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.
what you guys are forgetting is that since at least 1895, perhaps even earlier, the global wamring alarmist crowd has been making claims like, "if we dont do something now, then within the next thirty years it will be too late".
now given that bit of information, is there any hope for you guys to perhaps see that being an alarmist is rather stupid?
What you are forgetting is that there is scientific data now that shows pretty convincingly that there is significant climate change, and that the rate of that change is unprecedented, even when looking far back at what we know of the history (and a lot is known).
No one is saying that we need to be alarmist, but when we confront the body of evidence, there is a point at which it may begin to be rational to at least admit "ok, something is going on here."
Not confronting the evidence or denying it out of hand without even trying to understand it is what is rather stupid.
In case you haven't noticed, I don't link to "the media", I link to the research, or at worst to summations of the research. You link to websites owned by right-wingers who whine about how the news isn't conservative enough for them. Media Research Center? That's where you go for the latest in scientific research? Why not cite the facts instead of what right-wing bozos have to say about the facts?
And I haven't raised any alarms, hardcore or otherwise. I've just exposed right-wing claims as false.
firs off i wasnt linking to research, i was linking to what the new york times was claiming more than 100 years ago in their science pages. note i never claimed it was science either. as for the media research center, note it say MEDIA research, NOT science research. they research what the media is saying about what the scientists are saying. big difference.
Quote:
I think I can. Mars has two, Phobos and Deimos. Most likely captured asteroids. Pluto has I believe three, or maybe two if you choose to define Pluto and Charon as a binary planetoid, because the center of mass of that system is between Pluto and Charon rather than within Pluto the way the center of mass in the Earth/moon system is within the Earth. Off the top of my head I can't name the two little rocks.
Shame I'm not a betting man.
excellent, you are worthy after all. and actually charon is a bit smaller than pluto which is now classed as either a dwarf planet, or a kuiper belt object depending on who you talk to. the other two moons for pluto are hydra and nix.
What you are forgetting is that there is scientific data now that shows pretty convincingly that there is significant climate change, and that the rate of that change is unprecedented, even when looking far back at what we know of the history (and a lot is known).
Yea I know just like the Time article back in the 70's....Global cooling was a fact!!!
I am a conservative who embraces sciences, and respects higher education. There are many more like me. See all of the threads about people leaving the GOP, some of which are actually authentic.
I am also a conservative who embraces sciences and respects higher education and those "global warming" (not known as "climate change") alarmists don't fool me for a minute.
Not to mention millions of environmental refugees with no where to go. I'm sure Conservatives will be glad to let them all in, we can put them in the region just North of where the Louisiana used to be.
What environmental refugees? It sounds like you actually believe that story from the link in post #1.
What you are forgetting is that there is scientific data now that shows pretty convincingly that there is significant climate change, and that the rate of that change is unprecedented, even when looking far back at what we know of the history (and a lot is known).
No one is saying that we need to be alarmist, but when we confront the body of evidence, there is a point at which it may begin to be rational to at least admit "ok, something is going on here."
Not confronting the evidence or denying it out of hand without even trying to understand it is what is rather stupid.
Not here there isn't. The warmest era was c. 1877-1902.
That's NOAA data.
And I'll bet it's true for every other city in the Northern Hemisphere if anyone cared to look for the data.
really? i am betting that you dont know how many moons mars or pluto have. i am for good education, and lots of it. what i am NOT for is biased education. those that educate the children must be neutral politically, or at least present information in a neutral manner.
Did you not say that science was predicting warming back in 1895? Why are you showing me media predictions?
And the Times wasn’t warning about global warming – it was telling readers the looming dangers of a new ice age. As the Times put it on Feb. 24, 1895, “Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again.”
Those concerns lasted well into the late 1920s. But when the earth’s surface warmed less than half a degree, newspapers and magazines responded with stories about the new threat. Once again the Times was out in front, cautioning “the earth is steadily growing warmer.”
By 1954, Fortune magazine was warming to another cooling trend and ran an article titled “Climate – the Heat May Be Off.”
The New York Times ran warming stories into the late 1950s, but in 1975, the paper reported: “A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable.”
Scroll up this thread. Go to the post I wrote to Ed. I mention this fallacy, and show it's not true. Feel free to take advantage of this opportunity for a little free education.
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.
