Say "so long" to Cranberries
- Thread starter Teegate
- Start date
Hmmm....Let me get this straight.
"Scientists" have advised our governor, "Crash" Corzine, that despite the fact that it's impossible to get a reliable 5 day forecast, they know what the weather will be in 2100. Nothing like extrapolation to give a result(worked for Enron...right?). Better put on your tin foil hats
"Scientists" have advised our governor, "Crash" Corzine, that despite the fact that it's impossible to get a reliable 5 day forecast, they know what the weather will be in 2100. Nothing like extrapolation to give a result(worked for Enron...right?). Better put on your tin foil hats
global warming is the greatest hoax in history. A thousand years ago the grapes grown in England were better than the french grapes, it is to cold in England now to grow grapes. The earth's climate changes constantly, to believe that humans can influence the climate is ridiculous. The planet mars is also going through a warming trend, and I don't think the martians even burn fossil fuels.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/mars_snow_011206-1.html
Early records of sunspots indicate that the Sun went through a period of inactivity in the late 17th century. Very few sunspots were seen on the Sun from about 1645 to 1715 (38 kb JPEG image). Although the observations were not as extensive as in later years, the Sun was in fact well observed during this time and this lack of sunspots is well documented. This period of solar inactivity also corresponds to a climatic period called the "Little Ice Age" when rivers that are normally ice-free froze and snow fields remained year-round at lower altitudes. There is evidence that the Sun has had similar periods of inactivity in the more distant past. The connection between solar activity and terrestrial climate is an area of on-going research.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/mars_snow_011206-1.html
Early records of sunspots indicate that the Sun went through a period of inactivity in the late 17th century. Very few sunspots were seen on the Sun from about 1645 to 1715 (38 kb JPEG image). Although the observations were not as extensive as in later years, the Sun was in fact well observed during this time and this lack of sunspots is well documented. This period of solar inactivity also corresponds to a climatic period called the "Little Ice Age" when rivers that are normally ice-free froze and snow fields remained year-round at lower altitudes. There is evidence that the Sun has had similar periods of inactivity in the more distant past. The connection between solar activity and terrestrial climate is an area of on-going research.
Well I kinda have to agree with both of you on this. There is no doubt that the warming is a natural trend. It is however being helped along by our activities. We give ourselves too much credit (or discredit) when we say it it our activities that is causing it.
Steve
Sorry to bring this one up again but I've been away on vacation and just read this thred. I just read an interesting article on the NASA website that there is a theory stating that global warming is at least partially caused by an increase in the sun's radiation output. They also said that the "mini ice age" in the 14th to about the 18th century was caused by a decrease. When the PHD's debate these political issues and can't agree, it's hard for me to come to an opinion either way.
I hate this topic because it often becomes so damn partisan. In other (less sophisticated ) forums, half the people insist we are causing global warming just because Al Gore says we are and the other half is insist we are not causing it, just because Al Gore says we are. They divide causes into right and left ones, and take their stances accordingly.
I'm aware of the dissenting views within the scientific community, but it seems to me that few of the measures suggested to counter the effects we may or may not be causing are bad things to do anyway. Does anyone out there really think we are using up fossil fuels too slowly? Or not depending on enough foreign oil?
) forums, half the people insist we are causing global warming just because Al Gore says we are and the other half is insist we are not causing it, just because Al Gore says we are. They divide causes into right and left ones, and take their stances accordingly.I'm aware of the dissenting views within the scientific community, but it seems to me that few of the measures suggested to counter the effects we may or may not be causing are bad things to do anyway. Does anyone out there really think we are using up fossil fuels too slowly? Or not depending on enough foreign oil?
[QUOTE="GermanG]I'm aware of the dissenting views within the scientific community, but it seems to me that few of the measures suggested to counter the effects we may or may not be causing are bad things to do anyway. Does anyone out there really think we are using up fossil fuels too slowly? Or not depending on enough foreign oil?[/QUOTE]
Great points to consider, German.
Great points to consider, German.
Good point. Whether we are having an impact on climate change or not, Making adjustments that are more environmentally friendly will only do our mother earth good
Very well said, German.I hate this topic because it often becomes so damn partisan. In other (less sophisticated
I'm aware of the dissenting views within the scientific community, but it seems to me that few of the measures suggested to counter the effects we may or may not be causing are bad things to do anyway. Does anyone out there really think we are using up fossil fuels too slowly? Or not depending on enough foreign oil?
Why take a chance?
Whether global warming is happening or not, why take the chance? It's not like we're going to give up much of anything to be more ecofriendly. Vehicles can run on electric, ethanol, hydrogen, bio-diesel,etc. And using compact flourescents instead of bulbs. And getting our power from sun, wind, geothermal, and nuclear.
The only reason that we continue to pollute more than we have to is "big business" denying the market these more advanced cleaner energies.
Whether global warming is happening or not, why take the chance? It's not like we're going to give up much of anything to be more ecofriendly. Vehicles can run on electric, ethanol, hydrogen, bio-diesel,etc. And using compact flourescents instead of bulbs. And getting our power from sun, wind, geothermal, and nuclear.
The only reason that we continue to pollute more than we have to is "big business" denying the market these more advanced cleaner energies.