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.
You've got to be kidding yourself, ya know? But first;
IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor's Business Daily -- NOAA's Ark (http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=314842335792193 - broken link)
I'll only say this: There may be, in fact, global warming, but it ain't gone happen tomorrow! Or next year! Maybe in a decade, maybe in a century, but not anytime soon.
So, all y'all living in fear of dying from the heat, heck, just move north. Granted, you may end up living at the North Pole, or even the South Pole, if you live another millenia or two, but I don't think so. Really, get a grip, folks! The Earth is its own furnace, heating and cooling daily.
In 2012 the next polar reversal will take place on earth. This means that the North Pole will be changed into the South Pole. Scientifically this can only be explained by the fact that the earth will start rotating in the opposite direction, together with a huge disaster of unknown proportions. -- so hang on to your old gray bonnet.
yes or at least were ****ing up the world in some way..You have got to be a fool if you don't think we are changing the earth (I mean just look at our population, wasteful nature, etc...). The planet does have cycles like others have said but things are vastly different now.
The real question is this: given that the planet seems to be in a warming phase, are there reasons for reflective human beings to encourage this trend, discourage it, or do nothing at all? Most scientists who've studied the matter feel that it's a threat. I'm not going to argue with them.
The real question is this: given that the planet seems to be in a warming phase, are there reasons for reflective human beings to encourage this trend, discourage it, or do nothing at all? Most scientists who've studied the matter feel that it's a threat. I'm not going to argue with them.
Currently, the Earth is undergoing moderate heating, which, when compared to the alternatives, isn't the worst thing ever. A warmer Earth may create problems for us in the future, but a cooler Earth certainly would. Warmer ambient temperatures mean more evaporation on the oceans, meaning more continental precipitation, which creates an increase in fertile land. A cooler Earth would lead to mass starvation and famine, as it did during the Little Ice Age (which was just a few degrees cooler then average). Unfortunately, a warmer Earth could lead to rapid and drastic cooling.
A glacier is formed when more snow falls in the winter than can melt in the summer, creating areas of permanent ice/snow. This ice and snow doesn't absorb heat very well, instead reflecting it back into space. If 'global warming' leads to increased precipitation in naturally cool areas, you could eventually see an increase in the size and distribution of glaciers worldwide, which could reflect enough sunlight to create catastrophic cooling (such is the hypothesized mechanism for the 'Snowball Earth' theory). In fact, there are some models that would require an ice-free arctic ocean before the onset of a new ice age (though we are technically still in an ice age, called the Quaternary Glaciation, and are currently experiencing what geologists call an "interglacial" period).
So, the last question is "are humans the primary cause of global warming?" The best answer? Maybe. Contrary to popular belief, this is as heated a debate among scientists as it is among everybody else. The IPCC (intergovernmental panel on climate change), often cited as '4,000 scientists', was in reality composed of something 1,000 scientists and 3,000 activists (including members of Green Peace). They even threated and harassed their own scientists who dared to disagree with their doomsday scenarios. In contrasts, there were several panels of individuals (containing a similar ratio of scientists to activists) that have come to different conclusions than the IPCC, but doomsday scenarios sell press. The positions behind anthropogenic global warming, both negative and affirmative, are inherently laced with politics.
What can we say? It seems unlikely that the relatively inconsequential (on a geologic scale) changes that the Human Race has made to the Earth could wrought the magnitude of change that many people seem to expect, especially when you consider the constant influence our sun (and it's own cycles) has on the planet. If you were to sample average global temperatures, going back billions of years, you would find that the Earth today is much colder than one would tend to expect. In fact, in the last 2.7 billion years, there have only been four known ice ages, covering about 725 million years. The longest of these ice ages lasted for 400 million years, and the shortest for 30 million (and was thus labeled a minor ice age). Our current ice age officially started 2.58 million years ago, so there's no reason to expect that Earth will continue this warming trend for long. In fact, here's a decent graphic displaying temperature variation and ice density over the last 450,000 years (a blink of an eye geologically). The pattern is obvious.
no, i believe global warming is one of the biggest hoaxes the media and bull **** politicians such as Al Gore have ever pulled on society. And you know who's fault it is? Your own. Do you realize how much money has been spent on trying to stop global warming? That would be like trying to stop the day getting hotter than night.
The world's temperature goes through cycles. Back in the 70s people worried about global cooling. As soon as temperatures go back to normal its global warming. Now that temperatures are above normal it's THE WORLD IS GOING TO END!!!! BUY ENERGY EFFICIENT APPLIANCES, ANY OF YOUR OLD STUFF IS CRAP! BUY BUY BUY!
Have you noticed that this propaganda was spread by activists not scientists. And that it's no longer in the newspaper. It's because the majority of scientists think that it's bull****. In fact, some scientists say we're going into a cooling period, which is believable. Look at all the crazy weather there's been this year. Snow in Baghdad, in Houston, in Vegas, in Greece, Shanghai. Record cold across many places, like China (Bejing just had it's coldest December day since records), Vancouver.
I believe Global warming is a huge hoax to make some people like Al Gore richer and he and others are trying to scare people and kids.
I have seen a program on tv in which scientist who were fired or tried to shut up up, were allowed to speak out and tell their side of their proof of Global warming or not. They were very convincing and I believed them.
I also get sick of hearing Global warming and when we have the coldest day ever witnessed in FL on that day, that some people will say "well that is just one day", while there have been way more days like that.
When we were expecting our first child, there was a period of days when it was never reported as cold and later reported never had there been such a storm (in Europe) like that one, and so I have experienced many times hearing history low days....it is just another way for these people like Al Gore, etc...to make more money and not to do anything them self to save on energy by not using their private planes, etc....just we the average people have to change our lifes while he and his buddies can use what we save!
Have you noticed that this propaganda was spread by activists not scientists. And that it's no longer in the newspaper. It's because the majority of scientists think that it's bull****. In fact, some scientists say we're going into a cooling period, which is believable. Look at all the crazy weather there's been this year. Snow in Baghdad, in Houston, in Vegas, in Greece, Shanghai. Record cold across many places, like China (Bejing just had it's coldest December day since records), Vancouver.
You wouldnt know what a majority of scientists thought about anything. You dont listen to science, you listen to FOX
Scientists are peer reviewed. they study the problem, working together from different countries, with no politics involved. Those who will involve politics into the argument is the right wing deniers. If you look at the contributions of Al Gore to the argument, they are perfectly in line with the observations and research of peer reviewed scientists.
The effects of global warming, from now changing ocean currents and the ,effect this has on weather (think El Nino) to melting glaciers, to rising
tides, will have more than a single, observable effect. It can lead to increased agricultural production at higher climates. Already in this thread its being touted as something GOOD, and is MUCH BETTER than the alternative, which is COOLER temps.
Warmer temps GOOD, cooler temps. BAD.
Well, the effect on earth all this pollution is going to have is at least agreeable by everyone that it's end effect is never going to be good. But you can hear what the most comprehensive SCIENTIFIC study to be done on it by simply Googling IPCC Report (2007 or 2001) by four thousand scientists, not some blowhard on FOX News or AM radio
No, all the melted ice caps are just a figment of your imagination. They point to cold weather as proof - they have no idea how the Gulf stream is now screwed up.
Do I believe there is enough evidence to take (anthropogenic) global warming theory seriously? Yes.
Does a doctor always know EXACTLY what a patient's problem is when they prescribe treatment? No.
Does a doctor prescribe cures based on their NECESSARILY uncertain diagnosis if the preponderance of evidence indicates a potentially life-threatening/catastrophic disorder? Yes.
Would global warming be a potentially catastrophic disorder? Yes.
Is there a widespread agreement (not an absolute consensus) in the scientific community based on available data that anthropogenic global warming theory is valid? Yes.
Is global warming theory subject to peer review by fellow scientists? Yes.
Is it rank hypocrisy of many conservatives who, for example, supported the invasion of Iraq on flimsy evidence yet oppose global warming theory despite its widespread support in the scientific community?
Yes, yes, and yes a thousand times more.
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.
