Upon closer examination, this is worth reposting as a separate strand. I am glad someone brough it up. So, here we go:
Ok this just pisses me off.Heres something to think about, the data which we base our "global warming THEORY" comes from what? It comes from temperature readings and readings of gas levels in our present day atmosphere. So how long have we had a reliable and accurate method of measuring temperature? I think Galileo had one of the first ones in 1593. Now when did we first start recording these temperatures? I dont know. But we notice the increase in temperature within the last 200 years or so. Now how do we know that the earth isnt doin it by itself? Well the earth has never increased this fast and to such a large degree (pun intended). How do we know that? Well those "guys" looks at ice and trees and rocks and it has never done this before. Ok but how far back are these "guys" lookin? Hundreds of Thousands of Years! To me that seems like a BIG scale, i wonder how accurate can it be? How can we be certain that this isnt just a blip, a little jump, how can we be sure that is hasnt already happened? 100,000 year vs 200 hmmm.The world is cyclical, life then death then more life. Rain then water then more rain. Ice age then warming then ice age. The facts are that we dont know, and throwing money at something that could not even be a problem is just stupid. Dont just tell me im doomed then make me give you money to solve it. Nothing pisses me off more than throwing money at a "problem." Global warming is just a tool used by politicians to fuel our fears, its the same as James Fox's 1995 prediction of a 15 percent increase in murder among teenagers. That was used to help Clinton's election and the rate dropped 50 percent within five years. You are all being tricked by power/money-hungry politicians like Al Gore, can someone tell me why he got the noble peace prize?ugh Glaz why do you post this? Im probably the only one who will present a counterpoint against this liberal garbage."Alarm rather than genuine scientific curiosity, it appears, is essential to maintaining funding. And only the most senior scientists today can stand up against this alarmist gale, and defy the iron triangle of climate scientists, advocates and policymakers." -Mr. Lindzen is Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220
For my part, I’ll only say one thing: no-one said there is no disagreement among scientists…
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Reposting:
Capitansxyboat, I think you may be missing a very important piece of information
You say that we have been able to record temperature for only the past 200 years... well the thermometer and reliable documents may be just that old, but there are others ways of measuring temperature, sea levels, and CO2 levels.
By digging into the ice of Antarctica and taking out a several meter long core sample, we can accurately measure the average temperature of the earth as far back as FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND years.
You ask how far back we are looking?
400,000 years is your answer.
Info: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/warnings/stories/
Less reliable but more informative:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core
And yes, these ice records are just as realizable a method of measuring properties of old things as say... carbon dating
thats my point when they are looking at "FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND years" condensed down to a couple of meters of ice, do you really think its as accurate as what we a comparin it to (the 200 years of recorded data)?
Im not sayin the earth aint heatin up but im saying that the politicians are blowing it out of proportion in order to scare us into voting for them because they have "solutions."
"FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND years" condensed down to a couple of meters of ice
Actually, if the sample size is large enough, it is. Better living through satatistics!
Basically what CaptainSxyBoat is saying is that no matter what we do, we are doomed to experience the effects of global warming, whatever they may be.
You display the pessimistic approach to evaluating global warming, because there isn't anything wrong with funding research in the matter of global warming. Would you prefer that we take no measures and allow the earth to go on it's cyclical motion and wipe us out, or possibly find a way of stopping or delaying it.
While there may or may not be a problem I think we're better safe than sorry on this one. Why would huge corporations risk their reputations on this matter if it wasn't significant? Why are so many people in general putting their reputations at stake for this issue? Is it really just to look good? Riddle me this.
Corporations risk thier reputations on this because there is MONEY to be made. If corporations can convince the government to take action then that action becomes federal funding towards those corporations. duh...
Im not saying we are doomed either. Im sayin that the politicians and corporations are blowing this out of proportion in order to make money.
Another thing is i dont want to be told to take action if the people telling me arent. How does Al Gore get from one lecture to another? He flies in a private jet with probably just a few more people. Then he gets in a limo that only gets (im guessin) 15 mpg. Then he gives a speech to a bunch of people in an air conditioned room. Thats Al Gore saving the world one lecture at a time.
thats because al gore only cares about da benjamins
There isn’t anything wrong with spending money on investigating why the Earth is warming up so rapidly. The thing is I don’t think we have enough accurate evidence of what has gone on during Earths life to say that global warming is extremely serious and needs to be dealt with right away. This rise in temperature of the Earth might just be some big cycle Earth goes through every certain amount of years.
I also agree with captainsxyboat, with how politicians are blowing global warming out of proportion to either make money or get people to vote for them.
i hate to look at the glass as half empty, but can we really take the CO2 out of the atmosphere. Because until we can take out all the crap we have put into the air, the temperature is going to continue increasing.
also, if we dont deal with global warming now, how are we going to find a way to stop it. So if we do give those politicians our votes, isnt that a good thing?
Post a Comment