Forecast: Global Cooling in 2008

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,346310,00.html

This is interesting, the article points out that Global temps have not increased since 1998. I'm not sure if I believe in global warming, although the melting ice in Antartica does concern me. Watched some stuff on the Discovery Channel and National Geo over the weekend that kinda made me go :shock:.

(please note: the fact that I think the article is interesting does not mean I believe everything in it one way or another, it means it is food for thought. 8))

 

I'm not sure if I believe in global warming or cooling either, but I do think we need to be responsible with our environment.

 

Only if you're arrogant enough to believe that small mankind can actually affect the entire planet's environment.

 

It's kind of good that people don't know it is happening. Look at historical Ocean Temperatures if you want a true ledger to follow what we do to the earth. Then look at natural resources, polution, etc....

Take the money and run world!!! Who gives a crap what you leave behind. Wait a minute ..... that's GW's motto isn't it?

 

Yeah, my statement is pretty naive. I believe that we've messed up our environment. We've polluted the water and air and have caused lots of other problems. Who's going to be the environment police, I don't know. But at some point each and every country is going to have to accept their responsibility in messing up the environment.

 

Or ignorant enough to dismiss scientific evidence that humans can impact the environment.

Actually, Sociology 101 tells you that what makes us 'human' is the fact that we impact, or alter the environment to suit our needs.

Think about how big you living room den is in cubic feet. Consider the ambient temperature of the room. Then turn on your TV, all of the lights, your DVD player, laptop, light a candle, maybe even the singing bass on your wall. Let these things run a bit and see if the temperature rises in that big living room den. All of these compnents emit heat, whereas before there was the absense of it. Everything humans do generates heat including fires, burning of fuel, even air conditioning and refridgeration gives off heat. Just being gives off a certain amount of heat. Now, how many humans are there today as opposed to 10,000 years ago? How many more cars, refineries, deforestation, etc. was around 10,000 years ago. 10,000 years is not exactly a microcosm that is easily studied, but logic is there unless you choose to ignore it.

 

Certainly humans can affect the environment on a local scale, just not on a global scale.

Ok, so beavers are humans, right?

 

At least GW isn't a hypocrite like Gore about this....

"Perhaps most comically, Gore is seen dragging an entire film crew on a jet to India to give a climate presentation to about 100 people. Gore claimed: "We just don't have any choice. I wish I knew a better way to do it. (hello Gore, Mr. inventor of the Internet (chuckle) ever heard of teleconferences??) I constantly ask myself, 'How can I be more effective in getting this message across?' " The most effective thing you can think of is flying halfway across the world to speak with 100 people? Maybe you had other things to do while you were there, but I'd be surprised if there was anything essential that couldn't be accomplished with a telephone and a computer. The people in India will be able to see your fancy graphs on their screens, and you'll cut demand for those evil overseas flights."

Good article the above came from http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/04/03/beck.oilexecs/index.html

 

I saw your note, but based on the bogus information this media source put in your post where they denied a recession, and the bogus information in this news article, how can you hold any more faith in what they say than say "The Onion" newspaper?

By the way here are the NASA graphs on global temperatures:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

 

I absolutely give up, from now on, if I think an article is food for thought, I'll keep it to my danged self. Much to some of your relief, I am sure. Fox is hardly the only news website I look at. :?

Hught, you know I luv ya, but for crying out loud. :banghead:

 

I am sorry, when a news media post something that is so absolutely wrong, I feel an obligation to point it out.

I saw your note, and acknowledged it, tried to head your post off at the pass! 8)

 

8)

 

So you don't think detonating our inventory of nuclear weapons around the world would affect the global environment as a whole?

How about increasing the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere by ~35% in the past century?

 

You have to be very naive to believe that man has not had an impact on the global environment. It can be seen from outer space. At the same time we're dumping billions of tons of CO2 into the air, we're devastating our forests that act as huge filter pads taking CO2 out of the air. Acid rain poisoning our waters. How much more proof do we need. I guess it depends on who you choose to believe, science or Exxon-Mobile.

 

Mr. Smith from the Matrix says it all to well...

"Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but...you humans do not. You move to an area...and you multiply...until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to.. spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Humans beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet..."

Yes, I just pulled a Matrix quote but it fits.

To say that the human race has not affected the environment is being completely unrealistic, in my opinion. Yes, the ecosystem of the world is cyclical and we've had this "global warming" issue before. Each one was followed by an Ice Age. There is plenty of scientific evidence that backs this up. Core samples in polar and glacial locations show this. There is also evidence that we have been accelerating the temperature since the Industrial Revolution. The huge scale of destruction of the trees and plants in rain forests perpetuates the issue. Without these plants, the Earth cannot counteract the amount of carbon dioxide that is being pumped into the air. The Earth's ecosystem was "designed" to sustain itself and it can't because we're destroying and draining the resources it needs to survive.


Remember the ecosystems you can buy at a science store? It's a sealed box. You don't have to do anything to it. No watering. No care needed. All you had to do was give it a bit of sunlight. It completely sustained itself. Now imagine the box gets a crack in it and allows something from the outside to get in. It struggles to survive. That "something" slipping through the crack is us. If you want it to survive, you have to intervene.



Here's some good info (even if it is wikipedia)....
Ice Age info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age
Global Warming Cycles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

 

Almost everyone on earth knows that global warming is a huge problem. Only the very thickest skulls have not been penetrated.

 

people believe in global warming...rofl


i have beach from property in idaho to sell you

global warming supporters: OMGz global warming is killing us! the CO2 is going to let us fry eggs on our neighbor's bald head!

normal rational people: there's no real correlation b/w CO2 levels and temperature levels. that being said, polluting less isn't a bad thing... (we just have our panties in a bunch from all these morons that keep yelling "OMGz greenhouse gases! global warming!" )so keep on keepin' on... except know that simply buying a prius and buying no trade coffee (or whatever it's called) isn't enough. you're not allowed to talk ***** until you eat only what you can grow, bike everywhere and live without lights.

 

REPEAT: Only the very thickest skulls have not been penetrated. Core samples taken out of Antarctica show that CO2 levels and temperature go up and down together. Exxon-Mobile has spent a lot of money to dispel that fact.

 

Isn't the article comparing an incredibly strong El Nino (1997-199[noparse]8)[/noparse] to a La Nina? Why would this suggest global cooling? this just suggests the definition of el nino, and la nina.