NASA says last decade hottest on record
in [Toyota]
|
Prev: online shopping
Next: car frum
From: larry moe 'n curly on 26 Jan 2010 14:17 C. E. White wrote: > > - Is "man made" global warming real? I don't know. It's real, but whether there's enough of it to really hurt the climate in the future is another matter. > - Is there a conspiracy of sorts promoting "man made" global warming? Beyond > a doubt. That doesn't explain why information that went against the "conspirators" was published in the UN report or why the concensus conclusions of climate scientists doesn't change if the "conspirators" are ignored. Which side has politicized climate change the most? Both sides have, but one side has spent a lot more money in their effort. > - Is there good data supporting the claim that the the earth is warming? No. Yes, there is. > - Is global warming a bad thing? - Actually I don't think anyone adequately > addresses this question. Are you kidding? Almost 100% of the climate scientists say global warming is wonderful because otherwise the average temperature would be something like 90 degs. F cooler than it is now, with the tropics at close to freezing most of the time. > - Do you trust politicians to try and manipulate things based on their > opinions of who should win and who should lose? I don't. Neither do I, and most of the politicians doing that are one side of this issue. They're the same people who want to take real science out of public school text books. > Do you trust the groups promoting "man made" global warming? I don't. What do you mean "promoting"? Those groups are either 1) the people who want to reduce man-made sources of global warming; 2) the people who don't want government regulation of man-made sources of global warming. So are you with the US on this issue, or are you instead with China? ;)
From: larry moe 'n curly on 26 Jan 2010 14:24 C. E. White wrote: > > Increased CO2 concentration might actually stimulate plant growth. That works for only certain plants, but others will be unaffected. Higher CO2 didn't help in Biosphere II. > > I guess I am a child of the 70's. I am still worried about the coming ice > age. > Again, I don't trust the science and I especially don't trust the > politicians using the science (good or bad) to impose draconian measures. I can understand not trusting politicians, but if you're not going to trust scientists on scientific matters, whether the matters are related to global warming or not, who are you going to trust about such issues? I mean, if you don't trust the best qualified experts, the only alternatives are less qualified people.
From: C. E. White on 26 Jan 2010 14:58 "Mike Hunter" <Mikehunt2(a)lycos,com> wrote in message news:4b5f3743$0$20664$ce5e7886(a)news-radius.ptd.net... >A few weeks ago it was 34 degrees at my place in Key West Florida, >the lowest ever recorded ;) Maybe your thermometer needs to be calibrated. How far back do your records go? The NWS doesn't list a low for Key West lower than 42F this winter. That was on Jan 11. It got down to 39F at Marathon on the same day. According to Intelicast.com, the record low for Key West is 41 (Jan 13, 1981). The low so far for January at the Naval Air Station and at the Key West Airport is 42 (Jan 11). http://www.srh.noaa.gov/rtimages/key/F6/EYWLCDJAN.2010.txt http://www.srh.noaa.gov/rtimages/key/F6/MTHLCDJAN.2010.txt http://www.wunderground.com/US/FL/Key_West/KEYW.html#History I know temperatures can vary quite a bit over short distances on calm and clear nights, so I suppose it is possible that your personal thermometer recorded a new record low, but it might still be wise to have it checked out. I'd hate for you to single handedly crash the Global Warming Conspiracy. Ed
From: C. E. White on 26 Jan 2010 16:17 "larry moe 'n curly" <larrymoencurly(a)my-deja.com> wrote in message news:f0cbdf7a-2824-4046-a809-e31e31a69eb6(a)22g2000yqr.googlegroups.com... > > > C. E. White wrote: >> >> Increased CO2 concentration might actually stimulate plant growth. > > That works for only certain plants, but others will be unaffected. > Higher CO2 didn't help in Biosphere II. > >> >> I guess I am a child of the 70's. I am still worried about the >> coming ice >> age. > >> Again, I don't trust the science and I especially don't trust the >> politicians using the science (good or bad) to impose draconian >> measures. > > I can understand not trusting politicians, but if you're not going > to > trust scientists on scientific matters, whether the matters are > related to global warming or not, who are you going to trust about > such issues? I mean, if you don't trust the best qualified experts, > the only alternatives are less qualified people. There are well qualified scientist on both sides of the issue. The pro "Man Made" global warming conspiracy immeadiately labels anyone sho disagrees with their pet theory a wacko, but this isn't true. It is not the scientist I distrust so much as the scientist with a political agendas. Man made global warming is a casue that has been latched on to by all sorts of people. Most have no idea how to interpert the science and only listen to the ones who say the sky is falling. Man made global warming is the pet cause of the modern day Luddites. It is clear that if you disagree with the idea that global warming is a man made problem, you are going to have a hard time getting funding from most governmental and non-governmental agencies. Climate scientist already have a hard time getting funding.....how do you think they are going to react? And even if the whole theory is absolutely true, are the consequences so dire that we must completely wreck the US's economy? It is pretty clear that the Chinese and the Indians don't think so. So even if we (the US) take all the draconian action proposed by some of the extremists, it is unlikely that we will have any long term net effect on the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. BTW, I agree with many of the actions proposed to combat global warming, but for entirely different reasons. We need to stop sending billions to crazy people for oil. Improved mass transit could benefit millions of people. More efficient electrical grids are a great idea. I am all for wind and solar power. BUT, I don't want any of it rammed down my throat becasue a group of "scientist" have managed to convince a bunch of half-wtis that their particualr theories regarding the climate are the right ones. It is too much like a religion to suit me. Ed
From: Mike Hunter on 26 Jan 2010 19:18
One interesting point that one never hears discussed. What if the average temperature of the earth actually did get, say two degrees warmer, regardless of whether the cause in a natural occurrence or man is contributing. People live and survive on the equator now and they still will if it is 120 or 122 degrees. The ice caps will stay frozen at 120 below or 122 below. The areas where food could be grown would expand, There would be longer growing season in the temperate zones, food production would be greater. Areas that now have two annual harvest could have TWO, two could become three in others. Less of the carbon fuels would be needed for heating, there would be fewer, less intensive snow storms and less fuel would be used to clear roods, fewer production our should be lost and even some lives would be saved. Less fuel would be wasted in trucks that would not be forced to idle for long period or time or take longer to reach their destinations. Sure there would be more air conditioning use, but the amount of fuel used to cool the air, is far less than is need to heat the same amount of space. Inquiring minds want to know ;) "larry moe 'n curly" <larrymoencurly(a)my-deja.com> wrote in message news:bacd9849-4953-47e8-aa85-54644887eca3(a)o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... > > > C. E. White wrote: >> >> - Is "man made" global warming real? I don't know. > > It's real, but whether there's enough of it to really hurt the climate > in the future is another matter. > >> - Is there a conspiracy of sorts promoting "man made" global warming? >> Beyond >> a doubt. > > That doesn't explain why information that went against the > "conspirators" was published in the UN report or why the concensus > conclusions of climate scientists doesn't change if the "conspirators" > are ignored. > > Which side has politicized climate change the most? Both sides have, > but one side has spent a lot more money in their effort. > >> - Is there good data supporting the claim that the the earth is warming? >> No. > > Yes, there is. > >> - Is global warming a bad thing? - Actually I don't think anyone >> adequately >> addresses this question. > > Are you kidding? Almost 100% of the climate scientists say global > warming is wonderful because otherwise the average temperature would > be something like 90 degs. F cooler than it is now, with the tropics > at close to freezing most of the time. > >> - Do you trust politicians to try and manipulate things based on their >> opinions of who should win and who should lose? I don't. > > Neither do I, and most of the politicians doing that are one side of > this issue. They're the same people who want to take real science out > of public school text books. > >> Do you trust the groups promoting "man made" global warming? I don't. > > What do you mean "promoting"? Those groups are either 1) the people > who want to reduce man-made sources of global warming; 2) the people > who don't want government regulation of man-made sources of global > warming. So are you with the US on this issue, or are you instead > with China? ;) |