RobertN Wrote:

ShoreBuc Wrote:When you have an expert like the lady from the Weather Channel speak on Global Warming it is case closed. lmfao lmfao

Dr. Cullen would be an interesting addition to our religion debates here in the Spin Room but I am not prepared to crown her the Queen of Global Warming knowledge.



http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53636

Yeah, she is just as reliable. Just seeing the banner along the top with mAnn Coultergeist, you just ruin any credibility you had. Then there is the "Hilary is Communist" t-shirt add. Also, the Christians be armed book(which many already are. Especially in the South(maybe he thinks if they do, the South will rise again. Yee-hah). Last but not least, the ad about the UN being the drath of Israel and the west and the book "Taking America Back". Yeah, that is certainly an unbiased site you have there. The sad thing is you think that it is "mainstream". Shows how out of touch the right is.

That site can be whacky and incorrect. Hillary is a socialist not a communist. As for the information on Dr. Cullen here is the part I found interesting...

The chief martyr for the new "emotional" approach to broadcasting at The Weather Channel is Dr. Heidi Cullen, who serves as the network's cheerleader for global warming hysteria. Cullen's supposed expertise on climatology includes, among other things, earning a bachelor's degree in Near Eastern religions and history from Juniata College. One must indeed have to believe in the mystical to accept anything Ms. Cullen has to say about climatology

I found my way to this story off the front page of Drudge. I filter information from both brain dead right and brain dead left sites. Hard to debate the facts that this woman holds a degree in Near Eastern religions and history which would put her in the same boat as me as far as being a expert on global warming.
There are plenty of good scientist for and against global warming so we don't need mouth pieces like Dr. Cullen joining in.
I am a proponent of common sense discussion on global warming. Skip the Al Gore dooms day stuff or the scientist out there begging for million dollar grants to study global warming. I would rather discuss how we can clean up the planet. I am also a supporter of energy independence for the United States and waging economic war on the likes of Iran, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela etc by reducing our dependence on oil.
We have 100+ years to deal with global warming where as we don't have that long IMHO to deal with terrorist nations who depend on oil exports for their revenue to develop as terrorist nations.

Haven't read much of this thread, but from the opening post and a few that follow I think this article has some bearing.

Link

As a side note, that site is usually a pretty good source for information on global warming from the global warming is real side. They do not overhype it too much. I never really read the comments, so they might be a bit off the edge, but the articles are usually a good read.

RobertN Wrote:

dwr0109 Wrote:Well I'm no scientist, but I did take a few science/geology courses in college. I know that if it wasn't for greenhouse gasses, the earth would be so cold that no life could exist on it. Greenouse gasses are the only reason the planet is warm enough to support life. So if we continue to increase the amount of greenhouse gasses on the planet.....its going to keep getting warmer. Why are some people so threatened by the global warming theory??

$$$$$$$
They are affraid that if companies have to add more environmental resrtictions it will hurt stock prices and their family "fortune". Much of it has to do with greed and the "me" first attitude. These people tend to not look at the future or if they do, they say, once we see a "real" link, we will start supporting it. Of course, by then it is too late to slow it.

Aren't you the guy who said he didn't have a hybrid car because he "couldn't afford it"?

If it mattered to you, you'd find a way. But, you've got a "'me' first attitude".

Frankly, the people on this board who cry the most about GW, seem to do as little as, or even less than, those who don't buy into the hype.

RobertN Wrote:[quote="RebelKev"]This reminds me of Dogger posting about how bad Global Warming has become.........while he was at home on a snow day. lmfao

You guys aren't real bright are you? [quote]

Yeah. I don't believe everything I hear on TV. I am so dumn.

OptimisticOwl Wrote:

RobertN Wrote:OO, lets hope you are right but the predictions are that the current along the East coast could change dramatically causing changes around the globe(it is the current bringing the warm water from the south to the NE). As mentioned, higher oceans. This could cause problems with densely populated coastal areas(ie. a larger scale New Orleans). Of course, these are just educated guesses and there will be no proof until/if they happen.

This is not a problem with or of the earth. It is a problem of people and their belongings. It is the first time that naturally occurring fluctuations in the environment have impacted a population of this size, that's all. I question if trying to force the earth from its natural cycles is the best response. I am surprised that you are blaming the Republicans. It is, after all, the moneyed interests that stand to lose the most if the oceans rise - their billions in investments in prt facilities that may be underwater or a mile from shore, their millions invested in oceanfront property that may be inundated with a rise in seas level.

Yes there are polar bears and walruses faced with loss of habitat, just as there 1100 years ago the last time we had a general global warming. and in 100 years or so, when we enter a cooling phase, there will be deer and lizards facing problems with the changes in their habitat, and there will be people upset at their economic losses due to the sealevel falling.

there used to be a ad on TV that said "IT'S NOT NICE to fool Mother nature!!!". Maybe it is not a good thing to interfere with the natural cycles of the earth. We cannot make the earth stay at today's tenperatures forever, and even if we could, should we?

Ad can we is another question? We could implement all the laws you want here, but without China and India on board, it is kind of like designating three tables in a restaurant as non-smoking and then bragging about how there is 5% less smoke in the air of the entire restaurant.

I haven't chimed in on this issue, and I'm certainly not a meteorologist, but we are already potentially interfering with the natural cycles of the earth by pumping so much carbon into the air. Cutting back on emissions would be reducing interference, not causing it.

One thing I've heard is that aerosols in pollutants supposedly cause cooling of the earth. Don't know if it's true but I've read it in a couple places. If that's true, global warming can easily be true. Also, I was reading a book about the sun, and they had a graph comparing earth's temperatures vs. solar irradiance over the past few hundred years. I think they had to use tree rings and ice cores for the some of the data, but it sounds like those correlations have been confirmed pretty well. The graph showed earth temperatures very closely correlated with solar irradiance until about 1900 (except some temporary cooling periods after major volcanic eruptions), after which earth temperatures have increased much more than solar irradiance. Just an interesting comparison, I thought.

Regarding the polar bears, they're facing extinction if global warming continues, not just some loss of habitat, whether or not it's human-caused.

Do we know how quickly the earth warmed up in previous warming spells compared to this one? Sorry if this has already been covered. I suspect we're unable to determine that with any degree of reliability.

Any meteorologist in the employment of power companies and those that are financially affected by possible regulations, can be pretty much ignored, I think.

Google "Medieval Warming period" and you will get all sorts of references, both positive and negative to any particular point of view. One I found very interesting was the following:

http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/ind...09844.html

RobertN Wrote:You guys aren't real bright are you? No one ever said it wouldn't get cold and snowy it just says the average world temp is rising.

the Global Temp. has been going DOWN since 1998, marginally but it quit increasing. What does this mean?

You guys will take anytime the temp is abnormally warm or some natural disaster and link it to Global Warming, and it is all over the media. However this past snow storm in which half the country was covered in snow you come up with the above. Or the fact that last year the Global Warming fear mongers stated we'd have all these horrible Hurricanes b/c of: "Global Warming"...then we had NONE.

You can not have it both ways, granted you have the media on your side to keep this myth going..

Why did the Vikings in the 9th century land on Greenland anyway? Why were the Romans able to grow grapes in parts of the UK that is now not possible to grow in?

Common Sense is a lost intelligence these days.....go ahead and worship mother Gaia though.

I think it's worth increased funding to continue study via spacecraft and also ground-related studies. We need to continue improving our data and observations. If we are contributing to GW (not George Bush, the other GW), then we are adding to the natural ups and downs of temperatures. We don't want to start a runaway greenhouse effect. I don't know what the likelihood of that is, but it's important enough to take seriously.

Obviously, anybody that says someone else should get off the air if they disagree is a nutcase and not a scientist.

I believe the earth's orbit/inclination/precession has been tied to changes in temperatures. But that doesn't mean we aren't adding to it. The sun's output does change, but only by .1%, and most climatologists don't believe that by itself is enough, nor are the usual solar cycle fluctuations.