Global Warming.. Real?

[plastick]

Yeah, who knows. Perhaps the world has gotten a little closer to the sun, and that has had some effect. Perhaps there is also change in the core of the Earth.

It's interesting, though, that in life on this Earth, our global problems are subtle enough for us to live through them. It's not like something has happened all at once that kills everything off instantly.

 

[zinfamous]

It's certainly happening; jsut as it's happened in repeated cycles over the last 4.5 billion years. We're contributing, heavily; but we're not soley responsible.
Unfortunately, much less attention is being paid to what is going on with the oceans in this issue (political attention; not scientific). If regular people were made aware that the dangers are more prominent and current (such as the possibilty of the world's fish population dropping 50% within the next 30-50 years), then maybe more legitimate change would go into effect.

For all the CO2 that we worry about going into the atmosphere, 3-5x that (maybe more) is being dumped into the ocean. Simple laws of Osmosis and Diffusion should help you understand that with such high concentrations already present in the atmosphere, the CO2 in the oceans is going to take a long, long time to return to safer levels.

 

[shrumpage]

My greatest fear about global warming is people being stricken by the "do something disease," and will do things that will not actually fix the problem, or have any impact.

I realize as a layman i don't have access to all the data that climatologist do, nor do i have the expertise to interpret said data. But i do know the earth is not a static environment. Look at england - 1500 years ago use to support vineyards and be warmer, two hundred years ago winters would freeze the Thames.

Recently there was a report saying the alps are the warmest they been in 1300 years, why was it warmer then? Was that/this the normal temp and the last 1300 years just a cool blip?

This year we were suppose to brace for one of the worse hurricane seasons, turns out it was one of the calmest in a decade. When a prediction that is less then a year way, flops, it makes me doubt our understanding and are ability to make long term predictions.

 

[fskimospy]

Guys, a few common sense points here. First, lots of factors go into making hurricanes. Since warm water tends to increase the strength of storms and hurricanes, with warmer oceans you will tend to get more/more powerful storms. This is common sense.

Secondly, we are not fumbling around in the dark on global warming. Billions of dollars have been spent on research of this issue over the course of decades. The overwhelming consensus is that mankind is contributing to climate variations that if left unchecked could cause damage on an incalcuable scale. Could they be wrong? Sure... as someone said before, the Earth's climate is amazingly complex. Is there enough information that points to a situation where we should take immediate action? Considering the consequences, dear lord yes.

 

[piasabird]

I think there may be some forces that could be causing global warming. However, this could just be a trend or a cycle that the earth goes through every 10, 100, 1,000, or 100,000 years. We do not have enough imperical evidence to come to any kind of a conclusion.

It is possible that man is to blame.

It is possible that the earth's core just heats up and cools off.

It is possible that this is a cycle of the ocean's temperatures.

It is possible that less pollution can cause the earth to be warmer.

It is possible that volcanic activity causes cycles of warmth and heat.

It is possible that it is a cycle on a galctic scale that we do not understand.

It is possible that the earth gets warmer due to the solar activity like solar flares.

It is possible that we are due for an Ice Age when the next big meteor hits.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: piasabird
I think there may be some forces that could be causing global warming. However, this could just be a trend or a cycle that the earth goes through every 10, 100, 1,000, or 100,000 years. We do not have enough imperical evidence to come to any kind of a conclusion. We have plenty of Evidence. This kind of change is unprecedented without some cataclysmic occuring. Certainly is not a 10, 100, 1000 year Cycle. Greenhouse Gasses are Proven and are Increasing in Concentration beyond levels Earth has had until way before Man ever existed. We know how much Greenhouse Gasses we are putting into the Atmosphere, we know these Volumes of Gasses are significant enough to cause the Increased Concentrations measured. We are the Cause.

It is possible that man is to blame. Is to blame to a large extent

It is possible that the earth's core just heats up and cools off. Doubt it would make any difference up top...aka it's freakin super hot down there already

It is possible that this is a cycle of the ocean's temperatures. huh?

It is possible that less pollution can cause the earth to be warmer. ??

It is possible that volcanic activity causes cycles of warmth and heat. Volcanoes definitely do cause Climate variations, in fact there's much Data proving it. However, you need exceptional Volcanic activity to cause constant change

It is possible that it is a cycle on a galctic scale that we do not understand. bizzarre

It is possible that the earth gets warmer due to the solar activity like solar flares. Maybe

It is possible that we are due for an Ice Age when the next big meteor hits.

undoubtedly

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: shrumpage
My greatest fear about global warming is people being stricken by the "do something disease," and will do things that will not actually fix the problem, or have any impact.

I realize as a layman i don't have access to all the data that climatologist do, nor do i have the expertise to interpret said data. But i do know the earth is not a static environment. Look at england - 1500 years ago use to support vineyards and be warmer, two hundred years ago winters would freeze the Thames.

Recently there was a report saying the alps are the warmest they been in 1300 years, why was it warmer then? Was that/this the normal temp and the last 1300 years just a cool blip?

This year we were suppose to brace for one of the worse hurricane seasons, turns out it was one of the calmest in a decade. When a prediction that is less then a year way, flops, it makes me doubt our understanding and are ability to make long term predictions.

I totally positively absolutely agree with the bolded. IMO a lot of the global warming hysteria is comparable to the "Smokey the Bear, only you can prevent forest fires" propaganda of the west not long ago. Little did we realize then that forest fires are not only natural, but required for the health of the forests. Today, our forests out west here are overgrown unhealthy tinderboxes, a terrible sight to see. And because we thought we knew what we were doing when we really didn't.

 

[fskimospy]

I don't get this. There are plenty of other subjects about which we have far less information and research about that people accept without complaint. What degree of proof do you require in order to do something?!? Keep in mind that if global warming proponents are right, time is running out. (or may have already run out). Can you provide examples of what sorts of experimental results would be necessary to convince you? If so, can these be accomplished?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I don't get this. There are plenty of other subjects about which we have far less information and research about that people accept without complaint. What degree of proof do you require in order to do something?!? Keep in mind that if global warming proponents are right, time is running out. (or may have already run out). Can you provide examples of what sorts of experimental results would be necessary to convince you? If so, can these be accomplished?

People bursting into flames in the streets! Not that it would ever happen and I wouldn't be surprised if even that wouldn't convince some.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I don't get this. There are plenty of other subjects about which we have far less information and research about that people accept without complaint. What degree of proof do you require in order to do something?!? Keep in mind that if global warming proponents are right, time is running out. (or may have already run out). Can you provide examples of what sorts of experimental results would be necessary to convince you? If so, can these be accomplished?

You misunderstand. I won't speak for others, but I am not disputing anything. What I am saying is that knowledge of the existence of the danger does not necessarily instruct us to what would be the best course of action. Meaning, ok global warming... now what are we supposed to do about it? I have no doubt that many might think that's an easy question with an easy answer, but it is not by any means (and IMO ridiculous to think so).

IMO the so-called "proponents" of global warming irreparably damage their own cause by making it something about extremist viewpoints and chicken little-ism. This is an issue that requires compromise and intelligent discussion in order to choose and then follow the best course of action, and they eliminate that possibility.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I don't get this. There are plenty of other subjects about which we have far less information and research about that people accept without complaint. What degree of proof do you require in order to do something?!? Keep in mind that if global warming proponents are right, time is running out. (or may have already run out). Can you provide examples of what sorts of experimental results would be necessary to convince you? If so, can these be accomplished?

You misunderstand. I won't speak for others, but I am not disputing anything. What I am saying is that knowledge of the existence of the danger does not necessarily instruct us to what would be the best course of action. Meaning, ok global warming... now what are we supposed to do about it? I have no doubt that many might think that's an easy question with an easy answer, but it is not by any means (and IMO ridiculous to think so).

IMO the so-called "proponents" of global warming irreparably damage their own cause by making it something about extremist viewpoints and chicken little-ism. This is an issue that requires compromise and intelligent discussion in order to choose and then follow the best course of action, and they eliminate that possibility.

To start with, quit denying it's an Issue and do something about it. The Causes are aleady known, the solution is to Decrease those Causes. The Amount of Decrease is also known, that's all that is needed to begin doing something.

 

[sandyman]

Whats really amazing is this poll vs the stance the bush admin and many of political figures take (also Fox news).
Almost 80% of people here believe it to be an issue while our politicians some how do not reflect that belief at all. Regardless of the truth of the matter I think it is important to see that.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I don't get this. There are plenty of other subjects about which we have far less information and research about that people accept without complaint. What degree of proof do you require in order to do something?!? Keep in mind that if global warming proponents are right, time is running out. (or may have already run out). Can you provide examples of what sorts of experimental results would be necessary to convince you? If so, can these be accomplished?

You misunderstand. I won't speak for others, but I am not disputing anything. What I am saying is that knowledge of the existence of the danger does not necessarily instruct us to what would be the best course of action. Meaning, ok global warming... now what are we supposed to do about it? I have no doubt that many might think that's an easy question with an easy answer, but it is not by any means (and IMO ridiculous to think so).

IMO the so-called "proponents" of global warming irreparably damage their own cause by making it something about extremist viewpoints and chicken little-ism. This is an issue that requires compromise and intelligent discussion in order to choose and then follow the best course of action, and they eliminate that possibility.

To start with, quit denying it's an Issue and do something about it. The Causes are aleady known, the solution is to Decrease those Causes. The Amount of Decrease is also known, that's all that is needed to begin doing something.

The reason for your vagueness and simplemindedness is because you don't actually know what to do besides saying we have to do something. This is exactly what I was talking about.
The causes are not known quite as much as you think they are (or wish to have us believe they are), plus how exactly do we decrease those causes without causing irrepairable harm to society and people? In other words, at what cost? If your answer to this is, "at any cost," then you're irrational and no longer worth listening to. The next thing we have to confront is what will be the unintended consequences of taking action? For example, a possible major contributor to global warming in recent years is believed to be those exact same steps we took to combat particulate pollution in recent decades past.

So let's be clear. No one is denying any issue or its potentially severity. What is being denied is the kneejerking OMG we've got to do something NOW or we will all DIE mentality. Okay?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I don't get this. There are plenty of other subjects about which we have far less information and research about that people accept without complaint. What degree of proof do you require in order to do something?!? Keep in mind that if global warming proponents are right, time is running out. (or may have already run out). Can you provide examples of what sorts of experimental results would be necessary to convince you? If so, can these be accomplished?

You misunderstand. I won't speak for others, but I am not disputing anything. What I am saying is that knowledge of the existence of the danger does not necessarily instruct us to what would be the best course of action. Meaning, ok global warming... now what are we supposed to do about it? I have no doubt that many might think that's an easy question with an easy answer, but it is not by any means (and IMO ridiculous to think so).

IMO the so-called "proponents" of global warming irreparably damage their own cause by making it something about extremist viewpoints and chicken little-ism. This is an issue that requires compromise and intelligent discussion in order to choose and then follow the best course of action, and they eliminate that possibility.

To start with, quit denying it's an Issue and do something about it. The Causes are aleady known, the solution is to Decrease those Causes. The Amount of Decrease is also known, that's all that is needed to begin doing something.

The reason for your vagueness and simplemindedness is because you don't actually know what to do besides saying we have to do something. This is exactly what I was talking about.
The causes are not known quite as much as you think they are (or wish to have us believe they are), plus how exactly do we decrease those causes without causing irrepairable harm to society and people? In other words, at what cost? If your answer to this is, "at any cost," then you're irrational and no longer worth listening to. The next thing we have to confront is what will be the unintended consequences of taking action? For example, a possible major contributor to global warming in recent years is believed to be those exact same steps we took to combat particulate pollution in recent decades past.

So let's be clear. No one is denying any issue or its potentially severity. What is being denied is the kneejerking OMG we've got to do something NOW or we will all DIE mentality. Okay?

You have just slipped into Denial Mode. Just a Passive-Agressive Do-Nothing arguement.

You want a list for you to do, fine:

1) quit using Incadescent light bulbs.
2) Buy a more Fuel Efficient Vehicle(s)
3) Use Transit
4) Turn off Electrical devices when not in use
5) Buy Fuel Efficient Appliances
6) Heat less in Winter, Cool less in Summer

There's a start you can begin Today.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I don't get this. There are plenty of other subjects about which we have far less information and research about that people accept without complaint. What degree of proof do you require in order to do something?!? Keep in mind that if global warming proponents are right, time is running out. (or may have already run out). Can you provide examples of what sorts of experimental results would be necessary to convince you? If so, can these be accomplished?

You misunderstand. I won't speak for others, but I am not disputing anything. What I am saying is that knowledge of the existence of the danger does not necessarily instruct us to what would be the best course of action. Meaning, ok global warming... now what are we supposed to do about it? I have no doubt that many might think that's an easy question with an easy answer, but it is not by any means (and IMO ridiculous to think so).

IMO the so-called "proponents" of global warming irreparably damage their own cause by making it something about extremist viewpoints and chicken little-ism. This is an issue that requires compromise and intelligent discussion in order to choose and then follow the best course of action, and they eliminate that possibility.

To start with, quit denying it's an Issue and do something about it. The Causes are aleady known, the solution is to Decrease those Causes. The Amount of Decrease is also known, that's all that is needed to begin doing something.

The reason for your vagueness and simplemindedness is because you don't actually know what to do besides saying we have to do something. This is exactly what I was talking about.
The causes are not known quite as much as you think they are (or wish to have us believe they are), plus how exactly do we decrease those causes without causing irrepairable harm to society and people? In other words, at what cost? If your answer to this is, "at any cost," then you're irrational and no longer worth listening to. The next thing we have to confront is what will be the unintended consequences of taking action? For example, a possible major contributor to global warming in recent years is believed to be those exact same steps we took to combat particulate pollution in recent decades past.

So let's be clear. No one is denying any issue or its potentially severity. What is being denied is the kneejerking OMG we've got to do something NOW or we will all DIE mentality. Okay?

You have just slipped into Denial Mode. Just a Passive-Agressive Do-Nothing arguement.

You want a list for you to do, fine:

1) quit using Incadescent light bulbs.
2) Buy a more Fuel Efficient Vehicle(s)
3) Use Transit
4) Turn off Electrical devices when not in use
5) Buy Fuel Efficient Appliances
6) Heat less in Winter, Cool less in Summer

There's a start you can begin Today.

I grew up in the energy crisis 70s, the son of a Sierra Club member. Doing all those things is practically ingrained in my brain.

I think the denial is yours, as you entirely missed my point.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I don't get this. There are plenty of other subjects about which we have far less information and research about that people accept without complaint. What degree of proof do you require in order to do something?!? Keep in mind that if global warming proponents are right, time is running out. (or may have already run out). Can you provide examples of what sorts of experimental results would be necessary to convince you? If so, can these be accomplished?

You misunderstand. I won't speak for others, but I am not disputing anything. What I am saying is that knowledge of the existence of the danger does not necessarily instruct us to what would be the best course of action. Meaning, ok global warming... now what are we supposed to do about it? I have no doubt that many might think that's an easy question with an easy answer, but it is not by any means (and IMO ridiculous to think so).

IMO the so-called "proponents" of global warming irreparably damage their own cause by making it something about extremist viewpoints and chicken little-ism. This is an issue that requires compromise and intelligent discussion in order to choose and then follow the best course of action, and they eliminate that possibility.

To start with, quit denying it's an Issue and do something about it. The Causes are aleady known, the solution is to Decrease those Causes. The Amount of Decrease is also known, that's all that is needed to begin doing something.

The reason for your vagueness and simplemindedness is because you don't actually know what to do besides saying we have to do something. This is exactly what I was talking about.
The causes are not known quite as much as you think they are (or wish to have us believe they are), plus how exactly do we decrease those causes without causing irrepairable harm to society and people? In other words, at what cost? If your answer to this is, "at any cost," then you're irrational and no longer worth listening to. The next thing we have to confront is what will be the unintended consequences of taking action? For example, a possible major contributor to global warming in recent years is believed to be those exact same steps we took to combat particulate pollution in recent decades past.

So let's be clear. No one is denying any issue or its potentially severity. What is being denied is the kneejerking OMG we've got to do something NOW or we will all DIE mentality. Okay?

You have just slipped into Denial Mode. Just a Passive-Agressive Do-Nothing arguement.

You want a list for you to do, fine:

1) quit using Incadescent light bulbs.
2) Buy a more Fuel Efficient Vehicle(s)
3) Use Transit
4) Turn off Electrical devices when not in use
5) Buy Fuel Efficient Appliances
6) Heat less in Winter, Cool less in Summer

There's a start you can begin Today.

I grew up in the energy crisis 70s, the son of a Sierra Club member. Doing all those things is practically ingrained in my brain.

I think the denial is yours, as you entirely missed my point.

sigh, I missed no point. I merely gave you what you asked for and none of them will throw the Economic World into chaos.

IOW, yes we must act Now and we might die, not all of us, but potentially some of us. Inaction Will cost us Big $$, there's no way around that, in fact even Action is going to cost us plenty, but not for the Action, but for the Inaction(albeit mostly from Ignorance) up to this point.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I don't get this. There are plenty of other subjects about which we have far less information and research about that people accept without complaint. What degree of proof do you require in order to do something?!? Keep in mind that if global warming proponents are right, time is running out. (or may have already run out). Can you provide examples of what sorts of experimental results would be necessary to convince you? If so, can these be accomplished?

You misunderstand. I won't speak for others, but I am not disputing anything. What I am saying is that knowledge of the existence of the danger does not necessarily instruct us to what would be the best course of action. Meaning, ok global warming... now what are we supposed to do about it? I have no doubt that many might think that's an easy question with an easy answer, but it is not by any means (and IMO ridiculous to think so).

IMO the so-called "proponents" of global warming irreparably damage their own cause by making it something about extremist viewpoints and chicken little-ism. This is an issue that requires compromise and intelligent discussion in order to choose and then follow the best course of action, and they eliminate that possibility.

To start with, quit denying it's an Issue and do something about it. The Causes are aleady known, the solution is to Decrease those Causes. The Amount of Decrease is also known, that's all that is needed to begin doing something.

The reason for your vagueness and simplemindedness is because you don't actually know what to do besides saying we have to do something. This is exactly what I was talking about.
The causes are not known quite as much as you think they are (or wish to have us believe they are), plus how exactly do we decrease those causes without causing irrepairable harm to society and people? In other words, at what cost? If your answer to this is, "at any cost," then you're irrational and no longer worth listening to. The next thing we have to confront is what will be the unintended consequences of taking action? For example, a possible major contributor to global warming in recent years is believed to be those exact same steps we took to combat particulate pollution in recent decades past.

So let's be clear. No one is denying any issue or its potentially severity. What is being denied is the kneejerking OMG we've got to do something NOW or we will all DIE mentality. Okay?

You have just slipped into Denial Mode. Just a Passive-Agressive Do-Nothing arguement.

You want a list for you to do, fine:

1) quit using Incadescent light bulbs.
2) Buy a more Fuel Efficient Vehicle(s)
3) Use Transit
4) Turn off Electrical devices when not in use
5) Buy Fuel Efficient Appliances
6) Heat less in Winter, Cool less in Summer

There's a start you can begin Today.

I grew up in the energy crisis 70s, the son of a Sierra Club member. Doing all those things is practically ingrained in my brain.

I think the denial is yours, as you entirely missed my point.

Strange...I actually agree with Vic. However, I don't think we should spend the majority of our time debating the proper course. Yes, some of the solutions may end up contributing to the problem but, well, that's just how science at this scale works. You can run computer models all you want, and theorize endlessly, but nothing will ever truly be known until we set about implementing our best-case solutions.

Of course, the best-case solution is to erradicate the need for oil. Technologically, we would have been at ~30% of todays use almost 10 years ago if the industry wasn't so centralized. Far too much interest, and money coming from the oil industry for any administration to ever be willing to do anything about it. First step: kick those fvckers out of our government. Then we focus R&D on hydrogen fuel cells...or whatever may be more feesible.

Photovoltaics are going through an impressive renaissance right now. It would be interesting to see if the new steps taken to increase efficiency and the dollar/wattage (volt?) can be brought to more reasonable numbers.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Why cant it just be said that the earth's average temps, weather patterns and such are cyclical, and we are entering a warm phase? We need to learn from history, and history shows this isnt the first time this has occured.

This statement is totally false. History shows us that this warming trend is not following previous cycles. Take a look at this graph. Our present CO2 level is much higher than it has ever been in the past 650,000 years. Also note that temperatures correspond very closely with CO2 levels.

Interesting graph...but it appears that temperature rise routinely occurs BEFORE CO2 levels increase. I thought high CO2 levels was supposed to CAUSE high temperature levels. What gives?

 

[Enig101]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Why cant it just be said that the earth's average temps, weather patterns and such are cyclical, and we are entering a warm phase? We need to learn from history, and history shows this isnt the first time this has occured.

This statement is totally false. History shows us that this warming trend is not following previous cycles. Take a look at this graph. Our present CO2 level is much higher than it has ever been in the past 650,000 years. Also note that temperatures correspond very closely with CO2 levels.

Interesting graph...but it appears that temperature rise routinely occurs BEFORE CO2 levels increase. I thought high CO2 levels was supposed to CAUSE high temperature levels. What gives?

Doesn't look like it to me. They seem to correlate directly. Maybe you're reading the graph wrong.

I think a very important point is to note the current level of CO2 compared to the past.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: Enig101

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Why cant it just be said that the earth's average temps, weather patterns and such are cyclical, and we are entering a warm phase? We need to learn from history, and history shows this isnt the first time this has occured.

This statement is totally false. History shows us that this warming trend is not following previous cycles. Take a look at this graph. Our present CO2 level is much higher than it has ever been in the past 650,000 years. Also note that temperatures correspond very closely with CO2 levels.

Interesting graph...but it appears that temperature rise routinely occurs BEFORE CO2 levels increase. I thought high CO2 levels was supposed to CAUSE high temperature levels. What gives?

Doesn't look like it to me. They seem to correlate directly. Maybe you're reading the graph wrong.

I think a very important point is to note the current level of CO2 compared to the past.

They obviously correlate. But look closely...temperature rise routinely occurs BEFORE CO2 levels increase and temperature decrease routinely occurs BEFORE CO2 level decrease. Does anyone have an explanation for this?

 

[jrenz]

An interesting aspect to consider in this matter is often overlooked. Solar activity has a *much* greater impact on climate than Earthly variables.

For example:

the variation in the sun's energy output has far more impact on our climate than the tiny increases of various chemicals. Eg. doubling the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere has the effect (on our climate) as increasing the solar irradiance by 0.1% more or less

In a recent paper in Geophysical Research Letters, Scafetta & West (S&W) estimate that as much as 25-35% of the global warming in the 1980-2000 period can be attributed changes in the solar output.

Just something to consider, rather than taking one theory and touting it as the ultimate truth.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: jrenz
An interesting aspect to consider in this matter is often overlooked. Solar activity has a *much* greater impact on climate than Earthly variables.

For example:

the variation in the sun's energy output has far more impact on our climate than the tiny increases of various chemicals. Eg. doubling the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere has the effect (on our climate) as increasing the solar irradiance by 0.1% more or less

In a recent paper in Geophysical Research Letters, Scafetta & West (S&W) estimate that as much as 25-35% of the global warming in the 1980-2000 period can be attributed changes in the solar output.

Just something to consider, rather than taking one theory and touting it as the ultimate truth.

You think something like the sun, which is millions of miles away can have ANY effect on our temperature? You must be joking!

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Scientists were predicting the onset of an Ice Age in the 70's. Then they witnessed global warming and predicted apoclyptic effects. Now they're predicting another Ice Age (Mini Ice Age May Be Coming Soon, Sea Study Warns Hmmmmm.

Me thinks that scientists are like adolescents who think they know everything, but in reality know so very little about WHY things happen they way they do. Although scienctific knowledge has exploded over the last several decades, 'Science' is truly in its infancy and people need to understand that it isn't infallible. Observations are one thing...and theories are another. Theories and fact are two different things...even theories where there is some degree of scientific concensus...and especially theories that are politically charged. Caveat Emptor.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Scientists were predicting the onset of an Ice Age in the 70's. Then they witnessed global warming and predicted apoclyptic effects. Now they're predicting another Ice Age (Mini Ice Age May Be Coming Soon, Sea Study Warns Hmmmmm.

Me thinks that scientists are like adolescents who think they know everything, but in reality know so very little about WHY things happen they way they do. Although scienctific knowledge has exploded over the last several decades, 'Science' is truly in its infancy and people need to understand that it isn't infallible. Observations are one thing...and theories are another. Theories and fact are two different things...even theories where there is some degree of scientific concensus...and especially theories that are politically charged. Caveat Emptor.

And a big super volcano can come and screw the whole thing up.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Scientists were predicting the onset of an Ice Age in the 70's. Then they witnessed global warming and predicted apoclyptic effects. Now they're predicting another Ice Age (Mini Ice Age May Be Coming Soon, Sea Study Warns Hmmmmm.

By "they're" I assume you mean a very small minority.

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Me thinks that scientists are like adolescents who think they know everything, but in reality know so very little about WHY things happen they way they do.

You clearly know very little about science.