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 don't think he's going to understand what those maps mean. Might want to explain those to him.
That is the problem with this topic, it isn't something that someone just walks into, grabs a few links and explains the issue. Coleman did a good job of some of the points of significance, but that can be easily rebutted when the person evaluating the material is not familiar with the topic such as the OP is (that is, people can easily dismiss Coleman's information and make an excuse with a misleading piece). The Mann issue is one to which has been going on for over 7 years and the details of the issue are subtle in many ways, but significant.
Anyway, the OP should start here if he wants to get a grasp of what Coleman is talking about:
It really isn't something someone can learn in a week to make a presentation for, which is why it has me questioning the teachers method in requesting such. It almost seems as if the academic institution is setting up for a lynching, trying to display the skeptical objections as not very well founded in their position and confused in the topic which is exactly what the OP will be viewed as if he attempts to present this with so little understanding of the issue.
I also agree there can be no denying the climate is changing.
By the way, the term GLOBAL WARMING has been replaced with CLIMATE CHANGE. Because everyone sees a foot of snow in December and declares "look it's still snowink in Canada! There is no global warming!".
Some places get warmer, some get cooler.
The real debate, as has been said is: are WE causing it, or not?
Well, I don't think everyone is that ignorant, but anyone who does not understand the difference between instances of weather and climate is scientifically illiterate.
It's also not an either/or matter of whether climate change is caused by human activity. There is a lot of in-between there; it is happening, are we contributing to it (making it more than it would have otherwise been), and in what ways? Wherever you fall in this debate, it does seem wise for the long term to minimize the stresses we put on our home planet.
Persoaqnlly I believe that this is just another cycle the earth have gone thru before .Nothing different than the cold cycles the world has experience.The evidnece is that many are promoting it purely for economis gain in funding. Nothing new in that.
Put it this way, there is yearly weather, intermediate weather patterns, long term weather patterns, and very long term weather patterns. People are all looking for "the cause." When George Washington crossed the Delaware, he said, "Dang its cold!" and pushed on. In the early 1900s they said, "Dang, it's cold!" as he hung another side of beef on the porch.
Today, it's, "Dang it's hot!" as I decide to get somebody else to mow our struggling lawn. Worst drought in Texas history, but we push 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.
