How's that global warming thing coming?

[Genco_Olive_Oil]

Glaciers in Alaska grow:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/53884.html

Record cold in California wine country:

http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20081014/NEWS/810140335/-1/frontpage?Title=Frost__one_more_thing__for_grape_growers

And record cold in Oregon:

http://www.eastoregonian.info/print.asp?SectionID=13&SubSectionID=48&ArticleID=83885&TM=29612.53

I haven't done a ton of research on global warming, but I'll give a short summary of what I've read from objective scientists and heard at a couple of lectures and forums:

The biggest misconception about global warming is that it heats everything and we'll eventually have August weather in January. That's wrong. Global warming creates extreme instability and range in the weather. Essentially, it gets warmer and warmer and then it gets colder and colder. That's why the Cat. 4 hurricanes are terrible indicators of the future of global warming---these are usually rare and extreme events that are becoming increasingly common.

Proceed now with your insult or joke of choice.

 

[Lester Bangs]

Glaciers in Alaska grow:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/53884.html

Record cold in California wine country:

http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20081014/NEWS/810140335/-1/frontpage?Title=Frost__one_more_thing__for_grape_growers

And record cold in Oregon:

http://www.eastoregonian.info/print.asp?SectionID=13&SubSectionID=48&ArticleID=83885&TM=29612.53

I haven't done a ton of research on global warming, but I'll give a short summary of what I've read from objective scientists and heard at a couple of lectures and forums:

The biggest misconception about global warming is that it heats everything and we'll eventually have August weather in January. That's wrong. Global warming creates extreme instability and range in the weather. Essentially, it gets warmer and warmer and then it gets colder and colder. That's why the Cat. 4 hurricanes are terrible indicators of the future of global warming---these are usually rare and extreme events that are becoming increasingly common.

Proceed now with your insult or joke of choice.

I'll take this one.

Newb, it's charming that you are trying to engage in discussion/education on this topic and most here know you are right ... like the guy you are responding to, for instance. But that's not his point and so your best intentions are wasted, which is why most of us just snipe as opposed to engaging in actual dialogue.

You of course know that Neo-cons intentionally oversimplify everything in order to never have to actually address the real issue. It's like those guys at Pike Place Market throwing fish, only with a constant barrage of red herring.

 

[DanOregon]

I've never really understood the supposed "global warming conspiracy" theory. Is it that scientists are skewing their findings to promote alternative energy and damage big oil and big polluters and hurt the economy? Is that it?
The greens want to put millions of people out of work and spin the world into some kind of global socialist movement?

 

[writing irish]

Senator Inhofe from Oklahoma's a pretty high-profile spokesman for that school of thought. Some people disagree with mainstream climate scientists, but Inhofe it takes that much further and alleges a deliberate conspiracy.

 

[Madhavok]

 

[Overrated]

Glaciers in Alaska grow:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/53884.html

Record cold in California wine country:

http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20081014/NEWS/810140335/-1/frontpage?Title=Frost__one_more_thing__for_grape_growers

And record cold in Oregon:

http://www.eastoregonian.info/print.asp?SectionID=13&SubSectionID=48&ArticleID=83885&TM=29612.53

So, are you saying we're headed for another ice age? Thanks for the warning, dude!

 

[BYH]

Well let's see here, it's 80 degrees here in the middle of October.

And as PO notes, just because it's really cold somewhere doesn't mean the weather's not ****ed up.

It must be nice to be a simpleton of the lowest order. Hondo, you are the most unintelligent poster on this site. By a country ****ing mile. Don't you have Klan rallies to organize tonight? After all, a black Muslim is leading the polls!!!!

 

[DanOregon]

Intrigued by my own question, I did a quick spin around the web and apparently the anti-global warming thing is from the same folks worried about the Tri-Lateral Commission, flouride in the drinking water, black helicopters, non-phonics English education, and Reds. They fear a one-world government.

 

[Overrated]

Intrigued by my own question, I did a quick spin around the web and apparently the anti-global warming thing is from the same folks worried about the Tri-Lateral Commission, flouride in the drinking water, black helicopters, non-phonics English education, and Reds. They fear a one-world government.

African-American helicopters, you racist!

 

[bydesign77]

Ah, the simplistic "It's cold today in (insert town here) so there's no global warming" meme.

Or, "Oh my God, there's a Category 4 hurricane in the Gulf. There must be global warming."

Or science and facts backing up global warming.

You know, I'll probably be harangued for this, but...

In the 1800s, it was standard thinking in the scientific community that living things could spontaneously sprout. Like maggots on rotting meat. We know now that they are the larvae of flies that have laid eggs on the meat. But at the time, most of the scientific community thought that these little white things just appeared. Mainly because we had no working knowledge of things at a cellular level. And for the scientist that argued differently, they were decried and told that the evidence was there. Accept it!

I won't argue that things are different now then say at the turn of the last century. But I think it's ignorant to think that man could have that drastic an affect on nature. That we're that powerful to change the entire world's climate. And the thought that this should be accepted fact bothers me. Centuries and centuries of thought processes have been changed with new discoveries. But I don't think we have the knowledge and certainly the data to make these statements.

 

[Overrated]

Why do you hate a round earth, bydesign?

 

[bydesign77]

Round just reminds me too much of me, I guess.

 

[buckweaver]

Ah, the simplistic "It's cold today in (insert town here) so there's no global warming" meme.

Or, "Oh my God, there's a Category 4 hurricane in the Gulf. There must be global warming."

Or science and facts backing up global warming.

You know, I'll probably be harangued for this, but...

In the 1800s, it was standard thinking in the scientific community that living things could spontaneously sprout. Like maggots on rotting meat. We know now that they are the larvae of flies that have laid eggs on the meat. But at the time, most of the scientific community thought that these little white things just appeared. Mainly because we had no working knowledge of things at a cellular level. And for the scientist that argued differently, they were decried and told that the evidence was there. Accept it!

I won't argue that things are different now then say at the turn of the last century. But I think it's ignorant to think that man could have that drastic an affect on nature. That we're that powerful to change the entire world's climate. And the thought that this should be accepted fact bothers me. Centuries and centuries of thought processes have been changed with new discoveries. But I don't think we have the knowledge and certainly the data to make these statements.

Fair enough, BD. But the technological advances in the 20th century were far greater than any period in the past millenium, save for maybe the Enlightenment. It stands to reason that man's "effect on nature" might be far different now than it was in the 19th century.

 

[Overrated]

Nope. Wrong, buckdub.

Everything is fine. There's a 1938 box score involving the Tigers and Yankees that requires your attention.

 

[Overrated]

Lou Gehrig just fell off a stool and doesn't know why.

[/too soon?]

Nah, I think you're good. If you had said "Lou Gehrig just fell into his stool" on the other hand...

 

[Goldeaston]

Glaciers in Alaska grow:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/53884.html

Record cold in California wine country:

http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20081014/NEWS/810140335/-1/frontpage?Title=Frost__one_more_thing__for_grape_growers

And record cold in Oregon:

http://www.eastoregonian.info/print.asp?SectionID=13&SubSectionID=48&ArticleID=83885&TM=29612.53

I haven't done a ton of research on global warming, but I'll give a short summary of what I've read from objective scientists and heard at a couple of lectures and forums:

The biggest misconception about global warming is that it heats everything and we'll eventually have August weather in January. That's wrong. Global warming creates extreme instability and range in the weather. Essentially, it gets warmer and warmer and then it gets colder and colder. That's why the Cat. 4 hurricanes are terrible indicators of the future of global warming---these are usually rare and extreme events that are becoming increasingly common.

Proceed now with your insult or joke of choice.

I'll take this one.

Newb, it's charming that you are trying to engage in discussion/education on this topic and most here know you are right ... like the guy you are responding to, for instance. But that's not his point and so your best intentions are wasted, which is why most of us just snipe as opposed to engaging in actual dialogue.

You of course know that Neo-cons intentionally oversimplify everything in order to never have to actually address the real issue. It's like those guys at Pike Place Market throwing fish, only with a constant barrage of red herring.

I'll take it as well. The concept of "objective scientists" is a joke. People who do research do it with a particular conclusion in mind. Most studies are biased one way or another based on how data are gathered.

Global warming is still just a theory, really, because weather has not been studied over a long enough period of time. We don't really know what the climate was like on earth in 1825, or 980 AD, or 2008 BC. We do know, however, that there was an ice age in the distant past, and it wasn't caused by F-150 emissions or hairspray.

So for anyone to say "most here know you are right" at this time is ridiculous.

Proceed with obligatory flogging.

 

[outofplace]

Ah, the simplistic "It's cold today in (insert town here) so there's no global warming" meme.

Or, "Oh my God, there's a Category 4 hurricane in the Gulf. There must be global warming."

Or science and facts backing up global warming.

You know, I'll probably be harangued for this, but...

In the 1800s, it was standard thinking in the scientific community that living things could spontaneously sprout. Like maggots on rotting meat. We know now that they are the larvae of flies that have laid eggs on the meat. But at the time, most of the scientific community thought that these little white things just appeared. Mainly because we had no working knowledge of things at a cellular level. And for the scientist that argued differently, they were decried and told that the evidence was there. Accept it!

I won't argue that things are different now then say at the turn of the last century. But I think it's ignorant to think that man could have that drastic an affect on nature. That we're that powerful to change the entire world's climate. And the thought that this should be accepted fact bothers me. Centuries and centuries of thought processes have been changed with new discoveries. But I don't think we have the knowledge and certainly the data to make these statements.

Actually, it sounds like you are trying to argue that scientific evidence is every bit as unreliable as it was over 100 years ago, which is ridiculous. Just because scientists in the were wrong about some things over a century ago with vastly inferiorior methods and technology at their disposal does not mean they are wrong now.

 

[Goldeaston]

No, outofplace, it doesn't mean they are wrong. But, come on, we're talking about the weather here. It is studied endlessly by countless numbers of people and they still have no idea why it does what it does.

What I would like to know is, if it's bad now because of man, why wasn't it worse from the industrial revolution all the way through the middle of the last century, when there were no controls on anything, cars and trucks belched exhaust from far less clean fuels (yes, I know there are more cars and trucks now, but still), and factories were pumping far more evil into the air than they are now?

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

No, outofplace, it doesn't mean they are wrong. But, come on, we're talking about the weather here. It is studied endlessly by countless numbers of people and they still have no idea why it does what it does.

What I would like to know is, if it's bad now because of man, why wasn't it worse from the industrial revolution all the way through the middle of the last century, when there were no controls on anything, cars and trucks belched exhaust from far less clean fuels (yes, I know there are more cars and trucks now, but still), and factories were pumping far more evil into the air than they are now?

Among other reasons, the Industrial Revolution skipped places like China, India, South America and a hundred other places that have industrial bases now and didn't have them then.

 

[outofplace]

No, outofplace, it doesn't mean they are wrong. But, come on, we're talking about the weather here. It is studied endlessly by countless numbers of people and they still have no idea why it does what it does.

What I would like to know is, if it's bad now because of man, why wasn't it worse from the industrial revolution all the way through the middle of the last century, when there were no controls on anything, cars and trucks belched exhaust from far less clean fuels (yes, I know there are more cars and trucks now, but still), and factories were pumping far more evil into the air than they are now?

Ask a scientist.

edit: or Fenian_Bastard