ba1025

Here is what the Republican administrations EPA has to say. reember GWB stood opposed to the theory and has since been forced to aknowledge teh reality by the overwhelming wieght of teh data
Recent Climate Change - Temperature Changes | Science | Climate Change | U.S. EPA
All these quotes are from a US govt .gov site
i am planning my retirement this isn't something that will effect me beyond milder New England winters. It's those around post 2040, 2050 that start facing real problems because of this

Parihaka

I'm well aware of the effects of pollution on the environment, and have indeed seen at first hand the effects of industry pollutants and mismanagement of environments through overuse.
What I haven't seen is any actual empirical evidence that anthropogenic CO2 is a forcer of global temperature increase. What I have seen is a single graph by Mann et al in the original IPCC report as proof that there has been an escalation in the background rise (yes background rise) of global temperatures.
I can go into the reasons for why Mann et al is now regarded as a big pile of smelly poo and has been dropped from the IPCC reports if you like, but the only other thing I've seen from the IPCC are a whole lot of models based on Mann (i.e. using his data as predictor) that have thus far completely failed to predict the temperature fluctuations around the globe. Plus an awful lot of political statements that bear no relation to any of the few scientific papers they've actually presented.

__________________
In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz

ba1025

you can lead a horse to water but if you try to make him drink he'll just trample you you didnt upset me. Like i said i wouldn't be upset with a Christian who insisted the world was 5000 years old at some point i would realize the belief was based on faith so beyond the need of proof and their was no point in continuing to press a point he was incapable of acknowledging

7thsfsniper

Well it's good for you that I'm not a horse then.

__________________
Don't run, you'll only die tired!

ba1025

i don't think it's a stretch to think greenhouse gases may cause an increased greenhouse effect. Even if you argue the warming is a natural wouldn't we want to mitigate that natural trend to avoid the natural consequences. I have np with man changing his environment. i am not some knee jerker saying don't drill in Anwar...the polar bears are already fuxored whats the big deal. I also linked a .gov site where they reached the conclusion it was from increased CO2

ba1025

OMG IT IS SO HARD NOT TO FOLLOW THIS THOUGHT THROUGH...but who would u all have to disagree with if I got suspended again

7thsfsniper

OK........OK...........OK! I concede! The climate IS CHANGING!


just not like some of you think

7thsfsniper

HAHAHAHAHA! So you learned something while sitting in the corner?

ba1025

in a word No...I made a conditional request to be suspended

Parihaka

It's a bit of a stretch but it's true stranger things have happened.
However, as there isn't actually any science that proves it, it's all just theory despite the IPCC press releases and the faith-based internet sites you've linked to.
You've got to admit, if you substituted the word 'god' for 'global warming' on those internet sites, you'd be sitting around a campfire singing kumbuyah and damning the heretics. 'He's not a man, he's a duck' 'that's true, I saw him floating in the water just the other day'.

The problem of course is that even though it's not proven, wouldn't it be better to do something, just to be on the safe side. Look after our kids and grandkids? Well yes, but....
When you f*ck with a system as complex as mans energy dependency you better be damn sure you know what you're doing, and be damn sure you need to do it.
Ethanol. Great, not more dirty oil.
More polution. Shhh.
Higher food prices. No worries, we can afford it.

Ah, but millions, possibly billions can't and will starve to death, because after all mass production of food is heavily reliant on petrochemicals right through the entire process, irrespective of whether you divert a small part of that food to provide combustible fuel.
The current food riots over a small price rise from increased ethanol production are nothing compared to the distortions in food prices that will occur when carbon tax gets applied to food production under Kyoto.
F*ck with the farms at your peril.

7thsfsniper

Pari- Good post! Really illustrates the bigger, immediate problem. HERE, HERE!

gunnut

May I ask some questions?

What is the "correct" temperature for the earth?

Can there be variations? If so, what time frame are we talking about?

This is just like those liberals who claim the "gap between the rich and the poor" is getting wider. But when I ask what the "correct" gap is, no one could tell me.

__________________
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

7thsfsniper

I have read that a swing of 10 to 15 degrees either way from the current averages would affect food production, ocean currents and weather patterns so drastically that depending on the length of the period, only 10% or less of the population would survive.

omon

i say fvck global warming, pollution is much bigger and real threat. that is something that needs to be addressed yesterday.
deforestation is hurting ecosystem a lot, i also read somewhere, cutting trees isn,t that bad, not putting new ones is worst, also young trees produce more oxygen, than old ones, size by size

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" B. Franklin

Shek

No, it's the BBC, a secondary source, using a primary source, the World Meterological Organization.

When I use sources, I provide links so that someone can read through it all. The quotes predicting future rising temperatures don't impress me - my question is what did the models predict, and if their predictions are wrong, then why should we put any faith into the model?

A clear trend over the past 5 years of no rise in temperature, although it will take 5 more years to see that moving 5 year average.

So we're less than one degree warmer compared to an unspecified mean time period? That's not scary to me.

Until that knife fighter sneaks up from behind

The US recorded the 63rd warmest March on record. Not too hot here in the US. However, the point you're probably trying to make is about the world average temperature in March, which was the 2nd warmest in the 129 years of collecting data. One month does not a year make, so I'll until next January to see what happens this year.

Over what time period? My original piece looked at the past decade, but over a longer time period, sure we're seeing warming. However, if models can't predict accurately, then that means we don't have the science to capture the causal mechanisms, which means that we can't develop solutions to weigh on a cost-benefit analysis to enact policies.

__________________
"So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3