House Committee Hearing on 'Warming of the Planet' Canceled Because of Snow/Ice Storm

http://www.drudgereport.com/

lmfao lmfao lmfao lmfao

Global Warming, why is that a priority?

fsquid Wrote:Global Warming, why is that a priority?

'Cause it's gonna kill us all. Damn squid, you didn't get the memo?

fsquid Wrote:Global Warming, why is that a priority?

Cause we already took care of campaign finance reform.

RebelKev Wrote:House Committee Hearing on 'Warming of the Planet' Canceled Because of Snow/Ice Storm

http://www.drudgereport.com/

lmfao lmfao lmfao lmfao

You fail to mention the context of the mild winter here in DC, where this is the first storm we've had all year (on February 13th).

Climate change isn't about whether one day is hotter than the next. Thats WEATHER. Climate is about difference in patterns over long periods of time. You can disagree that climate patterns have changed over the past century, but you show your ignorance when you conflate the difference between weather and climate... making it hard for me to take your comments seriously on this issue.

OUGwave Wrote:You fail to mention the context of the mild winter here in DC, where this is the first storm we've had all year (on February 13th).

Climate change isn't about whether one day is hotter than the next. Thats WEATHER. Climate is about difference in patterns over long periods of time. You can disagree that climate patterns have changed over the past century, but you show your ignorance when you conflate the difference between weather and climate... making it hard for me to take your comments seriously on this issue.

You're right. I'm making light of the situation. Hell, we all know climate change has never occurred on this planet which is several billion years old. If it becomes an ice age, it will be the first.

Sorry, I agree.

RebelKev Wrote:

OUGwave Wrote:You fail to mention the context of the mild winter here in DC, where this is the first storm we've had all year (on February 13th).

Climate change isn't about whether one day is hotter than the next. Thats WEATHER. Climate is about difference in patterns over long periods of time. You can disagree that climate patterns have changed over the past century, but you show your ignorance when you conflate the difference between weather and climate... making it hard for me to take your comments seriously on this issue.

You're right. I'm making light of the situation. Hell, we all know climate change has never occurred on this planet which is several billion years old. If it becomes an ice age, it will be the first.

Sorry, I agree.

Oh we've had ice ages before, usually after dramatic periods of heating. This is cyclical.

Hmm... I wonder if there's any correlation between climate cycles and CO2?

Fortunately there is a way we can measure both C02 content and global temperature going back almost a million years! Awesome.

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/26/224933/67

You really, really should see Gore's movie. Its very methodical, and not a hit job at all. I never liked Gore, but he lays out a cool, logical, data-based case that there is a strong correlation between CO2 levels and global climate cycles, and that we have seen a sharp, sharp spike in CO2 levels as a result of the industrial revolution, and a commensurate increase in temperatures. The data doesn't lie. A true conservative with an open mind, who is receptive to science, would see the film.

OUGwave Wrote:You really, really should see Gore's movie.

Yeah, I'll get right on that. .....right after I slice my own throat.

Again -- why is nobody talking about the Sun -- which is in the middle of a cyclical period of heightened intensity? To me, if you're going to look for why the Earth is warmer... start with what is warming the damn planet to begin with.

The solar storms that are going on with increased intensity that occasionally knock out satellite systems... they don't even make the news anymore. WTF?

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:Again -- why is nobody talking about the Sun -- which is in the middle of a cyclical period of heightened intensity? To me, if you're going to look for why the Earth is warmer... start with what is warming the damn planet to begin with.

The solar storms that are going on with increased intensity that occasionally knock out satellite systems... they don't even make the news anymore. WTF?

Those storms happen all the time, even at the lowest point (in terms of activity) in the 11-year solar cycle, which is where we are at now. I don't think there's been any evidence that the typical solar cycle by itself is responsible for the increase in global temperatures. There might be a correlation with the average length of the solar cycle, which appears to be generally longer now, at the upper end of the usual 8-14 year range.

Nice picture. Were you trying to make a point?

RebelKev Wrote:

OUGwave Wrote:You really, really should see Gore's movie.

Yeah, I'll get right on that. .....right after I slice my own throat.

I don't understand... why would learning more about an issue, and perhaps exposing yourself to a new side of things, be so bad? Why is exposure to facts, information, and ideas comparison to slitting your own throat?

I simply do not understand the conservative fear of science. Its irrational. You don't have to agree with it, but you seriously admit your own ignorance when you say you won't even watch it. Really limits your credibility.

OUGwave Wrote:I don't understand... why would learning more about an issue, and perhaps exposing yourself to a new side of things, be so bad? Why is exposure to facts, information, and ideas comparison to slitting your own throat?

I simply do not understand the conservative fear of science. Its irrational. You don't have to agree with it, but you seriously admit your own ignorance when you say you won't even watch it. Really limits your credibility.

The day I start taking advice from some tool like Al Gore is the day I start patterning my life after Southpark. He ******* about carbon footprints and global warming while flying all over the ******* country in private jets. He's a hypocrite and his stance has not a damn thing to do with the environment, but class warfare and the need to feel important.

He's a clown.

RebelKev Wrote:

OUGwave Wrote:I don't understand... why would learning more about an issue, and perhaps exposing yourself to a new side of things, be so bad? Why is exposure to facts, information, and ideas comparison to slitting your own throat?

I simply do not understand the conservative fear of science. Its irrational. You don't have to agree with it, but you seriously admit your own ignorance when you say you won't even watch it. Really limits your credibility.

The day I start taking advice from some tool like Al Gore is the day I start patterning my life after Southpark. He ******* about carbon footprints and global warming while flying all over the **** country in private jets. He's a hypocrite and his stance has not a damn thing to do with the environment, but class warfare and the need to feel important.

He's a clown.

Its not taking advice from him -- you're simply listening to the facts and data and arguments he makes. If thats taking advice from someone, then I'm sure you're taking advice from people far more hypocritical and morally defunct than that -- aka the VP's office.

There's nothing harmful in LISTENING to data and arguments. Then you can make up your own mind and actually have credibility.

OUGwave, very few people deny that global warming is occurring. The issue is whether it is human related or not. Is it CO2? The guy who originally said it could be a green house gas has come out in the last few months and stated himself that not enough research has been done to verify that it truly is a green house gas. Many meteorologists believe that no matter what humans do we can't cause an increase in temperature of any serious magnitude.

The fact that there is evidence of varience in temperature over the entire life of this planet shows that we don't understand what causes it yet. Were the dinosaurs poluting the planet with CO2 that caused their planet to go up in temperature? Was it something else? What gas was in the air when the planet cooled down so much that glaciers covered the northern USA?

Many of us think it is ridiculous to start going after CO2 producers when the information is unproven as of yet. In the end it could turn out to be something totally different.

In the mid 20th century scientists thought we were heading to an ice age.

Now in the early 21st century scientists believe we are warming due to human produced CO2.

Were they both right? Is one right? Nobody knows for sure, a lot of people have theories but nothing has, as of yet, proven to be fact.

It is as simple as that...

NIU007 Wrote:Nice picture. Were you trying to make a point?

No point just a picture of a burning ball in the middle of space.

ShoreBuc Wrote:

NIU007 Wrote:Nice picture. Were you trying to make a point?

No point just a picture of a burning ball in the middle of space.

lmfao

mlb Wrote:OUGwave, very few people deny that global warming is occurring. The issue is whether it is human related or not. Is it CO2? The guy who originally said it could be a green house gas has come out in the last few months and stated himself that not enough research has been done to verify that it truly is a green house gas. Many meteorologists believe that no matter what humans do we can't cause an increase in temperature of any serious magnitude.

The fact that there is evidence of varience in temperature over the entire life of this planet shows that we don't understand what causes it yet. Were the dinosaurs poluting the planet with CO2 that caused their planet to go up in temperature? Was it something else? What gas was in the air when the planet cooled down so much that glaciers covered the northern USA?

Many of us think it is ridiculous to start going after CO2 producers when the information is unproven as of yet. In the end it could turn out to be something totally different.

In the mid 20th century scientists thought we were heading to an ice age.

Now in the early 21st century scientists believe we are warming due to human produced CO2.

Were they both right? Is one right? Nobody knows for sure, a lot of people have theories but nothing has, as of yet, proven to be fact.

It is as simple as that...

The evidence of C02 correlation is VERY strong. This information is out there if you want to research it. Read the IPCC report... the science and data is pretty clear.

I think there is this perception that people want to "go after" CO2 producers. Thats not the case at all. But we should acknowledge that the rapid recent RATE of climate change (over the past century) shows a strong correlation to the dramatic jump in C02 levels -- over 100ppm in the last century. So its not about telling firms or drivers they can no longer produce C02. Its not about banning it. Its about moving ahead in research and development that will move us closer to an economy that is not based on carbon, but on more sustainable energy technologies. And this would be a good idea from an economic perspective even if global warming didn't exist at all.... if there's even a SMALL chance that global warming is tied to carbon production increases, then it is merely a terrific side benefit of the industrial revolution that would come from shifting to more sustainable technologies.

And make no mistake about it, there is not just a small chance that it is human caused. The evidence is overwhelming. There is no controversy in the scientific community any more than there is on evolution (also technically a "theory"). The scientific community is nigh universally in agreement, because the climate and C02 data is so clear in support of the greenhouse gas hypothesis. The only people asserting that an anthropogenic cause is a myth are people who have not studied the data, and are trying to promote the idea of a controversy so that no action will be taken.

Quote:And make no mistake about it, there is not just a small chance that it is human caused. The evidence is overwhelming. There is no controversy in the scientific community any more than there is on evolution (also technically a "theory"). The scientific community is nigh universally in agreement, because the climate and C02 data is so clear in support of the greenhouse gas hypothesis. The only people asserting that an anthropogenic cause is a myth are people who have not studied the data, and are trying to promote the idea of a controversy so that no action will be taken.

Then why is there such a large percentage of scientists who don't believe this still? How about the meteorologists who don't believe humans could cause something of this magnitude?!?

Some people believe it is due to a slight variation in the earth's orbit around the sun. Others, as GTS stated, believe it is due to the increased solar activity over the past decade. Some believe that due to the slashing and burning of large areas of rain forest in South America the amount of CO2 taken out of the atmosphere has dropped. Some believe it is just natural variation, and after the "little ice age" of the 1600's we were due to warm up. Others believe it is due to there being less cloud cover over the past decade (no major volcanic eruptions, thus no large cloud that decreases the temperature of the planet like in the past). Some believe it is a combination of some or all of the above mentioned things...

IMO there is no general concensus of what is causing the warming. The global warming theory has gotten the most media hype. Why? Just my opinion, but I believe it is due to the fact that it is a great "fear" story. The media loves stories that can predict doom, because they get high ratings. "The storm of the century", "Blizzard 2007", etc. etc. How come none of the other theories get any air time on ABC, CBS, Fox, or NBC? Because they are too busy talking about sexual preditors and things of that nature.