Last year many on the Poli boards were claiming that the bad hurricane season was evidence of global warming. Not a bad hurricane season this year so is that evidence on non-global warming or is there a some new trendy evidence this year?
Riceman.... From CNN: "...Preliminary data from the National Climatic Data Center listed the average temperature for the 48 contiguous states in 2006 as 55 degrees Fahrenheit. That's 2.2 degrees warmer than average..." Two degrees... 2... It seems to be simply a warm cycle we are in; not global warming at all... in fact... if global warming is to be believed, next year we will be at four degrees warmer (which is impossible according to scientists). Therefore the basic "global warming" theory is fairly easy to disprove...
This is the dumbest thing that I will read today. Oops, looks like I was premature in my last comment.
Kind of. I'd consider the endorsement of Ron Paul to be pretty dumb if I could actually take libertarianism seriously. I also haven't ventured into any of the main board's discussions on yesterday's Beckham deal. I'm sure there's a lot of stupid to be found there.
A couple of days ago I saw a Sun-Times global warming story that listed the warmest years on record for both Chicago (top 10) and the world (top 6): http://www.suntimes.com/news/nation/204256,CST-NWS-warm10.article Here they are, year by year: Chic.----World 1921----2005 1931----1998 1998----2002 1953----2003 1954----2004 1973----2006 1938 1955 1922 2006 I guess I expected that there would be a greater correlation between the two. Would be interesting to see how closely other places conform to the world's pattern.
Dallas/fort Worth (from the National Weather Service) Warmest Average High Temperatures 1--69.3--2006 2--68.6--1999 3--68.3--1998 4--68.2--1933 5--68.1--1954 ---68.1--1934 7--67.9--2005 ---67.9--1921 9--67.8--1925 10-67.7--1939 Looks like our hot years correlate with drought years. When it doesn't rain much, we have a higher average.
The new evidence is record cold up in the north right now. Bo, what's the temp in Chicago today? Here's more of the Inconvenient Lie. Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science.
Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts? Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide By Timothy Ball Monday, February 5, 2007 Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.
It's been ridiculously cold here, but . . . please tell me I don't have to explain how temperature changes work. Please, be kind: tell me I don't need to explain that. It would break my heart. Let's put it this way: remember Black Monday, when the Dow lost 500 points? Imagine I pointed to that and said, "Ha ha, you capitalist swine! Your precious stocks appear to be a pretty terrible investment after all!" How would you respond? You'd pull out a graph and show me how, over time, the stock market goes up, and that periodic large-scale increases and decreases don't affect the overall trend. For the record, although yesterday was so cold that I could feel my testicles recede all the way back to my kidneys, the temperature didn't break any records in Chicago. The record for yesterday (-17) was set in the mid-70s. As far as the article you quote? Big whoop. There will always be people who mistake their own idiocy for iconoclasm. But really, I don't trust conservatives to be objective on the issue, since it's pretty clear that the radical wing long ago decided to find scientists to back up their political beliefs, rather than to base their political beliefs on science. Your party attempted the same stunt with chlorofluorocarbons and the cigarette smoking/lung cancer/addiction axis, and some advocates of creationism continue to do this today.
You’re not really that naïve are you? Global Warming is clearly a political issue. Don’t make me explain why this is political. Please don’t make me. What is really sweet about the cold weather is that 2007 will not go down as a hotter than average year, just like 2006 did not have a record number of hurricanes. And hopefully someone will save the poor polar bears stuck on the melting ice (even though they can swim hundreds of miles).
You could sort of tell Timothy Ball was an esteem-impaired lunatic by the number of times he said..."I'm a PhD". First PhD in climatology in all of Canada? That one was a little hard to believe too. Explaining what a PhD is. That's rich. So you cited a nutcase for your argument. He's got mental issues. What's your deal, FeverNova?
It's only political on one side, just as the debate about the safety of tobacco was. (Obviously, the debate re: tobacco policy was political.) But here's the part that really befuddles me: what policy changes could you possibly object to? Do you really want to keep consuming oil that we purchase from despots in the Middle East and Latin America? Do you really long for the air quality in Los Angeles and Bejing? I will concede nothing re: global warming, but let's say, for the sake of argument, that the skeptics are correct. What will we do when we finally run out of oil? That may not happen for 100 years, but it will happen, unless somebody figures out a method to grow the stuff. Why are Republicans so chicken-hearted as to avoid genuine changes in the levels of energy consumption or in the type of energy consumed? For the record, if somebody put me in charge of Illinois, I would require every new home to have a solar panel (hooked up to the electrical grid) on its roof. Of course, being that I would be ruling Illinois (and, therefore, up to my teeth in corruption), I would also own shares in a local solar panel plant.
Go ahead and don't tell us. Al Gore, of course, works with the existing science of people who aren't attention-seeking lunatics.
My deal is that regardless of the person writing the article, I believe that the God that created this planet and the universe is also in control of our climate. But that’s just me.
It's also worth noting that, when a newspaper published the quoted letter that challenged his credentials, he sued the newspaper. In that article, he also describes a letter he received (but does not quote) as "libellous." You know who else does this? Lyndon LaRouche. I'm just sayin' . . .
I have no problems with conservation when it makes sense. But I find it strange that you are worried about running out of oil and global warming. Since Reps are chicken-hearted (and I will agree with that), what have the Dems done up until now?