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.
The Nature Conservancy is a good organization. They are pretty balanced and look at the real scientific concerns that impact us all.
Balanced? Their site reads like an ad campaign to fight AGW. I see no balance, though I do see carbon calculators to determine your effect on the planet (I would love to see the code on that one).
I do not see any direct reference to scientific analysis, though I do see some references to administrative summaries and the like.
Sorry, but if they are balanced, then Stalin was a humanitarian.
No, I knew it was a scam from the get go. There are thousands of scientists that have disagreed with Gore and his minions from the start and this is why he has been trying to destroy any debate on the subject. It's all about wanting big government to intrude in every single aspect of out lives. Global warming is a load of crap!
I'm not going to enter this conversation except to say that yesterday they had a news story about this. They said that Al Gore will be the first "carbon billionaire" since he's heavily invested in the "green" industry. Just a fact and that's where I'll leave it.
THe climate has always ben changing, it's a dynamic thing. But the goverments have called it GLOBAL WARMING merely to fear monger people into thinking their beachside pads will be swept away in a few years, that we'll burn to death, etc etc, and use this brainwashing communist technique to create new laws/policies/crap that will in effect simply collect money for the government.
You have them spruiking on about "ZOMG teh tempszzz iz gonna rise 2 degrees in 50 years time OMGZ we're all gonna die" when you regulalry have temps 2C or more above/below the long term average for a given location in any given month. This is ofcourse a favourite tool for the global warming fear mongerers/communists but ofcourse what is not mentioned in their campaign of terror and fleecing is the fact that climate is a dynamic entitiy, it's not gonna conform to a fixed number given for a random number of years just coz someone says "this is the average, this is what it should be".
Are you aware that when Earth was 5C cooler than it is now, thick ice sheets extended as far south as NYC? Temperatures for given locations do fluctuate but for the planet as a whole they are very constant. Do you realize how much energy is required to warm the entire atmosphere globally 2C?
Anyway I don't buy into the global conspiracy thing. Simply TOO many scientists, in TOO many disciplines, in TOO many countries across various political stripes who basically accept Anthropogenic Global Warming for any kind of conspiracy to be believable.
On the other hand, the idea that emission of billions of tons of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere over several decades will affect climate seems very plausible to me.
Conservation is still a core conservative principle. Most neoconservatives seem to have forgotten that fact. I do agree that their exists much hypocrisy on both sides, but becoming energy efficient and developing green collar jobs saves both consumers and businesses money as well as deferring negative environmental externalities that the taxpaying public would have to deal with.
Conservation is fine, as long as it is voluntary and not a tax or a mandate.
I feel Global Warming is real but this whole scandal has me very skeptical on a lot of things.
Since the year 2000 the U.S. has seen 2-3 times as many record highs than record lows so that says something, back in the days NYC used to get a ton of snow but now we get like 2 "storms" (3-6 inches) so that says something too.
The empirical evidence and on the ground evidence supports the fact that the global average temperatures are increasing. Sea ice will be completely gone off the Arctic Ocean by 2025 according to some and that would allow for trans-continental shipping. The fact that CO2 and temperatures are now both rising in tandem confounds the AGW skeptics. In prior ice core samples and radiocarbon dating, temperatures first rose and then CO2 increases followed. Now, GHGs are increasing at such a fast rate that global temperatures will continue to increase even if we get a globalized climate pact agreement to curb emissions "growth rates." China has stated that it will curb some of its "excessive" growth rates of GHGs, but they will still increase as they further industrialize.
Interesting post. First, global average temperatures have leveled off over the past 12 years. The scientists discussed this in the CRU "Climategate" emails, NASA Goddard put out a press release about it. It is generally regarded as a fact. Although media reports that this decade is the "hottest on record" are misleading to the facts. Yes temperatures in say, 2008 were hotter than 1992, but not hotter than 2002.
The problem is, the computer models which you tout in your post did not predict this. We should be a lot warmer than we are right now. In the CRU emails, the scientists are at a loss to explain this. So if the models are unreliable, or perhaps subject to the bias of person creating the model, then how can we say with any certainty that in 2025 this or that will occur?
I feel Global Warming is real but this whole scandal has me very skeptical on a lot of things.
Since the year 2000 the U.S. has seen 2-3 times as many record highs than record lows so that says something, back in the days NYC used to get a ton of snow but now we get like 2 "storms" (3-6 inches) so that says something too.
You have to consider urban heat islands and not just that there was a record high. Temperatures stay warmer at night in urban areas.
Interesting post. First, global average temperatures have leveled off over the past 12 years. The scientists discussed this in the CRU "Climategate" emails, NASA Goddard put out a press release about it. It is generally regarded as a fact. Although media reports that this decade is the "hottest on record" are misleading to the facts. Yes temperatures in say, 2008 were hotter than 1992, but not hotter than 2002.
The problem is, the computer models which you tout in your post did not predict this. We should be a lot warmer than we are right now. In the CRU emails, the scientists are at a loss to explain this. So if the models are unreliable, or perhaps subject to the bias of person creating the model, then how can we say with any certainty that in 2025 this or that will occur?
1998 was the hottest year or record. But years since have not been exactly cool. For example, 2007 saw the lowest summer ice extent in the arctic since satellite observation started in the 70's. Secondly, AFAIR, the global warming model says that warming will not necessarily be a straight line - there will be peaks and valleys in temperature. But new peaks will be higher than previous peaks and new valleys will be higher than older valleys. There will be variation from year to year but the general trend will be towards warmer years.
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.
