When I was a child we had winters that lasted months. I had to completely break ice from my dogs water dish every day for months so I could put water in for them to drink every morning before I went to school. Every day for months as a kid we would slide around on solid ice in ditches for fun. For the last fifteen years mudholes here barely freeze and summers get longer and winters get shorter. For the last three years I have not had to wear a jacket once. I like jackets. As I type this it is 66 degrees where I stand. I am wearing a short sleeve shirt. Twenty years ago I would be wearing thermal underwear and a winter coat.
Too long to post; go read it here: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journal...ogist-Responds
Let me start with the last part of your post:
Dismissing an article or opinion outright because it's source is biased in the opposite direction of your own beliefs is silly. Explain how the bias affected the article. Did it lead them to compromise the data they were analyzing? Did it lead them to draw poor conclusions about the data analyzed? Saying "oh, they're biased" is meaningless.
Here are some of the ways i found it to be lacking:
This is troubling on two fronts. First they are asserting that a strong consensus among the scientific community is proof that an idea or theory is true.An estimated 97 percent of climate scientists agree with these basic facts.
It is not. Science is not a matter of consensus, it is a matter of evidence and reasoning. Many scientist fail to consider mounting evidence that the global warming process has started to reverse itself.
Secondly it refers to "facts", such as:
This isn't a fact. It's a theory. There is a lot of good evidence to support this theory, but it is still just a theory. Here is one of the places the author's bias is revealed.climate change is largely caused by a global surge in greenhouse gas emissions that were introduced at beginning of the Industrial Revolution.
Here's another dubious assertion:
We certainly don't know that. Some of us suspect it is true. The earth's environment has always been cyclical. When you look at warming events in the past, you see they were corrected by natural means. It is possible that human beings have largely contributed to this latest warming event. It is also possible that human contribution has made this warming event unique to the point the earth will not correct itself without human intervention. Again however, this is not a fact, this is very debatable and the study i posted suggests that perhaps the earth is already correcting itself.While projections of how much the climate will change are clearly uncertain, we do know that the longer we wait, the worse it gets.
This article fails to mention studies done that contradict it's opinion of the future of the global warming phenomena. It fails to mention that previous predictions of global warming have been almost invariably over estimated. It fails to even consider the possibility that the conclusions it draws are incorrect, or spell out circumstances that would disprove it's model.
These are again, all signs of bias.
Now let me reveal my position on the matter. I am unsure as to the threat global warming represents. I tend to think there will be some significant climate change if human behavior doesn't change. However i also believe that the timeline given by the "scientific consensus" is vastly accelerated, and the effects exaggerated.
I think we should continue to study the issue, and prepare for worst case scenarios. I also think we should stop the pseudo-scientific fear mongering that dominates the issue.
Last edited by Axil; 11-19-2012 at 01:35 PM. Reason: grammar/clarity
I wonder if they had they linked the last storm like Sandy to global warming or cooling or alternating. It was in 1937.
The weather channel is reporting that November temps are 4 degrees below average. Last Nov the temps were 4 degrees above average.
Do the math.
Global climate change(because warming couldn't be proved) is an industry, not a conclusion.
The reality is climate change can be and will be ignored. Logically speaking, the "natural cycle" argument is always valid and cannot be definitively proven false.
One side buries their head in the sand, and the other side exaggerates. In the end, we're all losers living in a world becoming more and more polluted with no end in sight.
But, even doing his worst there he has minimal, if any effect on the climate - too many huge external factors completely out of man's control like effects caused by the sun moon winds oceans and within the earth itself.
Some frank discussion here:
Americans have made many changes and continue to do so. Could we do better? Of course, but at what cost for what benefit? Sooner or later the law of diminishing returns shows that we will not make much of an impact especially when the rest of the world is growing more and not under the constraints we are under which makes them the low hanging fruit rather than us. I find alarmists on all sides to be a joke.
<edit for link> http://www.manhattan-institute.org/e...yths/myth6.htm
In spite of the twentieth century's steep population rise, massive industrialization, and the nationwide proliferation of the modern automobile, the air we breathe is cleaner than it has been in decades.
Last edited by Trades; 11-19-2012 at 02:37 PM.
While I'm an absolute believer in global warming I also recognize while we can't ignore it I'm hopeful our government will ignore it. This idea that government imposed tyranny is going to prevent global warming is more insane then the deniers of global warming.
Wouldn't you say that environmental regulations over the past few decades have been a significant factor in bringing these air pollution numbers down?
Also, when I say "we're all losers" it's a statement about the global human population, and it isn't strictly limited to air pollution.
As to the "we're all losers" comment, I still totally disagree with the "the sky is falling or is it the seas are rising" pessimistic/alarmist viewpoint of the environment.
I think we're on the same page here. The environmental alarmists have done a huge disservice to the rational environmental conservationists who simply want a cleaner planet.As to the "we're all losers" comment, I still totally disagree with the "the sky is falling or is it the seas are rising" pessimistic/alarmist viewpoint of the environment.