Is it getting Hot?
Vulchor
Everyone, Registered Users Posts: 4,176
There will be a time, I believe with all my heart and soul, that generations in the future (if humanity is around that long) will look at the nay-sayers of this generation the same way we think of people who argued to the death that the earth was flat.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/08/world/world-climate-change/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/08/world/world-climate-change/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
Comments
2006 was the sixth hottest year since 1850. The five hottest years in the last 150 years are in descending order: 2005, 1998, 2002, 2003, and 2004.
Over the past 30 years, the Earth has warmed by 0.6° C or 1.08° F. Over the past 100 years, it has warmed by 0.8° C or 1.44° F.
Current warmth seems to be occurring nearly everywhere at the same time and is largest at high latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere. Over the last 50 years, the largest annual and seasonal warmings have occurred in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Peninsula. Most ocean areas have warmed. Because these areas are remote and far away from major cities, it is clear to climatologists that the warming is not due to the influence of pollution from urban areas.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'll go back to enjoying the purr of my V8, 300 HP beauty. Maybe tonight I'll take a few cans of hair spray and just empty them into the air; it's been pretty cold here in FL the past week or two and I could use some warmer weather
There are enormous holes in the global warming/climate change story and a skeptically minded individual should not yet believe those theories to be correct. If you believe in global warming, you're essentially playing a bragging rights lottery right now--and hey, you might win--but you're still getting the wrong odds on your bet.
The NASA scientists DID NOT say that "it's not likely pollution (humans) as a cause". You draw a completely different conclusion by twisting, or ignoring, what was said.
If you currently believe something in spite of conclusive evidence (the really inconvenient truth is that this is the case for man-produced, carbon-caused climate change), you are wrong, even if later on it turns out that your beliefs were true.
You wanna increase your AC temp, bike to work, or put on an extra sweater in the wintertime? Go ahead, it's your house, do what you want. But keep your hands out of my pockets and stop using my tax dollars to pay for jokes like Solyndra or A123.
But of course, that sort of thing isn't enough for the environmentalists, always clamoring for more subsidies, more grants, more Gov't handouts. Half a billion dollars here, a couple hundred million there; what's a few more billion among campaign bundlers, eh?
Now excuse me while I go crank up my heater. Global warming is supposed to take effect one of these decades, but the weather in the North and South US never got the memo.
Follow the money. There are a lot of very powerful corporations that do not want to spend money as you suggest, and they are mostly behind the opposition to the scientific evidence behnd climate change.
You're right about NASA, to a T. One of the first things they ever taught me in college when I was studying the sciences with an eye on post-grad school, was to inflate the effects of your research to the maximum believable level; "stretch it to the brink, and then pull it back just a hair" was what they told us. The more dire consequences meant more funding from the very small pool of Fed and private grants and a very large number of other researches trying to get funding. The high priests of NASA know this just like any researcher does, you make more by preaching the gospel of doom and gloom; there's no money to be made in preaching a 2 degree celsius rise over 100 years.
lol, this is just too cute. I forgot there used to be ritual lashings of the unclean. Those evil corps don't want their money frittered away on campaign donors like Solyndra, so they must be punished for their opposition to the new religion. Follow the money - if the peons won't willingly part with their change, it will be taken
If you actually followed the money, you'd see the hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars being pumped into these "green" energy companies, or you'd take a long hard look at Al Gore - his sale of Current was only the latest sell-out; he's made millions being on the boards of green companies and steering Gov't patronage their way.
But of course, let's pile on those evil oil companies, nevermind the man behind the curtain steering your taxpayer dollars to political campaign bundlers and donors
I like your point Sleeve alot. Not to mention the money that can be made in these new "greener" energies and business. Again, if we break it down here all the global warming/green movement is trying to say is less polution, more reuse of things, more recycling.....all seem pretty damn good to me in a world approaching 7 billion homosapiens.
And most of the agriculturally productive areas of the US are experiencing long-term (greater than 6 months) drought conditions. http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/
(Wise) farmers are changing their crop rotations, planting methods, etc. to reduce soil loss, but not all farmers are doing it....
It hasn't become that bad, yet .... but just wait a few years and see what happens if these unpredictable weather patterns continue, and if farmers continue to use the same planting methods ---- the rich top soil will be lost and the great plains and midwest will look like it did during the dust bowl in the 30s......
I really hope I'm wrong .... and someone can bump this post in 5 years and point and laugh at me.....
Half a billion dollars to Solyndra? $250 million to A123 shortly before it was sold to the Chinese? Should I go into the fact that most of the recipients of the new "green" grants are almost all huge political campaign donors? Do I even need to mention Climategate and the data fudging?
But hey - ignore all that. It feels better to pat yourself on the back for sending in that check or toting around one of those reusable grocery bags (never mind how much oil and petrochemicals it took to produce), or driving that Prius (just ignore those huge batteries and what it takes to produce them), or keep believing in ethanol (despite the evidence that it produces more pollution and consumes more resources to produce than gasoline), or, in the case of eco-terrorists, just burn those SUV's because it feels like the right thing to do (nevermind the fact that burning them produces more pollution than the SUV would've ever produced over its entire life span).
Evidence doesn't matter - just so long as you follow the tenets and dogma of the new religion, you too can pat yourself on the back and feel morally superior to all those peons and flat-earthers who "just don't get it" If that's all the environmentalists were saying, no one would really care or pay much attention. But it's not; when you've got the Gov't subsidizing, and handing out as much taxpayer money as they can to every project that calls itself "green", you've gone beyond just recycling and reusing, you've started to dip your hands into my pocket, which I don't much appreciate. Oh, you do me far too little credit. I drive a Porsche
Sure some will say that ... oh these scientists are just trying to push their agenda and what not but really? Why? I mean what are they getting out of it? In terms of money, the ones pushing against all these "green" energies are the ones who make the money off of the bad types of fuel. So tell me again who is more likely to have the best interests of us at heart? If people would actually stop listening to the one's who pump all the money into the system and benefit from continued usage of these toxic fuels and listen to actual scientists who don't have an interest other than making our planet better we would be much better off.
And if that is not good enough look at it this way. Whether it be coal, natural gas, or even nuclear it is all heavily subsidized from the govt, our taxes. And a lot of the times the govt has to "insure" them as insurance companies won't Take nuclear, the govt (our taxes) take all the risk on them and not to mention our lives, but the private companies get all the rewards and also don't even make them safe. So I don't know about anyone else but I would rather have energy that doesn't pollute, is safe, doesn't run out, and in the long run cheaper than what we have.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/terraforming2.htm