the climate is changing, always has and always will. earth has experienced many ice ages, warm periods, different composition of the atmosphere etc.

why should it stop now? the big 'fight' is whether is natural or solely man made. no matter what the cause, there probably isnt really much we can actually, truly do about it anyway.

I suspect that it's both. But why should we be trying to conquer the environment instead of adapting to it?

__________________
A panda walks into a cafe. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and fires two shots in the air.

"Why?" asks the confused waiter, as the panda makes toward the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.

"I'm a panda," he says at the door. "Look it up."

The waiter turns to the relevant entry and, sure enough, finds an explanation.

"Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves."

chan

do you apply this to other professions ? i guess you ignore your doctor, argue with your mechanic. better hope you never end up in court, you will just ignore your legal counsel.

experience, evidence, rational and consistent argument to support their position that essentially all their colleagues agree with. but what is this when compared to the unassailable might of your opinion ?

are you suggesting that just because we agree does not make them automatically right ?

i suppose then you will accept that just because you DISAGREE does not make you automatically right.

please provide some evidence for this piece of crap.

I'm automatically skeptical when people add adjectives such as "credible" or "eminent" or (insert glowing adjective here) to any profession.


Rational and consistent according to whom? According to the majority view? According to the status quo? It is pretty damned stupid of you to take this view that "if the majority believes it then it must be so"!


I'm simply expressing skepticism.


Remember your history? Another Ice Age? - TIME

"As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing...When Climatologist George J. Kukla of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory and his wife Helena analyzed satellite weather data for the Northern Hemisphere, they found that the area of the ice and snow cover had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since. Areas of Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic, for example, were once totally free of any snow in summer; now they are covered year round.

Scientists have found other indications of global cooling. For one thing there has been a noticeable expansion of the great belt of dry, high-altitude polar winds —the so-called circumpolar vortex—that sweep from west to east around the top and bottom of the world. Indeed it is the widening of this cap of cold air that is the immediate cause of Africa's drought. By blocking moisture-bearing equatorial winds and preventing them from bringing rainfall to the parched sub-Sahara region, as well as other drought-ridden areas stretching all the way from Central America to the Middle East and India, the polar winds have in effect caused the Sahara and other deserts to reach farther to the south. Paradoxically, the same vortex has created quite different weather quirks in the U.S. and other temperate zones. As the winds swirl around the globe, their southerly portions undulate like the bottom of a skirt. Cold air is pulled down across the Western U.S. and warm air is swept up to the Northeast. The collision of air masses of widely differing temperatures and humidity can create violent storms—the Midwest's recent rash of disastrous tornadoes, for example."

__________________
A panda walks into a cafe. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and fires two shots in the air.

"Why?" asks the confused waiter, as the panda makes toward the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.

"I'm a panda," he says at the door. "Look it up."

The waiter turns to the relevant entry and, sure enough, finds an explanation.

"Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves."

THe "ice age" was never supported by the bulk of the climatological community. It was, however, supported by a lot of media outlets who got the information wrong and decided to run with it because it got good news.

This myth has been debunked countless times before, but retards keep bringing it up.

__________________

Chan

fair enough. could be false advertising. so, do you ever believe anyone ?

no, the majority can be wrong (look at your president !!) but that is not what i was saying. evidence needs to be looked at by people who understand it, who have access to all of it, who can put each piece into context. often, there are professions who exist purely to do this and climatology is one of them. the fact that they all agree suggests that they are either right, or all wrong, or all politically motivated. you either need to accept all the climatologists worldwide are either stupid, or in a huge conspiracy, or they are right.

noting wrong with that, it makes people look at the evidence and clarify the argument. but this has happened now and the debate has to move on. you could theoretically express skepticism about the earth being round, but you might just end up looking silly.

i suppose Time is a "credible" source. but it was 34 years ago. and it was written by a journalist, not a meteorologist. and it was a minority opinion even then. most climate specialists said knowledge was too limited to make any firm statements.

if someone else on this site presented you with an article from 1974 written by someone outside their field of expertise, would you consider it a good argument ?

Science-type stuff

You are correct.. in fact the earth's temperature has been decreasing for the past few years...

It had been warming for the last 150 years or so.

..and you are correct, Carbon dioxide at 375 ppm and changes of 10 - 20 ppm has little if any effect on the earth's temperature.

This is a political movement created by those who want to tax the air that we breathe... so that they can increase the size and power of their tyrannical government.

Translation: the majority didn't say it, therefore it isn't so.

Are you saying that the article is wrong in stating that the climatologists referenced in the article didn't claim what they claimed?

The point, stupid (maybe you should think twice about referring to people as retards), is that the notion of a coming ice age was receiving the kind of hype back then that global warming is receiving now.

__________________
A panda walks into a cafe. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and fires two shots in the air.

"Why?" asks the confused waiter, as the panda makes toward the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.

"I'm a panda," he says at the door. "Look it up."

The waiter turns to the relevant entry and, sure enough, finds an explanation.

"Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves."

Not completely.


First of all, I doubt very much that ALL climatologists agree (the burden is on you to prove that absolutely every climatologist in the world agrees) and, second, the I referenced the Time article because of its specific reference to certain climatologists who were suggesting a coming ice age.


Is it really "round" or is there perhaps a slight bulge at the equator?


The purpose of referring to the Time article was that it is one example of the hype from back then about a coming ice age. But notice that in the article it wasn't Time that was saying there would be a coming ice age but a climatologist who had done research.

Again, it wasn't Time that was saying there would be a coming ice age but a climatologist referenced in the article. By the way, I was alive in 1974 and I remember the hype that was being made about a coming ice age and that hype is not really any different from the hype being made today about global warming.

__________________
A panda walks into a cafe. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and fires two shots in the air.

"Why?" asks the confused waiter, as the panda makes toward the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.

"I'm a panda," he says at the door. "Look it up."

The waiter turns to the relevant entry and, sure enough, finds an explanation.

"Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves."

Are you saying that science is not a decision of the majority?

Remember The Population Bomb (1968) by Paul R. Ehrlich? OH how the left were enamored by his insight and 'credibility' and all of it has been proven wrong.. he was the AL Gore of his day.. and all wrong.. just like Al Gore.