Intersting News Regarding the Global Warming Debate

Global warming is a maybe and proxy datasets are prone to huge error.

Human caused global warming is highly debatable.

Major 'scientific institutions' are all large bureaucracys that cling to whatever the conventional wisdom deems good moral hygeine of the day.

This debate will probably be going in 200 years.

I'll focus my worries/energies/$$$ elsewhere.
R

 

Like I said before, what does Bush have to do with this conversation, he's just another politician. How arrogant to think that we understand the universe in it's entirety. Tell me what do we have to do with planet Mars??? .... it's been going through GW during the same time as earth and now cooling same as earth....... our SUN has more to do with GW than humans. Our planet has been around for a long time and has gone through many climate cycles, we were not there to cause those changes, we are but a spec of sand in the big picture.

What do taxes have to do with it???
What does the cost of energy have to do with it's a better question, wait until energy and utilities go through the roof, that is if we let politicians get away with this scam!:lol:

 

you looking at me???

 

Nip it in the Bud!

If Everyone on this Planet would just open their freezers once a day for 22 seconds this would completely eliminate Global Warming! It's a scientific fact, but we all need to cooperate. :-s

 

Methane is not the #1 source of Climate change. However, the methane is the strongest of the greenhouse gases but the amount of methane being released is much less than Carbon Dioxide.

Here are the things that would be very difficult to argue scientifically with any honesty.

1. Carbon Dioxide absorbs energy (its a geenhouse gas)
2. We have been accelerating our release of CO2 for the last 100 years.

Now has the Earth gotten warmer? Most scientists and scientific organizations, say that we have gotten warmer in the last 50 years.

To think that #1 and #2 are true and #3 is most probably true. It is hard to make a legitimate argument that humans haven't at least in part been responsible for the change in temperatures.

Why are some people so unwilling to accept that there may be a better way? The cause, in my mind, is because we have a two party system and the parties need to oppose each other on many issues to define themselves.

 

Well you are the one who started this retarded thread and why else would you? Except for the the reason of denying the GW threat.

BTW I did read all your post. And alot of other threads you have posted on. I think you totally slant to the right and thats where the "bullshit" comment came from.

 

Best Newspapers

since you asked for it...from the columbia journalism review, a survey of 100 newspaper editors:


1. The New York Times New York, NY NY Times 1,627,099 101 0 101
2. The Washington Post Washington, DC Wash. Post 1,080,082 85 0 85
3. The Wall Street Journal New York, NY Dow Jones 1,740,450* 82 2 84
4. Los Angeles Times Los Angeles, CA Times Mirror 1,361,202 79 2 81
5. The Dallas Morning News Dallas, TX A.H. Belo 780,084 62 4 66
6. Chicago Tribune Chicago, IL Tribune 1,019,458 58 2 60
6. The Boston Globe Boston, MA NY Times 751,021 57 3 60
8. San Jose Mercury News San Jose, CA Knight Ridder 339,708 37 17 54
9. St. Petersburg Times St. Petersburg, FL independent 436,998 46 5 51
10. The Sun Baltimore, MD Times Mirror 478,516 44 2 46

as for global warming, neo-cons--as usual, concerning scientific reasoning--have their heads in the sand.

 

Very interesting if this turns out to be true - haven't seen this story "break" yet though.

Whether GW is true or not affects me how? I mean honestly, how will any of your daily life habits change regardless of the validity of the GW theory? Yet there seems to be a lot of hostility towards the possibility of GW and moreso, the scientists who assemble these stats and data - I never understood that.

Seems to me that the oil companies have a lot more to gain by trying to disprove GW than do the scientists who actually study this data.

Just my 2 cents, tell me how you feel.

 

WSJ a respected news source?

<snicker>

L.A. times?

LOL!

 

From the Christian Science Monitor:
http://features.csmonitor.com/envir...ate-emails-conspiracy-or-tempest-in-a-teapot/

"Nothing in the package appears to overturn the general idea — arrived at via many lines of evidence — that the CO2 humans have been pumping into the atmosphere is warming the planet, nor does anything bolster the notion some put forward of a hoax on the part of climate scientists."

Yeah, so they worried about how climate skeptics would attack their data and it seems as if some guys may have said some nasty things. Non-story as far as I'm concerned.

 

Irony of cherry-picking data.

That list is at least ten years old(*), before the ownership changes, layoffs, and musical chair editors.

(*)In 2000, the Times-Mirror Company was purchased by the Tribune Company of Chicago.

from Wikipedia.

The Los Angeles Times paid circulation figures have decreased since the mid-1990s. It has recently been unable to pass the one million mark, a milestone easily surpassed in earlier decades. Some believe the circulation drop was a result of a liberal bias attributed to the paper, which alienated many readers; others attribute the drop to the increasing availability of alternate methods of obtaining news, such as the Internet, cable TV or radio. Others also believe that the drop was due to the circulation director (Bert Tiffany) retiring. Still others believe the circulation drop was a side effect of a succession of short-lived editors who were appointed by publisher Mark Willes after Otis Chandler relinquished day-to-day control in 1995.[11]

 

If it's valid theory, GW and the consequences are inevitable. Enjoy the ride.

The real affect on my life and yours is the effect of government action to lessen GW such as doubling electric rates and many others too numerous to mention. Goldman Sachs (Geithner, etal) stands to make trillions of dollars from being the broker for carbon credits. So much government control in the name of 'environment'. I can foresee the Coastal Commmission going national. :lol:

Essentially the theory is if you impoverish yourself GW will be slowed. It's like a religion, the more pain you feel the purer your soul.

All that pain and suffering will have no effect on GW. India and China want no part of bowing to GW.

Global population growth (the ultimate problem) will never be limited by policy. The consequences are more obvious than GW.

 

aaahhh. ......I remember my first attempt at an intellectual debate. Those were good times.

 

okay, abui, find a newer ranking. mine was the only ranking i could find, so it wasn't cherry picking. wikipedia, on the other hand...

also, here's a more recent ranking of online use:

1. The New York Times
19,503,667 average monthly uniques
Increase of 33% from 2007
Peak month: 21,340,000 uniques in March [Eliot Spitzer]


2. USA Today
10,845,000 average monthly uniques
Increase of 12% from 2007
Peak month: 12,314,000 uniques in January


3. The Washington Post
10,260,167 average monthly uniques
Increase of 19% from 2007
Peak month: 12,956,000 uniques in September


4. The Los Angeles Times
7,886,250 average monthly uniques
Increase of 54% from 2007
Peak month: 11,136,000 uniques in November


5. The Wall Street Journal
7,169,333 average monthly uniques
Increase of 60% from 2007
Peak month: 9,047,000 uniques in September [Lehman Bros.]

they just need to start charging for those and newspapers might just survive.

:beer:

 

et tu, adam? are you the new pub czar? :lol:

i still gave you a "thanks" for not using wiggah-speak...

:cheers:

 

As soon as people mentally tie their political or religious "beliefs" to a topic, the way their brain processes and handles related information changes dramatically.

Since Al Gore opened his mouth, this topic hasn't been able to be discussed rationally by most laymen.

In the natural world, dumb individuals and species die first. We'll get what we deserve, no more, no less.

 

didnt say directed at y bubb but dont hate the playa, hate the game

 

So it's bullshit if I don't agree with you?

 

just let it melt. I think it would be kinda cool to live in water world. kevin costner will save us all. besides, just think of all the new surfspots that will be created. there's always a silver lining.