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.
When I was in school in the late 1970's the BIG "climate" worry was "global cooling". So I DON'T take the "global warming" thing real serious at all.
No it wasn't. There was ONE article about this in TIME magazine, and saying that this has anything to do with the science today is only an indicator of someone who does not understand climate change.
It's similar to a denialist bringing up Al Gore, it is another indicator that the person has no scientific concept whatsoever of climate change.
The "global cooling" story was never BIG, it was a theory that was offered up once. It was never widely accepted and was wrong. It is now 2015, soon to be 2016. Things have changed since the 1970's, and one of them is the rate at which the planet is warming.
No it wasn't. There was ONE article about this in TIME magazine, and saying that this has anything to do with the science today is only an indicator of someone who does not understand climate change.
It's similar to a denialist bringing up Al Gore, it is another indicator that the person has no scientific concept whatsoever of climate change.
The "global cooling" story was never BIG, it was a theory that was offered up once. It was never widely accepted and was wrong. It is now 2015, soon to be 2016. Things have changed since the 1970's, and one of them is the rate at which the planet is warming.
Your disinfo won't work, odanny. As the OP does, I remember too. Far, far more than "one":
There is one thing we can lose for sure very soon. It's natural honey.
The last scientific observations show that year by year the bee's population on the planet is decreasing. It is possible that some day all colonies of bees will totally disappear.
I'm not sure I want to live in a world without coffee, chocolate and peanut butter.
Here's 10 things that could disappear with demographic change:
1. Good public schools.
2. Safe neighborhoods.
3. Good parks, both local and national.
4. Christmas.
5. Charity.
6. Good jobs.
7. Corruption free local governments.
8. The need to not be armed.
9. Vibrant urban cores.
10. Small businesses.
Yes I do....Please post any scientific study that confirms what you found on the denial site (Ironically named "Real science") and your Zombie site...
Steven Goddard (pseudonym for Tony Heller) is a blogger and the publisher of "Real Science," a website he established to promulgate his assertions that concerns over anthropogenic global warming are unfounded. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Goddard
Yes I do....Please post any scientific study that confirms what you found on the denial site (Ironically named "Real science") and your Zombie site...
Steven Goddard (pseudonym for Tony Heller) is a blogger and the publisher of "Real Science," a website he established to promulgate his assertions that concerns over anthropogenic global warming are unfounded. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Goddard
By the way I do not believe the OP in the least...Our food supply will be just fine.
I especially like that one of those sites pointed out that the Times cover claiming global cooling, did not in fact actually occur. IE people claiming it did are intentionally deceiving people.
However.....like other posters here during my high school one of my instructors did discuss global cooling, as I recall (it was a long long time ago) it was stated to be "some researchers claim". Peak oil was a larger concern, but my teacher also indicated that with more oil being found it was difficult to estimate when that would occur, and if we would discover other energy sources before.
Looking back, I had some pretty good teachers that taught well. (Well except for the aerospace teacher that taught us that glass is a slow moving liquid, he should have stuck with aerospace as he taught that well).
A controversial, but cheap solution of last resort has emerged known as “solar radiation management.” A geoengineering technique, it would shoot particles into the sky to reflect sunlight back to space.
“The central idea is to make the planet a little bit more reflective, which tends to cool it down, because it will absorb less sunlight. And that will partially and imperfectly compensate for the buildup of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, which are tending to trap heat and make the earth warmer,” says Harvard environmental scientist David Keith, who works at the intersection of environmental science, energy technology and public policy.
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.
