Enjoy an Ads-Free Jets Insider - Become a Jets Insider VIP!
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 30

Thread: if Global Warming is junk science

  1. #1
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][b]Global warming may be bad news for future generations, but let's face it, most of us spend as little time worrying about it as we did about al Qaeda before 9/11. Like the terrorists, though, the seemingly remote climate risk may hit home sooner and harder than we ever imagined. [b]In fact, the prospect has become so real that the Pentagon's strategic planners are grappling with it.[/b]

    [b]The threat that has riveted their attention is this: Global warming, rather than causing gradual, centuries-spanning change, may be pushing the climate to a tipping point. Growing evidence suggests the ocean-atmosphere system that controls the world's climate can lurch from one state to another in less than a decade—like a canoe that's gradually tilted until suddenly it flips over.[/b] Scientists don't know how close the system is to a critical threshold. But abrupt climate change may well occur in the not-too-distant future. If it does, the need to rapidly adapt may overwhelm many societies—thereby upsetting the geopolitical balance of power.

    [b]Though triggered by warming, such change would probably cause cooling in the Northern Hemisphere, leading to longer, harsher winters in much of the U.S. and Europe. Worse, it would cause massive droughts, turning farmland to dust bowls and forests to ashes.[/b] Picture last fall's California wildfires as a regular thing. Or imagine similar disasters destabilizing nuclear powers such as Pakistan or Russia—it's easy to see why the Pentagon has become interested in abrupt climate change.

    [b]-Fortune Magazine, David Schepp[/b]
    [/b][/quote]

    [url=http://www.fortune.com/fortune/technology/articles/0,15114,582584,00.html?=yes]http://www.fortune.com/fortune/technology/...84,00.html?=yes[/url]

    if Global Warming is junk science then why does the Pentegon care?

  2. #2
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    even more riviting is the forecast of what Could happen

    as derived by DoD guru Andrew Marshall - the 80 something "yoda" who came up with strategic missile defense.

    [quote][b]At first the changes are easily mistaken for normal weather variation—allowing skeptics to dismiss them as a "blip" of little importance and leaving policymakers and the public paralyzed with uncertainty. But by 2020 there is little doubt that something drastic is happening. The average temperature has fallen by up to five degrees Fahrenheit in some regions of North America and Asia and up to six degrees in parts of Europe. (By comparison, the average temperature over the North Atlantic during the last ice age was ten to 15 degrees lower than it is today.) Massive droughts have begun in key agricultural regions. The average annual rainfall has dropped by nearly 30% in northern Europe, and its climate has become more like Siberia's.

    Violent storms are increasingly common as the conveyor becomes wobbly on its way to collapse. A particularly severe storm causes the ocean to break through levees in the Netherlands, making coastal cities such as the Hague unlivable. In California the delta island levees in the Sacramento River area are breached, disrupting the aqueduct system transporting water from north to south.

    Megadroughts afflict the U.S., especially in the southern states, along with winds that are 15% stronger on average than they are now, causing widespread dust storms and soil loss. [b]The U.S. is better positioned to cope than most nations, however, thanks to its diverse growing climates, wealth, technology, and abundant resources. That has a downside, though: It magnifies the haves-vs.-have-nots gap and fosters bellicose finger-pointing at America.[/b]

    Turning inward, the U.S. effectively seeks to build a fortress around itself to preserve resources. Borders are strengthened to hold back starving immigrants from Mexico, South America, and the Caribbean islands—waves of boat people pose especially grim problems. Tension between the U.S. and Mexico rises as the U.S. reneges on a 1944 treaty that guarantees water flow from the Colorado River into Mexico. America is forced to meet its rising energy demand with options that are costly both economically and politically, including nuclear power and onerous Middle Eastern contracts. Yet it survives without catastrophic losses.

    Europe, hardest hit by its temperature drop, struggles to deal with immigrants from Scandinavia seeking warmer climes to the south. Southern Europe is beleaguered by refugees from hard-hit countries in Africa and elsewhere. But Western Europe's wealth helps buffer it from catastrophe.

    Australia's size and resources help it cope, as does its location—the conveyor shutdown mainly affects the Northern Hemisphere. Japan has fewer resources but is able to draw on its social cohesion to cope—its government is able to induce population-wide behavior changes to conserve resources.

    China's huge population and food demand make it particularly vulnerable. It is hit by increasingly unpredictable monsoon rains, which cause devastating floods in drought-denuded areas. Other parts of Asia and East Africa are similarly stressed. Much of Bangladesh becomes nearly uninhabitable because of a rising sea level, which contaminates inland water supplies. Countries whose diversity already produces conflict, such as India and Indonesia, are hard-pressed to maintain internal order while coping with the unfolding changes.

    [b]As the decade progresses, pressures to act become irresistible—history shows that whenever humans have faced a choice between starving or raiding, they raid.[/b] Imagine Eastern European countries, struggling to feed their populations, invading Russia—which is weakened by a population that is already in decline—for access to its minerals and energy supplies. Or picture Japan eyeing nearby Russian oil and gas reserves to power desalination plants and energy-intensive farming. Envision nuclear-armed Pakistan, India, and China skirmishing at their borders over refugees, access to shared rivers, and arable land. Or Spain and Portugal fighting over fishing rights—fisheries are disrupted around the world as water temperatures change, causing fish to migrate to new habitats.

    Growing tensions engender novel alliances. Canada joins fortress America in a North American bloc. (Alternatively, Canada may seek to keep its abundant hydropower for itself, straining its ties with the energy-hungry U.S.) North and South Korea align to create a technically savvy, nuclear-armed entity. Europe forms a truly unified bloc to curb its immigration problems and protect against aggressors. Russia, threatened by impoverished neighbors in dire straits, may join the European bloc.

    Nuclear arms proliferation is inevitable. Oil supplies are stretched thin as climate cooling drives up demand. Many countries seek to shore up their energy supplies with nuclear energy, accelerating nuclear proliferation. Japan, South Korea, and Germany develop nuclear-weapons capabilities, as do Iran, Egypt, and North Korea. Israel, China, India, and Pakistan also are poised to use the bomb.

    The changes relentlessly hammer the world's "carrying capacity"—the natural resources, social organizations, and economic networks that support the population. Technological progress and market forces, which have long helped boost Earth's carrying capacity, can do little to offset the crisis—it is too widespread and unfolds too fast.

    [b]As the planet's carrying capacity shrinks, an ancient pattern reemerges: the eruption of desperate, all-out wars over food, water, and energy supplies. As Harvard archeologist Steven LeBlanc has noted, wars over resources were the norm until about three centuries ago.[/b] When such conflicts broke out, 25% of a population's adult males usually died. As abrupt climate change hits home, warfare may again come to define human life.

    [/b][/quote]

  3. #3
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,393
    Post Thanks / Like
    I see, so when President Wesley Clark bans SUV's and slaps automakers with an additional 5 mpg fuel efficiency requirement in America, global warming will just go away. Industry will gladly comply, especially if it gives them a reason to pass the added costs to the (American) consumers. Then when American's start buying more (cheaper) foreign cars, those companies will gladly hire cheaper labor elsewhere.

    What will force the other polluting industrial nations like Russia, China, India, Japan to implement similiar enviro-friendly initiatives? Maybe the UN can pass some more meaningless resolutions that everyone but America can ignore. Even the world playing field, so to speak.

    C'mon man, you're smarter than this. Why selectively take the conspiracy hat off?

  4. #4
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    For 3 years you have been spouting some bull**** about how global warming was junk science, complete crap, making fun of my bike, calling me a tin foil hat baby etc etc

    and now, when its CLEAR it was an issue all along, rather then maybe learn about the issue or even give a s**t you repspond with some trite dismissive crap, essentially saying "the problem is too big, so why should we try"

    weeb hey maybe that's true but after all the years of giving me s**t about junk science you have some big set of balls showing up to this thread and trying to sweep the whole thing under the rug.

    the Pentegon is worried about a mini-Ice age but don&#39;t worry cause Weeb has it on good information from Dubya and Cheney that everything&#39;s gonna be alright <_<

    honestly weeb stop wasting everyone&#39;s time.

    if you want to be informed on the issue and have a discussion on it, thats great

    if you want to act like an ignorant tool then please do it on some other thread im sure you can start one about how everything that&#39;s wrong with the world can be directly traced to Clinton&#39;s blow jobs. Come to NY will show up and you guys can have a huge party.


    im not a person who hates America, im legitimately concerned about BIG PICTURE issues.

    make no mistake about it we as a nation produce more than half of the greenhouse gases emitted. its a fact.

    now im not saying that America is bad or America sucks... but i am saying that we are an example for the rest of the world and if our lifestyle translates out as the 3rd world develops, sudden climate change as described in the Pentegon report posted above isn&#39;t just a possibility, ITS A CERTAINTY.

    It was one thing when we didn&#39;t understand what was going on back in the day but now anyone with ANY awareness or scientific legitimacy knows that global warming is REAL.

    meanwhile your man Bush has been rolling back clean-air initiatives and refuses to put any MPG caps and in general keeps the nation&#39;s energy policy COMPELTELY reliant on OIL, not cause its smart or because its necessary... because it fits his PERSONAL agenda and the Agenda of his family and friends.

    don&#39;t worry though everyone its just junk science like Weeb and Bush say.

    look in the mirror one day Weeb you may have been an intelligent participant in American politics one day a long time ago

    but like Vader you have gone so far over to the Dark side that its irrevolcably warped your judgement. Politically (*not personally*) You are a monster under that mask. :ph34r:

  5. #5
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    Bitonti -

    I respect your views and am not trying to belittle this worthy topic. But just as it is too easy to call it junk science, it is also too easy to state, as you do, that the scientific evidence is irrefutable, or even widely agreed upon in within the scientific community.

    The jury is out on climate change, no matter how firm or sincere your beliefs are. You are JUST as beholden to your prejudices on this issue as you accuse Weeb of being. You eat up (or seem to) every study advanced that talks about the impending doom that&#39;s coming and seem to not give any credence to the other side. Do a little googling about the arguments AGAINST the global warming "movement" - they are not all written by oil men.

  6. #6
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    5ever a study is one thing... a pentegon report by Andrew Marshall is another

    technically of course you are right... we won&#39;t know until the s**t completely hits the fan whether its real or not

    but by then its too late to stop.

    if you read the report its not saying this is gonna be a problem 100&#39;s of years from now... its talking 2020.

    Andrew Marshall is HIGHLY respected by BOTH parties the man conceptualized star wars space defense for crying out loud.

    we can debate whether SDI is a worthy target of funds... but make no mistake its cool as hell.

    i digress though. whats relevant is that Global Warming is a big deal and NO one gives a s**t

    why is that?

    wouldn&#39;t everyone be pissed if the icebergs melted and submerged manhattan island... sounds like sci-fi hokum but honestly something like that REALLY could happen.

    the only junk science in this arguement is on the side that says "we don&#39;t know for sure" and "who&#39;s to say" - thats just so wishy washy it defies verbalization.

    the infrastructure problem is real though, even ExxonMobil stated in an external memo that if China ever reached the same level of cars/citizen as Germany, the demand for raw goods like steel, rubber and yes oil would so far exceed supply that the entire model could COLLAPSE.

  7. #7
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,393
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@Jan 29 2004, 02:59 PM
    [b] For 3 years you have been spouting some bull**** about how global warming was junk science, complete crap, making fun of my bike, calling me a tin foil hat baby etc etc

    and now, when its CLEAR it was an issue all along, rather then maybe learn about the issue or even give a s**t you repspond with some trite dismissive crap, essentially saying "the problem is too big, so why should we try"

    weeb hey maybe that&#39;s true but after all the years of giving me s**t about junk science you have some big set of balls showing up to this thread and trying to sweep the whole thing under the rug.

    the Pentegon is worried about a mini-Ice age but don&#39;t worry cause Weeb has it on good information from Dubya and Cheney that everything&#39;s gonna be alright <_<

    honestly weeb stop wasting everyone&#39;s time.

    if you want to be informed on the issue and have a discussion on it, thats great

    if you want to act like an ignorant tool then please do it on some other thread im sure you can start one about how everything that&#39;s wrong with the world can be directly traced to Clinton&#39;s blow jobs. Come to NY will show up and you guys can have a huge party.


    im not a person who hates America, im legitimately concerned about BIG PICTURE issues.

    make no mistake about it we as a nation produce more than half of the greenhouse gases emitted. its a fact.

    now im not saying that America is bad or America sucks... but i am saying that we are an example for the rest of the world and if our lifestyle translates out as the 3rd world develops, sudden climate change as described in the Pentegon report posted above isn&#39;t just a possibility, ITS A CERTAINTY.

    It was one thing when we didn&#39;t understand what was going on back in the day but now anyone with ANY awareness or scientific legitimacy knows that global warming is REAL.

    meanwhile your man Bush has been rolling back clean-air initiatives and refuses to put any MPG caps and in general keeps the nation&#39;s energy policy COMPELTELY reliant on OIL, not cause its smart or because its necessary... because it fits his PERSONAL agenda and the Agenda of his family and friends.

    don&#39;t worry though everyone its just junk science like Weeb and Bush say.

    look in the mirror one day Weeb you may have been an intelligent participant in American politics one day a long time ago

    but like Vader you have gone so far over to the Dark side that its irrevolcably warped your judgement. Politically (*not personally*) You are a monster under that mask. :ph34r: [/b][/quote]
    Yeah, yeah, yeah. The Bush family is warming the Earth.

    Look, I tried to debate you, but all you do is come back with the same nonsense -- as if you repeat it enough it&#39;s true.

    Just cause you post some tripe from a frustrated, pointy headed, liberal intellectual -- we&#39;re supposed to believe it. Sorry, I took my foil hat off at puberty, junior.

    Let&#39;s see how honest you are: In your lifetime, what would&#39;ve been a bigger threat to Manhattan -- Saddam Hussein or a melting iceberg?

    Real life ain&#39;t Star Wars -- and that&#39;s your problem, you live in a fantasy reality.

  8. #8
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    cmon weeb you saying i live in a fantasy is like jetman67 telling someone they need to control their anger

    the bottom line is that its easier to dismiss people then to actually discuss issues with them.

    especially when the issues being discussed don&#39;t vibe with your personal worldview.

    hey you want to ignore this just like every other item that you don&#39;t agree with?

    be my guest... the only ones you are hurting your ignorance are the future generation

    for a man who has no problem with supporting george "the mad bomber" bush killing GI&#39;s and civilians alike that shouldn&#39;t be a problem. <_<

    ps- an iceberg... in hell is more of a threat to manhattan island than Saddam Hussain.

  9. #9
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,393
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@Jan 29 2004, 05:26 PM
    [b] ps- an iceberg... in hell is more of a threat to manhattan island than Saddam Hussain. [/b][/quote]
    An that&#39;s why I stopped serious debate with you months ago. Your idea of a serious debate is calling the President a monkey. Two can play the same game and you don&#39;t like it.

  10. #10
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    its a joke weeb... don&#39;t act all innocent

    you asked a question and i answered it

    and yet another thread with good factual information in it degrades into a bipartisan pissing content... <_<

    im just as much to blame for it as anyone.

  11. #11
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,393
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@Jan 29 2004, 06:41 PM
    [b] its a joke weeb... don&#39;t act all innocent

    you asked a question and i answered it

    and yet another thread with good factual information in it degrades into a bipartisan pissing content... <_<

    im just as much to blame for it as anyone. [/b][/quote]
    You mean partisan pissing contest. You say this is all fact, I say it&#39;s fiction. I&#39;m not judging you -- believe whatever you want. I don&#39;t.

    Before I call something fact, I want to see scientific hard evidence. Like decades of accurate planetary temperature data, which these liberal intellectuals fail to produce (because the data doesn&#39;t exist). At best, is a theory. At worst it&#39;s manipulation. If I searched hard enough, I could find contradictory theories.

    A fifty year partial sample and a hardon for controlling American behavior is all they have. Not good enough for me.

  12. #12
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    Weeb in this case "they" is "us"

    this thread wasn&#39;t based on baret-wearing euro-trash scientists or allah-loving propaganists trying to weaken our economic position

    this post is a modified report from the PENTEGON&#39;s MOST RESPECTED brain

    Andrew Marshall is ANYTHING but a liberal intellectual - he is 82 years old&#33;

    the source isn&#39;t the Times or NPR or CNN its Fortune magazine.

    honestly the empircal evidence you seek won&#39;t truly be valid until its already occured. you know what they say about an Oz of prevention being worth a Lb of cure... its true.

    do me a favor, actually read the article and then tell me what you think.

  13. #13
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,393
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@Jan 30 2004, 11:00 AM
    [b] Weeb in this case "they" is "us"

    this thread wasn&#39;t based on baret-wearing euro-trash scientists or allah-loving propaganists trying to weaken our economic position

    this post is a modified report from the PENTEGON&#39;s MOST RESPECTED brain

    Andrew Marshall is ANYTHING but a liberal intellectual - he is 82 years old&#33;

    the source isn&#39;t the Times or NPR or CNN its Fortune magazine.

    honestly the empircal evidence you seek won&#39;t truly be valid until its already occured. you know what they say about an Oz of prevention being worth a Lb of cure... its true.

    do me a favor, actually read the article and then tell me what you think. [/b][/quote]
    I read it. I reread it. I don&#39;t see fact, I see theory and hypothesis.

    I don&#39;t care who this guy is and where he&#39;s from. It doesn&#39;t change the fact that I don&#39;t see empirical data. And until I do, it is one of many possible theories about what may happen to the planet and mankind.

    Is it possible that the speed of the rotation of the Earth is slowing as time marches on? Is it possible that maybe the Sun is getting hotter as it ages (theory: the Sun will go supernova at it&#39;s end). Is it possible that the gravitational pull of other celestial bodies are causing the path of the Earth&#39;s orbit to inperceptibally change? Is interstellar radiation affecting climate? I even heard that the Earth&#39;s magnetic field is changing, without a theory as to why.

    All of a sudden you trust the Pentagon, why?

  14. #14
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    first off lets make it clear -

    i trust the Pentegon - we have the best military in the world

    i DO NOT trust the White House.

    but that&#39;s neither here nor there

    ---

    there is not a lab we can take the Earth into and do tests on.

    There are models of global warming, models of how crucial the ocean is to the delicate balance of the climate... there are small-scale experiments that show what greenhouse gases can do... and YES there is a LARGE AMOUNT of evidence that the ice caps are shrinking... and that the gulf stream is slowing down. In Scandinavia there are icebergs that melt and grow every year... recently they have been growing alot more than they have been melting...

    little signs are all we have

    the &#39;empirical evidence&#39; you seek won&#39;t be available until prevention is not an option.

    When the average temp has dropped 5 degrees F and remains there for a couple years then we will have you empirical evidence... but by then its too late

    the Earth is not a person or a substance that you can do tests on... Weeb your demand for empirical evidence amounts to a cop out.

    its like demanding to see dead bodies before stopping a murder in progress. "well how do we know KNOW the weapon-wielding maniac was going to kill this person... i demand empirical evidence."

    defeats the entire purpose.

    --


    for what its worth this is how its gonna go down:

    step 1: greenhouse gases DON&#39;T let the Sun&#39;s rays bounce off the surface and out into space. This can clearly be seen by huge brown clouds over every major metropolis.

    step 2: the icecaps begin to melt... the salinity of the world&#39;s oceans decrease with the increase in freshwater... of special significance is the Greenland ice shelf... its freshwater drifts down into the atlantic and into the gulf of mexico...

    step 3: decreased salinity --&#62; the air over the gulf of mexico heats less quickly... the gulf stream (aka conveyor belt that drives the world) sputters

    step 4: mini ice age sets in and the "empirical evidence seekers" get their proof that something is clearly amiss

    step 5: the s**t hits the fan.

    ---

    is it a theory? Absolutely. but its a good theory and one that is intelligent enough and with enough merit that the pentegon is in the early stages of planning for what happens to the US during step 5.

    make no mistake it might get chilly and we might lose a couple coastal communities but due to our fantastic natural resources, strong economy, technological advances... we as a nation will be just fine. the rest of the world is in for some serious s**t... and in light of the proportion of greenhouse gases this country has contributed to the atmosphere, the logical conclusion is that people will be pissed off.

    im just glad the brains in the pentegon are more open minded then the supporters of the white house

  15. #15
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,393
    Post Thanks / Like
    Again, with the personal attacks and politics. Was there global warming with Clinton? When he was in orafice, I thought the theory was bunk as well. To equate this with politics is pure immaturity on your part (but thanks for proving a point).

    Since you&#39;re so open minded on theories and not bound by one idealogy, study this:
    [url=http://users.erols.com/dhoyt1/annex2.htm]A greenhouse warming scorecard[/url]

    Basically this study says your pet theory about greenhouse gases being a sole contributor to global warming is BS.

    [i]1. The warming has occurred mostly at night and not during the day. This result is inconsistent with a warming caused by greenhouse gases, but is consistent with urban heat island and other surface effects.

    2. The reported warming has occurred only at the surface and not in the upper atmosphere. This type of warming is completely opposite to what is predicted if greenhouse gases are the cause. Again these observations are consistent with problems in the surface measurements.

    3. The warming has occurred primarily in the Northern Hemisphere mid-latitudes with little in the polar and tropical regions. This result is consistent with urban influences, but is incompatible with the climate warming predicted from greenhouse gases which predict it to be largest in the polar regions.

    In short, the reported warming is inconsistent with warming due to greenhouse gases in its temporal, vertical, and geographical distribution. The reported warming is consistent with problems in the surface network. [/i]

  16. #16
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    weeb one thing - im really trying not to make this a personal attack - i didn&#39;t in the first few posts but i don&#39;t think i attacked you in the last post but if i did i apologize. i will check the link and respond in kind.

  17. #17
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [b]Nasa Confirms Polar Ice Caps Melting at Alarming Rate[/b]

    [url=http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/2003/1023esuice.html]http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/2003/1023esuice.html[/url]

    [b]Nasa analyzes premature collapse of Antarctic Ice Shelves[/b]

    [url=http://winds.jpl.nasa.gov/publications/shelf_melting.cfm]http://winds.jpl.nasa.gov/publications/she...elf_melting.cfm[/url]

    [b]Most of the world&#39;s ice decreases... but Scandinavia&#39;s Glaciers grow[/b]

    [url=http://www.co2science.org/journal/2002/v5n23c1.htm]http://www.co2science.org/journal/2002/v5n23c1.htm[/url]

    [url=http://www.controlmagazine.com/Web_First/CT.nsf/ArticleID/DFUO-5LMM3U?OpenDocument&Click=]http://www.controlmagazine.com/Web_First/C...Document&Click=[/url]

    [b]how the freshwater melt of greenland impedes the gulf stream[/b]

    [url=http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/4689103.htm]http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/4689103.htm[/url]

    [quote][b]Researchers find themselves toeing a fine line between informing the public and setting off a panic[/b][/quote]

  18. #18
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,393
    Post Thanks / Like
    Bit, I&#39;m not going to get into a link-fest with you. I&#39;ve got dozens of links that say the opposite of what your links say. I heard every theory that debunks global warming. And they all make sense to me.

    If your theory sounds reasonable to you, conserve energy, don&#39;t pollute and buy high MPG automobiles. Live your life as you see fit, and I&#39;ll live mine.

    You will convince me that the theory of greenhouse global warming is true when I convince you that the Iraq war is justified.

    I just agree to disagree with you.

  19. #19
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    Weeb please lets link it out

    your one link was from 1997 and affiliated with no major scientific institution

    my links are from NASA and other reputable sources and they are from 2003.

    you agree to disagree that&#39;s fine

    but make no mistake

    the Pentegon "believes" in the idea of Global Warming/Cooling enough to start planning for it..

    and that means nothing to you??? :blink:

    its not about controling the way people live their life - its about averting a sudden global tragedy that will affect everyone.

    [b]the most telling proof that global warming is real:

    junkscience.com (which was founded basically to refute global warming)

    has removed any and all content related to the phenomenon&#33;

    go ahead check it out... search Global Warming... see what comes up

    the bottom line is its not junk science ... its REAL science.[/b]

  20. #20
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    Bitonti -

    The pentagon and NASA have also been preparing for the real possibility of an alien invasion. Preparing for something is not the same thing as expecting it.

    Preparing for it and being wrong is more risky than not preparing for it and being wrong.

    The scientific community is split on global warming, no matter what the Pentagon or NASA does. We simply do not have enough historical data.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us