Global warming update.......sort of.......

Before Gore

D.C. resident John Lockwood was conducting research at the Library of Congress and came across an intriguing Page 2 headline in the Nov. 2, 1922 edition of The Washington Post: "Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt."

The 1922 article, obtained by Inside the Beltway, goes on to mention "great masses of ice have now been replaced by moraines of earth and stones," and "at many points well-known glaciers have entirely disappeared."

"This was one of several such articles I have found at the Library of Congress for the 1920s and 1930s," says Mr. Lockwood. "I had read of the just-released NASA estimates, that four of the 10 hottest years in the U.S. were actually in the 1930s, with 1934 the hottest of all."


Hmmmmm........what was it Mom used to say?? There is nothing new under the sun???

I believe that some (not all) of the global warming is just a part of earth's natural cycles. also, isn't true that the earth is spinning slower and slower as time goes on? If that is true than that will aid global warming as the sun will heat the surface of the earth more.

very interesting facts papanohair. i did not know that.

Funny, I just read this.

There was an article that I read the other day that said that Global Warming researchers are revising their estimates on the impact of human induced global warming based on recent trends that don't match their predictions, or even come close. In essence, they are claiming that the earths natural cycle is compensating, conveniently, for the effects of human induced Global Warming but that things will get much worse in the future, specifically starting in 2009. I will note that this is conveniently AFTER the next round of US Presidential Elections.

I can't wait to see where this thread goes.

Global Warming, eh? <yawn> I think I'll sit this one out.

--

Did we just have one of the coldest winters on record? And the weather has been about 15 degrees cooler this summer than most other summers too. (all this applies to weather in California, the smoggiest huge valley you can live in) Dont worry about that, its just attempts to get "concerned citizens" to vote for there party. Its good for people to be concerned, but it just sucks when people use the concern to get what they want. You wont ever here such bull and distractions from the honest politicians who are actually in the system to really make a difference for the well being of the people.
P.S. Im not supporting the Right or Left side with this

I find it interesting that you believe there are "honest" politicians....

Believe it or not, most politicians are "honest" and really are out to try and make a difference for the better of the country. Its just the few that give them all a bad name. Put it this way, the more "honest" ones are probably the ones you have never heard of.

CL33Zero said:

Did we just have one of the coldest winters on record? And the weather has been about 15 degrees cooler this summer than most other summers too. (all this applies to weather in California, the smoggiest huge valley you can live in) Dont worry about that, its just attempts to get "concerned citizens" to vote for there party. Its good for people to be concerned, but it just sucks when people use the concern to get what they want. You wont ever here such bull and distractions from the honest politicians who are actually in the system to really make a difference for the well being of the people.
P.S. Im not supporting the Right or Left side with this

Click to expand...

Just to set the record straight. A warmer planet does not mean it will be hotter everywhere all the time. Temperature has a lot to do with airflow and the various weather systems in place. Following your logic, the top of mount Everest should be hot because it's closer to the sun.

If the gulf stream, which is responsible for it's temperate climate is diverted away from the uk, then Britains temperature will plumet. It just isn't that literal.

As for Earths natural cycle, that's a tough one. I was under the impression that these things take centurys to turn around not a few months or years.

i reckon global warming in a natural cycle of the earth. because if you speak in terms of millions and millions of years we are still coming out of an ice age ! and going into a warmer age ! so it all makes sense.

CL33Zero said:

And the weather has been about 15 degrees cooler this summer than most other summers too. (all this applies to weather in California, the smoggiest huge valley you can live in)

Click to expand...

Well, as long as it's cooler in CA, everything is hunky dory. Never mind the near 100 degree heat wave we've been having across the midwest and that big heat wave last summer when it was hitting the 100's in Montana of all places!

I don't know about global warming, but I don't see anything wrong with taking steps toward conservation to save fuel and have a few less giant landfills around. I'm not a scientist and will never be smart enough to claim to know what will happen, but I've always felt that erring on the side of caution is a good idea.

There are some politicians who are honest, but they just don't make it far. It's kind of like someone who runs their business honestly, and one who cheats by tax evasion or other means. The cheater will make/save more money and beat out the honest guy.

A politician who did honestly fight for what they believe in? Al Gore and has fight against global warming. Whether you agree with him or not, you have to respect his work and fighting for what he believes in; something bigger than himself and what he believes will help all people.

Thats my point. Most politicians to get to the power they need to make the differences they truly want to make have to do things that will bring down their image. They have to be strong, its the way it works. They just have to put out images and lies to get what they want, they lie, on purpose, for the better of the country. Very few can really "think for themselves" on issues on what to do. (I dont care how smart you think you are, if everything was based on pure voting and "public opinion" there would be no America) Myself included. All they need is your votes. They tell you there views on things that really dont matter to the overall welfare of the country (gay marriage, abortion, war in Iraq) get your votes based on your opinion on these topics, which give them the power to do what they feel necessary to better the lives of the people in this country.

As for this....

""Just to set the record straight. A warmer planet does not mean it will be hotter everywhere all the time. Temperature has a lot to do with airflow and the various weather systems in place. Following your logic, the top of mount Everest should be hot because it's closer to the sun.

If the gulf stream, which is responsible for it's temperate climate is diverted away from the uk, then Britains temperature will plumet. It just isn't that literal.

As for Earths natural cycle, that's a tough one. I was under the impression that these things take centurys to turn around not a few months or years.""



You just sorta proved my point, the world is going on as normally as it was a thousand years ago. Do you really think, we, as humans, have that much power over a God made universe? Sure, lets all take care of the world, save what we have, and keep things clean. Its all good stuff. But GOLBAL warming?

fleurya said:

Well, as long as it's cooler in CA, everything is hunky dory. Never mind the near 100 degree heat wave we've been having across the midwest and that big heat wave last summer when it was hitting the 100's in Montana of all places!

Click to expand...

I agree with you. Thats my point. Hot over there, cool over here. Weather changes on a day to day, year to year basis. There has not been any change.

baggss said:

I find it interesting that you believe there are "honest" politicians....

Click to expand...

CL33Zero said:

Believe it or not, most politicians are "honest" and really are out to try and make a difference for the better of the country.

Click to expand...

I demand references!!!!! Proof!!! anything!!!!

CL33Zero said:

Thats my point. Most politicians to get to the power they need to make the differences they truly want to make have to do things that will bring down their image. They have to be strong, its the way it works. They just have to put out images and lies to get what they want, they lie, on purpose, for the better of the country. Very few can really "think for themselves" on issues on what to do. (I dont care how smart you think you are, if everything was based on pure voting and "public opinion" there would be no America) Myself included. All they need is your votes. They tell you there views on things that really dont matter to the overall welfare of the country (gay marriage, abortion, war in Iraq) get your votes based on your opinion on these topics, which give them the power to do what they feel necessary to better the lives of the people in this country.

Click to expand...

So you don't think the war in Iraq doesn't really matter to the overall welfare of the country???? I dare you to say that to the numerous families who have lost someone in battle.

Also, you're saying the will of the majority of the people is really meaningless. Voting is just a big game, and whoever wins gets to do whatever they feel like? I'm sure that's the founding fathers had in mind when they fought and died to get away from a king who did whatever he felt despite the will of the majority.

Are you really president Bush and finally figured how to use a 'puter?? That's cute, now run along to bed, Georgy before Cheney finds out. And stop skipping your spelling and grammar lessons.

CL33Zero said:

You just sorta proved my point, the world is going on as normally as it was a thousand years ago. Do you really think, we, as humans, have that much power over a God made universe? Sure, lets all take care of the world, save what we have, and keep things clean. Its all good stuff. But GOLBAL warming?

Click to expand...

Do we really have that much power? Yes we do. And we're not talking about the universe, we are talking about a miniscule part of it. We can split the atom. Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Can we affect our environment?
Er, yeah I reckon. Chernobyl. Any lasting, long term damage there? Well, apart from the surrounding countryside being uninhabitable for a few thousand years, I guess you could call that low impact. Duh!
I think everyone who doubts mans ability to impact on his environment should lock their family in the living room, close the doors and chainsmoke 20 cigarettes. Just to see what happens.

In the entire history of the Human race, if you count every human who has lived up till now, and discount the ones alive at present, the figure you get is less than all the people alive to day. Let me rephrase that, there have never lived throughout the history of this planet 5.6 Billion people. That figure is set to double, sometime in the next century.
We are not on an ever increasing exponetial curve of success and good times, food for all, pollution free environments. There is no permanent gravey train. Global Warming probably is massively misrepresented by polititians and the media. But do we have an afffect on our environment? Yes. The evidence is every where, in front of your eyes. Just walk down the street. It's all there to see.

fleurya said:

So you don't think the war in Iraq doesn't really matter to the overall welfare of the country???? I dare you to say that to the numerous families who have lost someone in battle.

Also, you're saying the will of the majority of the people is really meaningless. Voting is just a big game, and whoever wins gets to do whatever they feel like? I'm sure that's the founding fathers had in mind when they fought and died to get away from a king who did whatever he felt despite the will of the majority.

Are you really president Bush and finally figured how to use a 'puter?? That's cute, now run along to bed, Georgy before Cheney finds out. And stop skipping your spelling and grammar lessons.

Click to expand...

War in Iraq, the point I was making is 75% of people are against it now. Were still there. Nothing has changed. Dear god do those boys who have died out there matter. Of course they do, dont ever accuse anyone of that, please. Dont use them to make your point.

The will of the majority is not meaningless, but it does not have as much meaning as you would like.

The founding fathers had in mind exactly what I have described. Thats why the college voting system was made. They DIDN'T trust the majority. They thought all of the average "uneducated" people would ruin the country if they had all the power. Voting on what just SEEMS to be correct, rather than knowing. Your founding fathers where the ones that made the system, created the limiting of the peoples power.

CL33Zero said:

War in Iraq, the point I was making is 75% of people are against it now. Were still there. Nothing has changed. Dear god do those boys who have died out there matter. Of course they do, dont ever accuse anyone of that, please. Dont use them to make your point.

The will of the majority is not meaningless, but it does not have as much meaning as you would like.

The founding fathers had in mind exactly what I have described. Thats why the college voting system was made. They DIDN'T trust the majority. They thought all of the average "uneducated" people would ruin the country if they had all the power. Voting on what just SEEMS to be correct, rather than knowing. Your founding fathers where the ones that made the system, created the limiting of the peoples power.

Click to expand...

I wasn't using anyone to make a point, you stated very plainly that the candidates woo voters by talking up issues that don't matter to the welfare of the nation and cited the war as an example! Geez, you really must a politician the way you're taking your own mistake and trying to turn it on me!

You claim that candidates lie and talk up unimportant issues to gain the favor of the half-wit population, but then go on to say those people don't really matter in the long run when it comes to elections? Make up your mind.

The electoral college still follows the plurality except on very rare occasions, it just does so at the state or district level. Besides, even if you concede that the electors are the decision makers and not the people, it doesn't help your argument, because the candidates are, as you put it, talking up issues publicly to get the votes, popular or electoral, only to become elected and do what they want despite whatever they claimed publicly. That is, unless the electoral college has some special insight into the candidates true intentions that the rest of the public doesn't.

I again have to state my doubts that the founders o the our country wanted candidates to falsely present themselves to gain popularity only to pursue their personal agendas once in office.

There was one thing that really made me change my thinking on global warming. I wrote a paper for an English class on how people should use reason and think about why they believe what they believe. I used the argument to show how people who believed that the oil companies were gouging us were being irrational (and they are irrational). Then, I tried to apply it to myself and I realized that the only reason I denied global warming was because the annoying liberals believed in it. I guess what I'm trying to say to those who deny global warming is do you disagree with it because it is bad science or do you disagree with it because you don't like liberals? The same question is extended towards liberals who believe in global warming simply because they don't like capitalism. Science is done by having numerous unrelated groups studying the same phenomenon and having their findings converge on a single point. In the case of global warming, the studies do seem to converge and the conclusion is that global warming is real and we are the primary cause. Just because the liberals agree with it doesn't make it wrong. It is sound science. Once I learned how science is done and how to really use reason, I began to move away from being a neo-conservative and towards my current position of libertarianism. So, I do accept the global warming theory, but I still am not too fond of liberals.

I'm not trying to act all high and mighty, I'm just telling my story and stating my opinion.

TC99, that's a good point about opinions formed from irrational thinking and kind of related to the points about politicians pandering to the public. A lot of opinions of the general public are formed that way and major policies are carried out by politicians who pander to those irrational opinions. In an economics course I took we discussed how, based on widely held economic theories, certain tariffs, excise taxes and price ceilings and floors actually hurt more than help the economy and the people, but politicians carry out these policies because irrational thinking of the uninformed public leads to the popular belief that such policies will help the economy.

The same goes for global warming. People of a certain group will back one side or the other based on unrelated issues and irrational thinking and then the politicians jump on board to get the votes of those people and eventually carry out policy; all without any real science except what they cherry-pick to back their pre-concieved opinion on the matter.

fleurya said:

TC99, that's a good point about opinions formed from irrational thinking and kind of related to the points about politicians pandering to the public. A lot of opinions of the general public are formed that way and major policies are carried out by politicians who pander to those irrational opinions.

Click to expand...

I heard of a book called "The Myth of The Rational Voter. Sounds like a good book that deals with that subject.

In an economics course I took we discussed how, based on widely held economic theories, certain tariffs, excise taxes and price ceilings and floors actually hurt more than help the economy and the people, but politicians carry out these policies because irrational thinking of the uninformed public leads to the popular belief that such policies will help the economy.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that's pretty much verbatim what I said in my english paper. I'm working to become an economics major, so I'm interested in that stuff.

People of a certain group will back one side or the other based on unrelated issues and irrational thinking and then the politicians jump on board to get the votes of those people and eventually carry out policy; all without any real science except what they cherry-pick to back their pre-concieved opinion on the matter.

Click to expand...

In psychology that's called the confirmation bias. Everyone is guilty of it, including scientists, that's why scientists generally go out of their way to disprove their ideas before presenting them to their peers. If they don't search for flaws in their ideas, their peers would be happy to.