Global Warming, v. 2007.1
Continued.
This topic is taking off over on the January random thread, so we’re giving it a thread of its own.
Date: January 1, 2007
Categories: Life, The Universe
Comments RSS TrackBack 331 comments
-
1
Robert Coontz (Administrator)
in January 1st, 2007 @ 19:43Let’s kick things off with Isabella’s comment from the January Jubilee thread:
30- But El Niño is partially caused by pollution. Don’t start attacking me, I said partially.
31- OMG!!! An Inconvenient Truth . IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN IT EDUCATE YOURSELF!!!!! It was inspiring. It was an awakening. I already sort of had a reputation as an environmentalist, but now that’s nothing. I don’t watch movies and don’t have a TV, but I bought it and played it on my computer… MY FAVORITE MOVIE OF ALL TIME!!!!
33- The next Ice Age could be much sooner than that and this is not just a heat cycle that we’re going through. Since there is more land in the northern hemisphere, there are more plants. When the northern hemisphere is tilted towards the sun, the plants breathe in carbon dioxide and produce oxygen. When the northern hemisphere tilts away, the plants die breathe out the stored carbon dioxide. Then there is more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. When the suns rays come through the atmosphere in the form of light, they bounce of the Earth in the form of infrared rays. Some infrared rays are trapped by the greenhouse gases (methane, carbon dioxide) and are converted to heat. This is good because it keeps Earth at a livable temperature. The rest of the infrared rays simply escape into outer space. But if there is more carbon dioxide, more infrared rays are trapped and converted to heat, heating the Earth. Cars and chopping down trees are big contributors to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Right now the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is at 380 parts per million (or around there), which is WAY WAY WAY more than it’s ever been in thousands of years. I don’t know if you already knew that or not, but just in case I put that whole thing in. So, the earth is warming up. Greenland and Antarctica are in grave danger of melting: indeed, there are pools of liquid water burrowing holes in the ice like swiss cheese even as we post. The water gets to the bedrock and lifts the ice a little. It then forces that bit of ice to break off from the rest. This is happening, not only on the edges of the ice, but in the middle of the continents. All the ice is melting. If Greenland melts, sea level worldwide will go up TWENTY FEET. That would mean hundreds of millions of refugees. The following may seem off-topic but it isn’t. During the last Ice Age, a big pool formed in North America (the Great Lakes are its remains). There was an ice dam between it and the Atlantic, and one day at the end of the ice age that broke. The lake water gushed out into that part of the Atlantic (right below Greenland, wedged between America and Europe). That part of the Atlantic is delicate: the warm currents on the surface of the ocean get colder and sink. It’s a whirl pool/loop. When the lake gushed into that, the whirl pool/loop stopped spinning. The whole ocean- stopped. And Europe went into an Ice Age for another thousand years. But now there is no lake whose ice dam will melt. Is there another body of ice or water that could flow into that loop? Oh yeah, Greenland. And if Greenland melts, which seems to be happening, another Ice Age could very well happen. Just like that. Maybe in ten years.
I hope I didn’t bore you. My main source was Al Gore’s movie, An Inconvenient Truth .
0
0
-
2
Isabella
in January 1st, 2007 @ 19:44*Am flattered.*
0
0
-
3
Margaret
in January 1st, 2007 @ 19:47Cool. We got ourselves a thread.
I really want to get a DVD of AIT. (I decided to abbreviate An Inconvenient Truth, because typing it a lot gets inconvenient.) It’s been months since I saw it and I’m going to need a refresher course now that we have a thread…
0
0
-
4
Margaret
in January 1st, 2007 @ 20:00This is in response to Isabella’s post 47 in the JJ thread ~ I agree with what you said, except for the part that it’s not scary. Knowing that we have about ten years to turn this thing around, and that I’m not even going to be able to vote for five of them does seem scary to me. I’m glad I know, and I’m going to do what I can despite the face that I’m not an adult yet, but that doesn’t make the possible impending doom (a bit dramatic, I know) of our planet less scary.
0
0
-
5
Shadowkat
in January 1st, 2007 @ 20:10Isabella-But the plants don’t simply release carbon dioxide when they die, because anything they take in, they use, transform, and then release it as oxygen, which humans then take in, use, transform, and release as carbon dioxide, and so the cycle continues. And, even if they did release carbon dioxide when they died, there would be more plants sprouting where they had been dead, and those plants woud use up the excess. When those plants died, it would switch, and new plants in the other hemisphere would take in the carbon dioxide that the now-dead plants had given off. Either way, it’s a continuing cycle that balances itself out.
0
0
-
6
Isabella
in January 1st, 2007 @ 20:17I want to buy the world AIT. Unfortunately, have no money. Neither do parents. If everyone knew, we could actually do something the whole planet has to unite. But some things we can do meanwhile (which I got/copied from http://www.climatecrisis.net, where there are about 5 more pages of these– it’s a safe link, GAPAs, it was recommended in the movie):
– Use compact flourescent light bulbs instead of incandescents. These use 60% less energy than incandescents. The simple switch will save about 300 pounds of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions per year. If every family in the US switched to flourescent, we’d reduce emissions by more than 90,000,000,000 pounds (90 billion pounds).
– Move thermostat down 2 degrees in winter and up 2 degrees in summer. Almost half the energy homes use is for heating and cooling. With the adjustment, you would save about two thousand pounds of CO2 emissions per year.
– Clean/replace furnace and air conditioner filters. Cleaning the dirty filters could save 350 pounds of CO2 a year.
– Purchase energy efficient appliances like Energy Star appliances. That really makes a difference.
– Unplug electronics when you’re not using them. Even when electronics like hair dryers, cell phone chargers, and televisions are turned off, they still use energy. UNPLUG them! The energy used to keep display clocks lit and memory chips working uses 5% of total domestic energy consumption and emits 18 million tons of CO2 into the air per year!
See http://www.climatecrisis.net/takeaction/whatyoucando/index3.html for more. (PLEASE let the link go through, GAPAs!!!!)
[Okedoke! — Rosanne]
0
0
-
7
Isabella
in January 1st, 2007 @ 20:18Actually, that last link is for the third page of six, to start at the beginning just scroll down from that page and click on the hyperlink to page one.
0
0
-
8
Capricious the great and terrible.
in January 1st, 2007 @ 20:31Ooookay….
0
0
-
9
☀Kiki the Great☀
in January 1st, 2007 @ 20:36Global warming skares me. EEK.
0
0
-
10
niugnep
in January 1st, 2007 @ 20:52I tried to fry an egg on the sidewalk last summer. It didn’t work.
(coppied and pasted from Hot Topics):
In “An Inconvenient Truth,” Al Gore is preaching to the choir. Most people who went to that movie already agree with him, and those who didn’t are for the most part so set in their opinions that no movie is going to change their minds. Besides, the movie presented a biased view point, which tends to offend people. All of the graphs had scales designed to make upward trends look more dramatic than it is. It also had a lot of segments on Gore which made him out like a hero, and which was distracting and annooying. By all this I don’t mean to say that I don’t support what Gore’s view point. I just think that the lines are drawn on this issue and to put out propaganda (the movie wasn’t quite propaganda, but it was close) would be to lower ourselves to the level of our opponents.
0
0
-
11
Isabella
in January 1st, 2007 @ 20:565- That’s good reasoning, and in theory I think it works. But for example, when you cut down and burn a tree, that tree has carbon dioxide stored inside it that is released. I might have gotten my phrasing mixed up about the plants, though, but in AIT it does say something like that (I have to go research it.)
0
0
-
12
purplefinch
in January 2nd, 2007 @ 05:08I am watching AIT in earth science, and although it is great that somebody did a movie on Global Warming, the movie seems to be more of a way to tell people about Al Gore’s life than to USE Al Gore to tell about global warming. Make no mistake, I’d definiteley prefer Al Gore to Bush (no offense, to the few Bush supporters on MB), but, still, I really did expect more. Everybody says how great it was, and it IS, but still, it seems so… political…
0
0
-
13
::DAW::
in January 2nd, 2007 @ 07:43On Global Warming in General- People need to know that this is a real threat or else this planet will be nonexistent just like most urls. Having a movie such as AIT is almost like a political campagin comercial pointed at values. Unfortuanetly I have not seen the movie, but I promise I will see it before forming any more conclusions.
0
0
-
14
Musketeer Number 5
in January 2nd, 2007 @ 09:35AIT was a good movie…but it seemed a lot like it was patting Al Gore on the back, and maybe even setting him up for another run at the presidency…just speculation, but…anyone else get that feeling too?
I wish he had toned the “pat myself on the backiness” down because it would make the global warming stuff seem less like propaganda, which it isn’t (after watching the movie i took the time to see if it really was).
0
0
-
15
SupremeMuser2000
in January 2nd, 2007 @ 10:53stop global warming. NOW!
0
0
-
16
Shadowkat
in January 2nd, 2007 @ 11:2211-I probably should, too, just to make sure that I’m correct in my knowledge about plants. You do have a solid point, though, but that’s been happening for ages, and all of a sudden, there’s a noticable rise is Earth’s temperature? But my dad also pointed out the fact that, when an average volcano erupts, it releases into the air (in one or two days) about as much junk as the world population releases over the course of years.
0
0
-
17
Isabella
in January 2nd, 2007 @ 11:43To everyone who thinks AIT is political propaganda- I think Gore sort of had to mention it. No offense to anyone, but the current administration hasn’t done anything much, and there are some very important points about that. (The leaked memo: “make global warming seem a theory rather than fact”). Personally, I think that was fine. I didn’t mind it.
0
0
-
18
Isabella
in January 2nd, 2007 @ 11:4716- I think that’s true, but think of that plus what we emit. A lot harder to cope with.
I think part of the problem is population. We put more stress on resources, like Gore said. If I have a child, I’m only going to have one. If.
0
0
-
19
Lizzie
in January 2nd, 2007 @ 12:5616- also, “all of the sudden”, there’s been a large large large increase in earth’s population. Humans. And new technology, such as cars. Etc.
0
0
-
20
Kiara
in January 2nd, 2007 @ 14:03I just finished writing an essay on Global Warming for an application. I’ll try posting it here. If anyone has any suggestions, please tell me. It probably isn’t very good right now, but I tried.
If there was one thing I could change about the world today, it would be global warming. Though there are many other problems I considered for this paper, this seems to be the one which will most likely affect my generation. Even I have been able to see what is being caused by it; shorter, warmer winters, extremely hot summers, stronger hurricanes, and more wildfires. There have been events like this plastered all over the news for several years. However, though many oversea epidemics and other problems far from home just might cause problems here in America, global warming is happening all over the world. Even if many events are being exaggerated, simplified scientific skeletons of them are much more realistically supportive.
The Third Assessment Report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC) shows that the concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) has increased 31% since 1750, and that ¾ of the increase from that past twenty years has come from burning fossil fuels. With an increased concentration of greenhouse gas, even more of the suns’ energy will be kept on earth. Increased flooding, more heat waves, stronger tropical storms, higher risk of epidemics and decreased water quality are possible, if not probable. The National Academy of Sciences’ research shows that global warming could affect America by; decreasing the water level of the Great Lakes, declining snowfall and decreasing its melting rate, and also causing abrupt climate change. These are only potential problems, but the following items are happening even as you read this paper.
One of the many things that global warming is affecting here in America is deterioration in National Parks. Many of these conservation areas are warming rapidly. Glaciers in Glacier National Park are receding. Since 1968, the number of ice bodies qualifying as glaciers there has gone from thirty-eight to twenty-six. Treelines are also climbing higher up mountains; up to three hundred feet for every degree the temperature average rises. Olympic National Park’s coast has been rated to have more than half of its shoreline in danger of the rising sea levels. Nearly every park has been suffering losses of species, higher fire danger, lowering water levels, and assorted other problems. Soon, these wondrous places which tourists flock to every year could become unrecognizable from their old postcards.
Average temperatures around the world have also risen. Since the beginning of the 20th century, the average global temperature has risen about 0.6oC. 1998 was likely to be the warmest year in recorded history. Over the past thousand years, I noticed that the average temperature started rising more steeply very close to when Henry Ford started using the assembly line to make cars more resourcefully. The temperature starts slightly decreasing around 1945, but then steadily climbs upwards again in 1975. In every scenario that the IPPC predicted, both temperature and sea level will continue to rise. Because of the melting glaciers, average sea level has already risen 0.1 to 0.2 meter in the past fifty years. The glaciers also release more greenhouse gases, causing positive feedback. Even if everyone stopped the production of greenhouse gases right now, the melting glaciers would continue the process for an unknown amount of time.
Global Warming is not a threat that is coming, but is a problem that is already here. Unless the current generation finds something to do about it, it will be mine which takes the toll. Everyone is going to be affected, and, though we currently do not know how to stop it, there are some ways we can slow it down. Try to conserve energy use, buy energy efficient products, drive less, carpool or take the bus, and, if you need a new car, buy one with a high MPG (miles per gallon) rate. Though global warming could easily be one of the most decisive turning points for the world’s future, it seems that most people are much more concerned about what is good for themselves than what is good for everyone. Within the next few decades, however, we are all going to discover that global warming is just as big as a threat as we’ve already been warned.
0
0
-
21
cra-ztootsierool
in January 2nd, 2007 @ 15:04Long live the WDATHTPS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!(doesn’t that look cOOl?) Oh,WDATHTPS means *drumroll* We Dislike Anything That Harms The Planet Society!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!WHHHOOOOOOOOOOOO!
0
0
-
22
Purple Panda
in January 2nd, 2007 @ 16:12I have not seen AIT (but I reeeeeeeeally want to), so I can’t comment on if it is exaggerated or not, but no matter how exaggerated the movie is, Global Warming is happening. I don’t think I need to go into any more detail…just read the previous posts.
0
0
-
23
cra-ztootsierool
in January 2nd, 2007 @ 16:37did any1 hear me or am i invisible . . . . . . . I SAID WHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO (BREATH) OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
0
0
-
24
Jadestone
in January 2nd, 2007 @ 18:33Hmm… we have An Inconvenient Truth from the library. It’s sitting next to me. After I watch it I’ll come here and post a bit more on the subject.
0
0
-
25
M & M
in January 2nd, 2007 @ 18:35Heckyes, thanks GAPAS!
I love you guys more than cows and frappechinos(speaking of which, I never knew Bo was a girl! :0 How come she dosn’t have an udder on the totebag?)Gonna come back later to read everything. Right now my sister is having computer withdrawel :]
0
0
-
26
Margaret
in January 2nd, 2007 @ 18:3921 ~ Sounds like a good group to belong to.
0
0
-
27
Isabella
in January 2nd, 2007 @ 20:0120- I love it. I know you didn’t ask us for feedback, but I don’t think it could easily be one of the most decisive turning points for the world’s future, I think it is one. But it’s really good.
23- What do you mean by who?
26- I agree
0
0
-
28
Shadowkat
in January 2nd, 2007 @ 20:0118,19-True. But, if what I (think I) said before is true, that this is just one big cycle, it should go away in a “few” years. I’m too tired to really think, right now, so more later.
0
0
-
29
purplefinch
in January 3rd, 2007 @ 05:07I don’t think AIT is political propoganda! I just mentioned the fact that it was annoying how they focused more on Al Gore, and less on Global warming (to me, anyway). No. I think AIT was probablly useful in the fight against Global Warming.
28-Have you seen the graphs? I doubt that global warming is going away any time soon. If there was a cycle, it has been disrupted, now.
20-I think it’s great!
0
0
-
30
Isabella
in January 3rd, 2007 @ 10:1029- I completely agree.
0
0
-
31
Shadowkat
in January 3rd, 2007 @ 10:3929-No, I haven’t seen the graphs from AIT, but it wouldn’t shock me if you had only been shown half of them, or something like that. Also, just how far back did these graphs go?
0
0
-
32
Isabella
in January 3rd, 2007 @ 11:5631- Oh, about- what was it? Six million years?
0
0
-
33
Isabella
in January 3rd, 2007 @ 11:5832 was not sarcasm. They got the data from the ice that formed and were able to measure carbon dioxide from something like six million years ago. And AIT was NOT exaggerated. And there were soooooo many graphs…
Global warming is not theory.
0
0
-
34
Isabella
in January 3rd, 2007 @ 12:05Sorry to triple post, but I just thought of this. The glaciers are cracking and receding everywhere. We have photographs. Only forty years ago New York City used to experience three major blizzards every year: traffic would stop, people might even ski along the sidewalk (I heard that, I’m not sure if it’s true, but that’s how thick it was), etc. And now you can go out in a light sweater and be comfortable. In January. What more, surer proof is there?
0
0
-
35
Robert Coontz (Administrator)
in January 3rd, 2007 @ 12:24As I understand it, you have two things going on at the same time: natural ups and downs in temperature, on top of an overall trend. Most climate scientists now agree that the overall trend is upward. If the ups and downs are big enough, though, there will still sometimes be cooling, temporarily and especially locally. Some scientists worry that if global-warming campaigners rely too much on the most visible recent evidence (of melting glaciers, etc.), people in general (not scientists) will lose interest if things start to cool down again. Others, though, think they need to do whatever it takes to get people’s attention, even at the risk of oversimplifying the science. It’s a tough call.
Andrew Revkin wrote a good article about this in the New York Times on New Year’s Day.
0
0
-
36
Shadowkat
in January 3rd, 2007 @ 13:2832-Well, it certainly wasn’t necessary to make it sound like sarcasm. I haven’t seen the movie, maybe I’ll watch it, but either way, I don’t appreciate being talked to as if I’m a child. Please let this be the end of hostility and sarcasm on this thread. Let us simply state our opinions, and provide whatever proof we can to support them. I just skimmed the article Robert posted (skimmed, because I’m short on time), but it seemed to only talk about what we need to do about Global Warming, rather than arguing anything against it. Perhaps I’m wrong, but that’s what I saw.
0
0
-
37
Robert Coontz (Administrator)
in January 3rd, 2007 @ 14:14It’s complicated, but it breaks down into at least five main questions:
1. What is happening to the climate?
2. Why?
3. How sure are scientists about the answers to 1 and 2?
4. If there is a problem, what can human beings do about it?
5. What should we do about it?The article deals with a sixth question:
6. How should scientists talk about these questions to non-scientists?Each of these topics is worth considering separately. (If the answer to either 1 or 4 is “nothing,” then the rest of the discussion is pretty much moot.)
0
0
-
38
apperdoodles the great treehugger
in January 3rd, 2007 @ 15:33OK! So, I have decided to rant about global warming, and after clicking at random intervals, I have found myself here. I personally think that the answer to numba 4 is YES, BIG PROBLEM and more importantly, what can people do about it? Have we messed up the planet to a point of no return? In 100 years or however long, will Manhatten and Miami and other larrge thriving coastal establishments be under water? How long is however long if this will happen? And I must sarcastically add (very sarcastically add) that where I live there is 5 feet of snow on the ground, so whats a little warming? I mean, it doesnt matter if large cities and islands are under water, as long as the dumb snow goes away right? Haha.
0
0
-
39
Kiara
in January 3rd, 2007 @ 16:1638 – 5 feet?!?!?!?!?! You’ve got to be joking. If you aren’t, I am going to run outside and yell at the sky cuz it couldn’t even dump two inches here.
0
0
-
40
Admiral Penguin
in January 3rd, 2007 @ 19:10Here in Massachusetts we’ve had TWO SNOWFALLS. And it’s JANUARY!!!!!!
0
0
-
41
Margaret
in January 3rd, 2007 @ 19:3640 ~ That’s two more than we’ve had here in New York’s Hudson Valley. Which is to be expected, since you’re farther north.
I’m not sure that this balmy weather is entirely the fault of global warming, though. (I’m not sure it isn’t, but it does seem weird that it would be such a dramatic change from four snow days before Christmas last year to not even an inch before Christmas this year, because if this is a continuing trend, it’ll be seventy degrees for New Year’s in Times Square, and no one’s expecting that that I know of. I think it may just be an off year that’s been magnified due to the upward trend.)
Uh, I seem to have a knack for making posts that don’t make sense.
0
0
-
42
Darth Yoda
in January 3rd, 2007 @ 19:59In New Hampshire we’ve had one and that was 1 cm!
I own An Inconvient Truth the book. I can’t seem to find a copy of the movie.
0
0
-
43
M & M
in January 3rd, 2007 @ 20:1629- Yeah. I don’t think we can actually stop global warming. Unless of course, we shut down every energy supply in the world, stop driving cars or flying airplanes and etc…but that’s not gonna happen. Right now I guess it’s just a matter of slowing it down. Decreasing the amount of greenhouse gas that we create.
Sorry I keep saying this Shadowkat ‘*_* but once again I highly doubt this is just a cycle. And also, if it were arguing against global warming, what’s the point of the article in the first place? I don’t think we should be getting people’s attention by telling them that Global Warming isn’t real. I just don’t understand how others can’t see the things happening around them. But then again, I have my own opinions on this matter. No hostility! I’m just a huge environmentalist.
*gives virtual hug*
There, see? No hostility whatsoever.phew, finally got around to reading all this :]
0
0
-
44
nerdz__r00l
in January 3rd, 2007 @ 22:32Bleh. I have to do a 14-page report on natural resources and the basic activities of man. And so I learned that they reestimated our oil, and it will last 100 or so more years!!!
0
0
-
45
The Skipper Nancy
in January 3rd, 2007 @ 23:56I read in the NYTimes about a new system (developed by the UN) which would allow rich developed nations to buy credits from poor nations that would allow them to exceed their or limits on emissions (as outline by the Kyoto protocol, I think) if they payed to clean up some of the really terrible polluting factories in the poor nations. Hmm. It’s supposed to be a good way to provide money to poor nations, but the fact is, China is sucking up almost all of the business. What do you guys think?
0
0
-
46
Shadowkat
in January 4th, 2007 @ 15:2943-I know, but where did you get the information on all of this about Global Warming? I want to check it out. I figure if I’m going to argue against something, I might as well be well-informed on the thing against which I’m arguing. And I’ll probably rent AIT, if my parents will let me. As they say, knowledge is power. And thank you for the no-hostility. ^_^
0
0
-
47
Darth Yoda
in January 4th, 2007 @ 18:0744-100 years? Where did you hear that? (I’m not saying its not true, I’ve never heard an estimate about that) What article?
0
0
-
48
nerdz__r00l
in January 4th, 2007 @ 18:3847-I was listening to satellite radio, and I heard theyt recalculate our reserves.
0
0
-
49
M & M
in January 4th, 2007 @ 18:5646- Oh, I was doing this persuasive essay about global warming and I just went to eLibrary (website). Something like that. Except it’s probably just for schools unless you’ve got a password. It’s a really good search engine, because you can just type in your topic and check the things you want them to show up as (pictures, magazines, books, transcripts, etc…) and a whole buncha good info will show up. Maybe you could try google? Maybe narrow the search down. I dunno.
0
0
-
50
Lady Visala of Reverie
in January 4th, 2007 @ 22:04The people at my local newspapers are bleeding little sods. (Pardon the language– it was stronger earlier.) I REALLY canNOT believe them. (I live in Southwest Michigan, which might help to put things in perspective.)
NO SNOW? DON’T WORRY, BE HAPPY– by Paula Davis.
“With much of the Midwest and the East going through a remarkably warm winter, is it any wonder the bees are confused? Temperatures this week are running 10 to 20 degrees higher than normal in many areas, which means cherry blossoms are out in such places as Brooklyn Botanical Gardens in New York. New York City saw a November and December without snow for the first time since 1877.
Katie Phillips and her fiance Matt Malburg marveled that they could slowly stroll through downtown under a sunny sky, in mild temps, as if it were a pleasent autumn day and not 3 January. No heavy coats, no frantic walking from one warm, safe arbor to another.
“I really hate the winter, so thank God its not snowing…Hopefully it lasts like this,” said Malburg.
Local weather recorder Ray Hackman said December was one of the four warmest on record.
“Our normal high right now is about 30 degrees,” he said.
Wednesday’s high was nearly 50.
The National Weather Service is predicting that today and Friday will be breezy and have highs near 50 and a 30 percent chance of rain showers– not snow.
But the jig may be up this weekend– briefly at last.
“Saturday a cold front is coming,” said David Beachler, a National Weather Service meteorologist.
The coming weather system will “produce rain, changing to a rain-snow mix on Saturday,” he said. “Then, as temperatures fall, it will be a slow changover to snow.”
There’s no telling yet what kind of accumulation that will produce, but depending on your perspective, there’s good or bad news on the other side of that system.
Beachler said it isn’t looking like the cold spell will last long; the forecast calls for another warming period late next week.
“Its definately been a pleasent winter if you want to be outside. However, if you’re into winter activities, it hasn’t been a pleasent winter,” Beachler said.
Put these temps in the pleasent category for golfers at Ridgeview Golf Course.
“Its been terrific for them,” said Bruce Williams, owner of the course.
“I feel bad for the skiers and the local ski slopes. Being a business dependent on the weather, I certainly sympathize with them…its helpful for us, certainly bad for them,” he said.
Bittersweet Ski Resorts new snow line is informing callers that the resort id closed until further notice as operators wait “for some arrival of much colder weather so that we can make some snow.”
It could be quite a while.
Blame or credit the El Nino effect, a warming of equatorial Pacific Ocean waters and changes in air pressure, “allowing us to be warmer than normal,” Beachler said.
Its had an effect on Hadaways & Sons Lawncare and Snow-plowing.
“We’ve plowed one time this year,” said Doug Hadaway, one of the sons, “which is amazing, because last year we plowed nine times” in December alone “and we plowed three times total for January, February and March.”
Scientists have suggested that 2005 was the warmest year or tied for the warmest year on record.
“I wasn’t really big on global warming, thinking it was possible. Now I’m starting to wonder,” Hadaway said.
Steven Bertman, a Western Michigan University professor of chemistry whose interest is in atmospheric chemistry and climate change, said “its impossible to say its warmer than usual now because of climate change. What we can say is this is consistent with some of the predictions of climate change.”I am MAD.
How can people be so…DENSE?! An ice shelf fell into the sea off of Canada and there’s a huge crack down the middle of the ice shelves in Greenland. How can we be so…BLIND?! And STUPID and DEFIANT and IGNORANT and SELFISH?!
Why?
0
0
-
51
nerdz__r00l
in January 4th, 2007 @ 22:2050-um…well, I guess people can have different opinions!
0
0
-
52
Shadowkat
in January 5th, 2007 @ 16:0549-Thanks!
0
0
-
53
Lady Visala of Reverie
in January 5th, 2007 @ 17:39Its just disgusting and overall, incredibly discouraging.
0
0
-
54
M & M
in January 5th, 2007 @ 18:2150-
oh. my. gosh.
asjdpfjwtjl;gjdopuaspdjbojwrpogwefajpr0g-8iw45hgopipe.done.
no wait.what the fudge?
Pleasant winter, good year for us, DON’T WORRY BE HAPPY????
awjpr9fjpajcvlkgbnpituqeorhfhopajdfpoasjof.
Think about the how the polar bears are spending their winter. Yeah, drowning.
This is unbelievable.I think you should write a long and informative letter to that Paula Davis. Or the editor.
GAHHHHHHHHHHHH.
Dimwitted fools.I guess some people are blind to this fact because they see what they want to see…? Unless they just don’t know a thing about global warming and only care about their own little world.
I was on eLibrary and I found this link to a document called, “Letters.” THey were a whole bunch of letters compiled together written by people who don’t much care or think there is global warming.
And one of them said, “Let those scientists eat co2”.
This made me absolutely furious.
what’s wrong with these people?AGHHHHHHHHHH.
0
0
-
55
M & M
in January 5th, 2007 @ 18:2152- Your welcome!
0
0
-
56
M & M
in January 5th, 2007 @ 18:21Oh sorry triple post!
I meant you’re.
0
0
-
57
Bird
in January 6th, 2007 @ 01:28oooo… well.. we had a letter to the editor in our local paper and there was this guy saying global warmign did not exist.i dislate people so blind. my dad spent the night writing a reply to it.
There are bumper stickers in AK that say “alaskan’s for global warming!!!” funnny but kinda SICK!
people in Fairbanks (north north north) must be freeking, they can really see global warming up there.my mom read this article in teh paper that said the oil companies have but millions of $ to make global warminglook like a theory!~!! arg.. me-sa no-sa like-sa oli-freaks-sa.
i will stop talking like jar-jar binks now.
0
0
-
58
Admiral Penguin
in January 6th, 2007 @ 08:2642- When I went to Mt Washington, we actually got like 4 inches. But it all melted the next day.
Today it’s going to be 67 degrees. That”s a pathetic attempt at winter.
0
0
-
59
weirdalyankovic
in January 6th, 2007 @ 09:23WTF? it snowed once in the entire month of december, and i’m in Michigan!
0
0
-
60
countolaf
in January 6th, 2007 @ 09:27WARNING: totally random comment.
YOUTUBE ROCKS!
0
0
-
61
slimshady
in January 6th, 2007 @ 09:30down with global warming!
0
0
-
62
Queenie J
in January 6th, 2007 @ 10:2645-Just because there are rich nations, should they automatically assist poor nations? TANSTAAFL. There’s enough debt already.
Let’s step back a little and look at this.
Which major country in North America did not sign the Kyoto agreement? Yep, that’s right. The US.
And who is hardest hit by the global warming? Canada. No, don’t deny it. The ice shelf fell. Western Canada is an average of SIX DEGREES WARMER. The seasonal businesses are going to hell. The Americans just get to walk outside without coats. Canadians get to walk outside and see animals killed by the effects of GW.
Yes, I am bitter and upset. We may be bitching and moaning because things aren’t freezing over, but we’re suffering much more than many other nations.
0
0
-
63
kricket
in January 6th, 2007 @ 14:04I’m very upset with global warming. We just HAD to go and speed up that stupid cycle.
This is how I think the stupid cycle works.
It gets hotter. The ice caps melt. The cold water flows into the gulf stream. Europe freezes over and a glacier forms. Bingo. The next Ice Age!
I know I know. Not very realistic. Or is it?
0
0
-
64
M & M
in January 6th, 2007 @ 16:2260- Though I agree with you, this thread is about global warming, not youtube. :]
62- Ugh. Bush + environment=
Mr. President, sign the Kyoto Protocol?
Bush: We will not do anything to harm our economy.
:ppppppppppppppp
I hate how the animals have to pay for what we do.
Bob-“Man, it’s so hot.”
Fred-“Yeah, why don’t you turn up the AC?”
FWOOSSHHHHH. THe energy companies burn more fuel to keep up with peoples demands, and more greenhouse gas is released into air.
Meanwhile, glaciers are melting and animal environments are deteriorating.
Fred-“Do you hear something?”
Bob-“Sounds like..glaciers melting and enivronments deteriorating.”
Fred-“Just turn up the AC. Maybe the noise will block out that sound.”63- I don’t think that’s such a realisitic idea. And I really doubt this is just a mere cycle. Sure, there might have been cycles in the past, but looking at recent records and data…it just can’t be a cycle! (that’s my own opinion. I wouldn’t mind it being a cycle though.)
nohostilitynohostilitynohostility.
0
0
-
65
kt the gr8
in January 6th, 2007 @ 16:30wahhhh the wittle penguins burning thier feathers wahhhhhhhh
i hate global warming
0
0
-
66
niugnep
in January 6th, 2007 @ 17:1557. Global warming is a theory. So is atomic theory. That’s why they call it atomic THEORY. In science, a theory needs quite a lot of evidence behind it to get the title. I wonder who is paying to have evolution discredited.
And global warming is not part of a regular cycle. The scientists researching it are too smart to jump to conclusions and miss something big like that.
0
0
-
67
Bird
in January 6th, 2007 @ 18:0762- queenie j,
nonononono! Alaska is part of the US and things just as much if not more here! The government is not really caring wether its meltign canada or alaska AND ALASKA IS PART OF TEH UNION AND TO MANY PEOPLE IN THE LOWER 48 DO NOT REALIZE THAT AND THAT MAKES ME MAD BECAUSE ME CONTRIBURE A LOT OF $ TO THE US WITH OUR OIL!!!! despite that fact that oil is contributing to global warming…arg. I think we have established that teh government is big bad and stupid not to care about GW. NOW the question is what are WE goiong to do about it?
*pwease* tell any tips you hear… (like ways to use energy more efficentley, ways to recycle and so on and so forth!)
0
0
-
68
kricket
in January 6th, 2007 @ 20:35Well, I’m going to stick to my theory that it’s a cycle.
0
0
-
69
M & M
in January 6th, 2007 @ 23:5767- meep.
1) buy hybrids. They give you more miles for less gas.
2) Use fluorescent lightbulbs. They conserve energy.
3) Recycle everything that is recyclable. Check the bottom for the arrow triangle thing everytime you’re about to throw something out. Less trash in the landfills means less methane released.
4) Don’t waste water and turn off all lights not in use.
5) When you want to get somewhere, ride your bike or walk instead of taking the car. It’s also good exercise.
6) Banana paper!!!and some more. But I’m too tired to list :]
0
0
-
70
purplefinch
in January 7th, 2007 @ 05:09Bananna paper? That sounds froody.
This weather is not normal!
Here, on this thread, we have reports of changing temperatures from many different places. We can see the difference!
0
0
-
71
FrigidSymphony
in January 7th, 2007 @ 08:21Honestly, the only thing that needs saying is this: We’re killing the world, and we should stop.
0
0
-
72
weirdalyankovic
in January 7th, 2007 @ 10:19has anyone tried pineapple paper?
0
0
-
73
Prarilius Canix
in January 7th, 2007 @ 12:07Some of us live in the US, and I know it seems like we’re really messing up the planet, but we are not all our government. So don’t attack us as a whole. Please. I don’t like global warming either.
0
0
-
74
Kiara
in January 7th, 2007 @ 12:1173 – I agree. Not all of us drive Hummers around and pretend that Global Warming is only a theory.
0
0
-
75
Prarilius Canix
in January 7th, 2007 @ 12:16I don’t think we can stop global warming, only slow it down. And judging from the kind of leadership we’ve got, that ain’t gonna happen.
I think a good way to slow it down. though, would be to start phasing in alternative energy in power plants and vehicles, and then, once the country is no longer dependent on oil and coal, make the shift completely.
0
0
-
76
Queenie J
in January 7th, 2007 @ 12:5267-I realize Alaska is part of the US. I really, really, do. Trust me. I mean, I had to learn about the whole purchasing-from-the-Russians thing. And come on–it’s not hit as hard as Nunavut is, was, and is going to be. God.
0
0
-
77
M & M
in January 7th, 2007 @ 13:2970-Yup. They sell notebooks with banana paper, which is actually recycled paper. It’s gorgeous.
72-nup, I’ve never tried pineapple paper.
0
0
-
78
weirdalyankovic
in January 7th, 2007 @ 16:31if it’s only recycled paper, then why do they call it banana paper?
0
0
-
79
purplefinch
in January 8th, 2007 @ 04:4378- I don’t know, but I bet because banana paper just sounds really cool.
Hummers drive me crazy. If you are rich enough to buy a hummer, why don’t you purchase an electric car, or a hybrid (or a bike…)! But no! Hummers are :”cool”.
*sigh*
0
0
-
80
M & M
in January 8th, 2007 @ 21:1579-Uh huh uh huh. It’s really catchy. I wanted to buy some myself because it had a nifty banana on the front.
AGGHH
We are having yet another record storm.
First, the rain. Flooding. THen the snow. Freezing. After that, record breaking winds that cause power outages. And now another one. Great. Curse you El Ninos!! Though basically its our own fault.And also.
An inauguration of a governor. Why do they need to fly jets and shoot cannons?
Do cannons give off greenhouse gas?
The jets I know do. They suck. IT’s pointless. Just give him a fruit basket and call it a day :p
0
0
-
81
Queenie J
in January 9th, 2007 @ 17:48Until someone builds a better solar car, people are never going to buy them. Usually people have to go more than 9 or 10 miles in one go.
0
0
-
82
Ötzi
in January 9th, 2007 @ 21:0278: It’s got banana in it. And it smells yummy.
I hope we can stop global warming. I’m trying. If we can’t though, let’s just remember that we’re only a little fuzz on a rock in space. If the earth goe the way of Venus and we all go kaput, well, it’ll be our fault. It’ll only affect Earth- no one else in the universe will blink an eye.
0
0
-
83
Ötzi
in January 9th, 2007 @ 21:05This reminds me of a song….
Whenever life gets you down, Mrs. Brown,
And things seem hard or tough,
And people are stupid, obnoxious or daft,
And you feel that you’ve had quite eno-o-o-o-o-ough…Just remember that you’re standing on a planet that’s evolving
And revolving at nine hundred miles an hour,
That’s orbiting at nineteen miles a second, so it’s reckoned,
A sun that is the source of all our power.
The sun and you and me and all the stars that we can see
Are moving at a million miles a day
In an outer spiral arm, at forty thousand miles an hour,
Of the galaxy we call the “Milky Way”.Our galaxy itself contains a hundred billion stars.
It’s a hundred thousand light years side to side.
It bulges in the middle, sixteen thousand light years thick,
But out by us, it’s just three thousand light years wide.
We’re thirty thousand light years from galactic central point.
We go ’round every two hundred million years,
And our galaxy is only one of millions of billions
In this amazing and expanding universe!The universe itself keeps on expanding and expanding
In all of the directions it can whizz
As fast as it can go, at the speed of light, you know,
Twelve million miles a minute, and that’s the fastest speed there is.
So remember, when you’re feeling very small and insecure,
How amazingly unlikely is your birth,
And pray that there’s intelligent life somewhere up in space,
‘Cause there’s bugger all down here on Earth.
0
0
-
84
OJ533
in January 10th, 2007 @ 17:5083-Did you make that up it sounds all madeupy ok that isn’t a word but it seems to fit. No offense meant it’s great, if you got it out of somwhere tell me I want to see what else they have.
Curse global warming I want snow! 60 degrees in January come on! can it snow on Christmas at least once! plllllleeeeaaassse
0
0
-
85
Jacoobi the wise
in January 10th, 2007 @ 18:04Im in WA and it snowed last night. Im bored.
Crazy wheather from el nino, huh.
0
0
-
86
Queenie J
in January 10th, 2007 @ 18:0882-That’s assuming most of them have eyes after that.
Sorry, that was insensitive.
0
0
-
87
Ötzi
in January 11th, 2007 @ 12:0684: It’s from Monty Python’s Meaning Of Life Great movie. Rather dirty, though.
85: Yeah. But snow is so pretty! what do you mean, you’re bored?! There’s Calvin & Hobbes snowmen to be made!!!!
0
0
-
88
Ötzi
in January 11th, 2007 @ 12:0886: Um. Assuming any of them have eyes in the first place.
Which brings us to a new topic.
I am absolutely convinced that there is life elsewhere in the universe- it’s extremely unlikely that there isn’t.
0
0
-
89
OJ533
in January 11th, 2007 @ 14:26I really hope that there is other life in the universe I want to talk to an alien!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
0
0
-
90
M & M
in January 11th, 2007 @ 14:4685- WA state or capitol? I live in the state. Snowed six inches here. Well, I’m off to go prance around in the winter wonderland.
0
0
-
91
Margaret
in January 11th, 2007 @ 17:03I’m kind of drafting a letter to my principal. Any suggestions?
Dear [Principal],
I want to apologize for being so annoying about this, and I hope you don’t feel like I’m being disrespectful. We spoke on Thursday about your plan to show An Inconvenient Truth to students who used the recommended strategies on the upcoming ELA tests, and you suggested that maybe instead you should show it to those students who received a four on the exam. I’ve been thinking about it, and while I completely understand your wanting to show the film to this group of students, I think that maybe you should make the opportunity available to any student who wants to see the film.
The reason I feel this way is simple: global warming is an extremely important issue facing everyone, but particularly our generation. We are the ones inheriting the world, and we need to know what’s going on with it. Ignorance may be bliss now, but in the future, we’re going to regret it if we realize that we had a chance to act and we missed it. You could use this to start something like a petition or a letter-writing campaign, and the more students who get involved, the more likely we are to be able to make some changes in what’s happening.
Thank you so much for your time. I really appreciate your listening to me, however irriating my suggestions may be. Also, thanks for having the idea to show An Inconvenient Truth in the first place. The fact that you’re showing it at all probably means that this letter was unnecessary, but again, thanks for reading it anyway.
Sincerely,
Margaret [last name]
0
0
-
92
Margaret
in January 11th, 2007 @ 17:08Suggestions other than fixing the fact that I misspelled irritating, that is.
0
0
-
93
OJ533
in January 11th, 2007 @ 17:1890-Lucky I want snow
0
0
-
94
Margaret
in January 11th, 2007 @ 18:18Never mind. I want to give it to him tomorrow, so I’m going to go with what I have, minus the first sentence.
0
0
-
95
M & M
in January 11th, 2007 @ 20:3994- It’s great! I don’t think it needs any changes whatsoever.
0
0
-
96
dark lord of darkness
in January 12th, 2007 @ 00:4891-change the bold to italic. and your not being annoying. so cut that. but thats about it.
82-umm. what about the other species?? they didn’t do anything to deserve that!
69-banana paper is very expensive. why do we need paper?
73-i live in america, but how exactly is global warming our governments fault? i am a aware that is has not forced people to do anything, but why do the people need to be forced? i also find global warming to be a topic that many people cannot back themselves up on. also it’s a bit overused. there are many other issues, many of them (possibly) more pressing. there is evidence both contrary to and for global warming (not as a whole, but as its the humans’ fault.) personally i think that it is or fault, mostly. global warming is natural, but i think that we are accelerating it.
66- you are exactly what i mean by people cant back themselves up. (no offence) may i derect you here
dont zap, its wikipedia. the fourth graph down shows, very clearly that global warming is a natural and cycling occurance.
the scientists are indeed too smart to jump to conclusions. they didnt.
62-umm yeah. thaqt was not cool. but according to many, the kyoto agreement isnt enough. not even close.
15-theres another one!!!
not even bothering. keep in mind that i agree with you people, but there is another side. if we do not acknowledge it, we get nowhere.
0
0
-
97
M & M
in January 12th, 2007 @ 12:08Because banana paper is recycled paper. So if we buy that stuff instead of normal regular old paper, we are cutting down less trees. Cutting down less trees means more trees to absorb all that extra nasty co2.
meep.
0
0
-
98
dark lord of darkness
in January 12th, 2007 @ 18:19umm. that didnt really answer my question. i said why do we need paper, not banana paper. sorry if you weren’t answering me.
0
0
-
99
B. Cavefish
in January 12th, 2007 @ 19:58I have returned…
Okay, having read the first several dozen posts, I got the drift and skipped everything else, so if this doesn’t fit with whatever you guys are talking about, live with it.
The drift: “Stop global Warming! AIT is a good movie!”
The earth is warming up, but:
(copied from the National Center of Policy Analysis’s Global warming page):
Myth #1: Scientists Agree the Earth Is Warming. While ground-level temperature measurements suggest the earth has warmed between 0.3 and 0.6 degrees Celsius since 1850, global satellite data, the most reliable of climate measure-
ments, show no evidence of warming during the past 18 years. Even if the earth’s temperature has increased slightly, the increase is well within the natural range of known temperature variation over the last 15,000 years. Indeed, the earth experienced greater warming between the 10th and 15th centuries – a time when vineyards thrived in England and Vikings colonized Greenland and built settlements in Canada.so… it is warming, but the lack of snow (in my state) this year isn’t because humans are wrecking the planet:
(also copied)
Myth #2: Humans Are Causing Global Warming. Scientists do not agree that humans discernibly influence global climate because the evidence supporting that theory is weak. The scientific experts most directly concerned with climate conditions reject the theory by a wide margin.
* A Gallup poll found that only 17 percent of the members of the Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Society think that the warming of the 20th century has been a result of greenhouse gas emissions – principally CO2 from burning fossil fuels.
* Only 13 percent of the scientists responding to a survey conducted by the environmental organization Greenpeace believe catastrophic climate change will result from continuing current patterns of energy use.
* More than 100 noted scientists, including the former president of the National Academy of Sciences, signed a letter declaring that costly actions to reduce greenhouse gases are not justified by the best available evidence.
While atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased by 28 percent over the past 150 years, human-generated carbon dioxide could have played only a small part in any warming, since most of the warming occurred prior to 1940 – before most human-caused carbon dioxide emissions.
So, if that doesn’t convince you, the government doesn’t have to act now, if they wait to 2020 to start reducing emissions:
(copied once again)
Delaying action until 2020 would yield an insignificant temperature rise of 0.2 degrees Celsius by 2100.
Okay, that’s a taste of what I found disproving global warming after clicking the first result in a Google Search
here’s the link, don’t think anything’s wrong with it:
Myths of Global WarmingAnyways, get back to what you were doing, sorry about taking up so much space!
0
0
-
100
B. Cavefish
in January 12th, 2007 @ 20:12okay, sorry about double posting… read through part of it then annoyed at the continual restatement of the restated decided to reply to something restated every 10 or so posts:
The glaciers are cracking yes: this is to be expected (will try not to scream) they have to crack sometime… Also, the glaciers are thickening, yes, thickening!!! in some parts. So, if water, polar bears getting heavier, seals drilling holes, whatever, makes a glacier crack, should we be upset? NO! There’s MORE ice to ‘replace’ it!!!
(sorry, hard to read this when you’re a non believer, gagged a couple of times reading the Muse article on this…. I liked the commercials though
)
0
0
-
101
Mei xiang (M & M)
in January 12th, 2007 @ 23:4398- We need pper for many, many things. Such as, school work. Homework. Mathwork. La/ss and etc… So instead of buying those regular lined notebooks that they ask for each year, you could buy banana paper instead…? Not that I’m forcing you (Oh my gawsh I sound like Ishmael from ASOUE!!) to buy it. Its just something that would help with the environment
0
0
-
102
Robert Coontz (Administrator)
in January 13th, 2007 @ 08:30(99),
Be careful about sources. The National Center of Policy Analysis isn’t a scientific organization. It’s a political “think tank” designed to promote a certain point of view. (Of course, so is Al Gore.)
If you’ve 5 megabytes to spare on your hard drive, you might want to see what the National Academy of Science says in its latest report on climate change. It’s a complicated picture with lots of uncertainty, but it looks like the best scientists can do for now. You can find it here:
http://dels.nas.edu/globalchange/index.shtml
0
0
-
103
B. Cavefish
in January 13th, 2007 @ 10:35102 – Very true, it isn’t, but I’m sure I could find a scientific site that says the same thing, I just clicked on the first thing under
"global warming" disproveon a Google search.I’ll take a look at it
0
0
-
104
dark lord of darkness
in January 13th, 2007 @ 16:47101-i was referring to computers. and i read that book! twas awesome.
(assuming you mean Ishmael.)
hey! my sources are perfectly fine, i would like to point out.
wikipedia serves all purposes.
0
0
-
105
M & M
in January 13th, 2007 @ 19:18Huh wha? Sorry I’m not too bright. What do you mean by computers..? Oh yeah, I meant Ishmael. So creepy.
“I’m not going to force you, but…”
Haha. He’s scary.
0
0
-
106
Purple Panda
in January 13th, 2007 @ 21:05There was this guy…I forget his name…that (still does) studied words and the way people react to them. He did a study one time, to try and find a word for Global Warming that doesn’t make people really afraid of it. He came up with “climate change.”
When people hear the word(s) “Global Warming,” they get really scared and think something should be done about it. But when they hear “Climate Change,” they don’t think it’s such a big deal. That’s why Bush uses “climate change.”
0
0
-
107
doggylover!!!
in January 14th, 2007 @ 19:55bush esta loco!!!!!!!!!
0
0
-
108
doggylover!!!
in January 14th, 2007 @ 19:55he is CRAZY
0
0
-
109
Isabella
in January 15th, 2007 @ 08:41This is breaking news. I got it from stop global warming dot com (but it’s all one word and the dot is a . ).
ANCIENT ICE SHELF BREAKS FREE FROM CANADIAN ARCTIC
Global warming is having an alarming and dramatic impact on arctic ice shelves in the Canadian Arctic. Scientists have discovered that a giant ice shelf the size of 11,000 football fields broke free from the coast of Ellesmere Island, about 500 miles south of the North Pole. Shockingly, the shelf broke off in just an hour, and the collapse was so powerful that earthquake monitors over 150 miles away recorded the tremors. It is the largest event of its kind in Canada in 30 years, and scientists consider global warming a major contributing factor.THE BEAR FACTS
Global warming is threatening polar bears with extinction, due to the fact that warmer temperatures are melting the sea ice the bears rely on. Finally, the Bush administration has proposed to list the polar bear as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. As the Washington Post recently reported, “Identifying polar bears as threatened with extinction could have an enormous political and practical impact∑ Because scientists have concluded that carbon dioxide from power-plant and vehicle emissions is helping drive climate change worldwide, putting polar bears on the endangered species list raises the legal question of whether the government would be required to compel U.S. industries to curb their carbon dioxide output.”Chase Utley (second baseman to the Philadelphia Phillies) has joined the Stop Global Warming Virtual March. Here is a quote from him, “We need a major shift in our mindset on what makes up the American dream. It’s not two SUV’s in every garage, it’s creating a good and sustainable life for all of us for generations to come.”
The construction and maintenance of homes and buildings is responsible for a third or more of all greenhouse gas emissions.
Everything in italics is from an email from stopglobalwarming.org . Join the Virtual March and learn more there.
0
0
-
110
dark lord of darkness
in January 15th, 2007 @ 21:22105-we dont need paper, because of computers. capice?
0
0
-
111
purplefinch
in January 16th, 2007 @ 04:28110-Books?
109-The ice shelf sounds really disturbing. Maybe I shall join the Virtual March.
0
0
-
112
M & M
in January 16th, 2007 @ 13:01110- Yes, what purplefinch said. Books. Newspaper. Printer paper to print stuff from the computer. I don’t know about your school, but at ours, we always have to print stuff out, not leave it on the computer. Ahah! We need paper for MUSE. No da.
111- Me too.
0
0
-
113
dark lord of darkness
in January 16th, 2007 @ 21:07112-obviously, books on the computer? not very difficult to imagine. and obviously, right now we do need paper. we shouldn’t. and…. virtual muse!!!!
0
0
-
114
purplefinch
in January 17th, 2007 @ 04:39But that would be pretty uncomfortable to read. I don’t like reading anything that is really long on the computer. Yes, It could be done. Maybe it will happen in the near future. But wouldn’t it use a lot of electricity to be on the computers all of the time?
0
0
-
115
canon in D
in January 17th, 2007 @ 20:37you can’t curl up on the couch with a COMPUTER!
0
0
-
116
Elizabeth
in January 18th, 2007 @ 16:39My friend has solved global warming! (sort of…)
she figured that, since if the world would go into an iceage if we had a neucular war because it builds up the ozone so much, we should just set off one atomic bomb of the perfect size to balance out… but where do we set it off?
We figured we could use the pacific ocean and kill all the fish
or the desert and kill all the…ummm…whatever is out there
or Antarctica and kill the penguins and scientists…
and we need to do something about the radiation
yeah, we still have to work out the kinks….. we’ll figure it out
0
0
-
117
M & M
in January 19th, 2007 @ 17:54113-
Huh.Did you know.
That computers waste energy.
And the energy companies burn off fuel
which releases co2
into the air
giving off un-needed greenhouse gases
thus making the world warm
EVEN faster.We’s need to plant a whole lotta trees to fix that problem.
So if we started using computers for every single thing…energy energy energy.
nohostilitynohostilitynohostilitynohostility.
116- Huh? Ozone? Nuclear?
I’m confuzzled @__@
But then again, I always am.
0
0
-
118
Elizabeth
in January 19th, 2007 @ 18:06117- I was too, kind of… I doubt it’d work, it’s just an interesting idea.
0
0
-
119
purplefinch
in January 19th, 2007 @ 19:04very interesting…
0
0
-
120
B. Cavefish
in January 20th, 2007 @ 13:08I’ll admit the ice shelf story is disturbing, however: Ice shelves have to break off sometime, and although global warming is ‘considered’ a factor, you really can’t prove one way or the other, cracks in the ice could cause any ice shelf to fall, and cracks don’t have to come from global warming.
Also, how do you think the ice shelf got that big, not global warming, that’s for sure.
Polar bears: They have a serious lack of habitat anyway. This is bound to happen to lots of animals anyway, and I’m pretty sure I could go off on a rant against the whole concept of “Endangered Species,” but I won’t unless requested to.
I’m surprised for another reason: It’s been 17 posts since I last posted and the only person who responded at all is Robert. Please people, come up with facts to support your theory, I’ve come up with some, and will come up with more. I’m not saying the planet isn’t getting ‘warmer’ (but not by much), but is it our problem, actually, rephrase: is it our fault? Okay, I’m done
0
0
-
121
B. Cavefish
in January 20th, 2007 @ 13:17A fairly reputable site debunking global warming among other things:
[In the tradition of keeping external links to a minimum … snip, snip, snip. Instead of linking, how about if you make the points here on MuseBlog in your own words?] — Rosanne]
I believe that as a preliminary this qualifies as a scientific news site.
I challenge all of you out there to prove me wrong: find a good site with facts supporting global warming and I’ll accept them
0
0
-
122
Himura Kenshin
in January 20th, 2007 @ 16:04Global warming isn’t necessarily bad…
0
0
-
123
FrigidSymphony
in January 21st, 2007 @ 08:36I saw an inconvenient truth last night. Honestly, if you’re american, and living in america, then go watch it. It won’t tha big an impact in europe, because, as mr Gore showed with his charts, we are way ahead of you in environmental awareness. So go watch it, and then ACT ON IT! Anyone who doubts global warming is a fact, and a dangerous one, is a blind idiot. Also, there was a good article in the Guardian Weekly a few months ago by George Monbiot on how companies like ExxonMobile use fraudulant science to confuse the nation into thinking that global warming is something good, and preventing it wozuld be harmful to the global economy. He supplies a link, which I will post here, and hope it gets by the GAPAs: [No link, but the URL is www-dot-exxonsecrets-dot-org. –Robert]
0
0
-
124
M & M
in January 21st, 2007 @ 19:54121- Here is a quote (from trusty eLibrary) from a newspaper article-staff houston chronicle-
“Scientists have documented the first inhabited island to be submerged by rising sea levels, Lohachara in the Indian Ocean. A new study predicts that the Arctic Ocean will be free of permanent ice by the year 2040.”Rising sea levels. And due to what? Melting glaciers.
Polar bears? This is bound to happen to happen to lots of animals anyways? What exactly do you mean? That tons of animals are gonna lose their habitats like polar bears because we’re driving them out/burning their homes so we shouldn’t really be caring about them?
You want global warming proof, you’ve got it. There have been MANY recent polar bear drownings. How? As I’ve stated above, rising seas caused by melting glaciers. Glaciers that are melting because of GLOBAL WARMING. No big deal, tons of animals drown. Pfft. Polar bears have never drowned before. At least I don’t think it’s ever been recorded in history-but if there is, prove me wrong. It’ll make me a little happier-. They are strong bears who can swim long distances. But now, since so much ice is melting, they’re being driven to swim longer to find a decent place to get food. And Bam! Put that together with those higher seas(not to mention high winds) and those poor bears are drowning.
“Polar bears are one of nature’s ultimate survivors, able to live and thrive in one of the world’s harshest environments,” the interior secretary stated. “But we are concerned the polar bears’ habitat may literally be melting.”122- …..erm could you explain?
0
0
-
125
Elizabeth
in January 22nd, 2007 @ 15:59122-ya it is, global warmng will melt the poles, therefore putting more water in the oceans, and flooding coastal cities… (like Long Island)
An Inconvienient Truth is really good. It has all sorts of facts that everyone should know.
0
0
-
126
M & M
in January 22nd, 2007 @ 19:42AH.
Today.
Puget Sound Energy came to our science class.
And you know what the lady said?IT’S PROBABLY TOO LATE FOR THE POLAR BEARS.
GAHHHHHHHHHH
I’ve lost will to live.
Plus, the pricipal STILL hasn’t written back to me:pShe also said that in some parts of the world, the world will get colder. Others, warmer. Like North Europe is supposed to freeze?
From now on, I shall only go on the computer twice a week.
SAVE THE POLAR BEARS.
0
0
-
127
dark lord of darkness
in January 22nd, 2007 @ 20:19115-laptop/book reader thing. you know, a lcd with a hd.
117-actually, i did know. but paper takes a lot more energy. and you could produce energy in a lot of different ways. and computers do not necessarily have to be energy guzzlers. i mean, my power supply is 500 watt. thats 5 lightbulbs!!! not so much actually.
124-read up on it. you’re actually wrong. wikipedia.
0
0
-
128
M & M
in January 22nd, 2007 @ 22:41127-
Wrong about the polar bear drownings?
Hmm. I shalt look up on wikipedia Wikipedia is bomb. What subject did you put into the search?You might be right about the paper taking more energy. Except.
I don’t actually know how much power five lightbulbs would take but if we used everything on the computer in place of paper for most everyone in the world..that’s a lotta lightbulbs. Plus, how we gonna get the computers to poorer peoples?And the more productions of computers…in factories= more greenhous gas.
0
0
-
129
M & M
in January 22nd, 2007 @ 23:20Oh and also.
Please do not forget that my original statement was:
Banana paper!
I was just saying, if it was possible, for people to use recycled paper.
Not: Computer can never replace paper.
Even though computers are nifty, we do need paper for plenty of things. But because of that, it would be best to use recycled paper, cut down on the cutting down of trees, ya know?
0
0
-
130
purplefinch
in January 23rd, 2007 @ 04:24Yes, we did go off on a random topic, didn’t we?
recycled paper=goode
0
0
-
131
FrigidSymphony
in January 23rd, 2007 @ 11:26just remember that everyone has access to wikipedia and can manhandle information.
And if scandinavia freezes, we’ll be ready for it, and call upon the mighty Odin to freeze greenland up again.
0
0
-
132
the man for aeiou
in January 23rd, 2007 @ 14:09131-how?I want to add that trans fats have been baned in ny.
0
0
-
133
Elizabeth
in January 23rd, 2007 @ 15:5332- only new york city
0
0
-
134
ginger
in January 23rd, 2007 @ 19:32ONLY IN NY CITY? No what I heard was that
I was all the staates w/water? Like Florida, Califorina…ex
0
0
-
135
Jadestone
in January 24th, 2007 @ 10:34I’m doing my research paper on global warming. I wonder if I can use Museblog as a valid resource… hmm… anyway, I went to the AIT website, found lots of good information…
0
0
-
136
Elizabeth
in January 24th, 2007 @ 11:16134- i don’t think so…
135- I wouldn’t think so. all our information isn’t definately true, but the AIT website would have enough information to write a couple books on global warming
0
0
-
137
dark lord of darkness
in January 24th, 2007 @ 15:23128-uhh i dont know, global warming?
134-que?
0
0
-
138
duck
in January 24th, 2007 @ 16:59I can’t belive that you don’t know what global warming is. If you don’t know what that is then don’t go on to the blog!-know offence!
0
0
-
139
purplefinch
in January 25th, 2007 @ 04:36dark lord of darkness was being sarcastic, duck, I think.
I like your name!
*pies*
Welcome to MB!
0
0
-
140
FrigidSymphony
in January 25th, 2007 @ 13:19139… Uh… Sometimes I’m amazed at the incapacity to detect sarcasm, irony, satirism and overall humor.
0
0
-
141
M & M
in January 25th, 2007 @ 21:44137- Garsh make your comments more specific.
Uhh I dunno global warming as in:I was wrong about global warming..?
what the heck?
specify please.
0
0
-
142
M & M
in January 26th, 2007 @ 00:04Oy nevermind. I think I get what you’re saying. Sorry. I’ve just been extremely moody and overly frustrated these days.
Today:
Sad, sad, happy, happy, happy, sad, mad, sad, happy, mad, sad.Plastic=non reneawable.
Plastic=oil
Oil=fossil fuel
fossil fuel=dead dinosaur and plankton.Recycle plastic.
0
0
-
143
Animal Lover
in January 29th, 2007 @ 13:32Mouse warming is just as important.
0
0
-
144
Axa
in February 1st, 2007 @ 23:08From Yahoo;
PARIS – The world’s leading climate scientists said global warming has begun, is “very likely” caused by man, and will be unstoppable for centuries, according to a report obtained Friday by The Associated Press.
The scientists — using their strongest language yet on the issue — said now that world has begun to warm, hotter temperatures and rises in sea level “would continue for centuries” no matter how much humans control their pollution. The report also linked the warming to the recent increase in stronger hurricanes.
“The observed widespread warming of the atmosphere and ocean, together with ice-mass loss, support the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that global climate change of the past 50 years can be explained without external forcing, and very likely that is not due to known natural causes alone,” said the report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — a group of hundreds of scientists and representatives of 113 governments.
The phrase “very likely” translates to a more than 90 percent certainty that global warming is caused by man’s burning of fossil fuels. That was the strongest conclusion to date, making it nearly impossible to say natural forces are to blame.
Good-bye, sweet Mother Earth.
0
0
-
145
Margaret
in February 3rd, 2007 @ 09:56Fascinating story on Global Warming in the Times today. Incredibly contradictory to that letter in Muse which I read last night upon returning from my ski trip (IT SNOWED) and haven’t had time to post about, but anyway, I snagged the lappytop from my dad long enough to post this.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/03/science/earth/03climate.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
(Please let the link through, GAPAs!)
0
0
-
146
Margaret
in February 3rd, 2007 @ 10:41One thing I found astonishing about that article was a quote from the US Secretary of Energy, Samuel Bodman: “We are a small contributor to the overall, when you look at the rest of the world, so it’s really got to be a global solution.”
The reporter most helpfully points out in the next paragraph: ‘The United States, with about 5 percent of the world’s population, contributes about a quarter of greenhouse gas emissions, more than any other country.’
Being the Secretary of Energy, there’s no way that he doesn’t know that, yet he still thinks (well, says anyway) we’re a small contributer! Ridiculous, huh?What I was trying to say about Muse in my last post is this: Britta E’s letter confused me a bit (never read Muse at ten thirty after a long ski trip and staying up late the night before in anticipation of a snow day that never came), but I interpreted it as saying that humans aren’t responsible for global warming. However, as the Muses said, there’s a ton of evidence saying otherwise, especially in that new study.
0
0
-
147
M & M
in February 3rd, 2007 @ 15:49I was so angry with Britta.
Or well
just her thoughts anyway. I’m sure she’s a kind person…..?I was just watching the news. And they brought up global warming. The scientists say that drastic measures need to be taken, and soon the damage of global warming will probably be permanent (though it probabl already IS).
Britta thinks humans aren’t causing it.
It’s just a cycle.Tell me Britta, if this were just a mere cycle, why are we fussing?
Your statement on the “cooking ourselves to death and taking innocent animals with us” is actually true.
Stop being blind, girl.
Go recycle.
0
0
-
148
Margaret
in February 3rd, 2007 @ 18:05147 ~ That last part made me laugh. It’s so true! I’m writing to Muse in response to Britta.
0
0
-
149
burnzkid
in February 4th, 2007 @ 09:01did anyone hear about the snow in NC? they had more snow than NY for the winter! Then, of course, it snowed here, in NY, on friday
0
0
-
150
FrigidSymphony
in February 4th, 2007 @ 13:25Actually, it is likely that the world would go through a whole other Ice Age again, but we’re definitely not doing anything to stop it.
0
0
-
151
Musketeer Number 5
in February 4th, 2007 @ 14:34Anyone seen the movie Day After Tomorrow? Not very scientific, but about an ice age resulting from global warming…it also showed the US as having a president besides Bush which made me happy.
0
0
-
152
Margaret
in February 4th, 2007 @ 18:16151 ~ I heard of it and saw a commercial or something. Pretty creepy looking. O_o
I don’t remember a lot of having a president other than Bush. I’ve been interested in politics since I was seven, coincidentally (not) the year of Bush’s election, so I don’t remember much about Clinton’s presidency. Only one year until the 2008 elections…well, primaries, anyway…
0
0
-
153
B. Cavefish and/or the Lone One Against Global Warming
in February 6th, 2007 @ 21:11After having looked for a while and then getting bored I’ll admit, I got no scientist-ish websites for people in the US, except for the site that couldn’t be linked (Why? I really can’t make any more points from it that I haven’t already) Then a friend kindly pointed out State of Fear by Michael Crichton *glances at book to spell check.* The book, while being a novel has two appendices, a bibliography and a Message from the Author. The Message and the first Appendix provide a great argument against global warming without taking on any of the scientific aspects of it. That disappointed me, but it’s appendix has a chilling reminder of the mistakes that well meaning (or not so well meaning) scientists have made over the centuries. I recommend it highly, but I can’t speak for the novel itself, I’ve just started it.
If anybody cares, here are some of my favorite points the Author’s Message makes:
– I think for anyone to believe in impending resource scarcity, after two hundred years of such false alarms, is kind of weird. I don’t know whether such a belief today is best ascribed to ignorance of history, sclerotic dogmatism, unhealthy love of Malthus, or simple pigheadedness, but is evidently a hardy perennial in human calculation.
….
– I suspect the people of 2100 will be much richer than we are, consume more energy, have a smaller global population, and enjoy more wilderness than we have today. I don’t think we have to worry about them.
– The current near-hysterical preoccupation with safety is at best a waste of resources and a crimp on the human spirit, and at worst an invitation to totalitarianism. Public education is desperately needed.
– I conclude that most environmental “principles” (such as sustainable development or the precautionary principle) have the effect of preserving the economic advantages of the West and thus constitute modern imperialism toward the developing world. It is a nice way of saying, “We got ours and we don’t want you to get yours, because you’ll cause too much pollution.”
– The “precautionary principle,” properly applied, forbids the precautionary principle. It is self-contradictory. The precautionary principle therefore cannot be spoken of in terms that are too harsh.
….
– I am certain that there is too much certainty in the world.
….
– Everyone has an agenda, except me.
Again, my favorites, he does get down to business and condemn the whole theory in other points and in his first Appendix. I highly recommend it. Why? ‘Cause if you’re gonna believe in global warming then at least find yourself arguments for both sides of the issue! I’m going to watch An Inconvenient Truth, once it arrives from being ordered by my library. (Yes I know, our entire library system doesn’t have AIT, shocking!) Evidently there’s also a book for it, but I refuse to slog through 325 pages of propaganda that I don’t believe in (If I like/believe in the movie enough, maybe.
Oh, yeah, I was gonna explain why I can’t find any scientific evidence from people in the US online: I’ll do it in one word: FUNDING! Most of the only scientist-y types you’ll hear speaking out against global warming will be retired professors, because they’re not out looking for grants for their next expedition or whatever (or expotition if you’re Winnie-the-Pooh). Any scientist with a brain in hiser head will bring back results that heshe is (I love those what-are-they-calleds) sure will please their (that one’s still tops, though) funding Corporation or Foundation will like. And if it’s Government-funded? Then ones that the Government’ll like (no I didn’t say the President. Right now it’ll be what Congress likes most likely, since everybody hates Bush, but don’t even get me started).
Okay, if you feel like reading rantings of the Lone One Against Global Warming (I should add another part to my name… Hey! I will/did, then go ahead, sorry it’s so long
This thread should be back on the main page again!!!
0
0
-
154
B. Cavefish and/or the Lone One Against Global Warming
in February 7th, 2007 @ 15:46wow, all that and no comments in almost a day… sigh
0
0
-
155
Musketeer Number 5
in February 7th, 2007 @ 21:51Huhhh…
I think Global Warming is real, maybe not as dire as it is portrayed to be, but real…
People (mostly US and China) should do what they can to stop it because if it is real than it needs to be stopped and if it isn’t real than we’re just cleaning up polution, which also needs to be stopped.
153. Not to be morbid, but I kinda see the point of what you’re saying too. Human’s population is rising really fast and something needs to stop it…
0
0
-
156
The Skipper Nancy
in February 7th, 2007 @ 22:52(153) Interesting, but I don’t quite see what he’s saying in the second quote…”have a smaller global population” “enjoy more wilderness”? That’s certainly not the way things are headed, and evidence doesn’t show that its likely to change.
This saturday, the UN released a report of compiled by thousands of scientists from hundreds of countries from a study that was initiated in 1988 that stated that Earth is headed for a large heating-up, and that they were 90 percent sure it is laregly human-caused.
0
0
-
157
Margaret
in February 8th, 2007 @ 08:21153 ~ I got State of Fear for my dad for christmas. He laughed so hard. xD He’s a politics professor, and he teaches environmental studies and stuff so he said he knew he probably should read it but he couldn’t bring himself to buy it. (I got it on sale for six bucks.) But yeah, it’s in the house, so I may steal it and take a look.
Still, I’m with Skipper. The science points to the other side.
0
0
-
158
B. Cavefish and/or the Lone One Against Global Warming
in February 8th, 2007 @ 18:35(156) I don’t know, just quoting what he says, that’s his belief.
(All) The earth is warming. Humans probably have not caused it. Why? Read my other posts, ask me to elaborate.
Not having seen the movie myself I can’t criticize, but apparently in the movie Al Gore has a graph of the temperature over the last long-ish period, and he goes forward towards the future and has to ride on a lift thing. Am I right? This is just hearsay. So he goes up around 20 stories and the thing is still above his head. Now, according to reports the temperature increase is supposed to be around 6(insert degree sign) Celsius. So, he’s basically all alone on that point. The people (no clue who, still hearsay, will look up) say a max of around 6 degrees Celsius (give or take 5 degrees, again just heard this don’t remember well).
He also mentions sea levels rising a lot. The people (same or different) have dropped their estimate for the max rise of the sea level, which is now around 17 inches. Again, he’s alone.
He also shows the ice core thing with dirty ice then clean ice on top and mentions that this is the year that somebody passed the something-against-global-warming resolution. Honestly, can the thing change that fast?
Those of you who have watched AIT please help me out and tell me whether I’m just rambling or what. I promise to watch it all when my library gets it.
0
0
-
159
M & M
in February 9th, 2007 @ 20:29Yeah, I saw that too Skipper! (on the news or somewhere I think).
B. Cavefish.
I’m sorry you don’t think Global Warming is real.
As long as you’re recycling and giving back to nature, I guess I won’t mind, as I really feel it is pointless to keep arguing with you.
It seems nothing will show you what’s right in front of your eyes.
No matter how many facts, you always seem to be against it. Alas, maybe tis you that needs to “find yourself arguments for both sides of the issue”.Have a nice day though.
0
0
-
160
M & M
in February 9th, 2007 @ 20:55Trying to control myself from attacking your posts.
But sorry for sounding hostile, mean and irritated.
Because I am tired, grumpy, and a hardcore environmentalist.
HOpefully you will not hate me forever.
*virtual hug*
I’m expecting one back.However, back to my meanness, ok?
Fact: Scientists HAVE proven that us humans, with our major greenhouse gas producing ways are heating up the planet.
no. da.
I just can’t…AGHHHH. Why can’t people understand this????
You understand, that carbon dioxide traps in heat, right?
You understand that we produce carbon dioxide in huge amounts each day, right?Why can’t you understand glob-
Hey. By any chance…are you Britta? o_OAnd also. I can argue with the other side if I wanted to. I had to write the other point of veiw for my Persuasive essay. The thing is: I don’t want to.
155- Well, actually it is as dire as portrayed. Even if we(by some miracle) can stop global warming, the seas will still continue rising. Flooding islands…worser natural disasters…etc..
0
0
-
161
B. Cavefish and/or the Lone One Against Global Warming
in February 10th, 2007 @ 12:39The seas have not risen. Most of Antarctica is cooling, and only two percent of the continent is melting.
(160) *returns virtual hug*, No I’m not Britta
Of course pollution is bad and all that. Of course the current warming trend is getting some help from the human population. But, even though the earth is warming, it was warmer many times before, and the earth’s warming isn’t actually that catastrophic, if we wait twenty years to do something, the earth will only warm some percent of a degree, I posted it up there somewhere.
Ok, here’s a list of articles in various science magazines that show statistics that throw doubt on global warming (this is from State of Fear, btw, but the articles are real, I assume the stuff in bold is quotes from the articles)
– Nature #415, pages 517-520 “Antarctic climate cooling and terrestrial ecosystem response”
From 1986 to 2000 central Antarctic valleys cooled .7 degrees Celsius per decade with serious ecosystem damage from the cold.– Journal of Climate #13, pages 1674-96 “Variability and trends in Antarctic surface temperatures from in situ and satellite infrared measurements”
Both satellite data and ground stations show slight cooling over the last 20 years.– Science #295 pages 476-480 “Positive mass balance of the Ross Ice Streams, West Antarctica”
Side-looking radar measurements show West Antarctic ice is increasing at 26.8 gigatons/yr. Reversing the melting trend of the last 6,000 years.
There’s more, but I won’t type it, much too long.
I’m not saying that something’s happening to our world. We may not be the direct cause, but we probably have something to do with it.
I’m not also saying that we shouldn’t move towards better renewable fuels and all that good stuff. We do. What we don’t need, though, is a fake catastrophe to push us forward.
Have any of you heard of eugenics. The appendix of State of Fear (yes I know I use the book too much, but I’m reading it right now) points out the similarities to the way it was handled/funded/publicized/supported. I’ll explain briefly. Eugenics was the theory that the human gene pool was deteriorating fast, and that humans would cease to exist if people didn’t do something proactive. The proactiveness involved preventing “feeble-minded” and “unfit” people from reproducing in many various ways. Both of the words in quotes were never defined well. During the late 19th century and the early 20th, if you didn’t believe in eugenics, you were called bunches of names, like unscientific and other things.
Eventually the focus of eugenics moved to Germany, and the people in the US were jealous: the Germans were proactive, they would have this building that looked exactly like a normal house. People would be led in, one at a time, asked a few questions, then they were moved to the next room. The next room was a gas chamber. After the people were gassed, they were taken to crematoriums. Eventually these places were consolidated into massive camps. Then World War II started. You get the picture.
After WWII, nobody practiced eugenics, nobody had ever practiced eugenics. But before, right up until practically the night before, the Rockefeller Foundation had been funding German research on eugenics. Many others founded similar research facilities both in Germany and the US.
Now think about global warming. Draw some similarities in policy. Global warming is popular, if you don’t believe it you’re basically called names, but not in so many words. Also, lots of philanthropists and the government (who backed eugenics way back then) are backing global warming now.
We do need to modernize fuel and stuff like that. We don’t need to be scared into doing so.
0
0
-
162
Rebecca Lasley (Administrator)
in February 10th, 2007 @ 16:00For the record, “eugenics” in the popular sense of the word hardly died out with WWII. In North Carolina, the state eugenics board, which authorized sterilization for the “feeble-minded,” continued until 1974. Although the program did not focus on race in its first decades, by the 1960s, 60% of the people sterilized were African American (also by then, 99% were female). The so-called “evidence” presented in these cases was often scanty at best.
Many other state programs, such as the one in California (which led the nation with over 20,000 sterilizations — almost a third of the estimated U.S. total), curtailed their efforts dramatically after the revelations following WWII. North Carolina went the opposite direction. The number of victims skyrocketed to its peak in the early 1950s and stayed well above the prewar levels until the program began to slow down in the late 1960s.
Humans have a long, continuing history of endeavoring to control the populations of humans they deem inferior, and the perpetrators have seized on any convenient justification. Would Hitler’s fanaticism have been prevented by the absence of a specific eugenics movement?
To single out one factor of many to bear blame for Hitler is already stretching the issue; forcing an analogy between the crimes of Nazism and a belief in global warming would seem to be a clear instance of Godwin’s Law (“as an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one”).
As a general rule, I’d advise against introducing Nazis into conversations where their presence is not specifically relevant. The practice contributes nothing to one’s argument and undermines the credibility of the person who injects them into the mix.
[/lecture]
0
0
-
163
Admiral Penguin
in February 10th, 2007 @ 16:06GLOBAL WARMING KILLS PENGUINS!!!
0
0
-
164
M & M
in February 11th, 2007 @ 19:54161-
Boy am I glad you’re not Britta.
*Gives another virtual hug*Yes but…
If we focus a lot on Global warming issues and trying to stop it…what kind of “bad” will come out of it?
And if antartica has cooled, why are we making such a big fuss?I was watching the news. It seems like they are reporting Global warming a lot these days.
Al Gore and some other guy set up this program where if you can figure a way to take away billions of carbon dioxide this earth for ten years, they will give you 25 million dollars.Those are pretty drastic measures.
And a lot of money.Why whould they do this…if Global warming isn’t real?
Hold on. I’m lost. What are we arguing about again? o_O
Humans aren’t contributing to Global warming, or global warming isn’t real?
0
0
-
165
B. Cavefish and/or the Lone One Against Global Warming
in February 12th, 2007 @ 20:14(164) *Returns the virtual hug*
Who’s Britta?
What ‘bad’? We’d all be Al Gore zombies!! jk lol.
I don’t know why we’re making such a fuss, Antarctica has cooled so much that one of the articles looks at ecology damages!
That is a lot of money… wasted. I still would like it. Something’s happening to the earth, but according to data, it sure as heck doesn’t look like it’s warming so much that it needs our attention.
Why wouldn’t they? Because they’re deluded! That’s why!!
Humans are a factor, global warming is real, it’s just not A) a problem, or B) happening globally.
(163) Penguins are actually being harmed by the decrease in their climate’s temperature. But whatever.
(162) Oh. Well then, after WWII was anybody being sponsored by major corporations to go perform eugenics. Not so much. Just because public opinion shifts against something, doesn’t mean it will stop right away. I appear to be misinformed. Michael Crichton doesn’t mention it after WWII.
I have a better example, and it’s much less drastic, but still an example of politicized science.
Okay, Trofim Denisovich Lysenko: peasant in the USSR who “solved the problem of fertilizing the fields without fertilizers and minerals.” He invented ‘vernalization’ in 1928, seeds are soaked and frozen to enhance growth of crops later. His formula never was tested rigorously, but he claimed that the seeds passed on their characteristics to the next generation was basically going back to the theories of Lamarck (the other guy in that blind cavefish thing) when Mendel’s genetics was basically worldwide. Stalin liked it, Lysenko promised improved crops w/o the ‘problems’ of heredity. Lysenko was good at slamming his opponents, he used questionnaires from farmers rather than tests. By 1937 he was made a member of the Supreme Soviet. His methods dominated Russian biology, and any scientists who disagreed were sent to the gulags or the firing squads. Genetics was finally banned as “bourgeois pseudoscience” in 1948. Lysenko-ism ended in the 1960s but Russian biology hasn’t recovered fully yet.
The analogy is politicized science. Global warming is a new theory and has support of politicians, scientists and celebrities all around the world. Critics are few and harshly dealt with (but not with guns or anything, stopped funding is usually enough) Vague terms are used (sustainability, generational justice) and they have no real agreed definition. They’re not the same, but they’re chillingly similar.
(thank you, State of Fear)
(ALL) I apologize for ranting on and on, but still, this is science. Let’s use a little of the scientific method.
0
0
-
166
M & M
in February 16th, 2007 @ 21:01165- Oh, Britta is this person who doesn’t believe in Global Warming AT ALL. She wrote to Muse(February issue) about it and I was so pissed.
No silly ducky. No Al Gore zombies. Better environment maybe?
Eh, well it’s their’s to spend. Gets people’s attention into focusing on Global Warming. Moolah. That’s so sad.
Well. You er, seem to be using most all of your arguing points from State of Fear.
Don’t you think it would be a better idea to get things from..well more places rather than just one book? It would help the argument.Too tired to argue. And read through all posts in front page. Maybe tomorrow.
Well I guess if you don’t believe Global warming is a problem, just keep on
Reducing
Reusing
and
Recycling.
Pwease. And then I won’t be mad because I don’t wanna be mad at you. You’re a very nice person.Jack Johnson rocks.
0
0
-
167
Jadestone
in February 16th, 2007 @ 21:29We do most of the suggestions from AIT allready…Note: One said only turn thurmostat up to 68 degrees in winter. 68??? Ours hardly ever gets that high!! And only when I’m alone in the house or with mom! Dad always turns it down… nevermmind the fact that my fingers are WHITE right now…
0
0
-
168
B. Cavefish and/or the Lone One Against Global Warming
in February 17th, 2007 @ 11:54(166) Did her letter make it in? It should have. Sorry, good book. Have finished it, will look for others if I want. I’ll do that. Jack Johnson… isn’t his music in Curious George (the cutest movie ever!) then yes he does
(167) Wow! You must live somewhere warm… sheesh. 68?? It hardly ever gets that low! Our thermostat’s at 73-ish and my room is still cold (but then again the heat thingies are laid out weird so it figures but still)
So are we done arguing about global warming? It’s not a problem, and we still need to do stuff for the environs, we just don’t need bullying. Tra-la
0
0
-
169
M & M
in February 18th, 2007 @ 17:26168-
Sadly, it did…but the muses told her right. Let’s hope she follows their advice. Wait, you should have seen it right? If you’ve gotten your February issue already.No, I was just pointing out that most of your argument came from only one source..and that’s not too reliable. Probably are other resources out there, but it just didn’t make your point stong enough when you kept referring to State of Fear.
YEAH! I just put the soundtrack on hold. Nya haha. The 3 R’s.
Eh, sure why not. This thread is dying anyways.
But it’s still a problem.
But since you still don’t believe it, like I said before, remember the 3 R’s.
0
0
-
170
Changer
in February 24th, 2007 @ 14:49Excuse me, but take note: Water takes up the same amount of space frozen or not, so if the polar ice caps do melt, they won’t raise the sea level at all. So you don’t have to worry about that.
I’m sorry this is so random, but this is Muse, isn’t it? You have to be random!
0
0
-
171
FrigidSymphony
in February 24th, 2007 @ 15:16170: No you don’t. Many people like me enjoy having actual discussions about certain topics.
0
0
-
172
Countess Pentatonikk the Unctuous of Leighton Buzzard
in February 24th, 2007 @ 16:09170 (Changer)-
You figure out what I’m responding to here.
1. Not outside the random thread.
2. Then why has the sea level been rising? The penguins must be spontaneously generating all that extra water!
0
0
-
173
OJ533
in March 4th, 2007 @ 15:08170- part of the icebergs are above the water so when thay melt they rase the sea level.
If you do not believe in globle worming believe whats the harm of beleveing
0
0
-
174
hypermoocow
in March 10th, 2007 @ 17:24170 the icebergs melting will raise the sea level
global warming is real!
0
0
-
175
Shadowkat
in April 3rd, 2007 @ 08:21Thank you, GAPA’s! Now let’s see if I can get some more people on the thread…
0
0
-
176
Donaldo the supercoolio awesome nerd
in April 6th, 2007 @ 20:29Hurricanes are not getting worse. Avalanches are not happening more frequently. It is just that in recent years, more avalanches and hurricanes have been recorded. Antarctica is cooling. And think about this: Back in the 1930’s, no one blamed the Dust Bowl on global warming. But think about how people would describe it now, blaming it on “global warming.”
0
0
-
177
Robert Coontz (Administrator)
in April 6th, 2007 @ 20:46MBers seem to have an impressive amount of information about global warming at their fingertips. Where do you learn it all? Do you study climatology in school?
0
0
-
178
Beavo the Great
in April 6th, 2007 @ 20:57177-We’re fed a lot of global warming stuff (mostly untrue) in school. Its crammed into almost everything we do, from gym to spanish. No kidding.
0
0
-
179
Beavo the Great
in April 6th, 2007 @ 21:00126-If polar bears hated swimming so much WHY DID THEY EVOLVE WITH MORE WEBLIKE FEET???
0
0
-
180
Beavo the Great
in April 6th, 2007 @ 21:01165-IM WITH YOU YOU ARE NOT ALONE!!!
0
0
-
181
Robert Coontz (Administrator)
in April 6th, 2007 @ 21:09(178),
Gym and Spanish? Really? And where do you learn the counter-arguments?
0
0
-
182
Beavo the Great
in April 6th, 2007 @ 21:27181-My parents work for an employer (n/a) that encourages the extermination of such lies like global warming and darwinism. I have givin a link (sorry, I had to) to a movie that explains in DETAIL how global warming is a HOAX. This is for all you environmentalists out there. [Sorry, BtG, no links. But the video you’re talking about, “The Great Global Warming Swindle,” is easy to find and is currently being discussed on the Hot Topics thread. –Robert] Be carful its 1hr and 15mins… pretty long.
0
0
-
183
Alice
in April 6th, 2007 @ 21:28Global warming? Maybe not, but definitely climate change. It snowed here three times this past year! Three! it generally snows once every other year.
Polar bears like swimming, but they’re not fish.
I’m getting off now, and leaving for less dangerous waters. Ponder my statements if you like, but I won’t be here to read your ponderings.
Farewell!
0
0
-
184
Beavo the Great
in April 6th, 2007 @ 21:31181-And I also can prove it without movies. In third grade, my teacher put on a movie about global warming, and it said something about humans breathing out carbon dioxide. Then it said carbon dioxide was killing trees or something. I thought, wait a minute, trees convert carbon dioxide into oxygen! HOW COULD THEY DIE?? Later I learned that not only do they not die, pine trees actually produce more co2 than all of America’s factories COMBINED. Use your common sense people. NUCLER ENERGY IS THE WAY TO GO.
0
0
-
185
Beavo the Great
in April 6th, 2007 @ 21:34Personally, the whole global warming fiasco is a WOMBAT big time.
0
0
-
186
Julieb
in April 6th, 2007 @ 22:44Ok, who here is a qualified climate scientist? I thought not. And who reads published material written by climate scientists on the issue and is not relying on information given to them by their parents or teachers? Until you consult some reliable sources (more than one video) and give clear, unrefutable evidence, I’m afraid global warming caused by human pollution must be taken as true.
184- What the video probably said was that plants can die if temperature and moisture levels rise, something caused by global warming.
In science, a theory is something that is proven to the best of our ability to be true and is accepted by the majority of the scientific community. Global Warming caused by man-made emmisions is a theory. None of the opponents to global warming have explained why the earth is heating up, or why sea levels are rising. None of the excuses they have given have been named acceptable theories to rival global warming caused by human emmisions.
0
0
-
187
fellowmuser
in April 6th, 2007 @ 23:22185- About 2/3 of America (including me) strongly disagrees.
At my school, we have a petition club. We are petitioning for more action against global warming.
0
0
-
188
Red-tailed HAWK
in April 7th, 2007 @ 07:46Beavo, where are you getting your facts? Trees do NOT breath out carbon dioxide! And by the way, what you said about the ice on the other thread, sea levels are going to rise. The ice is so tall it goes way ABOVE the water. What does that mean? It means all of that is going to be in the water! Ever seen a picture of a glacier? They are on land. And they are melting. If you have not seen the inconvenient truth book, you don’t know what you are talking about. And since when are you smarter than almost EVERY SCIENTIST ON THE PLANET??? Were they all brainwashed or something? The facts you are reading are put out by groups PAID by the oil company! I highly doubt the scientists are being paid by the solar industry.
May I ask a question? Why would the scientists want to trick you? And why is everybody so concerned about Global Warming, and not about all of the real tricks you are falling for every day?
The politicians are arguing against the truth because they want to keep getting money from the oil industry.
The I Can’t Believe You’re Saying What You’re Saying HAWK
0
0
-
189
Purple Panda
in April 7th, 2007 @ 08:03Trees don’t breathe out carbon dioxide. Trees actually take in carbon dioxide to help them with photosynthesis (the process of turning the energy from light into sugar that it can use – glucose). The basic photosynthesis equation is:
6 CO2 + 12 H2O + photons → C6H12O6 + 6 O2 + 6 H2O(In English): carbon dioxide + water + light energy → glucose + oxygen + water
Photosynthesis has two different parts to it. The first thing the energy goes through is the light-dependent reactions. This is where the light is turned into high energy electrons. The chlorophyll in the plant’s chloroplast absorbs the light and the energy is transfered to the electrons. The electrons begin traveling through the electron transport chain. NADP and NADPH are used in the electron transport chain, and the ATP synthase changes the ADP into ATP by adding hydrogen ions to it. The chlorophyll molecules get the electrons back by photolysis, which is a process that releases oxygen gas
I’m probably not explaining this very well. I’m learning about it in biology right now…so it makes sense to me, but I may not be writing it in a way that makes sense to you. But, anyway, the next part is the light-independent reactions which is where The plant uses carbon dioxide from the atmosphere in the Calvin cycle, which creates glucose.
0
0
-
190
Red-tailed HAWK
in April 7th, 2007 @ 12:31Thanks Panda. Some people don’t seem to know anything about the topic but are still vehemently against it. *sigh* I suppose they don’t think the planet is worth exerting any effort to protect it.
If somebody said there was a bomb in their house they wouldn’t act either.
0
0
-
191
Shadowkat
in April 7th, 2007 @ 13:33176-Yes! Thankyouthankyouthankyou!!!
Robert-No, but, as BtG said, we get it shoved at us almost 24/7, and therefore we find out a lot about it…we also, if we disagree with something, look it up and find our own information…we’re Musers…it’s what we do.
184-What does nuclear energy have anything to do with global warming?
185-Don’t go too far…it’s just not something we need to worry about, not a WOMBAT.
186-It’s just occurred to me: why do you want to believe it’s CO2 so badly? And whose say are you going on? Also, competing theories have been named unacceptable by whom?
187-So I suppose you’d like all of us to bow down to you and give you more money so that you can make sure we don’t use too much CO2 and so that you can control our lives? Go live in a pollution-free biosphere, along with the rest of the environmentalists, and that’ll be fine with me…just don’t tell me how to live my life based on some twisted data that you and your colleagues pasted together to suit your purposes.
188-He didn’t say that they breathed it out, he said that pine trees give off more CO2…there’s a difference. And frankly, just for the record: plants don’t technically “breathe”. Also, how do you know who makes the movies we’re talking about? Have you researched it? And I would like to see the percentage of “almost every scientist on the planet”, if you please. And the politicians aren’t arguing against the truth!!! Are you kidding me?!?! Exactly how many politicians have you seen disputing this?!
190-Oh, yes, we’re so pathetic, acting on a lot more evidence than you, and just refusing to believe that our planet could possibly be getting any warmer because of us. Rather, we think that it’s all just one big cycle, which is, of course, crazy, considering there’s so much evidence to support our idea. And if there was a bomb in our house, we’d investigate…if we found one, we’d do something about it. If we didn’t, we wouldn’t freak out, because we’d have no reason to do so…see the analogy?
0
0
-
192
Beavo the Great
in April 7th, 2007 @ 15:24186-It is published. My parents are associated with climate scientists, though not in big corrperations. Their ideas were rejected because they went against the general flow. People were not ready to belive that global warming is not the cause of all their problems.
188-So what if their melting? They wont effect the sea levels that much. Most of them is made up of dirt and debree and AIR. What we will get is more AIR. Im not smarter than every scientist on the planet, you know that and I know that. Im not implying that I am. Im simply saying USE YOUR COMMON SENCE! Paid by the oil company? ARE YOU KIDDING ME? We’re not for pollution or anything, we are terribly agianst pollution. Pollution is a problem. But industry is not. The scientists are brainwashed, in a way. All their models that they use to study the climate and weather are based on global warming. They never assume that global warming ISNT a problem. If they didnt, thier readings wouldnt be so severe. Im sorry to say that you are the one falling for the tricks, and so has 90% of the poppulation.
Scientists about 50 or so years ago were afraid that the earth was getting COLDER! Then they found out about global warming, and marked it as a good thing. Did you know that most of the ozone depletion is in antarctca? Since when are there any cars or mass industries there?
0
0
-
193
Beavo the Great
in April 7th, 2007 @ 15:28160-Oh and I forgot did you know that WATER IS A GREENHOUSE GAS? Water is a major greenhouse gas. So our water is melting ice burgs and depleting the ozone layer? Come On. Do some real reaserch, dont go by what other people just tell you.
0
0
-
194
Red-tailed HAWK
in April 7th, 2007 @ 16:46About the antarctic ozone, ever heard of something called wind currents? And yes, we should be headed for an ice age. So you’re admitting it is getting warmer?!? Aha. By the way, where did you get your data? Why do you feel you are right and we’re not? Somehow we are all wrong and you’re right. It seems a bit self-centered.
0
0
-
195
Beavo the Great
in April 7th, 2007 @ 16:58194-You may be right about the arctic ozone, and yes, the Earth is getting warmer, but not at an extent as you say. And the consequeses are NOT as dire as you make them sound. There are many people who aggree with me (a minority) but they are there all the same. I get my data by numerous sources, mostly online.
0
0
-
196
Red-tailed HAWK
in April 7th, 2007 @ 17:36195-Please specify your sources. And you still haven’t said why I would want to trick you.
0
0
-
197
Axa
in April 8th, 2007 @ 00:59….-tries her bes to be civil-
(189) Are you honestly saying that. Are you HONESTLY saying that it doesn’t matter if the polar ice caps are melting. Regardless of what it does to the ocean and sea levels, in places where animals live on them it is most certainly important. Polar bears drown because there’s no place to go ashore, so to speak.
Yes, water is a greenhouse gas. The Earth needs greenhouse gases to maintain it’s temperature. However it is the ADDITIONAL gases that throws off this balance. When that balance is thrown off more heat is retained. I’m getting this from my science book and partially from Wikipedia,(although I recognize Wikipedia is not the most reliable of sources, the global warming article is locked from th public).
Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been going up the past 200 years.Note that global warming doesn’t meant JUST hotter weather; it affects climates and can thus produce colder temperatures.
0
0
-
198
FrigidSymphony
in April 8th, 2007 @ 07:50This is insane. Human ignorance galore. I feel like the world is doomed.
0
0
-
199
Julieb
in April 8th, 2007 @ 11:09Fridgy, either contribute to the discussion (well, debate, really) or leave the thread.
Shadowkat- I read numerous reliable scientific sources, including NewScientist magazine and their website, and may not that these articles cite actual reports and studies recently published or currently underway. If you check their website, you will find the have an entire section devoted to their “special report” on climate change. I don’t want to believe climate change is caused by CO2 more than anything else, but the evidence presented to me, from BOTH sides of the arguement, convinces me that it is much more likely than any other possibility presented, and has much more research to back it up. And please don’t say this is only because research on the possible other causes is suppressed by the evil scientists trying to convince everyone that factories are evil and everyone must stop production immediately. And as I explained, there are no competing THEORYIES. There is strict criteria for becoming a theory, and nothing else trying to explain this particular phenomena has qualified, at least to the best of my knowledge.
Beavo- First of all, learn to spell. It’s bothering me. Sense. Corporation. Debris. Population. Antarctica. Consequences. Agree. And please use apostrophes. And I would like you to note that the large blocks of land at the northmost and southmost parts of the globe are called the polar ICE caps. They are mostly ICE. And, as ice is liable to melt, and because an enormous amount of water is frozen in these “caps” they will affect the sea level. And this causes problems. Major problems.
0
0
-
200
Beavo the Great
in April 8th, 2007 @ 16:39196-You might not want to trick Beavo. Thats weird (were all musers *gets pied* never mind). But it just took of when Margret Thatcher became prime minister of England, and right now, if polotititians didnt agree with the global warming hoax, than they get kicked outta office. Or even not get to run. Ever heard of Lyndon LaRouche? Look him up on wiki and you get a lot of mean stuff said about him. Thats what happened becuase he opposed global warming. My sources are mostly online, so I cant cite them. But the larouche website is easy to find, and so is the global warming swindle video to name a few.
199-Sorry about the spelling and apostrophes. :oops:. I’ll try harder. Really. But because it is ice, and not a lot of land, the ice will melt and simply fill in the gap it was previously (did I spell that right??) occuping. (how about that?) The place where the ice was does not just go away. There is not a huge gap of nowhere in the middle of the arctic ocean. Try doing an experiment. Take a bucket (clear) and fill it to the middle with water. Dump in some sand if you want to. Then put in a big chunk of ice that coveres about two inches. Mark the water level. Then leave it in the sun. When the ice cube melts, is there a gap where it was? No. It has been filled up with water.
0
0
-
201
Beavo the Great
in April 8th, 2007 @ 16:40199-And you spelled theories wrong.
0
0
-
202
Julieb
in April 8th, 2007 @ 17:15One typo does not a bad speller make. P-o-l-i-t-i-c-i-a-n-s, btw. And o-c-c-u-p-y-i-n-g. But the point is, the ice is both above and below the water. And there is an awful lot of it. I would like to know why you think the water level is rising. And how it came to be that the worlds foremost climate scientists all have been hoodwinked into this scam.
0
0
-
203
Axa
in April 8th, 2007 @ 17:20Okay how about this. Don’t you think that at SOME point all of this pollution would have a negative effect? The world population is going up and so would the rate of pollution…
I fell so strongly about this, I don’t think I can keep arguing my point. It just depresses me.
0
0
-
204
Shadowkat
in April 8th, 2007 @ 18:36Julieb-But why are you opposed to the idea of the Solar/Cosmic Ray theory? That makes the most sense to me…granted, I haven’t done my own studies, but I’ve seen those of people who have, on both theories (S/CR and CO2), and I think the S/CR one is more plausible.
Beavo-Don’t sound like a conspiracy theorist…ok? You’re borderline. Make your point, but try not to simply offend others.
Axa-Yes, it would have an effect…just not necessarily a global temperature-related one.
0
0
-
205
Julieb
in April 8th, 2007 @ 19:06204- The point is, it’s not a theory. It is not accepted by even a good sized fraction of the scientific community, much less a majority. If even 15% of credible scientists believed it, it would be considered for theory status. The point is, I’m approximating the figure is probably somewhere like 2%. If more climate scientists aren’t convinced, I’m not convinced. And I’d reccomend, and please don’t think I’m proselytizing or being stubborn/rude, doing further research on the evidence behind the human-caused global warming theory. As I said before, NewScientist has a great archive.
0
0
-
206
Red-tailed HAWK
in April 8th, 2007 @ 19:54May I say something? I just think people don’t seem to understand why pollution DOES raise temperatures, and IS a problem. Here’s the definition of pollution: The presence in or introduction into the environment of a substance or thing that has harmful or poisonous effects. Clear enough? Is that something that we can just pump into the air and not expect there to be consequences? And if there is an affordable way to use renewable resources, why not? Lets start working out the kinks before the old stuff runs out!
0
0
-
207
Beavo the Great
in April 8th, 2007 @ 23:12202-The scientists havent been “hoodwinked”, but if you look at their data, they all assume a “theory” is Fact. Everything is based on Global Warming. Yes, the earth is getting warmer. Yes, pollution is terrible and is getting worse and should stop. But at the extent that it is being presented, I Dont Think So.
204-Sorry if I sound too harsh…
But it’s hard to make a point when everyone is against you206-Nobody said that pollution was’nt a problem. It is.
0
0
-
208
wingnut
in April 9th, 2007 @ 08:42I’m going to be lurking here, but if ANYONE tries to post something from Wikipedia, I will lose all faith and leave for fun, happy threads.
0
0
-
209
Red-tailed HAWK
in April 9th, 2007 @ 08:50Um, if you think everybody is against you, then why do you think you need to convince us? Maybe there’s a reason we are all against you. Maybe it means WE are right. You just seem to be acting like some kind of savior who will save all of the other people who are against you because we’re so dumb but you didn’t fall for the trick. When more people believe in one side than the other, that often means they are right. Does that make sense? It just seems like you are pounding your information into us like we’re all wrong. Just try to be a little more considerate, that’s all.
0
0
-
210
Julieb
in April 9th, 2007 @ 09:17207- Why do I have to explain this over and over again? In science, a theory is taken to be a fact, until it can be proved otherwise or a better theory comes into existance. So far, no one has proved global warming caused by human pollution wrong or provided another cause accepted by the scientific community. Therefore, all working models are based on global warming being caused by human pollution. How much research have you actually done? Are you just reading your side, because your parents told you global warming was a scam? If so, you have no valid arguement. An Inconvenient Truth was meant to be the Silent Spring for our generation. You’re ignoring the truth and trusting the lies put out simply because you don’t want it to be true (hence the name of the movie.) You have not given any other reason why you don’t believe in global warming and all your excuses have been shot down. Either provide something more substantial or admit that there is no valid reason why you are opposed to global warming. Which is a ridiculous statement, by the way. It’s like saying “I don’ t believe in gravity.” That may be true, but you don’t suddenly become weightless and float away.
0
0
-
211
Shadowkat
in April 9th, 2007 @ 10:14207-I understand…until you, Alice, and Donaldo came here, I was the only one advancing our position…everyone was against me. But don’t let them pressure you, and also, don’t simply repeat what others have said…that helps, but do your own thinking, too. Analogies are good.
209-The majority isn’t always right…sometimes, it takes one person to convince a multitude of the truth. There was a time when everyone believed that the earth was the center of the universe. I mean, that was how it looked, wasn’t it? It took one person, Galileo, to tell the world that what they thought to be true wasn’t. And, when he first told them this, he was put under house arrest, because people didn’t want to believe what he said. Granted, it was for different reasons, but the point remains.
210-Beavo’s giving similar arguments to mine, so do your statements here apply to me as well? If so, I’ll gladly reply.
0
0
-
212
Purple Panda
in April 9th, 2007 @ 10:24197 – were you talking about me? Because I was just explaining photosynthesis…
0
0
-
213
Alice
in April 9th, 2007 @ 10:31I do believe in Global Warming. It just isn’t warm here, so I call it “climate change.”
0
0
-
214
Shadowkat
in April 9th, 2007 @ 10:47213-Well, that still makes sense…we (the people I mentioned) just don’t think it’s man-invoked. Sorry if I made it sound like you support something you don’t.
I’m compiling our posts in a Word document and filing them based on their subject. Granted, I’m not doing all of them, but I’m trying to keep things even. If you want, I’ll post it at the end of this thread.
0
0
-
215
Julieb
in April 9th, 2007 @ 11:52Shadowkat- Your not denying Global Warming. Beavo is. I still don’t believe that sunspots or “cosmic rays” are causing global warming, and hope to convince you otherwise, but at least you provide an alternative, which, although not as convincing as global warming caused by human pollution, at the very least has some scientific evidence to back it up.
0
0
-
216
wingnut
in April 9th, 2007 @ 12:15@Beavo- I read State of Fear. If you can find any of the books he mentions in the appendices, read a few.
And I must say, if anyone is going to reference a book or text, read it, not the commentary or critique of it.
I must find a copy of Silent Spring.
*Leaves for library*
0
0
-
217
Julieb
in April 9th, 2007 @ 12:37You know Silent Spring has nothing to do with global warming, right? It was just an analogy.
0
0
-
218
wingnut
in April 9th, 2007 @ 14:21217- Yes, but it does have to do with the environment.
0
0
-
219
Shadowkat
in April 9th, 2007 @ 15:59216-I did. Read the text, I mean.
0
0
-
220
cheshirecat718
in April 9th, 2007 @ 16:07Here are the reasons that global warming is most likely happening and human-caused:
1. In the past of earth history, periods of warmth/cold have corresponded directly with the orbit of the Earth (tilt, eccentricity, precession); basing judgment solely on that, we should be in an ice age now.
2. It is warmer than it has been in the past 1,000 years and there is more CO2 in the atmosphere than in the past 650,000 years about. Also, earth’s climate has been strangely stable compared to the cycles of the past starting at about the time of agriculture (about 10,000 years ago), and a sharp increase in CO2 and temperature occurred at the time of the industrial revolution.
3. Sea level has risen ten times as fast (avg. of 1-2 mm/year) as the average in the past 3,000 years (0.1-0.2mm/year).The primary issue of sea level rise is not so much melting polar ice but the expansion of sea water with increased temperature. The primary issue with polar ice melting in regard to global warming and not just polar bears, etc. habitat is that it could slow/shut down ocean current circulation because the water melting is fresh and it messes up the density. This would make areas like the Gulf of Mexico warmer because the water isn’t carried away (which could strengthen hurricanes in the region) and make N. Europe colder because that warm water is not carried north.
The reason Antarctica may be gaining ice is because it is so cold there that it doesn’t always make the ice melt, but it makes the air better able to hold moisture over the oceans, and when it moves over the land, that means more precipitation.
The ozone hole is over the antarctic, the reason being that two conditions predicate its existence: the reaction of CFCs breaking up ozone need a very cold environment (why it is only in the Antarctic) and sunlight (UV) making the ozone hole only there when the balance between sunlight and cold is correct, about half the year, I think.
0
0
-
221
Shadowkat
in April 9th, 2007 @ 16:41Did you know that Mars, Jupiter, Triton (Neptune’s largest moon), and Pluto are experiencing a rise in planet-wide temperature, as well? Now, as far as I know, there aren’t any humans to put any extra CO2 into the atmospheres of those planets, so what, do you suppose, is the most likely cause for this phenomenon?
0
0
-
222
Julieb
in April 9th, 2007 @ 17:06221- Please cite your sources.
0
0
-
223
Shadowkat
in April 9th, 2007 @ 18:08222-It’s a source I’ve cited before: Solar and Celestial Causes of Global Warming, by Donald W. Miller, Jr., MD
0
0
-
224
wingnut
in April 9th, 2007 @ 19:54219- What? No, sorry that was just a general thing.
223- I should read that too. But he’s an MD? Is he also a “general scientist?”
Dang library closed…
0
0
-
225
Julieb
in April 9th, 2007 @ 20:05And, as I do not own a copy of this book, from where does Dr. Miller glean this information? I’m sorry, but there is a lot of bad science out there.
0
0
-
226
Alice
in April 9th, 2007 @ 20:59214- I do think it’s man-invoked. Also, the fact that the earth’s magnetic field might be why it’s snowing here, since I don’t see how humans could have made that happen. I do think it’s our fault though.
Now I am leaving for once and for all! I promise!
0
0
-
227
Red-tailed HAWK
in April 10th, 2007 @ 07:51A fact that may describe why some seem to think a lot of people are against Global Warming: There were 928 peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals on climate change in the past ten years. Exactly 0% of those articles doubt the cause of Global Warming.
There were 636 articles in the past 14 years in the popular press. In those articles, 53% doubted humans are to blame. The fact is, the popular press wants to make it seem like there is a lot of controversy to make you buy their magazine or paper. They just want to get every last penny out of “the big story”. And that is why it looks like the scientists aren’t sure. The scientists don’t get any money out of telling you about global warming, but the popular press does.
0
0
-
228
Shadowkat
in April 10th, 2007 @ 11:52224-Here are some excerpts from his biography (possibly auto, but I’m not sure):
In college, at Dartmouth, I majored in philosophy of religion.
In 1965, M.D. degree in hand, I went to New York for two surgical residencies. The first one was in general surgery, at Roosevelt Hospital (1965-1970).
I next served two years active duty in the Navy in North Carolina (as a Lieutenant Commander, USNR) doing surgery on marines and their families at the Naval Hospital in Camp Lejeune (1970-1972). Then, back in New York, I did a (2-year) residency in cardiothoracic surgery at Columbia-Presbyterian Medical Center, which included a six-month rotation at Harlem Hospital. While at Harlem I wrote a paper on the 60 patients with gunshot and stab wounds of the heart I treated during my short time there, which was published in The New York State Journal of Medicine.
I started practice at Swedish Medical Center in Seattle in 1974 and a year later joined the faculty at the University of Washington School of Medicine, as an Assistant Professor (1975-1978) and then Associate Professor and Chief of the Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery (1978-1980). I then went back to Swedish and practiced adult cardiac surgery from 1980 to 2002 and served as Medical Director of the Swedish Heart Institute from 1994 to 1997. Currently, once again on the faculty at the UW School of Medicine as a Professor of Surgery, I run the cardiothoracic surgery program at the Seattle VA Medical Center (2003 to present) and do some surgery, including heart transplants, at the University Hospital when on-call there.
I have written three books, two on heart surgery, The Practice of Coronary Bypass Surgery (1978) and Atlas of Cardiac Surgery (1983), and one, Heart in Hand (1999), that delves into music, the philosophy of Arthur Schopenhauer, religion, science, the films of Woody Allen, and my life as a heart surgeon.
You can look at other articles he’s written at the website below.225-It’s not a book, but, rather, an online article…you can read it if you like, here:
[GAPA snipped the link — but you can find it easily enough by searching with the author’s name: Lew Rockwell — Rosanne]
But he gets his info. from various sources (cited in the article), one of the most prominent being The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change.
227-Well, what if the popular press got some previously unreleased information? I haven’t read the articles, but I know not to be naive…just because someone has power, doesn’t mean they have authority.
0
0
-
229
Julieb
in April 10th, 2007 @ 15:16228- Just asking, but how does a cardiac surgeon have authority to challenge extensively trained climate scientists on their specialist subject? You wouldn’t expect a meteorologist to comment on cardiovascular surgery. I’ll look up the article, thanks.
0
0
-
230
Shadowkat
in April 10th, 2007 @ 20:19229-I don’t know, but it does show he’s got smarts…and, if he went to school that long, he’s probably done research on the stuff he writes about.
0
0
-
231
Red-tailed HAWK
in April 11th, 2007 @ 07:16230-Maybe, but I would like to see evidence from scientists other than a cardiac surgeon. And the point is, doesn’t it make sense that the popular press would want to make it seem like a big controversy? And what evidence would the popular press have that the scientists wouldn’t have? Stuff from medical doctors maybe? Those were all of the scientific articles from the past 10 years, so any information the popular press would have from before that would be way to old. It would be the same as me walking up to you and saying the Earth is flat and is made up of only four things because that was said in previous scientific information.
Why not stop burning coal and other non-renewable resources? There are so many different ways to create electricity than what we are doing now.
Furthermore, temperatures may not be going up everywhere. That is not what Global Warming is about. Climate Change is a better way of putting it. Europe will go into an ice age if Greenland melts, while other places will be warmer when the Arctic melts.
= 
that people aren’t acting faster to save the planet
0
0
-
232
Shadowkat
in April 15th, 2007 @ 11:49Maybe they talk to more than one scientist. No, it wouldn’t be the same. Those aren’t a question of graphs and hidden information only accessible to the people who have instruments with which to access it. Any dolt can see that the Earth is round, if they travel around it, and anyone can clearly see that everything is not made of only four things. Those two points simply take sheer observation to prove, rather than studies and correlation.
Yes, and all of them require more gov’t control…part of the plan for “global safety” is carbon dioxide stamps…you know, like food stamps, only CO2…what do you think of that?
Ok, so, ultimately, we’re not in trouble, if it all evens out in the end. Lol.
0
0
-
233
Red-tailed HAWK
in April 15th, 2007 @ 14:32Um, even out?!!!!!!! And those were just examples. And talk to more than one scientist? I will say again, those were ALL OF THE PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLES IN THE PAST TEN YEARS. There aren’t any other scientists than all of the them, are there?
What are the main problems you have with Global Warming? Please list them all out very clearly, and number them. I’m sure many of us would be glad to answer any questions you have if you would simply list them out.
And why not cut greenhouse gasses? I think if you have the technology to cut them, you should start now while you still have a little oil left to use while working out the kinks.
And it’s not just the scientists any more. The media is admitting it too. Please visit the following website which I will put spaces in:
www. cnn. com/ 2007 /US /04 /15 /warming .military .ap /index .html
And if the GAPAs decide to snip that, just go to cnn. com and look for the article about global warming and the generals/national security thing.
0
0
-
234
Shadowkat
in April 15th, 2007 @ 21:02So, all of a sudden, the media is the most reliable source we have?! You are so naive…ugh. I’ll post some more later, because my mom says I need to get off, but, trust me I’ll post…:mad:
0
0
-
235
Ebeth The Ubiquitous Übër
in April 15th, 2007 @ 21:26234-as i saw it, hawk wasn’t saying that at all, he was just pointing out that this view was shared by multiple people, scientists and the media.
And honestly, i’m kind of tired of all this distrust of “the media” Who IS the media that you’re talking about? Obviously some people are more reliable than others (and yes, some are unreliable), but you shouldn’t just lump them all together and then distrust everybody. That’s just a bit paranoid.
0
0
-
236
Shadowkat
in April 16th, 2007 @ 12:03235-Alright, but that doesn’t mean their right.
Ok, but then The Hawk has to be specific on which media he’s talking about…I didn’t bring them up.
0
0
-
237
Red-tailed HAWK
in April 16th, 2007 @ 18:10My point was not only about the media. Obviously you didn’t even look at the article. Please do, and it will make sense.
I have talked about what the scientists have said. Where is your evidence from scientists? All you have done is talk vaguely about general ideas with no supporting evidence.
0
0
-
238
Shadowkat
in April 16th, 2007 @ 18:43237-I gave you plenty of sources…obviously, you’ve never looked at them. And here’s another: The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism…I might’ve mentioned it before, and if I did, and you didn’t at least check it out (I don’t expect you to read the whole thing), then it’s your problem…but I’ll read your article, and post when I’m done, or next get time to do so.
0
0
-
239
Julieb
in April 17th, 2007 @ 13:40Ok, one quick check shows that the guy who wrote The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism, Christopher Horner, is an attorney. Not a scientist of any kind, much less someone who specializes in climate science. Are there any research papers you can give us?
0
0
-
240
Julieb
in April 17th, 2007 @ 13:58Oh God, has anyone seen this? “EPA Chief: Bush Climate Policy Working”… “The head of the Environmental Protection Agency said Monday the growth of greenhouse gases by less than 1 percent in 2005 shows the administration’s program to address global warming “is delivering real results.” The pronouncement by EPA Administrator Dave Johnson brought a quick response from some environmentalists.”
Dave Johnson is an idiot. Bush always chooses loyalty over competence. My mother works for the EPA, and tells me his nickname within the EPA is “Looks good in a suit.”
0
0
-
241
FrigidSymphony
in April 17th, 2007 @ 14:27Science works like this: You have a theory, which is accepted as fact until it can be disproved. So until we can scientifically disprove it with ACCURATE DATA (that doesn’t mean republican bullshit) global warming is fact. Bertrand Russell’s Chicken is an example of scientific method.
0
0
-
242
FrigidSymphony
in April 17th, 2007 @ 14:28Oh, and the media to distrust is Fox, CBS, ABC, that stuff. You can pretty much trust stuff like the NY Times or the Guardian Weekly. In fact, anything british is usually a lot more trustworthy than anything american.
0
0
-
243
Red-tailed HAWK
in April 17th, 2007 @ 16:05240-Wow, she works at the EPA? But I see your point. Did Shadowkat ever give a source from something scientific? I don’t remember if she did, so if I just didn’t see them, Shadowkat, please post them again or post the post # where you did give that evidence.
0
0
-
244
Shadowkat
in April 17th, 2007 @ 20:32Post 228…check it. Lol….and, btw, when I said that thing about evening out, and all…I was pretty much kidding…I’m trying to keep this from getting hostile.
0
0
-
245
Julieb
in April 17th, 2007 @ 21:26Oh, see, here’s another incidence on something the media gets wrong. The quote is right, but the guy’s name is Steve Johnson, not Dave. Jeez, they can’t even get his name right. *shakes head and tsks* I know I should always double check with the NY Times, but…
243- Yeah she does. I’d tell you what she does, but I know better than to put that info on the internet. But she’s the biggest hypocrite alive, leaving the computer on for hours and sinks running while she’s brushing her teeth, etc. I think she’s spiteful because she has to listen to the shpeil for earth month evertime she opens the internet at work.
0
0
-
246
Julieb
in April 17th, 2007 @ 21:40Ack. That should say “example[instance] of” not “incidence on”
0
0
-
247
FrigidSymphony
in April 18th, 2007 @ 14:18So is we all agrees on that global warmings is a thing happening and we is all learned from our knowings about it now?
0
0
-
248
Red-tailed HAWK
in April 18th, 2007 @ 18:05247-Um, why did you post that with an extra “s” after several of the words? Or is that not really you, but somebody pretending to be you? GAPAs, was his normal email on that post?
0
0
-
249
Red-tailed HAWK
in April 20th, 2007 @ 08:13244-Um, we did look at it at the time, remember? But do you have any evidence from a REAL climate scientist? If I told you you needed open-heart surgery because a bunch of climate scientists said you were having a heart attack, would you believe them? They went to school for a long time, so I suppose they would know about the heart, right?
0
0
-
250
E2MB
in April 20th, 2007 @ 10:52I think global warming is real. One of my friends thinks it will be the end of the earth.
0
0
-
251
Beavo the Great
in April 21st, 2007 @ 15:01233-Im just lurking on this thread now, but WATER is a major greenhouse gas. Please do not encourage people to cut water.
0
0
-
252
Red-tailed HAWK
in April 21st, 2007 @ 17:44251-Huh? Water has always been here, but coal-fired power plants have not. Greenhouse gasses are up, and water has not popped up from nowhere, so water is not causing it.
0
0
-
253
FrigidSymphony
in April 21st, 2007 @ 17:50247 was me. I just had an urge to talk (or write) like a norwegian.
0
0
-
254
Shadowkat
in April 22nd, 2007 @ 19:42249-Well if those climate scientists had thoroughly researched the heart, yeah, I would believe them.
250-Look, the only “global warming” that’s gonna destroy the world is when the sun gets so big that it engulfs the earth along with the rest of the planets. Until then, the temperature’s going to go up and down, up and down, up and down…
253-I figured as much.
0
0
-
255
Red-tailed HAWK
in April 28th, 2007 @ 08:30254-Well why would the temperature go UP when it should be going down? The temperature is going way higher than ever before, and it should be headed down. Even if it was supposed to be going up, why would it be okay for it to go this high?
0
0
-
256
Red-tailed HAWK
in April 28th, 2007 @ 19:29Wow this thread is dying
0
0
-
257
Shadowkat
in April 28th, 2007 @ 20:32255,256-It has before, so why not? And I know about the thread, and the fact that it’s dying. I requested a reminder on the DFAT Thread, but, well…
0
0
-
258
E2MB
in April 28th, 2007 @ 21:55I find it very disturbing how much Artic ice has melted in the past 40 years. Have you seen the photos?
0
0
-
259
M & M
in April 29th, 2007 @ 00:16Dear Beavo:
Please read the following to understand why so many of us are “against” you.
No, global warming is not a hoax. What is the point of making it a hoax? So the government can make money from all those expensive but energy saving doo-dads by telling us it will save the world? My god, so why are they against it? :000000
Please, tell me.You know why water is a major greenhouse gas?
Because us PEOPLE started to burn fossil fuels which ADDS CO2 to the atmosphere, thus making the layer THICKER, making it capable of retaining more HEAT. That extra HEAT melts our ice because it is WARMER than usual. Back then, the ice would REFLECT much of the suns rays, but now that there is this, what you call it, “climate change”, there is less ICE to reflect the rays from. So now the WATER is hit by the rays, and it absorbs the heat while also melting more ice surrounding it. You know what happens when you put an ice cube in water, and it melts? There is MORE. It RISES. So why the heck is the sea not gonna rise when tons of ice melt, huh?
Do. You. Get. It. Please.
257- Sure, it has before, but not as much as it has risen now.If you watch An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore shows a chart that graphs those warming “cycles”, and the warming now is waaay above. It is definitely not a “climate change”. Please, please if you could, watch that movie..?
Oh my gosh I hate that phrase.
“Climate change”.
It’s just a simple way to say THE WORLD IS GETTING HOTTER without causing worldwide terror.
0
0
-
260
M & M
in April 29th, 2007 @ 00:17GAPAs…could I maybe request a new thread for this since the old one is dying?
:]]]Dunno if it would help…but still…
0
0
-
261
Robert Coontz (Administrator)
in April 29th, 2007 @ 08:07Maybe you’re all talked out?
0
0
-
262
Shadowkat
in April 29th, 2007 @ 11:14259-No, it’s so that the gov’t can have more control over everyone’s lives…that’s all they ever want…read your history, maybe you’ll get that.
Oh, what’s this I hear about the hole in the ozone layer? It’s getting bigger? And more rays from the sun are being let in? And this is making the earth warmer? That’s funny…I heard that the atmosphere was getting thicker…huh. See, one of the things that makes your argument so implausible is the fact that you keep changing it!!!
In An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore showed graphs that were stretched out over looooooong periods of time, so as to make certain parts seem more exaggerated than they were.
You know, I try not to insult people on the MB…but when their not supporting their arguments with articles, graphs, and facts, and simply attacking others’ arguments…that’s when I get a little mad.
261-Oh, no, we’re not…trust me.
0
0
-
263
M & M
in April 29th, 2007 @ 17:58262-
Look, I’m sorry if you think I’m just “simply attacking others’ arguments”. I’m just a big environmentalist, and it maddens me when people turn their backs on cold, hard, facts. And how do I get all my information? I read. Please, go to the library and check out the september 2006 issue of Time magazine, unless you think it is unreliable and full of propaganda.If Muse allows it:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/08/0805_030805_ozone.htmlNo, the ozone hole is not getting bigger. Look it up. It is actually patching up, k?
Ahem.
The ozone is located in the stratosphere of the atmosphere, and does its part by absorbing UV RAYS.
Without it, we would all get skin cancer and die.
The ozone HOLE is cause by a chemical found in older versions of many fire extingushers or other consumer spray products(as you might read if Muse allows my link).
The “rays” that are getting in are UV RAYS. That, like I said before, gives us SKIN CANCER.
If there was a hole in the atmosphere, the world would not, actually get warmer because “more” rays are getting in. To get warm on a planet depends on how many rays are not getting OUT. Let’s say a planet’s atmosphere is really thin, or there is a hole. It would be COLD. Like Mars. Type that into Wiki and get your facts straight.Our planet is getting warm because the atmosphere is thick, and not allowing many heat rays to bounce back to space. Our ozone hole is just a place where you’re more likely to get skin cancer.
Long periods of time? Well of course they had to do that. The climate cycles were awhile ago. How could they make it seem more exaggerated by…making the timeline longer? They’re measuring temperature for pete’s sake.
I’m getting vicious, I know. I’m sorry.
;__;
0
0
-
264
Shadowkat
in April 29th, 2007 @ 20:44263-My point was that, not long ago, everyone was freaking out about how much bigger the hole was getting…now it’s the opposite.
Because this one’s just longer…and I’ll watch AIT, but I won’t spend money doing so…I’m sure my library has it.One more question (for now): If “global warming” was such an obvious thing, why would they have to indoctrinate 5th and 6th graders with the idea that it’s happening?
P.S. Mars, Jupiter, Pluto, and Triton are warming up, too…there aren’t any humans to mess with the environment, there.
0
0
-
265
Julieb
in April 29th, 2007 @ 20:57264- It’s obvious to climate scientists. Do you think fifth graders will figure an relatively advanced scientific concept out on their own?
And may I ask you where the information on the climates of Mars, Jupiter, Pluto, and Triton is coming from?
0
0
-
266
TNÖ
in April 29th, 2007 @ 23:07Oh, ugh. Don’t even get me started. Did you all know that in, like, the sixties or something everybody was freaking about global COOLING?
Also, on the subject of An Inconvienient Truth: Um, dude, whats up with being interviewed in a private jet or airplane or whatever (haven’t seen it in a while…)? That’s, like, a major source of pollution, which is *supposedly* a major factor in global warming. Hem.
Finally, I make my final (for now) point:
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH! For the love of pete! THIS. IS. A. NORMAL. CYCLE. NOT A PHENOMENON! NOT STRANGE! NORMAL! Our planet has undergone various cold periods and various warm periods. This is NOT something we need to freak out about. Just part of a NORMAL cycle.OMG I can just imagine my science teacher’s face if she saw this post…
Now, I ask you: Where, God, where, is the global warming in wyoming? Where is it? GIVE IT TO ME!!!
:idea:TNÖ:idea:
0
0
-
267
Robert Coontz (Administrator)
in April 30th, 2007 @ 09:53(264),
>> not long ago, everyone was freaking out about how much bigger the hole was getting…now it’s the opposite.
That’s true. Atmospheric chemists determined that widely used chemicals called chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) could destroy ozone when they reached the stratosphere. In response, representatives of CFC-using and -producing countries met in Montreal, Canada, and agreed to phase them out. Now there are fewer CFCs in the air, and ozone is doing better.
(266),
> > Did you all know that in, like, the sixties or something everybody was freaking about global COOLING?
Newsweek and Time ran stories about that in 1975, but scientists didn’t publish many papers about it, and they certainly didn’t sound a general alarm. I think it’s an exaggeration to say that “everybody was freaking out.”
I hear “scientists-used-to-think-X-but-now-they’ve-changed-their-minds” used as a “gotcha!” argument on a lot of topics. What it ignores is that scientists keep gathering information and learning more. For example, cosmologists used to think that the universe might someday contract in a “Big Crunch.” Now most think that dark energy (whatever that is) will make it keep on expanding. They changed their minds as new information came in–in this case, from astronomers studying exploded stars called type 1a supernovae and from satellites measuring microwave radiation left over from the Big Bang, which gave a clearer picture of the size and shape of the universe.
With regard to climate, satellites are sending back more and more temperature measurements all the time. Researchers are retrieving and analyzing more ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica. As computers get better and faster, computer models grow more and more sophisticated. Scientists simply know more than they used to. They don’t know everything (and never will, and didn’t claim to 10, 20, or 40 years ago). The question is at what point their evidence becomes compelling enough to change government policy and human behavior. The answers aren’t always easy or obvious.
I’m not telling you what to think about global warming, but I would like to make a more general point: When you hear that scientists have changed their minds about something, the proper response is not “Aha! So the so-called ‘experts’ really don’t know anything, do they?” It’s “Hm, interesting. What do they know now that they didn’t know before?” And then find out.
</gapa_sermon>
0
0
-
268
FrigidSymphony
in April 30th, 2007 @ 14:10262: the government is DENYING global warming (though not as much as before).
0
0
-
269
E2MB
in April 30th, 2007 @ 14:54Global warming is something that will give kids of the 21st century a problem to solve when they grow up.
0
0
-
270
FrigidSymphony
in April 30th, 2007 @ 15:20269: First of all, WE’RE the kids of the 21st century. Get your chronology straight. Secondly, even if we weren’t, it’s still a problem that people, adults or not, would have to solve NOW.
0
0
-
271
E2MB
in April 30th, 2007 @ 15:26270 – Well how do we solve it? Everybody’s too freakin addicted to cars and whining about the high price of solar panels!
0
0
-
272
Shadowkat
in April 30th, 2007 @ 16:55265-I already told you…it’s the cardiac surgeon, who you don’t want to believe, anyway.
266-Haha! Can you say “hypocrisy”?
267-You have a point, but why do environmentalists feel it necessary to promote hysteria on this subject? That’s kind of what I’m wondering…I mean, if it’s so obvious, wouldn’t people worry about it, anyway? They could just tell us, if we stop releasing so much CO2 into the atmosphere, this thing called global warming (which will eventually destroy all life on Earth) will stop. Wouldn’t that be enough? I mean, I can see why some people might not want to leave their comfort zone, but…if people really thought there was that much to worry about, they would probably (okay, possibly) do something about it.
268-Fridgey, to what major entity does Al Gore belong?
E2MB, Fridgey–So, guys, should we all just walk everywhere?
0
0
-
273
Red-tailed HAWK
in April 30th, 2007 @ 17:10257-We should be headed toward an ice age.
At_ozone (O3) -hole: Think of the greenhouse gasses as a blanket. Blankets don’t make you warmer when they are THINNER because they let in more light, they keep you warmer when they are THICKER. And the ozone hole is over Antarctica.
Shadowkat-Do you have any evidence from a climate scientist? If every climate scientist thinks it’s one way, how can one cardiac surgeon come along and say they_are_ALL_WRONG???
0
0
-
274
Robert Coontz (Administrator)
in April 30th, 2007 @ 17:12(272),
I don’t think most environmentalists are promoting hysteria. Certainly I don’t see much evidence of hysteria around here in Washington. Maybe it’s different out in the Heartland.
When I finally got around to watching An Inconvenient Truth (on DVD, after it had finished its run in the D.C. cinemas), I was surprised to see that it wasn’t the doom-mongering tract some people said it was. I thought its message was exactly what you just said, and its conclusion (we can solve the problem) reassuring and upbeat. In fact, Al Gore was so reassuring that one MuseBlogger suggested he should be the voice of Dr. Eze Momoh in a movie version of Attack of the Smart Pies.
By the way, Gore isn’t in the government anymore. He’s out of office, a private citizen. If anything, he’s a businessman. He’s started a TV network and at least one foundation and maybe some other businesses.
0
0
-
275
Jadestone
in April 30th, 2007 @ 17:16274- Ah, yes. The movie. No one ever goes to those threads anymore. I check up now and then, and I’ve worked on the formatted script a bit, but Cedar’s gone and thr progect pretty much died.
Oops, that’s a popo isn’t it. *pies self* *hands choklit to first popopo member who comes by*
0
0
-
276
Shadowkat
in April 30th, 2007 @ 18:08273-But there you go again on your majority romp…
Here, go to Wikipedia, search “Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming”, and go to the section called “Global warming is mostly due to natural processes”…that should give you at least a few climate scientists saying what I am. Granted, some of them are astronomers, and whatnot, but that’s pretty closely related to this subject, so at least check it out.274-Hm…well, maybe I’ll watch it, at some point…but, personally, so far, I think the Solar/Cosmic Ray theory makes more sense.
And thank you. But, of course, wasn’t he running for President, or something? I don’t know, but I think that’s what I heard, or something similar…
0
0
-
277
E2MB
in April 30th, 2007 @ 18:51Al Gore ran for president in the year 2000, and lost in the closest presidential race in US history. Then we never heard from him again in politics.
0
0
-
278
TNÖ
in April 30th, 2007 @ 18:58267- so I exaggerated! Anyway, my point was not “scientists don’t know what they’re talking about” but a “this is probably part of a natural cycle that has been going on since earth began” sort of thing. *_*
272- “hypocracy.” Why?
Also, it’s something called:
a) legs. Not for working the gas pedal, either.
b) bikes. more fun things your legs can do besides working the gas pedal!
c) horses. *TV reporter voice* Introducing the all-new (hem), all-terrain, all-natural replacement for cars. Features include high-quality (if you have enough $$, that is…) leather seating, all natural exhaust system (wake up and smell the fresh manure instead of the fresh gas in the morning!), top-of-the-line steering, ect. ect. All you need is a pasture and you’re ready to go!
*hem* another reason, besides possibly undue environmental awareness, is the alarming amount of obesity in the U.S…:idea:TNÖ:idea:
0
0
-
279
Shadowkat
in April 30th, 2007 @ 19:53278-Hey, I’m on your side…that comment wasn’t directed at you…sorry. And I was talking about the fact that Al Gore was talking about how fumes and stuff are so bad while releasing them on a plane…not you.
0
0
-
280
TNÖ
in April 30th, 2007 @ 22:14279- ah. I will say “hypocracy” anyway, because it is fun to say! hypocracy! hypocracy! hypocrate! yay!
0
0
-
281
Robert Coontz (Administrator)
in April 30th, 2007 @ 22:16If you ever have to write it, however, you should spell it “hypocrisy.”
0
0
-
282
Red-tailed HAWK
in May 1st, 2007 @ 07:55I will look at that, but still, natural causes are NOT TO BLAME!!! WE SHOULD BE HEADED TOWARD AN ICE AGE!!! TEH SCIENTISTS FOLLOW THESE PATTERNS AND KNOW AN ICE AGE SHOULD BE COMING SOON!!! THEREFORE, ANY WARMING IS NOT NATURAL BECAUSE YOU DON’T GET WARMER BEFORE YOU GET COOLER!!!
Make sense?
0
0
-
283
Red-tailed HAWK
in May 2nd, 2007 @ 06:59Please see this post.
©
0
0
-
284
Shadowkat
in May 2nd, 2007 @ 12:19282-Actually, sometimes, you do…
0
0
-
285
M & M
in May 6th, 2007 @ 16:09Feh. I should be working on an essay right now. So busy. BUt whatever.
267- :]]]
283-
Bombilicious.
Isn’t that the song on the extras of An Inconveniant Truth?
272- Sorry I keep arguing with you “o_o…
“You have a point, but why do environmentalists feel it necessary to promote hysteria on this subject? That’s kind of what I’m wondering…I mean, if it’s so obvious, wouldn’t people worry about it, anyway? They could just tell us, if we stop releasing so much CO2 into the atmosphere, this thing called global warming (which will eventually destroy all life on Earth) will stop. Wouldn’t that be enough? I mean, I can see why some people might not want to leave their comfort zone, but…if people really thought there was that much to worry about, they would probably (okay, possibly) do something about it.”
Well..it seems that people just don’t seem to care all that much. They’re so used to what they’ve always done, they don’t want to change. Just put it out of their minds and go on with their daily lives. That’s what frustrates me the most. People are told about Global Warming. They don’t care(I’m not directing this comment to you, just so you know. You probably would care if you believed in it.). Sure, it might be a big deal in the summer they think, and maybe some animals are dying, but hey, why do we have to worry now? Golly, there was snow this winter, why do they keep telling us about global warming?
In ICT, it showed this cartoon of a frog who dives into boiling water, then jumps right now, because obviously, its a danger. But then it shows another cartoon of a frog that is in nice, cool water. Then, the temperature slowly rises, but the frog doesn’t get out until awhile later. Because the world isn’t on fire right now, and people don’t see any real changes, they don’t believe it.
Ha. Take TNO’s comment #266. The last sentence.
No offense, but that depicts exactly what I’m talking about.
0
0
-
286
Shadowkat
in May 9th, 2007 @ 13:28285-I’m sorry, but you’re making it sound like a religion…oy. Also, I didn’t say it wasn’t happening, it’s just not “man-made”, and there’s nothing we can do about it. Please read The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism…you can probably find it at your local library, but if you can’t, just go to the bookstore and check it out, ok?
And, on a purely scientific note, the frogs usually die, because they never notice that the water’s so hot.
0
0
-
287
Jadestone
in May 9th, 2007 @ 16:36In the movie, you saw the frog in the water as it got warmer and warmer untill- a hand comes in and scoops the frog out and saves it. Then Gor said something like “It is always important to rescue the frog.”
0
0
-
288
Koko #2
in May 9th, 2007 @ 22:24Fwee. I haven’t been here for ages and ages and ages, but I declare this the most perfect thread of all time. Mother’s Day is coming up and the people of Hippyville are going all loony and need to say something before then on this subject.
I say everyone that can should try and keep their own animals. It sounds completely random, but really, we wouldn’t be driving to the store as much for eggs and things, and a lot of people could keep a miniature horse for getting around town.
And now you know I live in a terribly agricultural place and have a micro-meadow for a back yard.
0
0
-
289
Stockman
in May 11th, 2007 @ 03:58Just viewed ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle.’ Fantastic!
It’s about time we heard the other side of the story. In my opinion this doco effectively shoots down in flames every aspect of the warming theory.Don’t take my word for it. Google it. I am at present burning several copies a day to DVD to give to all my friends. So far the feedback is 99’% positive in agreement with the views presented in the video. In time this doco will sweep the world!
Too bad that it may eventually affect the funding of all those lying scientists….The gravy train will hopefully dry up and the billions wasted on the scaremongering can be put to far better use. Best news in years……
0
0
-
290
Robert Coontz (Administrator)
in May 11th, 2007 @ 07:11Stockman,
You’re new around here, aren’t you?
0
0
-
291
Red-tailed HAWK
in May 11th, 2007 @ 07:32287-No he joked about it because people before didn’t “save” the frog.
286-But we should be headed for an iceage. Why would it be anything but man-made if we’re getting warmer than EVER BEFORE when we should be getting COOLER???
0
0
-
292
FrigidSymphony
in May 11th, 2007 @ 12:09Gaaaaaahhhhh we’re getting warmer and we’re gonna dieeee.
0
0
-
293
E2MB
in May 11th, 2007 @ 12:15292 – Global warming probably won’t get so bad that it will kill us all in our lifetimes. (I mean us, the generation of kids that read Muse.)
0
0
-
294
agagabagabag
in May 11th, 2007 @ 22:53293- Not actually true.
0
0
-
295
M & M
in May 11th, 2007 @ 23:55286- durn…oh well, at least I sorta get why people can be so nrgh when it comes to religion now..
293- Because people are actually starting to do something about it…but it’ll still be pretty bad.
0
0
-
296
gimanator
in May 13th, 2007 @ 13:09will the effects really be as bad as in the day after tomorrow?
0
0
-
297
Vendaval (cHill)
in May 13th, 2007 @ 18:15No. Nowhere close. We don’t certiantly (?) know what the effects would be, but that whole movie was bunk.
0
0
-
298
yay
in May 15th, 2007 @ 21:00aaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhh well die of a flood and thirst
0
0
-
299
Margaret
in May 15th, 2007 @ 21:24We’re watching an Inconvenient Truth in tech. Good to refresh my memory, even if there are people groaning about how boring it is all around me…
0
0
-
300
FrigidSymphony .:[Blackjack Guillotine]:.
in May 17th, 2007 @ 08:42I don’t even think that what happened in The Day After Tomorrow (kickass movie) was supposed to be because of global warming. Wasn’t it some wierd thing with the tides and underwater currents?
0
0
-
301
Julieb
in May 17th, 2007 @ 21:15Shadowkat- Newscientist has just published a special report on climate change myths. If the links don’t get through, just go to environment.newscientist.com and search “climate change myths.” They adress some of the arguments you’ve made.
[Links reluctantly zapped for the sake of consistency. Too bad: I used to write for New Scientist and would love to give them a break. –Robert ]
0
0
-
302
Shadowkat
in May 18th, 2007 @ 15:39300-Actually, if I recall correctly, the whole thing happened because of pollution…isn’t that what you’re all complaining about now?
301-(No offense, Robert…) I didn”t look at all of those, as I have to go to work, soon, but as I’ve said before…qui bono?
0
0
-
303
Donaldo the supercoolio nerd
in May 18th, 2007 @ 20:30300-Correct.
Global Warming is false. We are going through a general 500-year period. Al Gore’s graphs come from temperatures measured on Earth, when the most accurate readings come from weather sattelites in space, and they show a slight decrease in temperature. And anyways, even if the Earth was warming up it would be OK. You should be scared when it starts cooling down. We might be headed towards another Ice Age!
GAPAs-PLEASE LET THIS THROUGH!!!!
Here is a link to a quiz I enjoyed on Global Warming:
[Sorry. We prefer our own Web site. –Robert]
0
0
-
304
Rebecca Lasley (Administrator)
in May 19th, 2007 @ 09:38(302) Cui bono cuts in more than one direction. I’m not sure it’s the best instrument for the job you want it to accomplish.
0
0
-
305
Shadowkat
in May 19th, 2007 @ 12:04303-Donaldo, I just want to say that I’m glad you’re on this thread…if you could tell me what to google, I could probably find the quiz you’re talking about…and I’m hoping the GAPA’s will let it through…(but I think they will).
304-Alright, that’s true, but I think my point got across, no?
0
0
-
306
agagabagabag
in May 19th, 2007 @ 14:18303- not true at all. But come back to the pie wars. We need you.
0
0
-
307
Vendaval
in May 20th, 2007 @ 15:18Why would anyone start a conspiracy about global warming? I mean, I can see Big Oil trying to play down the problems with their products, but even if CO2 isn’t causing global warming, pollution is bad. Why don’t we all just go along with it and see what happens?
0
0
-
308
Julieb
in May 20th, 2007 @ 16:11302-
Climate myths: It’s all a conspiracyConspiracy (noun): a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.
If you believe that tens of thousands of scientists are colluding in a massive conspiracy, nothing anyone can say is likely to dissuade you. But there are less extreme versions of this argument.
One is that climate scientists foster alarmism about global warming to boost their funding. Another is that climate scientists’ dependence on government funding ensures they toe the official line (pdf).
It has taken more than a century to reach the current scientific consensus on climate change (see Many leading scientists question the idea of human-induced climate change). It has come about through a steadily growing body of evidence from many different sources, and the process has hardly been secret.
Now that there is a consensus, those whose findings challenge the orthodoxy are always going have a tougher time convincing their peers, as in any field of science. For this reason, there will inevitably be pressure on scientists who challenge the consensus. But findings or ideas that clash with the idea of human-induced global warming have not been suppressed or ignored – far from it.
Cosmic rays
In fact, many of the better arguments seized upon by sceptics have been based on contradictory findings published in prominent journals, from the apparent cooling of the lower atmosphere (see The lower atmosphere is cooling, not warming) to the apparent cooling of the oceans (see The oceans are cooling).Millions will be spent testing whether cosmic rays can form cloud condensation nuclei, even though some regard this as a waste of money (see Cosmic rays are causing climate change).
As for funding, the US spends billions of dollars on climate science and this increased by 55% from 1994 to 2004. However, an increasing portion of this is spent on mitigation technology rather than pure research. Climate scientists point out that if they were after a bigger chunk of that money, their best bet would be to stress the uncertainties of climate change and call for more research, rather than call for action.
Under pressure
As for the idea that scientists change their tune to keep their paymasters happy, under the current US administration many scientists claim they have been pressurised to tone down findings relating to climate change (see US fudging of climate science details revealed).Indeed, those campaigning for action to prevent further warming have had to battle against huge vested interests, including the fossil-fuel industry and its many political allies. Many of the individuals and organisations challenging the idea of global warming have received funding from companies such as ExxonMobil.
That in itself does not necessarily mean that the sceptics are wrong, of course. Nor does the fact that most scientists believe in climate change necessarily make it true. What counts is the evidence. And the evidence – that the world is getting warmer, that the warming is largely due to human emissions, and that the downsides of further warming will outweigh the positive effects – is very strong and getting stronger.
Finally, perhaps the most bizarre conspiracy-related claim is that the journalists covering science have an interest in promoting global warming.
Journalists do have an interest in promoting themselves (and their books), while their employers want to boost their audience and sell advertising. Publicity helps with all these aims, but you get far more publicity by challenging the mainstream view than by promoting it. Which helps explain why so many sections of the media continue to publish or broadcast the claims of deniers, regardless of their merit.
0
0
-
309
agagabagabag
in May 20th, 2007 @ 16:19308- That’s just ridiculous.
0
0
-
310
E2MB
in May 20th, 2007 @ 18:41This thread is working overtime.
As for this global warming howl, I say if it gets too hot we should terraform Mars and move there. It’s colder over on the red planet.
0
0
-
311
agagabagabag
in May 20th, 2007 @ 23:24310- See 309.
0
0
-
312
Robert Coontz (Administrator)
in May 22nd, 2007 @ 10:11(301, 308),
I’ve relented. After looking at the New Scientist article Julie mentioned, I’ve decided that it’s too useful to pass up. Here’s the link:
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462 .
0
0
-
313
Red-tailed HAWK
in May 22nd, 2007 @ 10:44But will people uncerstand that we SHOULD be headed towards an iceage, so ANY warming at all, even a rise of one degree, is bad?
0
0
-
314
Red-tailed HAWK
in May 22nd, 2007 @ 10:47Sorry about the typo.
Anyway, what is wrong about the idea that billions of tons of pollution might affect the planet??? In Al’s movie, he said that if you got a globe and put a varnish on it, that would be the thickness of the atmosphere compared to the actual size of the Earth. If it is that thin, it wouldn’t take much to bog it down.
0
0
-
315
Alice
in May 22nd, 2007 @ 11:07310- Wouldn’t it work better just not to mess up this planet any more? I mean, we don’t want to end up like in Terraformed, do we? That sounds fairly miserable.
0
0
-
316
Alice
in May 22nd, 2007 @ 11:21And what’s more (sorry for the double post), I think it’s closer to the truth than was intended. No, not the Containers, and I’m not sure kids’ll be blowing up Io in a couple hundred years, but the bit about Terra being nothing but a rock with a radioactive atmosphere, that could easily happen in the next 100 years, and I’d rather it didn’t.
And no, it’s not intentional advertising, just a good example, but it could be thought of as an advertisement. I don’t see what good it would do, though, since we’re far too far in for anyone to join.
Sorry, off topic. I’ll shut up now.
0
0
-
317
E2MB
in May 22nd, 2007 @ 12:46314 – Yea. Hey, you got the pi post!
315 – Well, if the Parents didn’t exist and there was more peace and better management, it wouldn’t be quite so bad. Plus, with a coolness factor of 19/10.
0
0
-
318
E2MB
in May 22nd, 2007 @ 12:47Go marathon threads!!!
0
0
-
319
agagabagabag
in May 23rd, 2007 @ 19:49308- Has anyone ever done a scientific worldwide conspiracy? No. That’s just crazy.
0
0
-
320
Alice
in May 24th, 2007 @ 17:39317- I disagree. I LOVE earth, and I would hate to be reduced to reading about it in libraries. And what’s more, it might be okay for our grandkids, but you have to agree that we are the generation that would be experiencing WWL in about 40 years, and what’s so cool about that?
318- What’s a marathon thread?Anyway, I’m just using this thread as a place to converse about our story, so I should leave.
0
0
-
321
E2MB
in May 24th, 2007 @ 22:53320 – Okay, I was just being a little silly.
And marathon threads are threads that keep going long after 300 posts.
0
0
-
322
E2MB
in May 24th, 2007 @ 22:53The Evolution thread is just one example.
0
0
-
323
agagabagabag
in May 25th, 2007 @ 17:56DEEEEEEEEAAAAAD in the water…
0
0
-
324
Shadowkat
in May 26th, 2007 @ 13:13319-Well, hey, they say try new things…lol. But I’m not saying it’s a conspiracy, per se…I’m saying that a lot of scientists are being pressured into saying that CO2-caused global warming is real. Seriously, look at it, how much control would someone have over your life if they were able to tell you what kinds of resources you could use, and when you could use them…that’s ALOT of control…why is it that everyone assumes that our gov’t is on our side?
0
0
-
325
FrigidSymphony .:[Blackjack Guillotine]:.
in May 26th, 2007 @ 14:04The government is NOT on your side, and the current US government is linked heavily to oil companies who would NOT benefit from the fact that they’re killing the earth being known. Therefore, they put pressure on their pals in Washington (the whole Bush/Cheney pack) to minimize the talk of Global Warming. The US is the only advanced country to NOT sign the Kyoto thingy.
0
0
-
326
Shadowkat
in May 26th, 2007 @ 15:07Thank you, Fridgey!!! About your statement on the gov’t, I mean.
0
0
-
327
FrigidSymphony .:[Blackjack Guillotine]:.
in May 26th, 2007 @ 15:22But hang on, I’m saying that global warming is being increased by human activities as well, a fact that the oil companies with their oval office ties are trying desperately to avoid. All except for Shell, that is. Shell is good.
0
0
-
328
E2MB
in May 26th, 2007 @ 15:34The oil companies are just to powerfull. When the CEO of an oil company gets paid far more and has almost as much power as the current president, a bell should go off.
0
0
-
329
Jadestone
in May 26th, 2007 @ 16:08That one gas station, whatsitcalled, bp has been doing a lot of comercials lately saying how they’res upporting alternative energy research. I don’t know how much of what they say is true however.
0
0
-
330
Julieb
in May 26th, 2007 @ 17:46324- Hello… Did you read 308? Actually, it would be better if you read it on the actual site, that way you could click the links(one of which adresses your cosmic ray “theory”.) There are many more people trying to stop information on global warming getting out, with much more power, than any who would benifit from such information.
0
0
-
331
E2MB
in May 27th, 2007 @ 10:01Why is there no new thread? We’ve been talking about this since January 1, and we aren’t going to stop now!
[Very true, though I have noticed a certain amount of going around in circles. Here’s your new thread. –Robert]
0
0
