To Those Who Say Global Warming Is "Just A Theory"
RolandTD20Kdrummer
Posts: 13,066
food for thought.
http://foxattacks.bravenewfilms.org/blog/5350-to-those-who-say-global-warming-is-just-a-theory
http://foxattacks.bravenewfilms.org/blog/5350-to-those-who-say-global-warming-is-just-a-theory
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Heh.
I go visit my mom over in PA the other day, and my sister is there and we're all talking about the latest news, and one of them says....
....oh, wait. I forgot to tell you. My family is 100% Republican except for me. And my niece, who's a high school teacher. She's a Liberal.
So I'm talking with my mom and my sister and they mention Al Gore and what a fat face he's got lately, and then they scoff at his global warming theory as if they're laughing at Cheney's "executive branch" and "executive priviledge" statements.
So I say, "Well, we all know how Bush stifled the whole global warming argument, blah blah" and my sister says, "Bush could never stifle such a thing, are you crazy? You're so PARANOID!! You've become such a LIBERAL!"
So I look at her like I'm aiming at her with the sights of Cheney's rifle, but she doesn't cop a clue, so this week I emailed her and my mom the following story:
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1034212120070710?feedType=RSS
And I said, in my email, "And you think Bush doesn't stifle things?"
And my sister wrote back this really weird, enigmatic statement: "I was just saying that you're giving Bush too much power [in your mind]".
So I wrote back, "No, Cheney already took care of that".
Have you seen this?
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/07/11/bush-orders-miers-to-not-testify-before-congress/
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/science/earth/29climate.html?ex=1296190800&en=28e236da0977ee7f&ei=5088
"...a White House official who was previously an oil industry lobbyist edited government climate reports to play up uncertainty of a human role in global warming or play down evidence of such a role."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/washington/20climate.html?ex=1332129600&en=0e0f1e753e6b9c2e&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
In case you're still hungry...
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17977
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
I really don't, and for that matter, I can't disagree completely with either side of the argument. For every link I post supporting one side, you could find a link to a counter argument and vice-versa and we could go on for months. The National Geographic article is the best one I've found that offers a balanced "compromise" between what the overall cumulative factors affecting our environment "very likely" are. It doesn't discount the fact that we have an impact on our environment, but it also incorporates the fact that Earth is just one more planet in the universe and there are factors well beyond our control.
Although...maybe y'all are making me change my tune a little enough to say ok, maybe it's partly our fault (is that allowed in here, or am I bound forever to my original opinions?).
I think what happens sometimes is that we are so bent on getting our points across, that we get tunnel vision and are unwilling to consider even the most rational explanations because they don't jive with our own opinions.
Also, I would like to point out that just because I'm not driving the environmentalist bandwagon all over town, that doesn't mean I'm not a responsible citizen. (Yeah yeah, I want a trophy and a cookie please - oatmeal raisin if possible). I limit my A/C use in my office, the engine in my car is a 1.5L 4 cylinder and I get 40 MPG, I compost, I re-use shopping bags, and all that other stuff. I do all this for the same reason I clean my house, I keep my office clean and I keep my car clean. My environment isn't only "outside" and I like to live in a clean healthy environment. My "conspiracy theorist" mentality doesn't mean I think we should destroy the planet. Far from it. I just think there's more going on A) than "they" know and
You are not your job.
You are not how much money you have in the bank.
You are not the car you drive.
You are not the contents of your wallet.
You are not your fucking khakis.
-Enoch Powell
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=41
the second article by national geographic speaks for itself ... it pretty much debunks the notion changes in solar output are the cause of our rapid warming ...
like the original article said - peer reviewed science is the best one can get ... there are no peer-reviewed scientific journals that oppose the effect of man on climate change right now ... that should tell people something ...
dismissing evolution but using antibiotics
dismissing the lancet study on iraq but believing cigarettes are bad for the health.
are you karl roves little brother or something? you follow the "party line" almost to a tee on every issue
and we'll ignore all the other evidence throughout the world? ... sea ice is virtually disappearing in the arctic; texas is under water; heat waves in the west and east; snow in argentina for the first time since who knows; drought in australia; and so on ...
If that's not hard evidence for global cooling then I don't know what is.
-Enoch Powell
uhhh ... dude - do you understand the principles behind climate change? ... the earth is warming ... but the impacts of that warming are felt immediately in more variable weather ...
the lack of sea ice in the arctic is a sign of the long term warming effects while the other examples are evidence the earth is trying to adjust for the artificial altering of the temperatures ...
Admin
Social awareness does not equal political activism!
5/23/2011- An utter embarrassment... ticketing failures too many to list.
Why was last summer the quietest hurricane season in a decade? Where's the variable weather?? They were saying it'd be the most violent to date.
No hurricanes to speak of this summer either.
See, when you make a prediction and it doesn't come to fruition, people quit believing you. This is a problem that Israelite prophets frequently had (i.e. false prophets).
-Enoch Powell
most of the violent storms occured in the pacific last year - major typhoons ... the hurricane season is generally from august to october so, we're not even into it yet ...
as for where the variable weather is - it's all around us ... severe weather everywhere ...
I think you missed my point (or I did a bad job of getting it across) I was basically conceding defeat. Let me put it this way...
A few weeks ago I started out on this board a complete skeptic/devil's advocate. After having my ass handed to me 35 or so times, I figured I must be missing something so I decided to look deeper into the research. This is what I've come up with...
1. The sun is getting hotter.
2. Earth is getting warmer.
3. Mars is getting warmer.
4. Earth is closer to the sun than Mars is so whatever effects mars is "feeling" we're going to get it worse.
5. Because of #1 - 4 above, we would be experiencing mild global warming anyway even if there were no people on Earth. We have been all along and I will contunue to believe that. When you look at the pictures of glaciers from the 1800's and compare them to today's pictures, there are drastic differences and they have been receding for the last 100+ years (as well as all that other stuff, sinking continents, lakes drying up etc.)
BUT...
Because we are here and we are dumping an unbelieveable amount of crap into our atmosphere, the increase in solar activity combined with our irresponsible behaviour have created a situation that may be out of control. It's an ongoing process that the planet undergoes over and over. The difference I'm starting to realize is that WE ARE ACCELERATING THE PROCESS. So, what would have happened anyway tens, hundreds or thousands of years from now, is happening right now because of us. I think i was stuck on the opinion that this was going to happen anyway, but I was ignoring the SPEED at which it's happening. That makes a difference. (I think I've been told that before one way or another - Al Gore, onelongsong, my2hands, polaris, abookamong...whatever that one is... plus a few more, but I think I needed to find out for myself so it made sense to me. I've been trying to quit smoking for about 18 months now and all of the Cancer stuff out there was so over the top that I just ignored it and continued to feed my addiction. It took having to see first hand what happens in the dying moments of a lung cancer patient to convince me to make every effort to stop smoking so I'm working on that too).
In my twisted mind, it's kind of the same thing..."oh yeah, show me." So I got showed and now i get it.
Check mate for you guys!
You are not your job.
You are not how much money you have in the bank.
You are not the car you drive.
You are not the contents of your wallet.
You are not your fucking khakis.
So the quietest hurricane season in a decade can happen and you will just ignore it as evidence.
Interesting.
-Enoch Powell
uhhh ... no one is ignoring anything ... are hurricanes the only severe weather around? ... why are you dismissing the other impacts? ... there are many factors that contribute to the forming of hurricanes ... sea surface temperature being one - wind shear being another ... so, they didn't form in the atlantic like in 2005 but they did in the pacific ...
Yeah but the same people who are pro-global warming said it would be the most active hurricane season and they were wrong.
-Enoch Powell
What happens is that because of probablility affect, sooner or later someone will predict something that occurs. Evryone focusses on the successful prediction and ignores all teh unsuccessful ones that will have occurred.
There were some severe storms i Oz recently, and some guy had supposedly predicted them. So suddenly he is on TV as the latest weather guru, spouting off exact dates when the next storms will strike, based on the apogee of the moon's orbit. These storms are only going to affect one capital city of course, cos that's where he and the TV station are based. The apogee of the moon's orbit only affects Syndey of course, cos that is the centre of the Universe, widely accepted fact, sorry to any New Yorkers present.
People are gullible enough to drink this up, and conveniently , he has a book for sale.
So when anyone starts predicting a bad or good strom season based on models of global warming or sea surface temps or anything else, you just need to keep asking enough folk, and eventually you will get the right answer, trouble is you will have to wait for the "emergent system" that is weather to run it's course before you find out who was right with their guess.
Weather is subject to Chaos theory and predictions beyond three days or so are impossible due to the exponentially proliferating number of uncontrollable variables. So an inclusion of short term weather patterns in a discussion about global warming is entirely pointless.
Is global warming occurring?
Yes...defintely.
Is there anything we can do he help prevent, or reduce it's effects?
Yes...definitely.
Should we be doing something about it?
Yes...definitely.
Here endeth the confusion. (I hope)
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
i really liked that part of the article the best. It says it in phrases that most people would agree with AND presents what a theory really is.
U.N. Report: Humans Behind Climate Change
by Richard Harris
Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis
February 2, 2007 · There is at least a 90 percent chance that human activities have caused the planet to warm up.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7137290
that's a pretty damn convincing pecentage to go by there. granted, perhaps some other scientist could disagree...but i'd hazard to guess that most don't. it may be a 'theory'....but many theories have garnered almost complete acceptance as 'truths'.....and yea, if the overwhelming evidence suggests a theory to be true, perhaps can't 100% prove it, but it's quite enough in my mind to say hell, we really should do something for fuck's sake.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow