
Quote from bugscoe:
I'm currently eating as much meat as I can, farting and burping as often as possible while driving my big black SUV with premium gas.
It ain't working, it's still colder than shit here, -10.
Quote from colonelangus:
you see the somewhat far-fetched but chock full o' some great special effects, (bless those gosh darned computers) movie, "the day after tomorrow"? well, this is a similar explanation for such an occurence http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0130-11.htm
beyond that, SOME scientists will tell you that global warming doesn't necessarily refer to warmer weather but more to a warming of the earth's atmospheric and oceanic temperatures which will engender unstable and bizarre weather, much like this most peculiar cold as the arctic tip of a witches nipple via global "warming" weather you are now experiencing in the states and europe.
it all MAY just be the natural ebb and flow of the earth's climate and there may not be enough RELIABLE empirical data on something that moves in decades, if not centuries though to me, the ideas behind global warming are sound enough, chemically speaking and it COULD be the cause of the next ice age we would rather not have (though i am in thailand, so cooler wouldn't be so bad as i sit, bare ass stuck to a plastic seat in my living room). but then, there are a few places here that will be under water from it so who knows
i am half blind and it may be on there but where did you get your historical chart?
So the scientists who disagree with the current hypothesis are wrong because they don't agree with the majority? Is that how it works? Do you have any idea how often science gets it wrong before eventually getting it right?Quote from Gabfly1:
Nothing quite so warms my cocoa as a quorum of ET's resident scientists denying climate change. Who could possibly compete with that kind of horsepower? Certainly not the overwhelming majority of the planet's remaining scientists.
Yes, as I recall it took a rather long time for Big Tobacco's scientists to "get it right " on the hazards of smoking. Since many of those very same scientists are now working for Big Oil, I'm confident that they will get it right again. Eventually.Quote from 4444CJones4444:
...Do you have any idea how often science gets it wrong before eventually getting it right?
Yeah, yeah, like doctors or any other expert witness, deep pockets influence the research. But it sounds like you're suggesting all scientists who have issues with the status quo are getting paid off. Surely that's not what you believe.Quote from Gabfly1:
Yes, as I recall it took a rather long time for Big Tobacco's scientists to "get it right " on the hazards of smoking. Since many of those very same scientists are now working for Big Oil, I'm confident that they will get it right again. Eventually.
http://one-blue-marble.com/blog/2009/04/21/big-tobacco-big-oil-big-coal/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/19/ethicalliving.g2
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html