Science – The subject of man-made global warming is almost impossible to discuss without a descent into virulent name-calling (especially on the Internet, where anonymity breeds a special kind of vicious reaction to almost any social or political question), but I'll try anyway.
Not a member? Sign-up today!
gallaszx
gabriel19671968
rylandl831968
daviannewton651975
asolious
romeohoover1968
leeharris1969
HappyTime
gtastario
prototyping.great
mp3_music_fan
mpind176
MaryLynn_
cptnkrk
boodaa
BJTJ
totalmania
bcoynejr
pc25
Shadowolf
Primbet
macan
rachieko
progy
phillyLA
AtriumGuy
Leather-neck
saltyveruca
Blackadder1964
leiarodder
MarkeD
AntarcticIce
rdb1960
cjb25
boge
expursuit
MyCampingMall
starshinediva
inthemiddleof
raskumar
hurr1
HMMace
daducha
barby13
prendergast2
MajJohn
ps3gangsta
ladylou4
fizzleboink2
superdude
520)
Hey hey, whaddya know? It's not another article about Joe! :D
Seriously though, even though Pat Sajak gets on my nerves, I think he asks some pretty reasonable questions.
Pat Sajak, the Wheel of Fortune guy?
He be da one.
Thanks for providing us with REPUKING trash.
My favorites:
>Are there potential benefits to global warming?
Yeah, that shows how stupid some people are. Plus Antarctica is prime beach property, minus 1/3 Florida covered with water.
Who won?
>Avg earth temperature?
Here how can you tell a liar. Obviously there is no such thing as avg earth temp. What point would it serve to add Antarctica to Africa?
>Decent? What decent? Manufactured by Exxon think tank?
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/global-...
What is a alternative? Do nothing, pollute as much as we can , who cares about future.
Where are the conservatives. And what exactly they conserving other than they wallet.
Hey, browntigger:
Sometimes, the stuff people post is quite revealing of their perspective/lack of perspective......
This is not a Repuking VS. Demagogue issue. And it needs to be addressed without emotional childishness.
Oh, BTW, the conservatives are "conserving other than they wallet." They be conserving they money by not flying around the globe like some people whose identity and reputation is well-known by folks on both sides of this issue.....
Pat sounds like a right winger just trying to put a front on of sanity ... to further slow down the efforts to validate the damage done! 6 degrees warmer at the poles in 50 years and getting warmer at a greater rate answers his first question and logically will lead to higher sea levels.
Why no environmental or CDC reports on the subject published under Dumya's administration? After Bush cabinet deletions and redactions, no one would take credit for them! Then Dumya looking for scientists that believe foremost in creationism - what can we believe? Pat has been sucked in by the Bush obfuscation!
When Dumya has had such complete support from the past Repug Congress, it became a political issue. E coli beef, tainted toys, little to no funding to environmental inspections, no lending constraints, redacting scientific reports... heaven forbid Bush take the general welfare above the needs/wants of business!
Whether global warming is actually occurring is one thing, but the determination of the cause and the appropriate course of action, if any, is another.
go ahead and trust the "scientists" Dumya does... and we will reach a point of no return!
Right, let's just spend hundreds of trillions of dollars on modifying our climate without knowing the end result.
Tomorrow at 12 pm EST,,, everyone on the planet open your freezer doors all at once,,, viola the end of global warming,,,,,, how much cheaper does it get than that and soooooooo easy.... of course it took a monkey 15 seconds to figure it out,,,, pfffffft scientist!
If it were only that easy slate!
I'll kick you in your monkey butt if you open my freezer. I'm freezing! ; )
Yeah I know! It got down in the rare temp of the 20s here the last few nights, that is very rare here in Houston,,,,, I keep try to remember it's an event it's an event
If you want us to write a check, don't be angry if we want to know:
1. How much should it be for?
2. What exactly do we get for this?
When someone asks YOU to write a check, you ask the same things, right? NOBODY just hands out blank checks without some info, right?
spin - and the UN is going to collect the money - so where do you think they will spend it?? On more conferences in tropical climes?
It's ok with me... can I go?
Oh, wait. Conservatives aren't allowed.
Spinward, lose a turn:
But couldn't this all be the sun going through a phase of high solar radiation, a favorite explanation of those who deny that human-generated greenhouse gases are the primary cause of warming? No. As NASA explains:
The sun is another source of natural global temperature variability. Figure 3, based on an analysis of satellite measurements, shows that 2007 is at the minimum of the current 10-11 year solar cycle.
http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2...
The natural variations of the Southern Oscillation and the solar cycle thus have minor but not entirely insignificant effects on year-to-year temperature change. Given that both of these natural effects were in their cool phases in 2007, it makes the unusual warmth this year all the more notable. It also suggests that a record global temperature exceeding that of 2005 can be expected within the next 2-3 years (unless a major volcano erupts).
"We may see CO2 is responsible for much less warming than we thought and if this is the case the predictions of warming due to human activity will need to be adjusted."
Mr Svensmark last week published the first experimental evidence from five years' research on the influence that cosmic rays have on cloud production in the Proceedings of the Royal Society Journal A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences. This week he will also publish a fuller account of his work in a book entitled The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change.
A team of more than 60 scientists from around the world are preparing to conduct a large-scale experiment using a particle accelerator in Geneva, Switzerland, to replicate the effect of cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere. http://www.spacecenter.dk/research/sun-climate/...
The European Organization for Nuclear Research, CERN, is creating an atmospheric research facility at its particle physics laboratory in Geneva. Called CLOUD, it will consist of a special cloud chamber exposed to pulses of high-energy particles from one of CERN's particle accelerators, the Proton Synchrotron. Conditions prevailing in the Earth's atmosphere will be recreated in CLOUD, and the incoming particles will simulate the action of cosmic rays. An elaborate set of instruments will trace the physical and chemical effects of the particle pulses.
The project was first proposed by Jasper Kirkby of CERN in 1998, in response to the discovery in Copenhagen of an apparent link between cosmic rays and clouds. The name CLOUD is an acronym for 'cosmics leaving outdoor droplets'. More than fifty atmospheric scientists, solar-terrestrial physicists and particle physicists from seventeen institutes in Europe and the USA joined Kirkby's team, including Henrik Svensmark.
You can't trust scientists, they are paid to study science.
unless it's for the iraq war...
I gave you a good Spinward, but those are not the only questions we should ask. For instance, we know we're writing checks for billions for the Iraq fiasco, and we know what we're getting: dead soldiers, increased terrorist risk, international ill will, rich war mongers, and an indefinite obligation for military presence in that country. The third question we always should ask when we write a check is WHY?
Global warming = Iraq? Hye what happened to the nuclear winter we were supposed to have after Saddam lit the oli fields?
The banter was about writing checks, slate. Keep up.
You keep up, the thread is about Climate
One more question; What is the perfect Global Temperature? How and why did a now ice covered Island get the name Greenland?
Because much of the Northern Hemisphere had a much more mild climate in the Middle Ages...as I'm sure you know.
One more answer:
The name Greenland comes from Scandinavian settlers. In the Icelandic sagas, it is said that Norwegian-born Erik the Red was exiled from Iceland for murder. He, along with his extended family and thralls, set out in ships to find the land that was rumoured to be to the northwest. After settling there, he named the land Grænland ("Greenland"), possibly in order to attract more people to settle there.[2] Greenland was also called Gruntland ("Ground-land") and Engronelant (or Engroneland) on early maps. Whether green is an erroneous transcription of grunt ("ground"), which refers to shallow bays, or vice versa, is not known.
Donald, these are valid questions and I notice you (along with the vast left-wing consensus) are not trying to answer.
Why not answer the questions and win the right through logic rather than force?
He didn't touch my question, which is: Why do solar wind activities MATCH our warming trend if the sun has nothing to do with it?
http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/tempC...
When the day comes that nobody is allowed to ask a question, the left is truly in charge.
Spinward:
"When the day comes that nobody is allowed to ask a question?"
I could stick my foot in that shoe.
Question 8:
"For example, if we were to dramatically reduce our need for international oil, what happens to the economies of the Middle East"
For once this Moonbat wonders why should I give a hoot.
Unless they can sell sandbags... or glass, it would be interesting.
Really. Let them stew in their heat and sand and barbaric governments.
The trend significantly diverged back in the 70's. The solar wind theory has been shown to now hold up to scrutiny.
I agree.
Nobody looks at the chart and has an answer EXCEPT that there must be a connection.
http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/tempC...
Still posting the same old propaganda Spin? Who was measuring solar wind in 1865? Why is it that this so-called "research" hasn't been published in the scientific literature in the 10 years since it was part of a "seminar" that no one else can see?
If it's science, it will stand up to the data.
Why attack data that doesn't support the conclusion when you should be changing the conclusion?
If I decide that glue is not sticky, and then determine that it becomes sticky as it dries, I must be willing to change my conclusion based on the data. To not be willing to accept data makes me look like a big sticky idiot.
Amen to cutting out the childishness!
I can hardly believe this article, though. Sajak claims to be fairly well-read on the matter.. yet asks such simplistic, almost assinine questions?! The whole thing comes off as disingenuous at best and manipulative at worst.
And another thing.. the apparent division between a "right" and "left" point of view on the issue of man-made global warming I find to be increasingly telling. It's NOT an argument that SHOULD be political at all. So, why has it become one? At this point, I'm disposed to believe it is in part because certain "interests" have had success in the past with manipulating those who love to preserve the status quo (including the gross consumption of oil and coal), and those who love to challenge the status quo (including pushing for greener energy).
Sadly, the matter seems far too important for us to waste any time, which is precisely what arguing over it does.
news, sometimes those very simple questions are at the root of the problem. If you can't answer the simple ones, forget the complicated ones.
So, if the questions are simplistic, why does nobody attempt to answer them?
This is science, right?
Where are the answers?
Science has no opinion about most of these questions: 1, 4, 5, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10. These are not scientific questions, but matters of personal opinion, politics, or belief.
Spin.. there are a few scientific "laws" that are provable to the point of being indisputable, but don't forget ALL science is built on theories.
What seems to be at the heart of much of the global warming dispute is WHO is more likely to be lying about the causes of it. It is incumbent upon all of us to work through the best science we can to come to the best possible conclusions. I view any effort to "spin" such an important matter - from EITHER side - as misguided, and in some cases downright irresponsible.
Wrong again, Brownfinger. Save the wacko Greenpeace crap. We need to let scientists have a scientific debate, not politicians, political activists or celebrities. Is it smart to spend the unbelievable sums that even Al Gore estimates that it would cost to attempt to reverse global warming without first thoroughly and objectively studying the issue from every angle?
By all mean let the scientist ask the questions of other scientist, not game show hosts.
Or washed up lawyers who failed at politics.
Enough with the Clonetons already!
...and how much do you figure Dumya has tried to stop these scientific investigations since they are not conducive to a growing economy in his mind? Even Australia now agrees with Kyoto leaving only the US in rebuttal!
Actually, since China has surpassed the U.S. in terms of greenhouse gases, Kyoto is pointless. Right, we should let the Chinese dump crap and poison us all. That economic powerhouse of Australia will really impact the environment. I believe that other countries had problems with Kyoto as well, Canada for example.
sorry drop:
it's not the canadian people that have the problem.
it's the canadian conservative gov't that has the problem. and that is being singlehandedly strong-armed by steven harper. (canadian prime-minister)
most canadians are whizzed that canada is not doing it's part. harper is just trying to suck up to "you know who" because he is just about as intelligent.
I'd say that isn't the case. He's the Canadian people's elected representative. There are legitimate problems with the Kyoto agreement that other countries besides the U.S. have recognized and that was my point.
he was elected by default, as the canadian people had to dump the liberals for questionable business practices. he only has a minority gov't, and the liberals are stumbling along with a virtual no name in the canadian political world.
believe me, the canadian people are embarrassed at how little the canadian gov't is doing ecologically.