you all are soooo stoooopid
- Thread starter hdroadglide
- Start date
I'm going to have to throw down a dissenting opinion here. (I know, you're all totally shocked). 
I'm no climate scientist, but two things jump out at me:
First, saying that an unusually cold/snowy winter disproves global warming is like saying your buddy getting a raise disproves the recession. The model describes an average planetary warming trend (that's the "global" part). The model also calls for more extreme weather in various places (hotter hots, colder colds, more storms). At the same time we're getting snow and ice dumped on us, Arctic ice is melting at record rates. We're still looking at GLOBAL warming.
Second, the whole political conspiracy. Honestly I have no idea if the warming trend is man-made or just something the planet is cycling through oblivious to us. All I ask is that you apply your skepticism to both sides of the issue. A large group of scientists secretly conspiring together to stay employed and keep Al Gore in movie royalties? Far fetched, but sure it could happen.
The deniers have a lot more at stake. If scientists are right, and we do need to cut our carbon emissions, that's bad news. Real bad news. It's bad news for industry, bad news for the American economy and bad news for the species. There's a lot of incentive to say it isn't so.
-Charles
I'm no climate scientist, but two things jump out at me:
First, saying that an unusually cold/snowy winter disproves global warming is like saying your buddy getting a raise disproves the recession. The model describes an average planetary warming trend (that's the "global" part). The model also calls for more extreme weather in various places (hotter hots, colder colds, more storms). At the same time we're getting snow and ice dumped on us, Arctic ice is melting at record rates. We're still looking at GLOBAL warming.
Second, the whole political conspiracy. Honestly I have no idea if the warming trend is man-made or just something the planet is cycling through oblivious to us. All I ask is that you apply your skepticism to both sides of the issue. A large group of scientists secretly conspiring together to stay employed and keep Al Gore in movie royalties? Far fetched, but sure it could happen.
The deniers have a lot more at stake. If scientists are right, and we do need to cut our carbon emissions, that's bad news. Real bad news. It's bad news for industry, bad news for the American economy and bad news for the species. There's a lot of incentive to say it isn't so.
-Charles
SkinsFanLarry
Craft Beer Addict!
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2008
- Messages
- 14,355
Ding, Ding, Ding....we have a Winner! :thumbsup:
Valcanos put out a lot more carbon and toxic substances then man has. There are numerous eruptions happening all the time including on the bottom of the ocean. How are we going to cap these to control thier "pollution"? Also the model your talking of is very general. It is made to account for anything happening so if an extreme happens either way they can claim its global warming to scare people so they can fill thier coffers. If it's freezing it must be global warming. If it's hot it must be global warming. If it's a perfect day it must be global warming...I'm going to have to throw down a dissenting opinion here. (I know, you're all totally shocked).
I'm no climate scientist, but two things jump out at me:
First, saying that an unusually cold/snowy winter disproves global warming is like saying your buddy getting a raise disproves the recession. The model describes an average planetary warming trend (that's the "global" part). The model also calls for more extreme weather in various places (hotter hots, colder colds, more storms). At the same time we're getting snow and ice dumped on us, Arctic ice is melting at record rates. We're still looking at GLOBAL warming.
Second, the whole political conspiracy. Honestly I have no idea if the warming trend is man-made or just something the planet is cycling through oblivious to us. All I ask is that you apply your skepticism to both sides of the issue. A large group of scientists secretly conspiring together to stay employed and keep Al Gore in movie royalties? Far fetched, but sure it could happen.
The deniers have a lot more at stake. If scientists are right, and we do need to cut our carbon emissions, that's bad news. Real bad news. It's bad news for industry, bad news for the American economy and bad news for the species. There's a lot of incentive to say it isn't so.
-Charles
The earth is ever changing and self correcting. Weather goes in cycles. How can the huge snowfall in NY be from global warming ( and something so new to them) if they tied a record for January snowfall set back in 1925? Did global warming exist back then too?
Its just a cycle in the weather. The scare tactics are just for guys like Gore to continue to make money off of the sheep.
Its just a cycle in the weather. The scare tactics are just for guys like Gore to continue to make money off of the sheep.
We can't control what China and other countries do directly, but if we do control what we can control, our own pollution, it may set an example for other countries. Aren't we suppose to be the global leader? And as the global leader, saying we shouldn't have to be responsible for the environment because these other countries don't is completely irresponsible and shows absolutely no leadership whatsoever. China ignores human rights, so why do we have to pay attention to them then? Don't use that argument, please, it holds no water.
I agree with you on the scare tactics. However, I wish environmentalists would just drop global warming altogether. They hurt their own cause. I think we all agree in principle when it comes down to it. Who will deny that pollution is bad and we must work together to lessen it? And that we need to do it yesterday. The problem is people don't want their lives to change, and that's why things aren't changing and probably won't. Circumstances will have to change them for us.
I don't think those two points really work in the real world. If simply setting an example would actually change anything in China, they'd be a democracy by now.
Also, the point about human rights doesn't really fit either. Not to sound insensitive, but human rights violations in China don't really affect us directly. However, massive amount of pollution in China DO affect us.
Imagine being in a boat that has three holes in it - China is a 5" hole, India a 3" hole, and the US a 2" hole. We can't jus plug the 2" hole and say "well, I did my part, hopefully those other holes will get plugged". The boat is still sinking...
You've missed my point entirely...you're trying to dissect it when all I was trying to illustrate was just because other countries are doing something, doesn't excuse our behavior. Okay, chinese human rights have no effect on us directly, but their pollution does. So does that mean we should just pollute to our hearts content? That's like a group of children getting caught doing something they shouldn't and one of them pointing their finger at another and saying "well he's doing it to! If he won't stop, why should I"? Is that really what you want your country to be? I thought we were suppose to be setting the bar? In your scenario, the worst set the example.
You're still missing the point. Yes, the boat is sinking, does that mean we should get out a 10" drill bit and open our hole up? Shouldn't we take pride in ourselves and always strive to be better? To be the best?
I understood your point, but my point was that simply improving things in the US is not going to solve anything. I understand you were responding to Postal's comment that could be interpreted as "we shouldn't do anything if they don't", but that's not the point I was making.
As in the boat analogy, you won't stop sinking until ALL holes are plugged. And if it was me in the boat, I'd work on the biggest holes first.
Another metaphor for ya (I like metaphors...) If you have a car with a flat tire and a blown transmission it's not going anywhere until they BOTH get fixed.
As in the boat analogy, you won't stop sinking until ALL holes are plugged. And if it was me in the boat, I'd work on the biggest holes first.
Another metaphor for ya (I like metaphors...) If you have a car with a flat tire and a blown transmission it's not going anywhere until they BOTH get fixed.
Cigar Cowboy
BoY...in Hell!!!
Look out your window then check Al Gores bank account. "Global Freezing" has been very very good to him :stretchgr
Did I say "Global Freezing". I meant "Global Warning". I get the too confused.
You're right Greg. Al Gore is much more reliable. I mean, when has he ever been known to stretch the truth or all-out fabricate stories for personal gain and attention? Oh wait...
It actually will solve a lot. I know it's not a solution to the entire problem, but don't believe changing things here won't solve anything. It will help. The US accounts for almost 20% of greenhouse emmissions in the world. China is only a couple percent higher. If we improve, there are bound to be other countries to follow. Not to mention, improving pollution will likely decrease our dependence on foreign energy sources or sources which have a finite life. I understand what you're saying. I'm just trying to say don't write off what a change in our country could do. It's one piece of the puzzle and we have to start somewhere.
hdroadglide
BoM x 2, BoY 2011
Antarctic Sea Ice for March 1980 and 2010
Extent - Concentration
2010 4.0 million sq km - 2.6 million sq km
1980 3.5 million sq km - 2.0 million sq km
Sea Ice Extent in March 2010 is over 14% greater than in 1980
Sea Ice Concentration in March 2010 is 30% greater than in 1980!
Extent - Concentration
2010 4.0 million sq km - 2.6 million sq km
1980 3.5 million sq km - 2.0 million sq km
Sea Ice Extent in March 2010 is over 14% greater than in 1980
Sea Ice Concentration in March 2010 is 30% greater than in 1980!
hdroadglide
BoM x 2, BoY 2011
and this from boston.....not exactly a bastion of conservatism!!!
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view.bg?articleid=1314036
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view.bg?articleid=1314036
