SIX!

Quote :

"And most of the "science" used to support it is so bad that an armchair statistician can debunk it. Oh, wait, that's already happened. DOH!"

Thats right. Anyone older than 5 with half a brain should be able to use logical reasoning to deduce GW is just baloney.

The same scientist that were warning about the impending Ice Age 30 yrs ago are the same jackasses pushing this GW crap. If we have 10 more years of flat or cooling temps then they will begin calling for Ice Age again. It's just ridiculous.

[Edited on March 16, 2009 at 9:33 PM. Reason : page 6]

3/16/2009 9:32:17 PM

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2008-02-20-global-cooling_N.htm

Quote :

"The supposed "global cooling" consensus among scientists in the 1970s — frequently offered by global-warming skeptics as proof that climatologists can't make up their minds — is a myth, according to a survey of the scientific literature of the era. But Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center surveyed dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles from 1965 to 1979 and found that only seven supported global cooling, while 44 predicted warming. Peterson says 20 others were neutral in their assessments of climate trends. The study reports, "There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age. "A review of the literature suggests that, to the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking about the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales.""

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11643

Quote :

"One of the sources of this idea may have been a 1971 paper by Stephen Schneider, then a climate researcher at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland, US. Schneider's paper suggested that the cooling effect of dirty air could outweigh the warming effect of carbon dioxide, potentially leading to an ice age if aerosol pollution quadrupled. This scenario was seen as plausible by many other scientists, as at the time the planet had been cooling (see Global temperatures fell between 1940 and 1980). Furthermore, it had also become clear that the interglacial period we are in was lasting an unusually long time (see Record ice core gives fair forecast). However, Schneider soon realised he had overestimated the cooling effect of aerosol pollution and underestimated the effect of CO2, meaning warming was more likely than cooling in the long run. In his review of a 1977 book called The Weather Conspiracy: The Coming of the New Ice Age, Schneider stated: "We just don't know...at this stage whether we are in for warming or cooling - or when." A 1975 report (pdf format) by the US National Academy of Sciences merely called for more research."

Again, deniers using or referencing bad science or outright falsehoods to confuse themselves further. I'm sorry, guys - you're wrong. The majority of scientists (who are older than 5 and have more brains than all of TWW combined, in some cases) have proven you wrong, time and time again. Luckily, they're the ones that most people listen to, and not you guys and George Will

[Edited on March 17, 2009 at 10:15 AM. Reason : .]

3/17/2009 10:13:36 AM

And as for lindzen,

Quote :

"Ross Gelbspan reported in 1995 that Lindzen "charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC." ("The Heat is On: The warming of the world's climate sparks a blaze of denial" Harper's magazine, December 1995.)"

http://www.harpers.org/archive/1995/12/0007823

Quote :

"You mean like Mann, Hansen, and others did, too? And give me a break, none of the pro-AGWs actually look at the argument. You, yourself, practically proved it with that statement."

I think the opposite is true, actually - you obviously are only reading biased nonsense, which is the same biased nonsense I've read while comparing it to what the actual science says. The difference is, I can see what's wrong with it, with the help of actual scientists who can explain it, while you obviously only want to see what you want to see.

I mean, why would I WANT humans to be responsible for global warming? Why would anyone? What would anyone stand to gain from that if it was some sort of hoax? Compare that to what the oil and coal industries stand to gain from constantly saying it's a hoax. The idea that scientists are perpetuating global warming as a hoax in order to continue to get grants when there are millions of other topics to study is ludicrous and asinine.

[Edited on March 17, 2009 at 10:25 AM. Reason : .]

3/17/2009 10:21:15 AM

Most greens want humans to be responsible because in their eyes it justifies their anti-business anti-progress viewpoints.

3/17/2009 10:26:59 AM

That's just the stupidest god damn idea ever, and completely untrue. The number of people who think that way is very, very small. They don't represent the majority of people who are environmentalists, who range from organic food enthusiasts to global warming activists to wildlife conservationists but do not, in most cases, hate or dislike business. In fact, they usually try to use economics as a way to work their agendas.

[Edited on March 17, 2009 at 10:42 AM. Reason : .]

3/17/2009 10:40:36 AM

Quote :

" but do not, in most cases, hate or dislike business"

Could you provide an example of a environmental group that is pro-business?

3/17/2009 11:15:03 AM

I'm sure you'll take anyone I mention and skew something about them, but Al Gore himself, obviously, is pro-business.

Perhaps you should define "pro-business" for me first, then I can help you out. To be clear, my main point is that it's rare for an environmental group to be "anti-business," whatever that might mean. They are against corporations being able to do whatever the hell they want, pollute, harm endangered species, etc, of course. They are not, however, typically against the practice of or idea of commerce. They are, certainly, not all communist swine.

3/17/2009 11:29:29 AM

The two that probably come to mind the quickest are those against GM crops and nuclear power.

Plenty of greens ignore the science behind them and just assume they're evil becaue they aren't natural. They want global warming to be human caused so bad because then it means their irrational fears are justified.

The result of their fear mongering has been to increase our reliance on foreign oil and energy production methods that create pollution. I dont want the same fear mongering around global warming to end the debate prematurely.

Its pretty funny because without all the anti nuclear retards we wouldnt be as dependant on oil, we'd be producing less carbon, hydrogen fuel cells might be viable, we wouldn't be in iraq, and our economy would be better off.

3/17/2009 11:56:18 AM

The primary problem for me with gm crops isn't that they might be harmful (though they could), it's the way companies like Monsanto go about exercising their patents. Farmers have been sued when GM crops get blown into their fields from neighboring ones (something the companies say is impossible) or when they crossbreed (something else the companies say is impossible) and then Monsanto sues them for growing their patented crops.

We've discussed nuclear power enough already for my taste. Though the statistics show it's safe the majority of the time, the horrors that could ensue if containment leaks or if there is a meltdown worry me.

3/17/2009 2:02:24 PM

fwiw still seems to me like a pretty big conclusion for such a small sample of data, time-wise

3/17/2009 8:17:30 PM

That would be why you work for your daddy's company instead of engaging in peer-reviewed scientific research.

3/17/2009 8:21:47 PM

great retort

thanks for addressing the timescale aspect of climate change sample data

[Edited on March 17, 2009 at 8:41 PM. Reason : .]

i agree that 100 years of thermometer data is a good statistical representation of a system over 4,000,000,000 years old

[Edited on March 17, 2009 at 8:44 PM. Reason : m]

3/17/2009 8:39:00 PM

Please tell me that you didn't just try and equate Earth from 100 years ago with Earth from 4,000,000,000 years ago.

3/17/2009 9:11:28 PM

huh? no, i tried (to use sarcasm) to point out that i'm relatively skeptical of using 100 years of thermometer data from earth, to trying to be able to understand 4 billion years of temperature fluctuations on the planet

[Edited on March 17, 2009 at 9:23 PM. Reason : sarcasm]

3/17/2009 9:22:59 PM

I understood that it was sarcasm but who really is trying to compare the two? I don't aim to seem belligerent here I just think your point is beyond facetious.

3/17/2009 11:04:04 PM

More LIES from the LIBERAL HIPPIES and AL GORE CONSPIRATORS!!!!!!

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1200

Quote :

"Last week, I introduced the National Climatic Data Center's Climate Extremes Index, which uses temperature and precipitation records to see if the U.S. climate is getting more extreme. Today, I'll focus on how the drought and precipitation extremes that go into the Climate Extremes Index have changed over the past century. The three precipitation-related factors to go into the Climate Extremes Index are: "

.....

Quote :

"Heavy precipitation events Global warming theory predicts that global precipitation will increase, and that heavy precipitation events--the ones most likely to cause flash flooding--will also increase. This occurs because as the climate warms, evaporation of moisture from the oceans increases, resulting in more water vapor in the air. According to the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, water vapor in the global atmosphere has increased by about 5% over the 20th century, and 4% since 1970. The Climate Extremes Index plot for extreme 1-day precipitation events (Figure 1) does indeed show a sharp increase in heavy precipitation events in recent decades, with seven of the top ten years for these event occurring since 1995. The increases in heavy precipitation events have primarily come in the Spring and Summer, when the most damaging floods typically occur. This mirrors the results of Groisman et al. (2004), who found an increase in annual average U.S. precipitation of 7% over the past century, which has led to a 14% increase in heavy (top 5%) and 20% increase in very heavy (top 1%) precipitation events. Kunkel et al. (2003) also found an increase in heavy precipitation events over the U.S. in recent decades, but noted that heavy precipitation events were nearly as frequent at the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th century, though the data is not as reliable back then. Drought and extreme wetness Global warming theory predicts that although global precipitation should increase in a warmer climate, droughts will also increase in intensity, areal coverage, and frequency (Dai et al., 2004). This occurs because when the normal variability of weather patterns brings a period of dry weather to a region, the increased temperatures due to global warming will intensify drought conditions by causing more evaporation and drying up of vegetation. Increased drought is my number one concern regarding climate change for both the U.S. and the world in the coming century. Two of the three costliest U.S. weather disasters since 1980 have been droughts--the droughts of 1988 and 1980, which cost $71 billion and $55 billion, respectively. The heat waves associated with these droughts claimed over 17,000 lives, according to the National Climatic Data Center publication, Billion-Dollar Weather Disasters. Furthermore, the drought of the 1930s Dust Bowl, which left over 500,000 people homeless and devastated large areas of the Midwest, is regarded to be the third costliest U.S. weather disaster on record, behind Katrina and the 1988 drought. (Ricky Rood has an excellent book on the Dust Bowl that he recommends in his latest blog post)."

Come on Jeff Mathers stop trying to deceive the American people with your communist bullshit, hatred for America, and desire to destroy good ole American capitalism.

3/17/2009 11:28:26 PM

The New York Times, May 21, 1975
http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/ny-times-1975-05-21.pdf

I have taken the liberty of pulling out some interesting quotes from the article. Apparently humans were the cause of Global Cooling also. Not surprising.

Quote :

"Sooner or later a major cooling of the climate is widely considered inevitable. The drop in mean temperatures since 1950 in the Northern Hemisphere has been sufficient, for example to shorten Britain's growing season by two weeks."

Quote :

"Vulnerability to climate change, it says, is "all the more serious when we recognize that our present climate is in fact highly abnormal, and that we may already be producing climatic changes as a result of our own activities.""

And as for your post DirtyGreek:

Quote :

"The supposed "global cooling" consensus among scientists in the 1970s — frequently offered by global-warming skeptics as proof that climatologists can't make up their minds — is a myth, according to a survey of the scientific literature of the era."

So now it was a myth. Whoever wrote that New York Times article sound pretty convinced that it was real. Perhaps in 30 years we can re-write current history and downplay how adamant people were that Global Warming existed.

3/18/2009 1:41:38 AM

^ QED

Quote :

"i agree that 100 years of thermometer data is a good statistical representation of a system over 4,000,000,000 years old"

not to mention the fact that just because it is a thermometer reading from the same geographic position doesn't mean that the reading is comparable across all times it was taken. There's a massive difference between a thermometer on the side of a barn in the middle of nowhere and a thermometer on an asphalt roof. Conveniently, though, we don't take that in to account.

3/18/2009 8:02:06 AM

^^ surely since one hypothesis was proven wrong in the 1970's than we need to throw out all future hypothese and cancel all research on a given topic .
What is your degree, nothing science related, I assume...

Quote :

"The supposed "global cooling" consensus among scientists in the 1970s — frequently offered by global-warming skeptics as proof that climatologists can't make up their minds — is a myth, according to a survey of the scientific literature of the era.""

I am unsure of this statement; but like any scientific theory if GW really is false such as was the case as global cooling than further research will resolve the discrepancy.

Quote :

"a thermometer on the side of a barn in the middle of nowhere and a thermometer on an asphalt roof. Conveniently, though, we don't take that in to account. "

I am sure 95% (the ones w/o special interest in spreading the idea of GW) of you competent Ph.D's in climatology understand and account for this difference in their studies. I think you guys are trolling; some of the arguments keep getting worse and worse. WATCH OUT GUYZ AL GORE AND OBAMA ARE TAKING OVER AND ARE USING YOUR TAXES TO BRIBE SCIENTISTS INTO SPREADING THE GW HOAX TO GET YOUR CARBON MONIES!!!!

[Edited on March 18, 2009 at 8:20 AM. Reason : l]

3/18/2009 8:18:29 AM

Quote :

"surely since one hypothesis was proven wrong in the 1970's than we need to throw out all future hypothese and cancel all research on a given topic"

No, but when it's those SAME PEOPLE making extreme claims, I think it deserves a little bit of pause...

Quote :

"I am sure 95% (the ones w/o special interest in spreading the idea of GW) of you competent Ph.D's in climatology understand and account for this difference in their studies."

Actually, they aren't. It took photographic evidence of these problems to get James Hansen to even begin to admit that there was a problem. If he won't admit the obvious, then I doubt he is taking it in to account. Besides, if that is the temperature record, then when other people use it for research, how are they to know it's not reliable?

And please, stop your bullshit conspiracy theory meme. It only makes you look like a douche.

3/18/2009 8:21:56 AM

Quote :

"James Hansen "

I am glad you show your great ability to understand statistics. Using your N=1 sample size you are statistical genius in your ability to use regression in order to extrapolate data to defend your hypothesis that all climateologists fudge their global warming data by probing in heat islands or areas with a unnaturally high emissivity due to human development.

I don't give a fuck what James Hansen or Al Gore says with regards to global warming. Until I read more solid scientificly peer-reviewed articles disproving GW and the trend of experts within this field begins turning against the theory (besides those of the ExXon Mobile Center of Climate Study) than I will continue to have an open mind that in theory GW is possible.

Perhaps we need to test the null hypothesis lets accelerate the increase of our CO2 emissions, cut down trees, and take data over the next 25 years to see if we really can have an effect. Once proven with hard data we can say it does exists; and scale back our emissions from there.

[Edited on March 18, 2009 at 8:32 AM. Reason : a]

3/18/2009 8:26:17 AM

Quote :

"So now it was a myth. Whoever wrote that New York Times article sound pretty convinced that it was real. Perhaps in 30 years we can re-write current history and downplay how adamant people were that Global Warming existed."

Hansen:

Quote :

" In 1976, with four colleagues, I wrote my first paper on climate (Science, 194, 685-690, 1976). Based on the suggestion of Yuk Yung, one of the co-authors, we examined, for the first time, whether several human-made trace gases might have an important greenhouse effect (until then, only carbon dioxide and chlorofluorocarbons had been considered). We found that methane and nitrous oxide were likely to be important, though measurements of how these gases might be changing were not yet available. Starting then I became interested, very interested, in the Earth’s climate; indeed, two years later I resigned as Principal Investigator of an experiment on its way to Venus so that I could devote full time to studies of the Earth’s climate. So it was a bit of a surprise when I began to be inundated a few days ago with reports that I had issued proclamations five years earlier, in 1971, that the Earth was headed into an ice age. Here is how this swift-boating works. First on 19 September 2007 a Washington Times article by John McCaslin reported that a 9 July 1971 article by Victor Cohn in the Washington Post had been discovered with the title “U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming”. The scientist, S.I. Rasool, is reported as saying that the world “could be as little as 50 or 60 years away from a disastrous new ice age”. This is an old story: Rasool and (Steve) Schneider published a paper in Science on that day noting that if human-made aerosols (small particles in the air) increased by a factor of four, other things being equal, they could cause massive global cooling. At Steve’s 60th birthday celebration I argued that the Rasool and Schneider paper was a useful scientific paper, an example of hypothesis testing, in the spirit of good science. But what is the news today? Mr. McCaslin reported that Rasool and Hansen were colleagues at NASA and “Mr. Rasool came to his chilling conclusions by resorting in part to a new computer program developed by Mr. Hansen that studied clouds above Venus.” What was that program? It was a ‘Mie scattering’ code I had written to calculate light scattering by spherical particles. Indeed, it was useful for Venus studies, as it helped determine the size and refractive index of the particles in the clouds that veil the surface of Venus. I was glad to let Rasool and Schneider use that program to calculate scattering by aerosols. But Mie scattering functions, although more complex, are like sine and cosine mathematical functions, simply a useful tool for many problems. Allowing this scattering function to be used by other people does not in any way make me responsible for a climate theory. Yet as this story passes from one swift boater to another it gets juicier and juicier, e.g.: Global Warming Scientist Once Warned of ‘Ice Age’ By Doug Ware — KUTV.com [I won’t reprint the whole piece of nonsense here] It is little wonder that I have been getting nasty e-mails the past several days."

http://climateprogress.org/2007/09/27/james-hansen-ice-age-myth/
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/distro_Grandfather_70924.pdf


Not that there's any point in trying to show you all what's actually going on here...

Quote :

"But, we've done this all before. So whats new? Not much, but Senator Inhofe has been speaking about climate change again, and predictably enough dredged up the 1975 Newsweek article headed "A cooling world". Which appears to have prompted Newsweek to re-examine their old article. They concede that the article was so spectacularly wrong about the near-term future but defend themselves with In fact, the story wasn't "wrong" in the journalistic sense of "inaccurate", which seems rather self-serving. Whilst the article does manage to reference the NAS report, it does so in a minor paragraph - the headline and most text implies cooling and severe problems with the food supply. Inhofe raises other various stories from way back (see here for more) but fails to point out that a few stories culled from over a century doesn't compare at all with the media attention nowadays paid to global warming. The lesson to take from this is the obvious one: not to take your science stories from the mass media if you can possibly find better sources. Which nowadays are readily available: the IPCC report for a solid review of the state of the science; and RealClimate for more topical stuff."

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=363

[Edited on March 18, 2009 at 9:37 AM. Reason : .]

3/18/2009 9:28:15 AM

Quote :

"There's a massive difference between a thermometer on the side of a barn in the middle of nowhere and a thermometer on an asphalt roof."

Actually, those are both horrendous places to measure air temperature.

3/18/2009 3:35:06 PM

Quote :

"I understood that it was sarcasm but who really is trying to compare the two? I don't aim to seem belligerent here I just think your point is beyond facetious."

you clearly have no idea of the point i was making HockeyRoman...it has absolutely nothing to do with comparing the earth 100 years ago versus 4 billion years ago

to reiterate since it flew over your head, i said i'm skeptical of being able to understand a 4 billion year old system by using a sample set of real data from only 100 years

[Edited on March 18, 2009 at 3:48 PM. Reason : .]

3/18/2009 3:46:45 PM

That is because no one is talking about proto-earth temperatures except for you. Plus, do you even know what ice cores are?

3/18/2009 3:58:29 PM

i said real data

i still dont think you get it

you're just sticking to your side without thinking instead of actually considering the very valid point that has been brought up plenty of times...no idea how someone wouldnt be skeptical about using data from 0.0000025% the length of the system to understand the whole system

[Edited on March 18, 2009 at 4:14 PM. Reason : .]

3/18/2009 4:05:22 PM

So AGW proponents get over $5 billion a year in funding and you're bitching about what George Lindzen charges?

3/18/2009 7:01:42 PM

http://esciencenews.com/articles/2009/03/18/americans.support.action.global.warming.despite.economic.crisis

"...over 90 percent of Americans said that the United States should act to reduce global warming...

If you are against AWG, your opinion is irrelevant.

3/18/2009 7:30:01 PM

The two main reasons I am intrested in GW are;

1) I feel that it is glamorized and at best misleading. It is getting a lot more attention than it deserves. There are a lot of other environmental problems that are worthy of more attention and research.

2) I am afraid of the solutions that will be forced upon us. So it begins:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/18/obama-climate-plan-could-cost-2-trillion/

3/18/2009 8:34:25 PM

^^and yet there was a poll just a week or two ago, and out of all the issues facing the country Americans put "climate change" last on the list.

And the new Gallup poll has a record high amount of people saying global warming is exaggerated.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/116590/Increased-Number-Think-Global-Warming-Exaggerated.aspx

So yeah, people are starting to get the picture.

3/18/2009 10:45:48 PM

Quote :

"issues facing the country Americans put "climate change" last on the list. "

Surely the high priority issues listed from Americans (from a Sarah Palin rally i am sure) above climate change include

- welfare queens
- gay marriage
- Abortion
- black people
- foreigners taking my job as a grape picker
- 19 year olds smoking pot

Quote :

"the seriousness of global warming is either correctly portrayed in the news or underestimated, a record-high 41% now say it is exaggerated. This represents the highest level of public skepticism about mainstream reporting on global warming seen in more than a decade of Gallup polling on the subject."

Sure i think some of the claims are exaggerated but that does not mean

- I think AGW is impossible
- We should not taking action to minimize potential impact
- cut funding for AGW research
- most climatologists are in Al Gore's pocket trying to trick the american people to buy into global warming
- even a significant percentage of climatologists are attempting to fudge the books to prove AGW


[Edited on March 18, 2009 at 11:12 PM. Reason : l]

3/18/2009 11:08:36 PM

^ those are all more relevant than GW

3/18/2009 11:13:47 PM

Quote :

"And the new Gallup poll has a record high amount of people saying global warming is exaggerated."

Be careful about what that poll is saying.

The poll asks people about their opinion of media coverage of global warming, not global warming itself.

3/19/2009 1:25:01 AM

^good catch.

And good Lord, how many times does HUR mention the word Palin? Its like he finds a way to mention her in every single thread to cover up for his weak talking points.

3/19/2009 12:56:54 PM

Global warming is almost certainly exaggerated by the media. Humans caused Hurricane Katrina? SCOOP!

If you actually read these articles, they are full if sensationalist speculation. Unfortunately, it makes people cyinical about the reality of global warming. I think you need to be pretty well-learned to understand all the subtle effects of global warming and what they portend.

3/19/2009 5:00:20 PM

any random weather/climate study gets TONS more coverage if the words warming, change, AGW (not a word I know) are in it. Even if it has next to nothing to actually do with supposed AGW.

3/19/2009 7:53:24 PM

wait a minute... are you saying that the media likes sensational stories?

STOP THE PRESSES!!

3/19/2009 7:55:03 PM

Yes, the media like sensational stories, because where there are sensational stories, there is money and publicity. Where money and publicity are, there is funding. Where funding is, there is research. And now you know why some of us actually think there is incentives out there for researchers to overstate, omit, misinterpret, misrepresent or even out right lie about the causes and effects of global warming.

It's amazing to me when a report comes out about how fossil fuels are still a better proposition than wind or solar or geothermal nuclear fish ejaculate, people will easily dismiss it because Exxon funded part of it and we all know Exxon's livelihood is tied to fossil fuels being better, yet somehow even though there are whole industries forming who's livelihood is based entirely on human caused and controllable global warming being real, there's no chance that any of the science or reports could be false or misleading or overstated.

3/19/2009 9:23:08 PM

mainstream media

lol

3/19/2009 9:26:08 PM

Quote :

"any random weather/climate study gets TONS more coverage if the words warming, change, AGW (not a word I know) are in it. Even if it has next to nothing to actually do with supposed AGW"

and anytime the weather oscillates to a below average temperature for the current time of year it is "proof" global warming does not exist.

3/19/2009 9:49:40 PM

You're one of the few perpetuating (or at the least continually stating) those moronic comments.

3/19/2009 9:56:11 PM

^^ is that a serious statement?

3/19/2009 10:03:54 PM

yes

we had snow for the first time in 9 years in wilmington and anytime the temperature is less than normal I have to hear the red neck maintenance guys at my work blab about "where's this global warming", "i knew global warming was not true", blah blah blah

3/19/2009 10:17:37 PM

Guess what? We're not talking about some stupid redneck. Why do you always take every argument in TSB and be like this redneck, or this trailerpark loser, white trash, poor black person, etc. etc. Good God man.

3/19/2009 10:32:08 PM

because its fun and invokes dramatic reactions from my soap box friends

3/19/2009 11:15:36 PM

Quote :

"yes"

i think you meant to say no

3/19/2009 11:19:08 PM

Unfortunately, most people will have difficulty understanding or even considering the reality that certain regions will experience local cooling as a result of global warming.

3/20/2009 2:35:26 PM

Quote :

"Unfortunately, most people will have difficulty understanding or even considering the reality that certain regions will experience local cooling as a result of global warming."

or even the fact that during an up trend due which could be due to one factor the climate can still oscillate lower due to another variable.

Saying an unusually cold day disproves global warming is like saying the +300 point rally earlier this week in the DJIA means we are not really in a recession.

[Edited on March 20, 2009 at 5:42 PM. Reason : l]

3/20/2009 5:42:09 PM

This question should be asked from time to time during this particular discussion. Is there actually anyone here who doesn't believe that climate change vis-a-vis global warming is actually occurring?

3/20/2009 6:46:12 PM

I believe the earth's temperature is and has always constantly changed and never been in any sort of equilibrium, so yes.

3/21/2009 6:14:15 PM