Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Let's see...it is 8 degrees...just had 3 foot snow storm.

I love when those that don't get it claim there can't be global warming cause it's 8 degrees and theres 3 feet of snow on the ground. That's actually one of the things (record / increased snowfall) that indicates global warning IS taking place.

Here's a map.

http://www.climatehotmap.org/

What I don't get is why some so vehemently deny global warming. What is the benefit of denying that it is happening or accepting that it is possible?

woiyo

I can't imagine how many people in your life you have made to feel thoughtful, simply through comparison with you.

Dont get what?

The fact that the earth is changing it climate? I have a flash, this is a normal cycle.

While enviromentalisats get their "panties in a twist" when logic is thrown at them, they certainly do little to rationally offer alternatives to the "things" that cause un-natural climate change, to which their are many.

Blatham, instead of sarcastic re-torts, why not take the lead and see if you can come up with realistic alternatives to those things that are cuasing you so much distress.

How do you know it's a normal cycle? How do you know there isn't a human contribution to this cycle?

And, again, what is the benefit to you and others that deny global warming?

How do you know it's not a normal cycle? There is not exactly a preponderous amount of evidence that actually supports global warming as a man made problem.

It's called Earth Sciences.

Also, you failed to comprehend that I never denied industrialization is causing un-natural changes in climate.

The problem I have with those "screaming environmentalists" is that the problems caused by the HUNDREDS OF YEARS of industrialization can not be changed or fixed in a day.

If the screamin won't get your attention, what will?

Who said it could be fixed in a day? But, we might want to start somewhere.

::: BOOKMARKED :::

Historical trends:

http://whyfiles.org/shorties/064lake_ice/

The phrase 'global warming' needs to die; and be replaced with the far more accurate 'Climate instability.'

This keeps right-wing nutjobs from furthering the argument that we are undergoing a natural warming cycle, which is disingenuous and ignores the problems that we are causing with our heat pollution.

How much extra heat do you think is created by 6 billion people, not even counting emissions and pollution? A hell of a lot. It's important to remember that there is no baseline state for our atmosphere; that is, there's no reason why storms and droughts and such could not be much, much more severe than they are currently. By throwing a bunch heat into the system, we could very well tip our atmosphere into a much more inimical mode....

Scary stuff.

Cycloptichorn

Good idea cyclops!

I have never encountered an environmentalist or a theory issuing change that proported same day "fixes".
"Hundreds of years of industrialization" is barely plural, and the degree of ignorance regarding the state of the world, or the constant state of decline we now find ourselves in needs to be recognized by economists, industrialists and righties who claim "global warming" is a based on junk science.
I agree that the terminology needs to be changed, and perhaps simply the notion of Global Housekeeping be introduced.

McG

Remember, please, that Bush's own science council holds that global warming is real, that it's consequences are likely to be serious, and that human activity is a significant causal factor.

In fact, the preponderance of studies carried out over the last five years within the scientific communities involved support the same thesis as forwarded above. And they are getting increasingly strident in tone, for the reasons mentioned in this study.

The problem remains though that for every scientific article on global warming, there is an equally prestigious article saying it's baloney.

I did my senior thesis in college on global warming and the effects of elevated CO2 levels. It's something I've always been interested in and the data just doesn't present global warming to be the crisis it has been made out to be.

We have far greater threats in the world to worry about that dwarf global ruin in immediacy.

So far, your posts here are cliched, knee-jerk, and unthoughtful.

Your first post implies global warming is contra-indicated by evidence, and the evidence you offer is a local temporary phenomenon. That's not a good start.

Your posted quoted here heads straight for the knee-jerk "environmentalist in panties". The task force that released its findings, and which is chaired by a Republican senator and a former Blair cabinet member, don't fit your strawman and terribly silly derogation. So, that's not an impressive second post. I doubt you bothered to read the piece at all. I'm certain you haven't gone to find and read the full findings.

Your first sentence is factually wrong. Should I bother (honest question) attempting to demonstrate that this is false?

The scientific debate -- that is, the debate in the scientific journals and refereed literature -- is as different from the public debate as night is from day. While Babbitt, Gelbspan and their sympathizers were huffing and puffing about greenhouse skepticism, the scientific community was, to a large degree, embracing it.

On May 16, America's most prestigious scientific journal, Science, published an article titled "Greenhouse Forecasting Still Cloudy." Said the article, "Many climate experts caution that it is not at all clear yet that human activities have begun to warm the planet -- or how bad greenhouse warming will be when it arrives." Dr. Benjamin Santer, author of a key chapter in the latest report of the UN-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), conceded that "it's unfortunate that many people read the media hype before they read the [IPCC] chapter" on the detection of greenhouse warming. "I think the caveats are there. We say quite clearly that few scientists would say the attribution issue [the argument that global warming is caused by human industrial activity] was a done deal."

On June 2, Bert Bolin, chairman of the IPCC, conceded in a debate with environmental scientist Fred Singer of the Science & Environmental Policy Project that "the climate issue is not 'settled'; it is both uncertain and incomplete." Bolin further noted that the small amount of warming during the past century occurred mainly before 1940 and is most likely a natural recovery from previous cooling, not a manifestation of human-induced warming.

On July 19, the distinguished British journal New Scientist published a cover story titled "Greenhouse Wars: Why the Rebels Have a Cause." After a thorough review of the scientific evidence marshaled by both sides, the magazine concluded that the skeptics are "among the world's top scientists." The unmistakable if unspoken bottom line of the article is that these skeptics have the better of the scientific argument at present.

Have Babbitt and Gelbspan somehow failed to notice this genuine debate in the world of science? Of course not. As the old lawyers adage goes: When you have the facts on your side, hammer the facts; when you have the law on your side, hammer the law; when you have neither, hammer the table.

Courtesy of the Cato Institute.

McG

Aside from being seven years old now, this reference is not to an objective scientific organization, yes? Cato has as its mission...

" The Cato Institute seeks to broaden the parameters of public policy debate to allow consideration of the traditional American principles of limited government, individual liberty, free markets and peace..."

If you are willing to accept that industry-sponsored research and think tanks are less than satisfying sources for our data, I'll go to some trouble here. Willing to go that far?