If you’d bothered to look at the link, you wouldn’t need to be lead around by your silly ‘feelings’.
Actually, your link seems to confirm my “silly feelings.”
Looks to me like colibri has LIED AGAIN.
But feel free to link to this “full report” and show me how “silly” my feelings are.
You really need to just go away.
Can we please applaud just this once. Thank you for ridding us of that one.
Jim
Resolved: That Giraffe vet all candidates for public office of higher status than dogcatcher, and summarily ban all those he deems unfit to serve by reason of irredeemable fuckwittery.
All in favor?
All opposed?
The motion carries by unanimous consent.
But if they freeze , won’t the levels go down like in the ice age?
Not necessarily. Colder temperatures on land in northern Europe due to slowing of the Gulf Stream circulation most likely wouldn’t generate enough sea ice to compensate for the melting of the Arctic ice cap, glaciers, etc. Northern European waters in the area would be colder than they are now, but would still be rising higher than they are now due to ice melt and thermal expansion in other parts of the oceans.
Hear hear. I’m really wondering how that one managed to figure out how to turn on the computer.
As I understand it, the real threat of global warming WRT the sea level is not that the icecaps will melt, but that the average temperature of the world ocean will rise. Warm water displaces more volume than an equivalent mass of cool water.
Does this mean I’ll have oceanfront property? COOL! 
I wonder if anyone has started buying up land a la Lex Luthor in Superman II, anticipating the day when it’ll be beach front?
Nitpick alert! That was Superman I, not II.
:smack: :smack: :smack: :smack: :smack: :smack: :smack: You’re absolutely right.
Wow, we could actually get good shrimp in Tennessee.
But seriously. I think what interests me about all of this is the psychology of global warming denial, and that’s kind of what I was trying to get at to begin with. Why do people do it? What do they get out of it?
Well, they get to keep driving their Hummers, for one.
I tried to read all of this, but it is Lo-ong… I did make some good headway.
Has no one tied a few things together, albeit loosely?
One of the conservatives main voting blocks is the religious right. I’m sorry, but… I know a few… Jesus is coming back soon.
It leaves SOME with a rather short view of the future AND when Jesus does return he will re-create an Earth that is better, safer, happier, and… remarkably controlled.
I don’t think this is happenstance. I also don’t want to overstate my point.
It just is what it is…
imo
Well I dive a 4-stroke, 125 cc motorbike, so no quite a Hummer.
Anise, it may help to start realising that people who disagree with are not, necessarily:
a) Nuts
b) Member of a crazy religion
c) Part of conspiracy
but rather people who may seen the info and interpret it differently. Also, if the only people who can have opinions are those who can read very dry 5000-page of technical data, then in reality, no one can discuss it.
My opinion:
- I don’t deny that the earth is hotter than 150 years ago.
- It’s clear to me that humans have contributed to it.
- It’s also clear to me that previous to these 150 years the earth was in a particularly cold phase. This CAN mean that the rise be, in part, a bounce-back.
- The effect, and measuring, of solar radiation is difficult.
- The heat-island effect of cities and its effect of the measuring of temperatures is clear and may affect how we interpret temperatures.
- The “fundamentalist-apocalyptic” way in which many people present it.
- The way in which many people’s pre-conceptions of society and their political ideas seem to “attracted” to a idea that pits them, in their heads at least against big oil and powerful companies.
- The fact the temps increased more in the first 40 years of the 20th century than in the next 40 years (with even slight decrease), countering, at least partially, the idea that man-made causes drive temps up.
- The use of bad example such as Kilimanjaro, where deforestation and not higher temperatures is the main cause of the loss of the ice-cap. Comparing disasters in the same area but 100 years apart, of course more people living in the same place will cause more damage even if the cause is the same. The destruction caused by Katrina was more because of the levees that broke, water mismanagement, people living in “worse” areas" and living below sea level.
- Not taking into account that the higher number of disasters can be a statistic thing because we can now detect more for a longer time.
- The lack any real alternatives that will not cripple economies.
- The fact that there are many more urgent things that will affect more people positively (helping with malaria, AIDS, food, water) rather than 100 years down the road.
- I don’t think that consensus in science is the best answer. One scientist is enough to show what’s wrong.
- It’s become so politicised that scientist may be pressured to say things out of fear of losing grants.
…and others.
I’m not crazy, I care, I’m just not convinced; and I said before, all proposals I hear
end up screwing my country really big. Sorry if I’m not impressed.
Anomalous Wouldn’t atheists care LESS, since they don’t believe in transcendence and once they’re dead, nothing really matters; rather than guys who believe in stewardship and eternity?
See An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change by Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist.
Last time I checked, dust was the building blocks of clouds and if you’ve got sulphuric acid in your clouds, then you’ve got acid rain, which (geologically speaking) is a relatively recent phenomina.
You know, on the one hand, I’d like for this experiment to succeed. I’d like for cosmic rays (and ultimately, the sun) to be responsible for global warming. It’d be nice to know that it’s not our fault.
On the other hand, though- isn’t it kinda scary that there may be something other than our actions causing global warming? This would mean that we’re completely screwed, if it keeps increasing. There’s not a damn thing we could do about it.
Also, can you imagine the environmentalism backlash? We’ve been working on finding cleaner sources of energy, trying to curb our uses of our current, dirty sources of energy… and then we find out that we’re not the ones behind climate change. I can easily imagine a sudden swing towards profligate waste- after all, no matter what we do, we can’t affect the world, so let’s do whatever we want!
As an aside, one reason why I doubt this is actually the source of climate change is that it’s a remarkable coincidence that the sun started heating up just as we started producing lots of greenhouse gasses.