTY.
Show me some honesty, coming from the pro-Global Warming zealots. Supposition and assumptions are being forced down our throats as fact. The truth is, nobody knows exactly what was going on - environmentally - 5,000 years ago. It's all a guess.
Let's be honest: It is, first and foremost, BIG business which equals BIG money!
Let's be even more honest: A good share of the Global Warming Zealots are NOT living a life consistent with what they're preaching. In other words, if they REALLY believed what they're preaching, they'd be living differently.
Show me some honesty, coming from the pro-Global Warming zealots. Supposition and assumptions are being forced down our throats as fact. The truth is, nobody knows exactly what was going on - environmentally - 5,000 years ago. It's all a guess.
IPCC reports I - VI
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omaha Rocks
Let's be honest: It is, first and foremost, BIG business which equals BIG money!
If you follow the money, there's much more on the fossil fuel side that the APG side, so you lose that argument hands down.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omaha Rocks
Let's be even more honest: A good share of the Global Warming Zealots are NOT living a life consistent with what they're preaching. In other words, if they REALLY believed what they're preaching, they'd be living differently.
Or perhaps you misrepresent what "zealots" (a dishonest a pejorative term to begin with) actual espouse. And please don't bring up the tired old canard about Al Gore's "house."
If you follow the money, there's much more on the fossil fuel side that the APG side, so you lose that argument hands down.
Or perhaps you misrepresent what "zealots" (a dishonest a pejorative term to begin with) actual espouse. And please don't bring up the tired old canard about Al Gore's "house."
What have you - personally - done to eliminate your carbon footprint? Do you drive a car? A pickup or a truck? Do you fly? Do you consume electricity or heating fuel of any kind? Do you guy any clothing that has synthetic fibers in it?
There's one of the problems.
And why is Al Gore's house "off limits"? Are you going to try to assert that that is irrelevant? Or the fact that he flies all over the country in a chartered jet, blowing exhaust into the atmosphere, telling us not to pollute? Why is the flagrant hypocrisy of the Global Warming Zealots off limits?
And by the way, the "fossil fuel side" is NOT spending massive amounts of money on environmental propaganda. They don't need to. They're putting their money elsewhere.
I know this becomes personal to you, and likely could affect your income, but please try to be at least partially open-minded here.
What have you - personally - done to eliminate your carbon footprint? Do you drive a car? A pickup or a truck? Do you fly? Do you consume electricity or heating fuel of any kind? Do you guy any clothing that has synthetic fibers in it?
There's one of the problems.
And by the way, the "fossil fuel side" is NOT spending massive amounts of money on environmental propaganda. They don't need to. They're putting their money elsewhere.
I know this becomes personal to you, and likely could affect your income, but please try to be at least partially open-minded here.
I don't consider myself a global warming "zealot" but a responsible citizen of the world. I think that reasonable people are not advocating elimination but reduction of our carbon footprint.
As such, I try to do my best to reduce the amount of energy I spend at home. I do not drive a car but use public transportation, I do not drive a pickup or a truck. I do fly though as it is hard to get across the US or abroad without flying. I do not wear synthetic fiber (I think that is what you meant).
And, I don't have ANY financial interest in the business of promoting or detracting global warming.
I do agree however, with your statement about the "fossil fuel side" not spending money on environmental propaganda and putting their money elsewhere. For example: lobbying to get authorizations for more drilling, such as in Utah. These authorizations are often questionable (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/09/sc.../09leases.html).
"The Department of the Interior has frozen oil and gas development on 60 of 77 contested drilling sites in Utah, saying the process of leasing the land was rushed and badly flawed" (october 9, 2009 NY Times).
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.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
