Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Comanche
The problem that I have is that people say the earth is getting warmer and they cite any one of many observations. Just the other day there was a guy who wrote a column about 2007 and all the record that were set this year. But he didn't go on to recognize all the records that are still being set on the other side.
http://www.breitbart.com/artic...TR6ASG0&show_article=1
Now they are saying that the NE is setting records on snowfall which in my book doesn't fall under the heading of warming. They are also saying that the antarctic has had one of the worst blizzards in modern history
http://www.kyw1060.com/pages/1400510.php?
They tell us that MMGW is something to fear and yet the earth is not as warm as it was 700 years ago. That we are bound for uprecidented levels of sea rising and now today I discover that there has been forging in documents to that matter
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=9978
I hear arguements that we need to instill carbon credits all based on the information that we are getting from politics who want this to raise capitol. I have said this before, but I have no desire to pay a tax on something that is un proven as in the "Theory" of MMGW.
Nobody has come up with difinitive proof that this is happening. Otherwise, the theory, as I have said before woudl be a law. People cite that the "majority of Scientist" believe this is going on. At the same time I read that there are more and more Scientists coming out against it. You want me to just drop everything that I know and go along with what people are saying in the news and on the forums. Seems to me this whole issue is pretty well divided and that doesn't count as consensus to me. Consensus means that everyone agrees. I don't see that.
Now down to facts. South America Experienced one of the coldes winters in 100 years. Australia had one of the coldest years in that past 30 years. Sea levels are not rising like they say they are, how could they be if the Antartic and Greenland Ice Sheets are getting thicker. Europe has had some of the earliest ski resort openings in history.
And you want me to believe in MMGW. I don't even see GW happening. What I see is a natural cycle in the weather patterns happening. I look back in history and see that it was warmer in the 1930's than it is today. I see global cooling happening during the 50', 60's and early 70's. I also see that it has gotten warmer since the 1970's, but that doesn't mean that is going to continue.
I am hoping beyond all hope that the sunspot activity that is happen right now is going to put an end to all this debate once and for all. But that is going to have to wait for another 2 or 3 years to happen because these things don't happen over night.
It is all a cycle and will prove itself out. In the meantime, I sure hope that civilization as we know it doesn't jump the gun and start programs that in the end will turn out to be nonsence, just like giving Al Gore the Nobel Peace Prize. They should have waited, just like every other Nobel Prize in the past to make sure that what he was saying is all correct, which it isn't.
I'm sorry, but your post is just showing that you lack a basic understanding of the issue.... or the word consensus. Consensus does NOT mean that everyone agrees, just that most people do.
1.) Cold temperatures in certain places (or even in certain years) do not in any way disprove global warming. As the earth warms some places will in fact get cooler then they are now. Anyone who argues that hot temperatures somewhere is evidence of global warming is also similarly ignorant.
2.) Snowfall is a form of precipitation, the models for a warmer world predict just such increased precipitation. So actually, if anything record snowfalls in certain areas would be evidence in
supportof global warming, not against it. In short any weather report you hear, regardless of its content, is not a useful metric for this debate.
3.) That link is to claims from one scientist with a loooong history of making unfounded, deliberately controversial claims. Even if he is totally right, global warming is exactly what it says... global. There are hundreds, if not thousands of predicted effects from it. Some predictions will almost certainly be wrong. This does not mean that global warming isn't happening however.
4.) Claiming that MMGW is just a 'theory' shows that you do not have an understanding of what a scientific theory is, nor do you have an understanding of what sorts of things become laws in science. Scientific laws are almost always based on very fundamental and very specific principles. Nothing as complex as MMGW will ever be considered a law, no matter how well proven. They just don't fit in the same boxes.
5.) You read that more and more scientists are coming out against global warming because you seek out things that validate your worldview. In reality the vast, vast, VAST majority of published peer reviewed work along with the vast vast vast majority of climate scientists endorse the idea of MMGW. Sure they disagree in regards to the effects and the extent, but the actual principle is pretty well settled.
The idea that things are 'pretty well divided' is an attempt by people to say that because a handful of scientists disagree with something that somehow the debate is still raging. This is a similar position to those who try and dispute evolution. Finally, the solar variation theory has been shown (repeatedly) not to account for a large amount of the warming we have experienced in the last 40 years or so.
You have shown that you simply don't know very much about this topic. I can't really argue with you because what you are writing just isn't based on the facts or on scientific analysis. Not even global warming deniers would use the arguments you are trying to use. I'm not asking you to 'drop everything that you know', I'm telling you that this is a case of knowing too little.
There are millions of pages of global warming related material out on the internet, and so if you're truly interested in discussing this you should go read some of it. Of course the usual caveats of making sure the pages are from credible sources applies. Not only will you learn more about MMGW (and maybe change your mind), but even if you don't, your arguments against the consensus opinion will be much better and much harder to dismiss if you bring some real knowledge to the table.