Global Warming?

[landscaper]

Just found this article and found it interesting , I seem to recall about 20 years ago the scientific community was crying that the sky was falling and a new ice age was on the way. Maybe Al Gore can explain this one to me.


http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23583376-5013480,00.html

 

[red]

why is that critics of global warming will say there are not enough studies to support the global warming theory but jump at any global cooling theories?

 

[Berlin]

Why is David Suzuki so buffed ?

 

[red]

Why is David Suzuki so buffed ?

why does he ride a harley?

 

[Herodotus]

The actual term is climate change. Some areas will get cooler, others warmer and drier. Global warming was an older, area-specific terminology.

 

[red]

The actual term is climate change. Some areas will get cooler, others warmer and drier. Global warming was an older, area-specific terminology.

wasn't the area referred called the globe?

 

[Anynym]

The actual term is climate change. Some areas will get cooler, others warmer and drier. Global warming was an older, area-specific terminology.

Notwithstanding that with the term "Climate Change", the scientists don't have to worry about, you know, facts.

Last year was warmer than the year before? Climate change is accelerating. This year is cooler than last year? Climate change affects different regions differently. Temperatures go up and down? Climate change can only be discussed over longer intervals and can't be measured by day-to-day or year-to-year fluctuations.

I wonder when the Climate Change fanatics will realize how many millions of people will starve to death because of their alarmism.

Sure, we need to take action to reduce our impact on our environment, regardless of whether "Global Warming" is fact or fiction. But we need to take care with any sudden shifts (as has occurred in the past couple years), to avoid unintended consequences such as large increases in the price of basic food staples.

 

[red]

I wonder when the Climate Change fanatics will realize how many millions of people will starve to death because of their alarmism.

.

how's that again?

 

[Herodotus]

Notwithstanding that with the term "Climate Change", the scientists don't have to worry about, you know, facts...

Like temperature trends that have led over 90% of the world's scientific community to state that it is a global concern.

And people are starving because of the effects of climate change - such as drought/disruption of fresh water, increasing temperatures, and changing weather patterns, along with Western stupidity, wastefulness and greed - not becaue of alarmism.

 

[landscaper]

how's that again?

Its already started the push for hybrid fuels has resulted in American farmers getting subsidies to grow corn for ethanol. The supply of feed corn has dropped because the farmers wanted the price of the corn plus the subsidy.

Rice is in short supply for some reason there are food riots in some poorer third world countries, if poorer third world country is not an oxymoron.

 

[danmand]

Rice is in short supply for some reason there are food riots in some poorer third world countries, if poorer third world country is not an oxymoron.

I think it is the exact opposite of an oxymoron. I believe the word for that is a pleonasm.

 

[Herodotus]

Its already started the push for hybrid fuels has resulted in American farmers getting subsidies to grow corn for ethanol. The supply of feed corn has dropped because the farmers wanted the price of the corn plus the subsidy.

Rice is in short supply for some reason there are food riots in some poorer third world countries, if poorer third world country is not an oxymoron.

You keep on believing that petroleum industry-fueled disinformation...

 

[landscaper]

The actual term is climate change. Some areas will get cooler, others warmer and drier. Global warming was an older, area-specific terminology.

The climate change phrasing came about when some of the global warming mantras started to fall apart . The global warming became climate change when temperatures id not rise as expected, the hockey stick temperature graph could not be replicated and several others were brought into question.

The phrase 90% of the worlds scientists believe in climate change is a misnomer .

There is about a 50-50 split in the serious scientists who study the climate. Dr Suzuki is not one of them his discipline is I believe botony although I could by wrong with the specialty.

The climatologist who started the weather network vehimently derides climate change and the latest ocean studies by the Argus Buoys shows a net drop in ocean temperature.

What i believe all this says is why don't we find out what is really going on before we jump up to correct the problem. We want to get the correct problem.

That said not dumping large amounts of theings into our environment is a good thing to do regardless of the climate change implications.

 

[Bud Plug]

The climate change phrasing came about when some of the global warming mantras started to fall apart . The global warming became climate change when temperatures id not rise as expected, the hockey stick temperature graph could not be replicated and several others were brought into question.

The phrase 90% of the worlds scientists believe in climate change is a misnomer .

There is about a 50-50 split in the serious scientists who study the climate. Dr Suzuki is not one of them his discipline is I believe botony although I could by wrong with the specialty.

The climatologist who started the weather network vehimently derides climate change and the latest ocean studies by the Argus Buoys shows a net drop in ocean temperature.

What i believe all this says is why don't we find out what is really going on before we jump up to correct the problem. We want to get the correct problem.

That said not dumping large amounts of theings into our environment is a good thing to do regardless of the climate change implications.

Exactly right.

The stupid thing about this perpetual debate is that practically everyone agrees that we ought to reduce the level of pollution released into the atmosphere (and elsewhere). However, instead of proceeding from that point where there is little dissent, all progress on pollution control gets bogged down in the "global warming" argument.

It certainly appears that the debate is being pushed by people like Suzuki and Gore whose personal reputations are now too heavy invested in "being right" about 1) whether global warming is occuring, and, if so 2) whether man-made emissions are either principally or significantly responsible for global warming.

I also find the "90% of scientists" argument, even if that argument were factually sound, to be unhelpful. Science is not democratic. Many scientific concepts that become generally accepted start off being seen as "radical". Scientific theories are not dismissed or adopted by a show of hands, but rather by persuasive research. Similarly, as a member of the general public, I'll be persuaded by the most persuasive scientific position on the topic, not by whether 85% of Botanists, 46.5% of Graduate Students, or 91% of people with science degrees earning less that $60,000 per year agree or disagree with that position.

 

[red]

Suzuki received his BA from Amherst College in Massachusetts in 1958, and his Ph.D in zoology from the University of Chicago in 1961.

Early in his research career he studied genetics, using the popular model organism Drosophila melanogaster (fruit flies). To be able to use his initials in naming any new genes he found, he studied Drosophila temperature-sensitive phenotypes (DTS). (As he jokingly noted at a lecture at Johns Hopkins University, the only alternative was "damn tough skin".) He was a professor in the genetics department (stated in his book Genethics: The Ethics of Engineering Life, 1988) at the University of British Columbia for almost forty years (from 1963 until his retirement in 2001), and has since been professor emeritus at a university research institute.[2]

 

[LancsLad]

I think it is the exact opposite of an oxymoron. I believe the word for that is a pleonasm.

Do you need to wear a condom if you have a pleonasm?????



.

 

[danmand]

Do you need to wear a condom if you have a pleonasm?????

I had expected a compliment to an immigrant like me for knowing
what the opposite of oxymoron is.

 

[LancsLad]

I had expected a compliment to an immigrant like me for knowing
what the opposite of oxymoron is.

pekker is an octa-moron, he has 8 personalities.


Better late than never with the complement. Good job.


.

 

[markvee]

You keep on believing that petroleum industry-fueled disinformation...

You keep on believing that statist-fueled disinformation.

I'm sure the carbon tax taken to its logical conclusion would have me taxed every time I exhale.

I'd invite Gore to carbon tax my ever loving ass except that I know he would take me up on the offer.

 

[papasmerf]

Like temperature trends that have led over 90% of the world's scientific community to state that it is a global concern.

And people are starving because of the effects of climate change - such as drought/disruption of fresh water, increasing temperatures, and changing weather patterns, along with Western stupidity, wastefulness and greed - not becaue of alarmism.

Has it occurred to you that many people were NOMADS for a reason????????

Likely not.

Before these people were civilized and educated they were nomads....You know followed the rain so they could eat