1970s climate change

[jmacomber68w]

so ill first admit, im not well versed in global warming, i couldnt give you any reasons for why global warming is or isnt happening, that being said i first just gotta complain over how all day, everywhere i turned i ran into global warming related adds and it drove me crazy (you think these companies really care bout going green, im pretty sure they are just milking the trendy global warming crowd for $$$) so anyways in the 70s there was an article in newsweek about the earth going through a global cooling, and we were looking foward to the temp going way down, id love any input from someone who remembers those days and if it was even a big deal, me being only 20 i wouldnt know, http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf someone showed me this its a part from the article from back then, at the very least its an interesting point that there was talk of the exact oposite happening many years back

[caliber66]

Clearly there is a global shortage of periods, anyway.

[ikol]

They might be moving back to global cooling again. Apparently, global temperatures haven't gone up since 1998. I've noticed they're slowly moving away from calling it "global warming" to "climate change." That way, absolutely any deviation from "normal" (whatever that means for something that is in constant flux) can be blamed on humans.

[Good Old Neon]

They might be moving back to global cooling again. Apparently, global temperatures haven't gone up since 1998. I've noticed they're slowly moving away from calling it "global warming" to "climate change." That way, absolutely any deviation from "normal" (whatever that means for something that is in constant flux) can be blamed on humans.

 

I think that has more to do with the fact that the term "global warming" is sort of a misnomer, as warming will not necessarily occur across the board - and, because deniers like to point out "cold" spots as proof the entire issue is a bust, a hoax.

 

Climate change, a much broader term, is more representative of what is actually occurring. I consider global warming to be one component of climate change, along with habitat loss, deforestation and the resulting soil erosion, species decline, etc.

[Motorik]

I think that has more to do with the fact that the term "global warming" is sort of a misnomer, as warming will not necessarily occur across the board - and, because deniers like to point out "cold" spots as proof the entire issue is a bust, a hoax.

 

Climate change, a much broader term, is more representative of what is actually occurring. I consider global warming to be one component of climate change, along with habitat loss, deforestation and the resulting soil erosion, species decline, etc.

 

This is correct, the science is infallible. We

[ikol]

I think that has more to do with the fact that the term "global warming" is sort of a misnomer, as warming will not necessarily occur across the board - and, because deniers like to point out "cold" spots as proof the entire issue is a bust, a hoax.

 

Climate change, a much broader term, is more representative of what is actually occurring. I consider global warming to be one component of climate change, along with habitat loss, deforestation and the resulting soil erosion, species decline, etc.

 

But I'm not talking about cold spots. From what I've read, global temperatures as a whole have not risen since 1998.

 

This is correct, the science is infallible. We

[Good Old Neon]

This is correct, the science is infallible. We

[remphish1]

Weather or not you believe in Global Warming there is nothing wrong with lessenening our dependence on foreign oil and cleaning up the air we breath! If this what it takes bring on the Green Movement!

 

[Good Old Neon]

But I'm not talking about cold spots. From what I've read, global temperatures as a whole have not risen since 1998.

 

From the Union of Concerned Scientists:

 

Global average surface temperatures pushed 2005 into a virtual tie with 1998 as the hottest year on record worldwide.[1] For people living in the Northern Hemisphere

[Motorik]

(unless you're being sarcastic, in which case, ).

 

 

 

 

Of course a good portion of North America was under a giant sheet of ice a few thousands of years ago, until modern humans came along, coincidence, I think not.

[ikol]

Weather or not you believe in Global Warming there is nothing wrong with lessenening our dependence on foreign oil and cleaning up the air we breath! If this what it takes bring on the Green Movement!

 

 

Pun intended?

 

From the Union of Concerned Scientists:

 

Here's what some Unconcerned Scientists have to say:

 

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story...99-7583,00.html

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p...toryId=88520025

http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monit...rticle10866.htm

 

Of course a good portion of North America was under a giant sheet of ice a few thousands of years ago, until modern humans came along, coincidence, I think not.

 

Not to mention the ice caps on Mars didn't start to melt until we sent those damn rovers.

[Motorik]

Subaru

[Good Old Neon]

 

 

Of course a good portion of North America was under a giant sheet of ice a few thousands of years ago, until modern humans came along, coincidence, I think not.

 

 

Of course the large swathes of North and South American forests that have been denuded, the mountain tops literally leveled, the entire ecosystems destroyed could never be attributed to the arrival and hubris of man....the fact that tomorrow, through the use of nuclear weapons, the entire planet could be rendered lifeless, by man no less, should be overlooked as well....

 

Silly us, as if anything we do could have dire results for everything else sharing the planet with us....

[remphish1]

Pun intended?

 

Ha! Yeah didn't think of that!

[lamradio]

Weather or not you believe in Global Warming there is nothing wrong with lessenening our dependence on foreign oil and cleaning up the air we breath! If this what it takes bring on the Green Movement!

 

 

That's exactly how I feel. There aren't enough hard facts to convince me that the earth is warming. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but either way, it's always good to be as "Green" as possible.. Reduce, reuse, recycle..

[Motorik]

Of course the large swathes of North and South American forests that have been denuded, the mountain tops literally leveled, the entire ecosystems destroyed could never be attributed to the arrival and hubris of man....the fact that tomorrow, through the use of nuclear weapons, the entire planet could be rendered lifeless, by man no less, should be overlooked as well....

 

Silly us, as if anything we do could have dire results for everything else sharing the planet with us....

 

Should I be showing my kids how to hide under their desks in case Khrushchev pushes the button?

[ikol]

Of course the large swathes of North and South American forests that have been denuded, the mountain tops literally leveled, the entire ecosystems destroyed could never be attributed to the arrival and hubris of man....the fact that tomorrow, through the use of nuclear weapons, the entire planet could be rendered lifeless, by man no less, should be overlooked as well....

 

Silly us, as if anything we do could have dire results for everything else sharing the planet with us....

 

I thought we were talking specifically about whether we are affecting the climate not whether we have any effect on the environment. And cockroaches will always survive.

[Good Old Neon]

Pun intended?

 

 

 

Here's what some Unconcerned Scientists have to say:

 

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story...99-7583,00.html

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p...toryId=88520025

http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monit...rticle10866.htm

 

 

 

Not to mention the ice caps on Mars didn't start to melt until we sent those damn rovers.

 

If we're going to start weighing the size of the "for" and "against" crowd in relation to climate change, the "against" side of the scale is going to start looking rather anemic.

 

I'm well aware I'm about to open Pandora's Box here, but what I have a hard time understanding, is how the right, many of whom are firm religious believers, can, without any apparent sense of irony, completely overlook the fact that everything in the bible has, for the most part, been disproved by science. Which is to say, believe in something whose existence really does not exist outside the realm of faith, would actually like to run the world according to that belief, but then, turn around and sort of laugh at the science behind climate change. As if the idea that we can have a detrimental effect on the environment is entirely preposterous, yet, the idea of a personal god who watches over everything you do is just, a-ok - not even worth questioning.

 

I guess my question is, why not take the skepticism typically reserved for climate change, and apply it to something for which their is very little, if any emperical evidence, god?

 

I just don't get it......

[Good Old Neon]

I thought we were talking specifically about whether we are affecting the climate not whether we have any effect on the environment. And cockroaches will always survive.

 

Why must the two be mutually exclusive?

 

The climate and the environment share a symbiotic relationship - are part of the same system - effect one, and you effect the other.

[caliber66]

If we're going to start weighing the size of the "for" and "against" crowd in relation to climate change, the "against" side of the scale is going to start looking rather anemic.

 

I'm well aware I'm about to open Pandora's Box here, but what I have a hard time understanding, is how the right, many of whom are firm religious believers, can, without any apparent sense of irony, completely overlook the fact that everything in the bible has, for the most part, been disproved by science. Which is to say, believe in something whose existence really does not exist outside the realm of faith, would actually like to run the world according to that belief, but then, turn around and sort of laugh at the science behind climate change. As if the idea that we can have a detrimental effect on the environment is entirely preposterous, yet, the idea of a personal god who watches over everything you do is just, a-ok - not even worth questioning.

 

I guess my question is, why not take the skepticism typically reserved for climate change, and apply it to something for which their is very little, if any emperical evidence, god?

 

I just don't get it......

Yeah, this is completely relevant to the discussion at hand, and in no way indicative of any agenda you might have.

[austrya]

Why, why, why, must religion be brought into every debate thread?

[Motorik]

God creates dinosaurs. God destroys dinosaurs. God creates man. Man destroys God. Man creates dinosaurs...

[Good Old Neon]

Yeah, this is completely relevant to the discussion at hand, and in no way indicative of any agenda you might have.

 

I'm being sincere here and have no desire to push an agenda.

 

It's a fair question given that much of the skepticism and resistance to taking steps to offset our negative impact on the environment stems from the right, specifically, the religious right. It appears rather disingenuous, to me, to nit-pick the science behind climate change to death, pounce on every flaw, while at the same time, trying to push a religious agenda through abortion, same sex marriage, the teaching of intelligent design, etc.

 

As if climate change in its entirety has been debunked because we haven't witnessed a measurable net increase in temperature since 1998.

[yermom]

i first just gotta complain over how all day, everywhere i turned i ran into global warming related adds and it drove me crazy (you think these companies really care bout going green, im pretty sure they are just milking the trendy global warming crowd for $$$)

It's an advertising trend called "greenwashing." It's driving me bonkers too, all advertising is.

 

Subaru

[bobbob1313]

If we're going to start weighing the size of the "for" and "against" crowd in relation to climate change, the "against" side of the scale is going to start looking rather anemic.

 

I'm well aware I'm about to open Pandora's Box here, but what I have a hard time understanding, is how the right, many of whom are firm religious believers, can, without any apparent sense of irony, completely overlook the fact that everything in the bible has, for the most part, been disproved by science. Which is to say, believe in something whose existence really does not exist outside the realm of faith, would actually like to run the world according to that belief, but then, turn around and sort of laugh at the science behind climate change. As if the idea that we can have a detrimental effect on the environment is entirely preposterous, yet, the idea of a personal god who watches over everything you do is just, a-ok - not even worth questioning.

 

I guess my question is, why not take the skepticism typically reserved for climate change, and apply it to something for which their is very little, if any emperical evidence, god?

 

I just don't get it......

 

Because it is a fucking personal belief that brings a lot of people a lot of joy. Can you please just shut the fuck up about it and stop questioning other peoplesbeliefs? God damn, man. What one person believes has nothing to do with your life, so just stop.

 

Live and let live.