Who believes in Global Warming?

“exactly, emiller, more volatile and extreme weather is all part of the process :o)”

“ynami's just hoping England will have a week of sunshine before he dies.”

“Its hard to consider 78 and sunny extreme”

“exactly, emiller, more volatile and extreme weather is all part of the process

Sounds rather temperate and stable to me....”

“No Mutt, temperatures would be close to seasonal averages then. I don't need to explain things to you again do I?”

“Ynami, I know your socialist education was lacking, but come on! Average temperatures don't mean the temps have to be near the average to be normal. "Average" temperature is a statistical fiction.”

“Statistical fiction.... hmmm, interesting concept. How something base on raw numbers can be fictional. Surely any fiction would come in how you interpret the numbers.

But anyway, I guess I will have to explain it again.
Ok, a cool summer doesn't quite have the same impact as a cold winter or an exceptionally hot summer, but it is still interesting in climate terms.
Singley these event mean nothing, but as you piece together the pieces, you get a pattern.
What seems to have happened this year is an large number of Canadian fronts pushing into the Midwest and onto the Northeast, holding sway over the high pressures which normally dominate the center of the continent.
In and of itself it means nothing, but if climatologists are right, then you are going to see weather and temperature extremes happening on a more frequent basis.”

“i know GA has only been mid 90's all summer but hardly above 95....and not above 100 yet...whats up with that...i remember when i was a youngster (last year) jk...like in the mid 90's it was hotter and hell summer meant sweltering 100 degree days with 80% humidity....growing up on a farm you pay attention to weather patterns at a young age...seems to have cooled off in GA IMO anyways”

“Science says the earth has been through multiple ice ages and what we have considered "global warming" could be nothing more than a part of a cyclic process the earth goes through. It has also been stated that the earth is long over due for another ice age. Amazing how we seem to be noticing the warming phenomenon that is a pre-cursor for a recurring event. This doesn't mean we don't have to be responsible but I don't need fear to coerce into being a better person. It's the same reason I hate the republicrats.”

“Statistical fiction.... hmmm, interesting concept. How something base on raw numbers can be fictional.

LOL - time to take Stats 101, ynami.”

“It's been a lot cooler than normal here in DC for the last two summers also.

Y2, we know from surveys of plant species at archeological digs that the average temp. in Britian in the 900s and 1000s was between 2 and 3 degrees higher than it is today. Please explain how this possibly could have been, were the Angles and Saxons driving SUV's? How come the world didn't end back then? How are we still here?

The simple fact is that the Earth is cyclical and self-regulating, and global warming is part of the process.

Nevermind the facts, the sky is falling, Egads, Run for you lives!!!!!!!”

“Yes you do need help with that side of things Mutt.
It's all in the interpretation of the statistics. All stats show is that these are the results when information is gathered in a certain way. It is only the methods used for gathering the information and how it is interpreted that is open to debate. Surely you can understand this.

Bison. Sure, the earth goes through cooling and warming cycles. But it's the level of human impact on climate change that is the issue. Is the emission of Greenhouse gases speeding the process? The vast majority of scientist studdying this think so. Most of those who deny it, or seek to raise doubts, are backed by industy funded groups.”

“"vast majority of scientist studdying this think so."

Think so.”

“yep. I'm sure you can find some funded by the Heritage foundation or Cato Institute.”

“Surely you can understand this

What I understand is that you think any datapoint divergent from the mean is significant because if the mean is the mean, then to be normal, the datapoint should be the mean! LOL.”

“But then you'd need to discover that the mean is derived from a series of datapoints gathered over a number of years. If the data from a particular summer is beyond, say, 1.5 standard deviations from the mean, mode or even median averages, then you are looking at an anomaly. If you start getting average temperatures outside this standard deviation on a regular basis, either above or below average, you are getting a pattern of temperature extremes, suggesting a more volatile climate in any given region. This could certainly be a result of "climate change." ;oP”

“The earth can certainly absorb what we produce.The Earth cares about one thing:

An equillibrium between Organic and Inorganic.

The Earth does not care about the "quality" of one side of the equation compared to the other.

In fact, we could, for example, wipe out all other mammalian species on this planet and the earth will continue.

The earth could also be composed of just inorganic material, it would still be in equillibrium.

You can't truly hurt the earth so Party on!”

“By the time we gather enough statistical data to prove that temperatures are above or below mean prior to rising emissions of green house gasses, it will probably be too late if the Global Warming phenomenom really exists (which I believe it does).

Regardless of our personal beliefs we can still agree that the emission of these greenhouse gasses is not good and causes tangible everyday problems. So stopping the problem at its source is the solution - not having our leaders waste money on proving/dissproving warming and rather use it on improving our energy efficiency would be better.”

“Y2, we know from surveys of plant species at archeological digs that the average temp. in Britian in the 900s and 1000s was between 2 and 3 degrees higher than it is today. Please explain how this possibly could have been, were the Angles and Saxons driving SUV's?
Bison
10:38:42 AM
08/18/04

Weather/Volcanic activity

This equation and balance worked well then. But now you have added polymorphic emmissions to the equation. A new source of emmissions must be countered with greater absorption and greater release: rain and volcanic activity.

How far do we push it? We can not say we have done nothing to upset the natural balnce, just how far can we go? Why gamble?”

“You can't truly hurt the earth so Party on!"
bearmagnet

Great line of thinking BM, but there won't be any people around to know.”

“My doctor says that I have a malformed public duty gland and a natural deficiency in moral fibre and that I'm therefore excused from saving planets.

Just get me out of here, and get me to a party, with people I can relate to!”

“Thought this was a good place for this....

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=570&e=3&u=/nm/environment_europe_warming_dc target = _blank>Winters in Europe dissapear by 2080”

“ynami, a Summer 1.5 standard deviations from mean doesn't really represent much of an anomaly. Roughly 13% of a population is expected to fall beyond 1.5. If there is a mean shift of 1.5 over a period of time, then that would represent an issue.”

“U don't have to believe in it, just endure it. For those diehards that don't believe anything they read. More power to ya, I don't believe everything I read either. But, I do believe in facts. And seeing the worlds ski areas lose more of their snowpack, even the Himalayas and the Alps losing so much of their ice fields, that large amounts of areas that use to be accessible are now NOT. Seeing Alaska's permafrost lose it permanency. And measuring the statistical forecast for carbon exhaust from a statistical forecast of 2 cars for every Chinese, makes me think.....hmmmmm Seeing is believing. Like those enlarging dead ocean areas. Even in the gulf of Mexico. You don't have to believe any think tanks if you can think yourself.”

“That's a nice set of facts that isn't in dispute LaBastillefan, so what is your point? What is in dispute is the extent to which human activity it responsible for the warming, and to some extent the what is in dispute is whether or not this warming is even long term or substantial in any way, remember the argument 30 years ago was over global cooling. What will be the issue in another 30 years?”

“Bison, we agree that global climate changes need to be measured on a longer scale than humans are ready to admit. That said, shouldn't we work to absolutely minimze our impact on the atmosphere if our best evidence points at humans contributing to the problem?”

“I would certainly dispute that our best evidence points to humans contributing to the problem as a major factor, you can blah, blah, blah all you want about those who are against it being funded by industrial interests, but I never hear the left bothering to tell me where all the money comes from to fund the "concerned scientists." And no they're not getting their funding from your kids tuition, they have grants.... from interest groups. That being said there are much better arguments to be made, especially on the health side, and in other environmental areas such as smog and acid rain, for limiting our impact especially through emissions and we are constantly moving in that direction. But this progress needs to be made slowly, not with sudden wholesale changes that could have unintended side effects, especially on the economy. I find it interesting that many liberals don't seem to understand the adverse affects that making massive changes in emissions standards would have on lower income people. If you make cars cost thousands of dollars more to reduce emissions guess who pays the price in terms of real disposable income. We need to continue doing what we are doing now, slow progressive changes.”

“And of course, as long as we're talking about social justice and the environment, I'd be remiss to point out that those who we're talking about feeling the greatest financial impact, according to you, are also the ones feeling the greatest health effects of pollution.

they have grants.... from interest groups

Umm.. yeah?”

“U.S. Report Turns Focus to Greenhouse Gases

By ANDREW C. REVKIN NY Times

n a striking shift in the way the Bush administration has portrayed the science of climate change, a new report to Congress focuses on federal research indicating that emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases are the only likely explanation for global warming over the last three decades.

In delivering the report to Congress yesterday, an administration official, Dr. James R Mahoney, said it reflected "the best possible scientific information" on climate change. Previously, President Bush and other officials had emphasized uncertainties in understanding the causes and consequences of warming as a reason for rejecting binding restrictions on heat-trapping gases.

The report is among those submitted regularly to Congress as a summary of recent and planned federal research on shifting global conditions of all sorts. It also says the accumulating emissions pose newly identified risks to farmers, citing studies showing that carbon dioxide promotes the growth of invasive weeds far more than it stimulates crops and that it reduces the nutritional value of some rangeland grasses.

American and international panels of experts concluded as early as 2001 that smokestack and tailpipe discharges of heat-trapping gases were the most likely cause of recent global warming. But the White House had disputed those conclusions.

The last time the administration issued a document suggesting that global warming had a human cause and posed big risks was in June 2002, in a submission to the United Nations under a climate treaty. President Bush distanced himself from it, saying it was something "put out by the bureaucracy."

That may be harder to do this time. The new report, online at www.climatescience.gov, is accompanied by a letter signed by Mr. Bush's secretaries of energy and commerce and his science adviser.

The White House declined yesterday to explain the change in emphasis, referring reporters to Dr. Mahoney, assistant secretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere and the director of government climate research.

<snip>”

“Try to scare a Canadian with stories about global warming.


WE CAN'T WAIT!!!”

“Is that a flip-flop or more like a thong?”

“or a change of opinion based on a review of the science by people he trusts, made quiet for political purposes?”

“Global... cooling?

Just sharing. That's all. No position here from me.”

“Cool!”

“Global Warming is just a figment of imagination in the mind of a liberal. They have no facts, just banter, which is why I still use my Miss Breck in cannister form.”

“So Steven Milloy has moved on from arguing how healthy tobacco really is to promoting greenhouse gasses?

Funny you'd align yourself with the Devil, Buck.”

“How big is the only US lower 48 glacier? Matthe? How is it holding up to this? Is is growing, getting smaller?

What does global warming or cooling have to do with the 50% birth defect rate in the US? (does pollution, mercury, arsenic affect pregnant women as much as the pro-abortion activists)

Robert A. Heinlein
"i never learned anything from a man who agrees with me"”

“America has a cool summer.... America = world.
Short attention span = no global warming.”

“Did you know that with global warming the oceans levels will increase not only because of glacier/polar ice cap melting will also expand due to its heating? Basic concept but really cool on a global level.”

“Global Warming is real, so is Global Cooling, Ice ages have come and gone, nobody is quite sure which side of this cycle we are currently on, how far the warming cycles of the past have gone and what reversed the cycle.

No one can say for sure that any particular cycle will go or not go x times warmer or colder than prior cycles.

Volcanoes and bush/forest fires seem to be the major producers of greenhouse gasses.

OTOH the wide spread use of Freon in air conditioning seemed to have an effect on the ozone layer, but why was the ozone hole so much bigger over the Southern hemesphere than the Northern Hemisphere where the majority of airconditioning occurred ?”

“With current trends, in 100 years most of the current vegetation in the Adirondack Park will be gone. The climate and vegetation of the High Peaks will be similar that of current New Jersey’s.”

“Yes global warming is a natural phenomenon, but the process has sped up dramatically since the start of the Industrial Revolution.”

“Oh no!! we are doomed.

Which will happen first, do we cook the planet, or will the population explosion eat the entire world like locusts and we all starve ??

That is also happening in a number of places.

Perhaps a wayward asteroid will come along first and put us all out of our misery.”

“and back in the day the catskills mountains were under glaciers....and I think before that that area was plateau...and before that an inland sea?

cool beans huh?”

“Maybe so manuka, but this is something we are responsible for and can do something about it.”

“Short attention span = no global warming."
Y2
01:37:08 PM
09/15/04
ignore this user

The same statement is justification why so many question the Global Warming Theory. Understand that I’m certainly not cheering for or against Global Warming but how can anyone adequately and scientifically draw conclusions to an occurrence based totally upon a snapshot observance of evidence (few hundred years)? It’s claiming to read a book by only glancing at the cover. As a guy that makes a living as an environmental scientist, I’m most certainly not ignoring data or refusing to notice trends. However, the phenomenon has totally been taken out of the hands of the scientific process that supposedly supports it. The issue has become a sacred cow pushed to the forefront and used as a deceitful cause for financial and political control/gain; thus, impeding the scientific process. That’s why folks get pissed about the issue and that's why its mentioned here.”

“I hear warming globally is a good thing. Keeps toes toasty at night.”

“Climate data based on ice cores?

150,000+ years?”

“Still inconclusive. Although it gives us another piece of the pie, Ice core data cannot differentiate between:

Greenhouse gases
Changes in ocean circulation
Solar radiation changes
Etc.

It is not wise to treat a theory as scientific law.”