Yet more record low temps

[Yanksfan396]

Well, here's my take on global warming (some of you have heard this before).


It's really a matter of faith. It can't be definitively proven, nor disproven. Hence, we discuss it. I'm pretty sure humans have some impact on the environment, the only question is how much, and, most importantly, do we want to spend billions fixing it (if it can even be fixed). That's why this is, for the most part, divided along party lines: Conservatives generally don't like to spend in excess, and Liberals are a bit frugal with money. If we do spend money on it, we'll all be long dead before we see any effect on it, so we'll curse it to our graves. It's as big of a gamble as one can make, really.

[drtom2005]

Well, here's my take on global warming (some of you have heard this before).


It's really a matter of faith. It can't be definitively proven, nor disproven. Hence, we discuss it. I'm pretty sure humans have some impact on the environment, the only question is how much, and, most importantly, do we want to spend billions fixing it (if it can even be fixed). That's why this is, for the most part, divided along party lines: Conservatives generally don't like to spend in excess, and Liberals are a bit frugal with money. If we do spend money on it, we'll all be long dead before we see any effect on it, so we'll curse it to our graves. It's as big of a gamble as one can make, really.

I am not to sure about the spending part. There are migating technologies we could do such as cloud seeding, pumping CO2 into the ground, developing wind farms and solar farms so we place less CO2 into the air, and nuclear energy. There was even a radical idea of placing a solar radiation reflector in geocentric orbit between the Earth and the sun. We could do things to make it less, but we do not know what the effects of these emerging technolgies is currently.

[Yanksfan396]

I am not to sure about the spending part. There are migating technologies we could do such as cloud seeding, pumping CO2 into the ground, developing wind farms and solar farms so we place less CO2 into the air, and nuclear energy. There was even a radical idea of placing a solar radiation reflector in geocentric orbit between the Earth and the sun. We could do things to make it less, but we do not know what the effects of these emerging technolgies is currently.

I was a C and sometimes B student in science, so I'm a bit naive when it comes to it. Those are incredible advancements that some may not be willing to take. It's incredible to think, though, that man has possibly evolved enough to change and control weather.

[Aikman_TheGreat]

Well, here's my take on global warming (some of you have heard this before).


It's really a matter of faith. It can't be definitively proven, nor disproven. Hence, we discuss it. I'm pretty sure humans have some impact on the environment, the only question is how much, and, most importantly, do we want to spend billions fixing it (if it can even be fixed). That's why this is, for the most part, divided along party lines: Conservatives generally don't like to spend in excess, and Liberals are a bit frugal with money. If we do spend money on it, we'll all be long dead before we see any effect on it, so we'll curse it to our graves. It's as big of a gamble as one can make, really.

I agree with a lot of that. I think we need to TRY to make things better. But spending BILLIONS on things that MIGHT make it better is stupid. We all need to do are part to help things. We also need to find cleaner fuels.

[mikesilvia]

Well, here's my take on global warming (some of you have heard this before).


It's really a matter of faith. It can't be definitively proven, nor disproven. Hence, we discuss it. I'm pretty sure humans have some impact on the environment, the only question is how much, and, most importantly, do we want to spend billions fixing it (if it can even be fixed). That's why this is, for the most part, divided along party lines: Conservatives generally don't like to spend in excess, and Liberals are a bit frugal with money. If we do spend money on it, we'll all be long dead before we see any effect on it, so we'll curse it to our graves. It's as big of a gamble as one can make, really.

Very well said and an excellent summary.

The sad truth is some people are getting very rich from this (Al Gore, friends of politicians, etc). I would be fine if the billions was used to clean or protect our environment. At least then I could see real effects.

Here is an excellent article on the subject.

[OnePimpTiger]

My man, I only use those blogs so other people can understand the evidence. I am not going to bore people with the articles. OPT have you gotten me your article's information. Do you have my questions answered yet? As for Mike's evidence, I look for Piers paper and it is not around. His evidence is not good unless it is published and replicated.

My man, I gave up trying to discuss this with you a while back...you deny any science that you do not agree with and use liberal blogs to prove your point, while at the same time blasting anyone else who even mentions a non-scientific academic paper. Hard to have a logical discussion under those circumstances.

[mikesilvia]

Overall, I find it funny that one side of the argument is asking for potentially a trillion dollars and laws that will force lifestyle changes on all of us. But we are the ones that have to provide the evidence to counter their argument? Shouldn't the side asking for money and laws that will intrude on our lives be providing the evidence?

Because of the vast amount of money at risk the folks that are to make the most money based on humans causing global warming refuse to hear any data that doesn't fit their agenda. I don't blame them one bit. They are making billions of dollars brainwashing the world with simulations, models and movies. If I didn't have a soul I would do it!

Much like the Y2K scare, we will spend a trillion dollars on biased models and predictions. To prove my point there are already people spending millions on this 2012 end of the world. Unbelievable how how much humans are sheep!

[Titantron]

Overall, I find it funny that one side of the argument is asking for potentially a trillion dollars and laws that will force lifestyle changes on all of us. But we are the ones that have to provide the evidence to counter their argument? Shouldn't the side asking for money and laws that will intrude on our lives be providing the evidence?

Because of the vast amount of money at risk the folks that are to make the most money based on humans causing global warming refuse to hear any data that doesn't fit their agenda. I don't blame them one bit. They are making billions of dollars brainwashing the world with simulations, models and movies.

Much like the Y2K scare, we will spend a trillion dollars on biased models and predictions.

To prove my point there are already people spending millions on this 2012 end of the world. Unbelievable how how much humans are sheep!

Why do you hate the Earth? Your House will be underwater in 6 months. I hope you are Happy. You are so greedy and Heartless. Look at all the people who died in the Tsunami. How does that not make you sad? you should be ashamed of yourself. Any reasonable person would blindly support whatever plan our flawless government has to end this GLOBAL WARMING nightmare, regardless of the costs. Save the earth. vote democrat. All Republicans hate minorities and Trees.

[drtom2005]

My man, I gave up trying to discuss this with you a while back...you deny any science that you do not agree with and use liberal blogs to prove your point, while at the same time blasting anyone else who even mentions a non-scientific academic paper. Hard to have a logical discussion under those circumstances.

Once again you ignore my questions. As for logic, give me your evidence to overturn all of the information I have presented. By the way, I have been accused of not doing my homework OPT. When I take 30 minutes to look into something, I find good evidence that falsifies others claims. Maybe you should for once also.

My evidence standards are higher then yours. I do not beleive non-replicated information. Show me more articles on the NASA satellites please.

Once again, you attack my evidence for some vague reason that I use blogs. You do not accept my reasons. If I showed people all of the articles they would get bored. Plus, I do not think most on this board would understand them. Science should be explained in a way that all can understand.

[drtom2005]

Overall, I find it funny that one side of the argument is asking for potentially a trillion dollars and laws that will force lifestyle changes on all of us. But we are the ones that have to provide the evidence to counter their argument? Shouldn't the side asking for money and laws that will intrude on our lives be providing the evidence?

Because of the vast amount of money at risk the folks that are to make the most money based on humans causing global warming refuse to hear any data that doesn't fit their agenda. I don't blame them one bit. They are making billions of dollars brainwashing the world with simulations, models and movies. If I didn't have a soul I would do it!

Much like the Y2K scare, we will spend a trillion dollars on biased models and predictions. To prove my point there are already people spending millions on this 2012 end of the world. Unbelievable how how much humans are sheep!

I think this is a legitamate argument. I do not know for certain that spending all of the money will make a difference based on what we know currently. If you had stated this from the start, I would not have disagreed much.

Just to let you know Mike, your whole premise was that global warming was not real so why spend the money?

If you had stated, "We might not be able to stop the damage already, so why spend the money?," I could see this side of the argument. There is no proven tech to stop the reprecussion. Just clarifying so you do not think I conceded to you.