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.
Is our climate changing? The succession of temperate summers and open winters through several years, culminating last winter in the almost total failure of the ice crop throughout the valley of the Hudson, makes the question pertinent. The older inhabitants tell us that the Winters are not as cold now as when they were young, and we have all observed a marked diminution of the average cold even in this last decade. - New York Times June 23, 1890
The question is again being discussed whether recent and long-continued observations do not point to the advent of a second glacial period, when the countries now basking in the fostering warmth of a tropical sun will ultimately give way to the perennial frost and snow of the polar regions - New York Times - February 24, 1895,
The Oceanographic observations have, however, been even more interesting. Ice conditions were exceptional. In fact, so little ice has never been noted. The expedition all but established a record….Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society - January 1905
“Fifth ice age is on the way…..Human race will have to fight for its existence against cold.” – Los Angles Times October 23, 1912
The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot.... Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone... Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds. - Washington Post 11/2/1922
Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada, Professor Gregory of YaleUniversity stated that “another world ice-epoch is due.” He was the American representative to the Pan-Pacific Science Congress and warned that North America would disappear as far south as the Great Lakes, and huge parts of Asia and Europe would be “wiped out.” – Chicago Tribune August 9, 1923
The discoveries of changes in the sun's heat and southward advance of glaciers in recent years have given rise to the conjectures of the possible advent of a new ice age - Time Magazine 9/10/1923
America in longest warm spell since 1776; temperature line records a 25 year rise - New York Times 3/27/1933
“Gaffers who claim that winters were harder when they were boys are quite right…weather men have no doubt that the world at least for the time being is growing warmer.” – Time Magazine Jan. 2 1939
A mysterious warming of the climate is slowly manifesting itself in the Arctic, engendering a "serious international problem," - New York Times - May 30, 1947
snip
We must face the facts the only way we can be saved is to give billions of dollars to Al Gore and George Soros.
Uh, look at the peer reviewed literature. Or use google. Or take a look at the references in the IPCC (huh, the IPCC had "climate change" in the name back in the 80s, despite claims here that the term just appeared a few years ago after global warming was disproven) reports.
Instead of demanding that WE do the work to prove YOUR assertion, why don't you prove it yourself? That's sort of traditional, that you prove your own assertions, you know.
Keep in mind that a report that merely refers to another report, is not "proof", or even evidence. A report that describes the actual study done, lists its facts, and the conclusion supported by those facts, is what you need.
TRANSLATION: I cannot refute any of the points you made here, so I will simply claim that YOU don't understand anything, and hope someone believes me.
TRANSLATION: I will now run away at high speed, shouting one last non-sequitor over my shoulder before vanishing.
Better translation:
The evidence speaks for itself. There is no question among serious climate scientists. You can have your opinion, tilt at windmills, parrot others' assertions that trillions of dollars are going to fund scientists' lavish lifestyles (including eating sushi off of Miss Teen Sweden's flat belly), invent your strawman and off-topic unrelated arguments, and dismiss pure science research as "long winded studies"...because you don't understand them. There is more consensus on climate change than there is the origin of the universe. Might I suggest you take up the banner of the anti-Big Bang tribe?
We must face the facts the only way we can be saved is to give billions of dollars to Al Gore and George Soros.
Who in their right mind would compare predictions from 100 years ago to the ones we make today with deep core ice samples, supercomputers and the wealth of knowledge we've attained in 100 years? Is this the argument against scientific consensus?
Peer review is the standard by which the scientific community accepts findings in a discipline. See, you learned something today!
Actually peer review refers to the fact that a paper submitted to an archival journal is sent to scientists working in that field to be reviewed. There are sometimes shenanigans of various kinds that go on during the peer review process.
Example 1: Professor who receives it for review either doesn't have time to review it or thinks it would be good for the development of one of his/her grad students to actually review it.
Example 2: Scientist who receives it disagrees with the findings but is not able to find anything fundamentally wrong with it, so replies with several pages of nitpicking "optional" revisions in an attempt to wear down the resistance of whoever submitted the manuscript.
Example 3: Scientist who submits it has "power" in the field, meaning can throw his/her weight around when it comes to making decisions on research funding and /or awards, so the editor is not about to alienate the author and send the manuscript to someone who might actually have issues with the methods or interpretations.
Announcing that "the evidence speaks for itself" is nothing more than another dodge away from the fact that you are unable to produce ANY evidence proving a link between man's activities and climate change. You seem to be hoping still, that somebody believes you anyway.
Sad.
In truth, sometimes the climate gets warmer.
And sometimes it gets colder.
That's been going on for as long as the planet has been orbiting the Sun. Or, as long as it's had a climate, at least.
And man has never had the slightest influence on it.
Even the leftist loons who scream about how we have to use government to change everything, go back to the stone age, etc., to prevent some unknown catastrophe, have never been able to come up with even ONE study or example that backs up their claims.
What's funny is that, when they do name some study, it invariably turns out to be nothing but a bunch of long-winded claims which, finally, refer to some other "study" for proof. And what is in that other "study"? You guessed it - more long-winded claims, and eventually a reference to yet another study. And you can guess what is in that one, too. Never have they come up with any study that actually proves a link between man's activites, and Global Whatever.
The leftist global-whatever loons have been insisting on impending doom, and the urgent need to give government massive powers to change every bit of our lives to "avoid" that doom, for at least 40 years by my count. Literally billions of dollars have changed hands - usually into their hands - all over the world. And they still haven't come up with one shred of proof that man has had the least bit of influence on the climate changes that happen regularly around us. Nor is there any proof that man can do anything to change it.
***40 YEARS*** of screaming, caterwauling, and doomsaying. All without the slightest proof. Just references to references to references, ad infinitum, without a single actual proof. And demands that they be given complete power over all of us, to change what they cannot change.
Is this a record?
(Probably not. Leftist loons have been with us a LONG time. )
Announcing that "the evidence speaks for itself" is nothing more than another dodge away from the fact that you are unable to produce ANY evidence proving a link between man's activities and climate change. You seem to be hoping still, that somebody believes you anyway.
Sad.
So you deny that there is any peer reviewed research to support the contention that climate change exists and man is probably having an effect...unless I produce it?
Actually peer review refers to the fact that a paper submitted to an archival journal is sent to scientists working in that field to be reviewed. There are sometimes shenanigans of various kinds that go on during the peer review process.
Example 1: Professor who receives it for review either doesn't have time to review it or thinks it would be good for the development of one of his/her grad students to actually review it.
Example 2: Scientist who receives it disagrees with the findings but is not able to find anything fundamentally wrong with it, so replies with several pages of nitpicking "optional" revisions in an attempt to wear down the resistance of whoever submitted the manuscript.
Example 3: Scientist who submits it has "power" in the field, meaning can throw his/her weight around when it comes to making decisions on research funding and /or awards, so the editor is not about to alienate the author and send the manuscript to someone who might actually have issues with the methods or interpretations.
I could go on and on but you get the idea.
One paper, I could accept. However, the volume of research pretty much negates the various political weavings behind research reviews (I know exactly what you mean...I worked in research at a prominent university).
It's an issue because we are deviating from the natural change in climate that earth undergoes by dumping enormous amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
and what proof of this do you have? we only have about 150 years of temperature data to work with, and even those scales were made up. if we look at the geological record, and the ice core records, we will find that the climate has been both hotter and colder in the past, as much as 20 degrees C, or so. 700 million years ago this planet was encased in ice that was over one mile thick at the equator. we have also had times where the planet was hot enough that there was NO ice at the poles. so what is the true global mean temperature? the scientific standard is 70 degrees F, but is that accurate? likely not since it was determined during a time of relative calm in regards to climate change.
one degree over 100 years? that is a glacial pace compared to when we came out of the last ice age where the global temps spiked by 10-15 degrees in ten years.
in 1895 the new york times said in an article that if nothing was done to combat global warming, in thirty years the earth would experience a runaway greenhouse effect and all life would be destroyed. well as you can clearly see that never happened. in the 70s the issue was global cooling, and how if we were not careful we would enter into a new ice age.
Quote:
What I don't understand is, even if anthropogenic climate change was pure fantasy invented by money-grubbing scientists who were too stupid to go make 2-3 times as much working in private industry, why is it so terrible that we should attempt to make the world a cleaner place? What is so awful about working towards energy independence, clean air, clean water, etc? Why are those things so objectionable to the fact-denying right?
i have no issue with clean water, or clean air, or alternative fuels and energy independence. in fact i welcome them. however we must balance these things with the needs of the humans on this planet. responsible legislation and cool heads are what is needed here, not a bunch of people going off the deep end making claims to scare people into doing things out of fear.
Quote:
Originally Posted by joebaldknobber
The government should invest in green energy.
The government has invested trillions in propping up weak banks; why not invest in ethanol, solar, sugar cane, etc.
have you not heard of the solyndra debacle? government needs to stop picking winners and losers, and use the taxpayers money wisely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ford Beebe
Who in their right mind would compare predictions from 100 years ago to the ones we make today with deep core ice samples, supercomputers and the wealth of knowledge we've attained in 100 years? Is this the argument against scientific consensus?
ohh, 100 years of research. yeah that has gotten us really far along the way hasnt it? the computer climate models have been shown to be very inaccurate. they are only as good as the programmer writing the code, and the information put in the program. bad info means bad results. dont take computer models as gospel you will be disappointed every time.
Try to convince China and India. If they don't get on board it won't matter what we do.
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.
)
