Damage from Warming Becoming 'Irreversible,' Says New Report

[JoseCuervo]

Fecl,

What would be the "biased agenda" that would drive "all those scientists" to develop this conspiracy?

What would be their motivation? How would they be able to keep the conspiracy together for so long?

I love a good conspiracy theory, can you help me understand this one?

And Fecl, do you really believe Elkchsr's opinion and observations as being more valid than "all those scientists"?

 

[MarlandS]

Yeah global warming is a real threat, that's why temperatures are trending down..

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html

 

[dgibson]

Funny Mars, everything I read on that site shows that the temperatures are rising, most significantly in the last 100 years. In a nutshell it basically says that the rising temperatures were exaggerated by greenhouse gases in the last century.

Most striking is the fact that each record reveals that the 20th century is the warmest of the entire record, and that warming was most dramatic after 1920.

The recent record warm temperatures in the 1990's are indeed the warmest temperatures the Earth has seen in at least the last 1000 years.

Maybe I missed what you were looking at.

 

[pawclaws]

DG; the most frequently occurring numbers I could find were between .04 and .06 degree F increases in average annual temperatures over the past 100 years. This of couse extrapolates into a total increase of between 4 and 6 degrees; however, there were no firm assumptions given regarding baseline presentation, measurement of baseline nor anything reliable indicating historical temperature range assertions. In any case my guess is that before man ,Homosapien. appeared on the planet (or was placed there by the hand of God), that the reptiles and amphibians enjoyed their climate immensely. Notice this, reptiles and amphibians are "cold" blooded allowing their bodies to acquire and assimilate ambient temperatures and react appropriately. Homosapien is a warm blooded animal with a fixed temperature which basically burns out at 104 degrees sustained or freezes to death when the core temperature significantly drops. Now; why do you suppose that the reptiles and amphibians are assigned a "cold blooded" role? Think maybe it may have something to do with varying temperature changes? I think that their role is assigned to allow them to survive during routine and frequent temperature fluctuations which is in all probablity reflective of our environment since inception or creation. Hey, maybe we are heating up! Maybe it's the frogs turn on top!

[ 03-17-2004, 12:03: Message edited by: pawclaws ]

 

[dgibson]

Okey dokey, Pawsiepoo, take that research back another 100 years, or 200, or the period of your choosing. Did the rate of .04 degrees/year exist in prior centuries, as well? Was it greater or lesser? The global warming crowd will tell us that the rate of increase is much greater in the past century than those prior. Mars' website seems to support that theory.

Regarding your cold-blooded analysis, I don't see your point. Yes, reptiles have a mechanism whereby they can survive temperature extremes. Living concurrently with reptiles are also a host of mammals who have no such mechanism. If you can point to reptiles and say that their existence proves that temperatures changes are part of "the plan," I can point to mammals and say that it isn't.

It's all just speculation in any case.

 

[pawclaws]

I don't see any reliable record of recorded temperatures past a hundred years DG; I'm even stretching the benefit of a doubt for the most recent century. I think that outside of this century that temperatures are simply unknowns or at best indefensible educated guesses. My frog theory is this; since "necessity is the mother of invention" and "form follows function" I propose that the environment was undergoing frequent contstant temperature ups and downs; hence the need for a successful life form; ergo, frog. This would probably contradict most global warming theorists in that our current temperature fluctuations are probably more stable than historical or pre-historical.

 

[pawclaws]

Well after reviewing near a thousand articlesregarding the subject I dfound one that I believe fairly represents both sides of the "Global Warming" issue. Before you read it let me state that there is absolutely no conclusive proof whatever that global warming does or does not exist nor whether it's existence or non-existence is positive or negative. For my money the debate is purely an exercise in in mental masturbation without redeeming value. (Kind of like much of what Elkgunner brings forward!)

http://weathereye.kgan.com/expert/warming/explain.html

 

[ELKCHSR]

You guy's on the left are really funny and at best entertaining any way...
Simple fact is, if the Feds decided tomorrow to stop all funding on Global warming, there would be a few bastions of hard heads some where in the world that would never give up hope that Global warming would occur and destroy the world. But as Mars said, this planet is a living entity and is only going thru a cycle. Just because your junk scientists finally saw a cycle in its evolution, they are absolutely surprised and aghast that the world doesn't stay static so they can put every thing in a little box and save the world at the tax payers expense. But even given that if it were true, what is it that you fellas propose to do about it. It isn't this country that is creating the problem any more, it's a bunch of third world countries that are trying to get their people out of the stone age. Why are any of you not in those countries touting the evils of their way's. There is no amount of tax dollars on this planet that can save us from what others in other parts of the world do. Maybe you can all run down there and help them "feel" the problem thru. That will make their problems go away and maybe in the mean time you guy's can save the world...

 

[JoseCuervo]

"It isn't this country that is creating the problem any more, it's a bunch of third world countries that are trying to get their people out of the stone age. Why are any of you not in those countries touting the evils of their way's. "

Elkchsr, which is it? First you say there isn't a problem, then you blame it on other countries, independent of any facts that would support that argument.

 

[ELKCHSR]

"But even given that if it were true, what is it that you fellas propose to do about it. It isn't this country that is creating the problem any more, it's a bunch of third world countries that are trying to get their people out of the stone age."
This is my quote, it was meant to be in the fact if it were true. I know you are just looking for any little thing, as would any other school yard bully. One thing you do need to understand Gunner, no matter how much it ticks you off that some others have opposing views on subjects, they are not all stupid and what ever ignorant ramblings you come up with, they still know what they know. This school yard bashing will not work here, it will only confirm to others that you are very close minded and as with most Socialists of today, will not see things in a bigger picture but only out of the little world you have built inside of a box for yourself.

 

[Muledeer4me]

Feclnogn, ROFLMAO


["Actually global warming would be a good thing. Here is why,


If the earth warms the polar ice caps will melt. The result of this would be both the east coast and west coast would be submerged, thus eliminating a huge voting block for the democrats. One of the biggest obstacles to the republicans is how to to beat the coastal voters. Problem solved!!

Longer growing seasons. This would reduce world hunger. "]

 

[dgibson]

Elkchsr et al., are you prepared to say that all the referenced, supposedly independent Paleoclimatic Data studies are flawed or bogus? If so, based on what information? I'm all for the "scientific conspiracy" thing, but here these guys are with their research, and others using other methods, all of which seem to point in the same direction. That's a lot of conspiracy.

Personally, I (as usual) believe in a combination of the two...I think maybe the general trend has been to warmer temps (as always happens between ice ages), but maybe our influence has exacerbated or accelerated it somewhat. Following Paws' frogology, we know with relative certainty that at some point in the distant past, Earth was largely tropical. We also know that at other points in the past a good deal of the planet was under ice. So it seems logical to assume that over time the climate swings back and forth between the two...the question is whether we are complicating the problem.