I don't know if you think global warming is real or not - all I know is that the weather is too darned hot, and all indications are that this summer will be really hot.
The National Climatic Data Center's weather report shows that May was one of the hottest and driest springs in record: Link
It goes without saying that the weather we had when I was a kid was the absolutely ideal, optimum weather for the whole world. And any change would be disastrous! Change is evil!
GM supporters, where are you?
/SF2 theme music
/"Round 2... Fight!"
Sheesh, the spin machine has really done a number on the public. I wonder if the heat is also affecting brain cells, as I've recently read that an unfortunately large number of Americans don't believe in evolution as well.
"In an update to the 2006 average annual temperature for the contiguous U.S., NCDC scientists report that 2006 was the 2nd warmest year on record and nearly identical to the record set in 1998. Seven months in 2006 were much warmer than average, including December, which ended as the eighth warmest December since records began in 1895."
And:
"The top 25 warmest years on record from both data sets are shown below. Both data sets reflect the unusually warm conditions in the contiguous U.S. during both 1998 and 2006. Both data sets also show that the past nine years have all been among the 25 warmest years on record for the contiguous U.S., a streak which is unprecedented in the historical record."
These quotes are not from any armchair internet complainers, but from the US Govt. Seriously, you can sit back and continue to keep your eyes closed, or you can do the prudent thing and at least take small steps to reduce the negative impact upon our environment...
So you trust the US Govt, eh?
Mr. Sun makes the world hot.
The problem I have with the global warming theory is that the people pushing it will also tell you that the Earth is billions upon billions of years old, and that using temperature data from the last 100 or so years tells them that we've got a crisis on our hands.
We have ice cores from icebergs, like in antarctica and greenland, that date back approximately 40,000 years at the bottom (that we can get to-it goes down much farther) that can accurately tell the average temperature of the earth at that location at that time to within approximately 3 degrees. And you know what? Extrapolation works well when you have that much data. Of course we aren't the hottest we've ever been...what about when the earth was formed?
We're only talking about human impact though, and the data that we include in figuring this out DOES include 2 ice ages and several mini ice ages, along with many very hot spells and just about everything in between. While I'm not going to say definitively whether or not humans are the main cause of this increase in temperatures until we have more data and better ways to interpret it, I can say that the data is definately pointing to humans having at least some impact on it.
The causal link between global warming and human activity is far from a bygone conclusion. You may point to a general "agreement" among the scientific community, but agreement doesn't make for proven science.
Not long ago it was CFC's and the ozone, now it's carbon footprints (feetprint?) and global warming that's threatening the Earth's climate. The frenetic activities in the '80's & '90's got CFC's banned from developed countries, and suddenly the threat (of a global ice age) disappeared, even though developing countries still dump them into the atmosphere at will.
It'll be the same with the dreaded burning of fossil fuels; fanatic environmentalists will eventually have their political objectives fulfilled in the US and other developed nations, and the burning of fossil fuels will be banned. Then the threat will miraculously have disappeared, even though China and India and all of Africa will be exempt from the ban.
Face it, Meg; it's all political. You and your ilk have an agenda, and it's not the saving of the planet. And if you're intent on convincing others of your stance on a given subject, you should at least turn on spell check. Most definitely.
There is NO money in disproving global warming, but billions in saying the sky is falling. Just a small percentage of scientist preach global warming.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Io-Tb7vTamY
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/01/oil-lobby-payments/
The idea that most scientists don't agree with these studies is a total myth. Within peer reviewed journals the consensus is close to 100%. Media outlets just love to report on non-experts with more volatile opinions. If you had cancer, would you go with the advice of accepted medical literature or listen to the one guy with no credentials telling you any treatment is useless?
I think it's safe to say that if you don't accept the reality of global warming by now you are pretty dumb
(1) The Earth, or at least the surface of it, has been getting warmer in the past century.
(2) This warming trend will surely continue--at least, if human beings do nothing about it.
(3) If human beings do something about it, this warming trend can be diminished or delayed ...
(4) ... or perhaps even prevented altogether. Or perhaps even reversed.
(5) The continuation of the warming trend, on balance, would be bad ...
(6) ... very bad.
(7) The effort that human beings would have to make in order to lessen or delay or prevent the warming trend would be worth the cost ...
(8) ... so well worth the cost, in fact, that we would be crazy not to do it...
(9) ... and we must begin at once, because our opportunity to take action to lessen or delay or prevent global warming will soon be over.
I think it should be obvious that not all nine of these propositions is equally well-supported. I agree that there probably is a broad scientific consensus in support of (1). For (2), a little less. For (3), still less, and so forth. And when you get toward the bottom of the list, the questions are no longer scientific, but economic and political, and some involve pure guesswork about the kinds of technology that will (or won't) become available over the course of the coming century.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Crichton#.22Aliens_Cause_Global_Warming.22
and a good read : State of Fear.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Fear
Honnest, you read the study pages at the end of the book and you begin to have a slight doubt about GM.
Anyway, putting my A/C full spead ahead now.
Most of the arguments against global warming had been cherry picking of data. Overall, there is no scientific doubt that there is a change in the earth's weather and mean temperature, and that we're going to see more extremes in weather events (be it cooling or heating).
I was there, and I live through it. Junk Science has been around for years. Remember when they thought that cigarettes were good for you? They were looking at flawed data, just like the global warming cult does today.
It's a major crock of ship that a lot of folks are getting rich off of. How about those charlatans selling "carbon credits" (nothing more than carbon indulgences, really!) so they can ease their guilty consciences? It's a major scam.
Fortunately, the US recognized Kyoto as the fraud that it was and never signed on. I'm not quite so sure how the Red Chinese and Indians were able to bamboozle the Europeans so easily. While Europe agrees to limit its "carbon footprint", Red China is building 2,000 (yes, two THOUSAND) coal-fired power plants. If you are among those who sip the global warming Kool-Aid go complain to the Chocoms, not the U.S.
Straight talk from Sid.