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.
I really don't care for Al Gore, but read through some scientific journals and then post something. People regurgitate all kinds of absurd things in denying climate change, most of them from people with financial interests in maintaining the status quo as long as possible. Climate change is real and has real impacts. Ticks carrying lyme disease are now further north in places that never had them before. Insect pests of trees, like the hemlock woolly adelgid, are a problem in places that were too cold to have them before, leading to potentially serious losses. More droughts in some places and fires that accompany that. Not everyplace will be warmer, it's very complex given the complexities of our planet. It won't be a constant rise every year.
Both sides do the same thing, and often for the same reason, personal gain, either financial or their 15 minutes of fame. For Algore, it is both. By fanning the flames with regards to AGW, he both keeps his name in the spotlight...and drives the push for the "carbon trading" scheme set to make him a much richer man (his "carbon exchange") should carbon trading be mandated. I would find AGW proponents a lot more convincing if they weren't lining their pockets in one way or another.
Did you actually read that article? It doesn't support your position.
Did you? The article throws out 3 different theories as to why "global warming" has stopped. But it doesn't support or provide support for any one. Honestly, untested ideas, unsupported by data, are "hypotheses", not theories.
Did you? The article throws out 3 different theories as to why "global warming" has stopped. But it doesn't support or provide support for any one. Honestly, untested ideas, unsupported by data, are "hypotheses", not theories.
And yet the same things appear in the Met Office report the denialist uses to prove . . . something.
Also, I'll note that I've shown about a half dozen times that a closer examination shows temperatures are still increasing. These facts go ignored because it contradicts Republican propaganda.
And who says these things are unsupported by data? Denialists? As if they're in a position to judge.
Did you? The article throws out 3 different theories as to why "global warming" has stopped. But it doesn't support or provide support for any one. Honestly, untested ideas, unsupported by data, are "hypotheses", not theories.
Yes I did. It presents different ideas on why the global average temperature did not go up. It doesn't support the position that global warming stopped several years ago, that the other poster was claiming. Global warming doesn't mean a constant rise every year, there will be ups and downs and flat spots, but the long term trend is the issue.
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.
