One good thing to come from a long Recession/Depression

[humble]

it's not man made.

it's affected by man, but if human beings dissappeared off the face of the planet tomorrow, it would continue just as it is now.

Thats an inaccurate and incomplete statement.

[Niceguy]

Isn't global warming a political topic? IN case you guys hadn't noticed man made global warming has been proven to be nothing more than a scam. Tree huggers united for a short time to try and convince the stupid masses that man is the cause of global warming. There is no global warming. Climate change yes but not man made global warming.

[bongaroo]

Show undisputable, scientific studies that have been peer reviewed and published that backs your claim niceguy.

Put up or shut up as the saying goes.

[Anaxogoras]

This thread is proof of how politically extreme a lot of the bbs users are here.  Last time I checked, the Republican presidential nominee accepts the scientific conclusion that human activity is causing climate change.  For the scientific world, there is no more debate.  It's over.  We have to move on to what we're going to do about it.

[dentin]

t's not man made.

it's affected by man, but if human beings dissappeared off the face of the planet tomorrow, it would continue just as it is now.

Thats an inaccurate and incomplete statement.

"inaccurate"??  The Earth is/has been in a "cooling/warming cycle" from day one, and based on previous Climatological data/records will continue as long as the planet exists...imho. The "carbon based life form" we refer to as "human/animal  has little (if any) impact on the cycle...immho.  ymmv.     

[humble]

The underlying question isn't "IF" we're experiencing global warming (we are) or "IF" our actions are contributing but to what degree and why. Further global warming is really a small part of a larger issue. If we view the earth as a host and look at our role mankind acts more as an infection then anything else. We're poisoning our planet and damaging it to an amazing degree in a very short time frame. We're beginning to see more and more cause and effect in our actions in everything from increased mutations in bacteria to increases in Autism and other systemic conditions. The only real "question" is if we're going to succeed in "killing" the planet before it succeeds in killing us or not.

As for global warming the real concern is that we appear to be having a quantifiable impact on such a large system in such a short period of time. The reality is that our interaction may or may not have a major impact since the planet itself is in constant flux and major geologic events are still unfolding. The scope of these events are of a magnitude that dwarfs our potential impact and realistically exceeds our capability to survive in an organized state. A further "supereruption" in the area of the Yellowstone Caldera is a 100% certainty, while this event is both inevitable and catastrophic (It will wipe out the US just about entirely) it may also be 100,000+ yrs away or more. Even a lesser event would have a more profound impact then we appear to generate.

Leaving aside major input from mother nature the reality is that we are having a greater and greater impact on the closed system we live in and generating ever greater reactions. To think we can blithely go on generating "cause" without eventually harvesting "effect" is the height of stupidity IMO.

[bongaroo]

"inaccurate"??  The Earth is/has been in a "cooling/warming cycle" from day one, and based on previous Climatological data/records will continue as long as the planet exists...imho. The "carbon based life form" we refer to as "human/animal  has little (if any) impact on the cycle...immho.  ymmv.     

Show scientific studies that have been peer reviewed and published that backs your claim dentin.

Put up or shut up as the saying goes.

[CAP1]

According to an article at DailyTech, a blogger has discovered a Y2K bug in a NASA climate study by the same writer who accused the Bush administration of trying to censor him on the issue of global warming. The authors have acknowledged the problem and released corrected data. Now the study shows the warmest year on record for the contiguous 48 states as being 1934, not 1998 as previously reported in the media. In fact, the corrected study shows that half of the 10 warmest years on record occurred before World War II."
 The article's assertion that there's a propaganda machine working on behalf of global warming theorists is outside the bounds of the data, which I think is interesting to note.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt 

yep..these temps REALLY are going up.

My earlier column this week detailed the work of a volunteer team to assess problems with US temperature data used for climate modeling. One of these people is Steve McIntyre, who operates the site climateaudit.org. While inspecting historical temperature graphs, he noticed a strange discontinuity, or "jump" in many locations, all occurring around the time of January, 2000. 

These graphs were created by NASA's Reto Ruedy and James Hansen (who shot to fame when he accused the administration of trying to censor his views on climate change). Hansen refused to provide McKintyre with the algorithm used to generate graph data, so McKintyre reverse-engineered it. The result appeared to be a Y2K bug in the handling of the raw data.

McKintyre notified the pair of the bug; Ruedy replied and acknowledged the problem as an "oversight" that would be fixed in the next data refresh.

NASA has now silently released corrected figures, and the changes are truly astounding. The warmest year on record is now 1934. 1998 (long trumpeted by the media as record-breaking) moves to second place.  1921 takes third. In fact, 5 of the 10 warmest years on record now all occur before World War II.  Anthony Watts has put the new data in chart form, along with a more detailed summary of the events. 

The effect of the correction on global temperatures is minor (some 1-2% less warming than originally thought), but the effect on the U.S. global warming propaganda machine could be huge.

Then again -- maybe not. I strongly suspect this story will receive little to no attention from the mainstream media.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37612 here's another.

the earth goes through cycles. it has since before mankind, and it will continue to do so when mankind has destroyed itself. it's as simple as that.
unless you're a scientist or engineer needing to keep your cash cow feeding you.

[bongaroo]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37612 here's another.

An article with no sources cited from 2004 on a extremely right leaning website?  Don't be bringing that weak sauce in here.

[dentin]

Show scientific studies that have been peer reviewed and published that backs your claim dentin.

Put up or shut up as the saying goes.

Obviously you are weak in the comprehension area of reading...imho..means In My Humble Opinion. I really feel NO need to prove my opinion, however, records are available to support my "opinion"...if you're not too lazy.

One other note.."scientific studies" are meaningless due to the fact that the resulting data is very subjective/varies greatly, especially when done by "bleeding heart, tree hugging liberals" 

[bongaroo]

Obviously you are weak in the comprehension area of reading...imho..means In My Humble Opinion. I really feel NO need to prove my opinion, however, records are available to support my "opinion"...if you're not too lazy.

One other note.."scientific studies" are meaningless due to the fact that the resulting data is very subjective/varies greatly, especially when done by "bleeding heart, tree hugging liberals" 

 

"i'm too lazy to substantiate my claims!"

"they're all done by hippies anyway!"

More of the weak sauce.

[dentin]

"i'm too lazy to substantiate my claims!"

"they're all done by hippies anyway!"

More of the weak sauce.

As much as I'd like to indulge you by continuing this diatribe..I really need to return to Real Life..   

[CAP1]

An article with no sources cited from 2004 on a extremely right leaning website?  Don't be bringing that weak sauce in here.

would've done better, but i read these boards while i;m looking up repair info......while waiting for pages to load. didn't put much effort into it, as no matter what i say or post, it's not gonna convince those of you that believe otherwise.

[Niceguy]

Show undisputable, scientific studies that have been peer reviewed and published that backs your claim niceguy.

Put up or shut up as the saying goes.

You first.

The key word is undisputable. Just about anything you can quote can and has been disputed. Both sides have scientist so who is right?

[Fugita]

  I hate to burst your bubbles people, but if you take a look at your bibles you will see that all this arguing is a waste of time. This is supposed to happen. If you believe, then none of this petty stuff matters. God bless all of you and remember that we here for but a short time.