Global Cooling?

[Avatar]

I heard a talk show host(I was late going to work, and don't even know who was on at 1045 in am)
say that the ice in the glaciers is growing, iceland has more ice, and greenland is ice and snow covered.
Polar bears are thriving, and everything that GW supporters have used is reversing.

He didn't give support for his words.

Has anyone heard this?

Sounds like he's saying it's colder now (in the winter) than it was in the summer when everything was melting.

 

[CGL]

I heard a talk show host(I was late going to work, and don't even know who was on at 1045 in am)
say that the ice in the glaciers is growing, iceland has more ice, and greenland is ice and snow covered.
Polar bears are thriving, and everything that GW supporters have used is reversing.

He didn't give support for his words.

Has anyone heard this?

You mean this?

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/07/06/greenland_ice_yields_hope_on_climate/

 

[jiminpa]

First off, Al Gore did not invent the internet, and yes he did make the claim, then lied about what he said. The liberal media "buried" the copies of his original claim, and started hammering us with his revised claim. My point, Gore will say anything for a buck, and the gatekeepers will filter it.

Of course it's a hoax, just like the imminent new ice-age of my teenage years. And you people are letting them yank you around over the weather, which they have to keep revising. Man-made ice-age, man-made warming, man-made ice-age... It's right in front of your face and you don't see it. I wouldn't mind, but when you welcome your slavemasters with open arms they'll enslave the rest of us too.

 

[SallyNow]

a) It's climate change, not "global warming". Global warming is often a term used to stir up confusion, and often used in conjunction with strawman arguements or when one is only looking at small section of the Earth and ignoring the bigger picture

b) We know pollution is harmful. Even if climate change was not happening (though we know it is) pollution still causes huge numbers of diseases and deaths around the world. Pollution is destroying humans, not to mention forests, rivers, oceans, animals, plants, ecosystems...

Of course, in North America only sees a small bit of the pollution, because we send off our really polluting industries off to poorer nations and destroy the health of people in those places.

 

[IisJustMe]

You have made this very same claim before, and it was pointed out to you in detail with references why it is not true. Don't you think it is a little dishonest to bring it up again?

You can claim it is not true all you want. You can cite the minority view as the "consensus" all you want. The fact is, there is no consensus, and the "Al Gore view" is in the minority. Like it or not. As to the science of CO2 long-wave radiant heat absorption, go check out a book not written by an IPCC signatory and get the facts.

 

[Billnew]

a) It's climate change, not "global warming". Global warming is often a term used to stir up confusion, and often used in conjunction with strawman arguements or when one is only looking at small section of the Earth and ignoring the bigger picture

b) We know pollution is harmful. Even if climate change was not happening (though we know it is) pollution still causes huge numbers of diseases and deaths around the world. Pollution is destroying humans, not to mention forests, rivers, oceans, animals, plants, ecosystems...

Of course, in North America only sees a small bit of the pollution, because we send off our really polluting industries off to poorer nations and destroy the health of people in those places.

A) Climate change has always taken place. Warming and cooling trends.
B) Polution control must always look for ways to reduce or eliminate unhealthy emmisions, but better to this in a calm, and deliberate manner then charging ahead in a panic(driven by hysterical GW disasters).

C) IMO Oil production is one of these. We don't want to
endanger our ecology, so we import from violent 3rd world countrys, when it would be better to establish reasonable controls to protect people and the enviorment, and still have our own petrolium production.
And the thrid world countries use substandard tankers and wreck the worlds enviroment and we can't do anything but cry tto the UN.

The USA could be setting an example to the world of safe, and clean enviromental production of oil, but the
left don't want any production of oil in the USA.

GW panic was just a minority of people trying to
herd people into drastic and severe changes in their lifestyles in the name of saving the world.
Improvements should be made, but slow gradual, and
educated changes(to be sure what the changes will do in the long term.)

 

[Adivi]

First off, Al Gore did not invent the internet, and yes he did make the claim, then lied about what he said. The liberal media "buried" the copies of his original claim, and started hammering us with his revised claim. My point, Gore will say anything for a buck, and the gatekeepers will filter it.

Here's Gore's quote: "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet." Source: Snopes, firstmonday.org, salon.com
I challenge you to give me three sources that say anything different.
And I think it's fair to say that he did take that initiative; we say that Eisenhower created the highway system, but we don't interpret that to mean he did all the groundwork; rather, he funded it.

 

[Adivi]

You can claim it is not true all you want. You can cite the minority view as the "consensus" all you want. The fact is, there is no consensus, and the "Al Gore view" is in the minority. Like it or not. As to the science of CO2 long-wave radiant heat absorption, go check out a book not written by an IPCC signatory and get the facts.

Source, source, source. Telling your opponents to "do the research" is very poor form for debates.

 

[IisJustMe]

Source, source, source. Telling your opponents to "do the research" is very poor form for debates.

One, debating is not allowed on this forum. Two, I've given you at least a dozen links on this and other threads. Pretending I haven't is intellectual dishonesty. Seems I've told you that before too.

 

[Greatcloud]

Iisjustme they have said the same thing to me too,"we have already proved you wrong". Well in both our cases that is not true,and even if it's true anyone can say whatever they want on here. They try to take the high ground and say they are the ones who are right,except that for 35 years AGW has not been proven. There are no mathematical formulas that show how much heat is caused by absorbtion of CO2 and reflected back.

Temperatures are going down as CO2 is going up.

None of the disasters they have predicted have happened.

The sun is responsible for the record cold we have here in 2008, dropping TSI and a delayed sunspot cycle are the reasons for the cold. At last the sun can be seen as the powerful force it is.

 

[horuhe00]

Ok, I'll bite into this thread to put my two cents in. (I haven't read the previous posts)

If, by pure luck, the sun is countering the effects of global warming by entering into a new cycle, does that mean we are off the hook and free to continue things as-is? Of course not! Crude oil passing $105 a barrel is plenty of proof to explain why we must heavily invest in renewable sources of energy (read: solar, wind, thermal, non-nuclear). Let's say that the whole greenhouse gasses, global warming thing is a lie, like some people have tenaciously proposed. Does anyone remember seeing the pictures of 1970's Los Angeles? That orange cloud hovering over the city? Or how about the countries that are planning on boycotting the 2008 Olimpics because the air is so dirty in Beijing that they don't want their athletes inhailing that.

Besides, the solar cycle will end.

 

[Caitlin.ann]

Ok, I'll bite into this thread to put my two cents in. (I haven't read the previous posts)

If, by pure luck, the sun is countering the effects of global warming by entering into a new cycle, does that mean we are off the hook and free to continue things as-is? Of course not! Crude oil passing $105 a barrel is plenty of proof to explain why we must heavily invest in renewable sources of energy (read: solar, wind, thermal, non-nuclear). Let's say that the whole greenhouse gasses, global warming thing is a lie, like some people have tenaciously proposed. Does anyone remember seeing the pictures of 1970's Los Angeles? That orange cloud hovering over the city? Or how about the countries that are planning on boycotting the 2008 Olimpics because the air is so dirty in Beijing that they don't want their athletes inhailing that.

Besides, the solar cycle will end.

If those things ended up being a lie, then I think it would still be good to use energy saving technologies. Its cheaper and better for the Earth. Regardless of whether or not we have a huge impact on the Earth, isn't it much better to take care of the only home we have instead of trashing it up? Besides, it would make the place much nicer looking as well.

 

[horuhe00]

If those things ended up being a lie, then I think it would still be good to use energy saving technologies. Its cheaper and better for the Earth. Regardless of whether or not we have a huge impact on the Earth, isn't it much better to take care of the only home we have instead of trashing it up? Besides, it would make the place much nicer looking as well.

Exactly. There's no reason to have a fit about minimizing our oil dependency.

 

[Avatar]

Exactly. There's no reason to have a fit about minimizing our oil dependency.

But when you do it by converting your agricultural farmland to crops intended for biofuel prices of all food increase, including meat, across the board. Tis basic economics. Is the american public willing to spend an extra dollar for a loaf of bread to save 3 cents on a gallon of gas?

It will be interesting watching the market sort this out.

 

[Caitlin.ann]

But when you do it by converting your agricultural farmland to crops intended for biofuel prices of all food increase, including meat, across the board. Tis basic economics. Is the american public willing to spend an extra dollar for a loaf of bread to save 3 cents on a gallon of gas?

It will be interesting watching the market sort this out.

Well technically, you could say that since about somewhere between 70-80% (I forgot the exact numbers) of the crops we grow goes to feed the animals we ultimately consume, it would be better for everyone if we all switched to a healthier vegetarian diet. Just playing devil's advocate, and I'm not preaching, I promise!

 

[Avatar]

Well technically, you could say that since about somewhere between 70-80% (I forgot the exact numbers) of the crops we grow goes to feed the animals we ultimately consume, it would be better for everyone if we all switched to a healthier vegetarian diet. Just playing devil's advocate, and I'm not preaching, I promise!

Yes, you're absolutely correct. That's why I said 'including meat' in my post.

 

[Caitlin.ann]

Sorry about that then..I'm horribly bad at just scanning posts.

 

[Avatar]

Sorry about that then..I'm horribly bad at just scanning posts.

I do the same thing all the time.

 

[Greatcloud]

What goes up, must come down, spinning wheel, gotta go round!

What we see is that while CO2 is skyrocketing, the average temperature is dropping fast. It was 1996 when it was this cold before,we lost all that warming in one shot.


Ya know its almost as if something else was driving global temperatures....something else...what could that be????

What about, the SUN!?!??!?!??!?!?

Wow! What a revelation! Our atmosphere is affected by a huge ball of hydrogen burning just a few light minutes away. Hummmm if only there was some proof, I know what about some global measurements.

Global Warm...errr...Climate Change
This is a compilation of the certified, IPCC recognized global temperature stations used to plot global temperatures.
</IMG>

 

[Adivi]

What goes up, must come down, spinning wheel, gotta go round!

What we see is that while CO2 is skyrocketing, the average temperature is dropping fast. It was 1996 when it was this cold before,we lost all that warming in one shot.


Ya know its almost as if something else was driving global temperatures....something else...what could that be????

What about, the SUN!?!??!?!??!?!?

Wow! What a revelation! Our atmosphere is affected by a huge ball of hydrogen burning just a few light minutes away. Hummmm if only there was some proof, I know what about some global measurements.

Global Warm...errr...Climate Change
This is a compilation of the certified, IPCC recognized global temperature stations used to plot global temperatures.
</IMG>

Hey, you know, it was getting warmer over here for a while, but then it snowed again. I guess we'll have winter forever.