Elwood Loc: Florida

http://www.richardcyoung.com/essential-news/world-end/?awt_l=Iq9Sk&awt_m=3Z3waNaSQthIe1V&utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=world-end

This is for all the proponents of g****l w*****g and their dire warnings of global catastrophy. :-D

skott Loc: Bama

100% of people that have predicted the end of the world have been wrong.

Elwood Loc: Florida

:thumbup: :thumbup: :-D

mkewlkez

The whole G****l W*****g thing is nonsense. It's just another excuse for the gov't to piss away our money on something that nobody (including them)is even sure exists.

Elwood Loc: Florida

Problem is that you can't convince the tree huggers and their liberal cohorts of this. They still believe all the bs that Al Bore (Gore) put out even though most of it has already been debunked. :hunf:

rumitoid

This is a fascinating controversy to me. I have no clue about the science and so I am unable to add my voice to the debate. It has become a political football instead of a matter of humane concern.

What is really interesting is doing a search. Google "is g****l w*****g real" and you get mostly articles supporting it. Goggle "is g****l w*****g a h**x" and you get articles mostly against it.

Because much of our economy is carbon-based, there is much at risk if g****l w*****g is true. On the other hand, make g****l w*****g real and you create a multi-billion dollar industry. Keeping the traditional way of doing business is a strong tendency of the conservative. Finding new ways of doing things a strong tendency of liberals. It is not that these two tendencies are either strictly adhered to or missing from both, only that the propensity for each is stronger by the particular bent, hence the head-on crash we see so often over this issue. The arguments: the Right is bought and paid for by the Corporate Oil; the Left is bought and paid for by Corporate Green. Probably some t***h to both ideas yet who might suffer if the argument remains in the political arena?

Here is a cut and paste from a very straight forward article that makes sense to me (which does not have any real import, just that I seem to understand the logic): http://news.discovery.com/earth/global-warming/is-global-warming-real.htm
"What do you think of when you hear the words "g****l w*****g?" "You might envision melting ice caps, drowning polar bears and shrinking coast lines. Or perhaps your mind turns to magazine covers, politicians and celebrity activists. G****l w*****g has become a very d******e term, but is it real?

"The short answer, according to environmental scientist David Keith, is yes.

"There is no disagreement among really anybody who is scientific in any way that the world is a lot warmer than it was 100 years ago," Keith says. "If there are interesting disagreements, the disagreements are about whether this is the warmest it's been since the ice ages 10,000 years ago."
NEWS: Still No Support for G****l W*****g 'Slowdown'

"A recipient of honors that include MIT's prize for excellence in experimental physics, Keith has spoken to governments, corporations and media outlets about c*****e c****e. As he points out, scientists use various methods to measure g****l w*****g; they produce varying answers.

"If all the scientists in the world believed there was only one answer, it would be right for all the rest of us to be skeptical," Keith said. "There's nothing in the world that one ever measures with perfect accuracy."

"Those measurements include thermostatic records and satellite images that document temperature increases over the past century. Additionally, paleoclimate databases suggest the current rate of increase is substantially higher than normal.

"While g****l w*****g is certainly an important aspect of c*****e c****e, the term's use in mass media may actually serve to distract people from the real issues. Keith uses the example of a human patient hooked up to a mercury drip to illustrate this point.

"The hypothetical human will eventually die from mercury poisoning — it’s the scientific reality of the situation. The media focus on year-by-year warming or cooling, he argues, is akin to focusing on the patient's symptoms instead of the proven underlying condition and the cause behind it. In the case of c*****e c****e, elevated carbon dioxide (CO2) levels are the deadly mercury drip.

"The core theory says if you double or triple CO2 in the atmosphere, it's going to get warmer," Keith said. "This is something we've known from pretty basic physics and proved with a lot of good science for more than 100 years. That's the reason to worry, not the warming over the last few decades."

"Scientists first raised concerns over the warming effects of CO2 in the atmosphere in the 1960s, when the climate was actually cooling. While there's nothing overtly problematic about natural c*****e c****e, it’s the rate of change that worries experts.

Elwood Loc: Florida

I don't think that Keith has resolved the problem for us. OK, C02 increase
contributes to the problem but I don't see that as the total problem. As Keith admits, there were no human controls over climatic changes over the eons and man's efforts to effect c*****e c****e will be puny at best. Just my thoughts. Thanks for you submitting your thoughts and providing the Keith info.

ron vrooman Loc: Now OR, born NV

Maybe global change would have been a better slang term for the phenomena. I would think that the only thing that could possibly effect what is occurring is man. No huge volcano eruptions (Krakatoa); no huge meteor strikes, no alien invasion; the farts of traveling herds in Africa in fact affect the atmosphere. However it is mostly methane. Ocums-razor.
(sp) seems to fit here.

Elwood Loc: Florida

In the context of competing philosophies Occams Razor could well apply. :thumbup: