Temps in Greenland hit their lowest point in 8000 years about 1875. It's been getting warmer since. It was hotter in Greenland in 1000 A.D. and even warmer 4000 years ago. There were vinyards all over England around 1000 A.D., it has been too cold since.
Interesting documentaries on You Tube, there is disagreement within the scientific community. mode=related&search=
"Regarding surround sound, I know musicians too well to want them behind my back." -Walter Becker
I don't deny that pollution is a problem. Bloody Hell, it's been a problem for hundreds of years. We were one of the worst for it in the early days. Likely it will get worse as developing countries grow.
What I do deny is that we are supposed to be responsible for all this change on a world that changes all the time. The scientists who find that may be this is wrong leave the research, distancing themselves from it. But their names are not taken off, leaving a growing list of scientists in 'consensus'.
We have had reliable instruments to make measurements of this planet for a relative nanosecond, and all of a sudden it's 'STOP!'.
Crying about polar bears and such like. Come on. A thorn scrapes my eye to see the shots and commentary from Attenborough but I believe it is nature doing it's thing. Funny how the less 'cute' wildlife isn't so prevalent on these shows.
I don't buy the whole 'it's us' thing, that's all.
I don't deny that pollution is a problem. Bloody Hell, it's been a problem for hundreds of years. We were one of the worst for it in the early days. Likely it will get worse as developing countries grow.
America still accounts from some 25% of the world population's output of CO2 emissions, plus a healthy percentage of other pollution. Yes, we are far cleaner than we were, but in total we're still right at the top. Yes, developing countries will grow and their output will rise, but I don't see us dropping any time soon. That's an amazing number for a country with such a small percentage of the world's population.
What I do deny is that we are supposed to be responsible for all this change on a world that changes all the time.
A boat moves on the ocean. The people in the boat all move to one side, and water comes in over the beam. Who's responsible for the boat sinking, the ocean or the people on the boat?
The scientists who find that may be this is wrong leave the research, distancing themselves from it. But their names are not taken off, leaving a growing list of scientists in 'consensus'.
Who, specifically?
We have had reliable instruments to make measurements of this planet for a relative nanosecond, and all of a sudden it's 'STOP!'.
The information I heard is that we have pretty accurate average temperature readings for periods of time going back thousands of years, and this last century's temp rise is astounding relative to any other.
Crying about polar bears and such like. Come on. A thorn scrapes my eye to see the shots and commentary from Attenborough but I believe it is nature doing it's thing. Funny how the less 'cute' wildlife isn't so prevalent on these shows.
C'mon. Being in retail you can appreciate good marketing, can't you? :-)
Well... I'm no scientist - (oh, you didn't know that?!?!)... but the vast majority of scientists are in agreement on this thing
Wildly incorect...
On April 15, 2007 at 21:39, AHEM said...
I believe that the issue here is that the consensous of scientists believe that man's 21st century byproducts are rabidly accellerating the natural change.
How the hell can you apply consent to science?
It's not possible...
You can have a concessus that says Ford Motor company produces an inferior product or that Jimmy's school has an ineffective reading program...
Mans 21st century byproducts are in large part process regurgitation's of existing materials collected from here and there. The earth in all it's massiveness has more than enough ability to absorb what little we've thrown at it. We may have the ability to make our own little slice of the world nasty and unlivable.... (I can't find to many spots like this in the US), but the earth will recover.
I might not be able to live at Chernobyl, but that hasn't stopped it from becoming a paradise for invasive plants and other species. Just because it's not up to your standards of living don't really mean the planets on it's way down the tubes does it?
On April 15, 2007 at 21:43, AHEM said...
As Simon and Garfunkel once sang "still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest"
I love S & G as much as the next guy, but I'm not taking lessons from them.. Great music is great music.
Where's your argument? Got another song quote or link to follow?
Sure you can pollute.. Sure you can clear cut, but the earth it's much more powerful that we make ourselves out to be.
The information I heard is that we have pretty accurate average temperature readings for periods of time going back thousands of years, and this last century's temp rise is astounding relative to any other.
Can you site your source? We have only been measuring temperature for a short period of time. The rest is theory.
I should clarify something, I agree that man made global warming is a possibility, even though I don't think it is likely given everything else the earth has survived. I do believe that each person has a responsibility to conserve resources as much as possible. I also believe that carbon credits are a farce.
Can you site your source? We have only been measuring temperature for a short period of time. The rest is theory.
Sure, I can site my sources. Antarctica and New York. Oh, wait, you meant cite. Sure. How about the Goddard Institute for Space Studies and US Department of Energy.
I believe that the issue here is that the consensous of scientists believe that man's 21st century byproducts are rabidly accellerating the natural change.
Well, as long as you believe it, that makes it true!! :^)
On April 14, 2007 at 17:57, QQQ said...
Another person who cannot get their facts straight. The earth is 6000 years old. Dinosaurs never actually existed, they are a trick of the devil who put their bones here to confuse us and make us believe in all that evil evolution stuff.
:-)
Dude, the flood took 'em out!! Didn't you read that chapter??!!
On April 16, 2007 at 09:18, Theaterworks said...
The information I heard is that we have pretty accurate average temperature readings for periods of time going back thousands of years, and this last century's temp rise is astounding relative to any other.
Oh, so you heard that? Must be true! Thousands of years??? You mean I could look at the high and low temperatures in Syria approximately 100 AD? In Egypt at about 1000 BC? Where?
C'mon. Being in retail you can appreciate good marketing, can't you? :-)
Now that is the gospel truth!!
There is no truth anymore. Only assertions. The internet world has no interest in truth, only vindication for preconceived assumptions.
On April 16, 2007 at 10:53, Tom Ciaramitaro said...
Oh, so you heard that? Must be true! Thousands of years??? You mean I could look at the high and low temperatures in Syria approximately 100 AD? In Egypt at about 1000 BC? Where?
Yes, you can look at global temperatures based on the ice core samples taken in Antarctica, as one example. Just because there wasn't a USGS weatherman looking at a thermometer and jotting the numbers down in Sascrit (sp?) doesn't mean we can't figure out what was happening. You don't need to have a meter on a speaker line 24/7 to know when your customer's kid overdrove the amp and toasted the woofer cone.
But, it's not science because it's put out by young earth scientists, right?
(Whoops, there's an MIT scientist's study mixed in there as well. Cancel my above comment.)
[Link: ncpa.org] --- Why aren't all scientists in agreement (the "consensus" we hear about) according to this information??
[Link: americanpolicy.org] --- Is it no longer science because it is contrary to what we commonly hear through the media?
[Link: nationalcenter.org] --- some of the "facts" we hear are not facts at all?
[Link: cato.org] --- are we using the right portions of this century when modeling temperature changes vs. carbon dioxide changes?
[Link: npr.org] --- all these are scientists looking over data, sometimes millions of samples. The top of the story properly indicates that the world view often dictates the results of the "study".
[Link: science.nasa.gov] --- the temperatures over the past two decades may be dropping slightly.
[Link: heartland.org] --- this is written by Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.
Conclusions in the above article? "...nonscientists generally do not want to bother with understanding the science. Claims of consensus relieve policy types, environmental advocates, and politicians of any need to do so. Such claims also serve to intimidate the public and even scientists--especially those outside the area of climate dynamics."
"...there is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
Well, all you scientists out there, who are you going to believe? Just keep on believing what you want to believe, or read more with an open mind? Who is right? If we collect links to bona fide scientists' studies which support one side or the other, if we get more links to one side, does that mean they are all right and the other side is wrong?
Is it not correct to say that there is NO consensus, but instead that there is HEATED DEBATE??
Last edited by Tom Ciaramitaro
on April 16, 2007 12:01.
There is no truth anymore. Only assertions. The internet world has no interest in truth, only vindication for preconceived assumptions.
Did you forget? You were going to cite your your source for your position that most of the pollution comes from the rest of the planet, not the US.
America still accounts from some 25% of the world population's output of CO2 emissions, plus a healthy percentage of other pollution. Yes, we are far cleaner than we were, but in total we're still right at the top. Yes, developing countries will grow and their output will rise, but I don't see us dropping any time soon. That's an amazing number for a country with such a small percentage of the world's population.
Did you forget your own post? Last I checked 75 was larger than 25 although I don't believe the 25% either. You've obviously made up your mind that the US is responsible for global warming and it couldn't possibly be due to normal solar activity. I guess you better buy some carbon credits.
Please read the following: Unsolicited commercial advertisements are absolutely not permitted on this forum. Other private buy & sell messages should be posted to our Marketplace. For information on how to advertise your service or product click here. Remote Central reserves the right to remove or modify any post that is deemed inappropriate.
