Quote:
Originally Posted by e-ray
A couple hundred years ago the area of England and Northern Europe were struck with a mini ice age that lasted a few decades. It was sudden, and messed the region up pretty good.
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by e-ray
A couple hundred years ago the area of England and Northern Europe were struck with a mini ice age that lasted a few decades. It was sudden, and messed the region up pretty good.
We are at the point in the histroy of the Earth when we have a direct effect on it.
And we are not using that power wisely.
Zips first serious post. :applause:Quote:
Originally Posted by Zip Goshboots
Yeah, well, just don't get greedy.
The "denial logic" goes: Meterologists with satellites and acres of computing power, so commanding in social stature that their opinions are now presented by Weather Channel babes instead of the farmer's astrology almanac, just fucked up on 4-7" of snow hitting SE Michigan a couple days ago. So, why should we rely on their long-term predictions? The weather is perceived as mercurial and unpredictable to mythological extremes, and generally presented in a light and fluffy kind of way. Why buy into this global holocaust shit without a hurricane at the doorstep?
There's all sorts of rational counterarguments, but there's lifetimes of inertia and so-called "common sense" to overcome.
And no, I haven't ever made a serious post.
Yes, there are fluctuations and yes there are natural ice ages/cooling periods. However, if you watch the movie you will see them chart the fluctuations in the past and chart the current ones. It's not even close. The temperature rise is like 10 times greater than the past changes. most of the numbers cannot even be placed on the charts they are so staggering. If you think this is natural you are fooling yourself. My co-worker is a staunch Bush supporter and even he was floored by the movie.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tahoe
I can't pull up the articles I've read but it seems to me for every point one side makes the other has a counterpoint, and on it goes. I haven't read as much as many of you have apparently, but every time I do read one side I try to read the other side too. Doing that stops me from being able to say yea or ney.
What does being a Bush supporter or opposer have to do with this issue?
If we break it down politically, its not like the Dems have much to stand on for taking action.
There's lots of fuzzy obfuscation that happens by both the "pro" and "anti" global warming crowd, as is true with every major bit of science that gets "sided". There's scientists who'll spend lifetimes coming up with all sorts of cockamamie reasons to prove "speculative" positions, not even for material gain, but just to validate some position they took a long time ago. Heaven forbid that they might ever be <gasp> WRONG, especially on something they spent years on! There's still scientists in Utah who keep beating the drums for cold fusion. They could turn out to be right in the end, but I don't have Mr. Fusion in my DeLorean jussst yet. Throw in the monied interests and you end up with science being more about "selling" than about the accumulation and presenting of impartial conclusions. A hypothesis doesn't have to be right. Lots of hypotheses that people spend a lot of time on are wrong. It doesn't mean it wasn't worth the effort, that the work might some day come to help in unexpected ways. Sometimes, until you do the work, you never know.
Where I think it's gonna get interesting is the intersection of the "clean air" and "global warming" crowd, generally inhabited at the extremes by the same bunch of eco-warriors. There's a growing amount of evidence that suggests that a lot of our clean air activities, besides doing good things, may serve to accelerate the pace of global warming, and be less of a good thing.
It's not a political issue (at least it shouldn't be), but people do form opinions based on their party offiliation. I know several people that won't watch the film because they are republicans. I think that is silly. I'd like to know as much info as I can, regardless of the party I might support.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tahoe
Yes, there are valid opinions to both sides of course. Nobody knows for sure whether the Earth will naturally correct the warming trend or not. If the ice caps melt some, there is more water, more water vapor, water vapor is a green house gas, but clouds reduce incoming sunlight as well. Sure, there are natural feedback mechanisms in the Earth. I majored in Geography and Earth Science, so I do know a few things about the issue (though I'm no expert for sure). The problem is that we might not be able to survive the natural mechanisms.
I'd like to read the non-global warming stuff myself, so if you do find some please post them. I'm curious whether they feel the Earth is not really warming, or if they just feel things will correct themselves over time. They are very different issues. I find it hard to debate the warming happening, since they have the temp readings. Whether or not we'll detroy the Earth is the real debate. I don't think we'll destroy the Earth totally, but it could be drastically altered for sure.
This article kind of skips across the top....meaning not hard hitting but says enough for me to dig deeper. Then I dig deeper and its partly what UMax said above your post...Scientists work hard to prove things, I'm just admitting I'm not smart enough to decifer point/counter point on this issue or who's bullshiting who? Or maybe they(either side) aren't trying to bullshit, hopefully they truly(sp?) believe what they're saying.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6548
btw the article does accept the earth has warmed, if I read it correctly. So I'm not saying the earth isn't getting warmer, its just the rest of stuff I'm not sure about...did we cause it? How much of it did we cause? is it out of whack? does the Earth have a way of dealing with it? etc...