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.
First what the hell is a global warmer? Are they people that somehow are heating up the globe?....People that accept climate science have no need to engage in obfuscation, misrepresentation, data fabrication, smear campaigns, or intimidation tactics. All we have to do is show you the evidence... It is up to you to accept it or blindly deny it, but it won't affect the climate one way or another, nor do I care what you think.
Science is not about blind acceptance nor blind denial. Science is by its nature a process of skepticism, questioning, and testing. It is religion that demands '[i]t is up to you to accept it."
I am entirely agnostic on global warming, not being a physicist, I just don't have an opinion one way or the other. I would like to see more empirical evidence and less reliance on computer models which even global warming proponents (there's your 'global warmer') now acknowledge have failed. But I'm just a lowly blue collar union worker, so what do I know? I do know that the last time someone demanded that I "accept it or blindly deny it" was in a religious meeting. I chose to blindly deny.
LOL! Ice core samples from 800,000 years ago, ( sounds like you need to slap yourself in the head for believing in conspiracy theories like that. How would anyone really know they were 800,000 years ago, what do they have to compare it with? Why should I believe the official story from a government branch? Remember, be objective. They have also cried wolf too many times, and lost major credibility, that isn't my problem.
Lastly, it may be real, however you have bad people that are bringing down the credibility of global warming/climate change, or whatever they're calling it today. You have ones that want all this money for all these crazy things, even a few billion for foreign countries, where is this extra money going to come from?
I don't know what point the OP is trying to make, but it is RETARDED regardless of whether he is arguing for or against the oncoming ice age/inter-glacial.
Nice. Nothing like using the R word to make a point.
Given that we live in a country in which the theory of evolution—one of the most powerful theories in all of science—is routinely dismissed, and one in which climate-change experts have struggled for years to persuade the public that there is a clear and present danger despite reams of data supporting them, serious investigations into the logic of crowds in real-world situations may represent an important step forward in understanding how to reason with less-than-reasonable masses. What a Conspiracy Theorist Believes - The New Yorker
Nice. Nothing like using the R word to make a point.
I think hurricane was stating the ice age is being retarded by atmospheric pollution from Asian coal fired power generation settling on higher latitude snow packs causing localized melting preventing accumulation.
Is the earth getting warmer? We should hope so for at least two reasons: First, the world emerged from the Little Ice Age in the 19th century, so it would be worrisome if it weren’t getting warmer. Second, all the history indicates that humans thrive more during warmer periods than colder ones. It is likely, though, that earth has warmed less than many official temperature records indicate for a variety of reasons, including: few long-term records from either the southern hemisphere or the 71 percent of the planet that is covered by water; distortions from the urban heat-island effect and other faulty siting (e.g., temperature sensors next to asphalt parking lots, etc.; the decline in weather station reports from Siberia after the fall of the Soviet government; the arbitrarily ceasing to include measurements from northern latitudes and high elevations, etc.) The most accurate measures of temperature come from satellites. Since the start of these measurements in 1979, they show minor fluctuations and an insignificant net change in global temperature.
Who should we believe in matters of global warming, A. or B. ??
A.) NASA, the EPA, the UN, and America's most respected science oriented magazines.
B.) Fox news, Rush radio, and the Wall Street backed Forbes magazine..
I don't know what point the OP is trying to make, but it is RETARDED regardless of whether he is arguing for or against the oncoming ice age/inter-glacial.
I don't think so at all. Some OP's are intended to be conversation starters only, and I think this one was better than most. Neutrality is not a bad way to start a topic thread going here- it's certainly much better than taking an extreme position from the very first and then trying to justify the crack-pottery it always brings later on.
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.
