Climate changes?????

[BUD]

I just got though watching "The Day After Tomorrow" good movie,but it got me to start thinking.All these hurricanes,is this a sign of the world changing

[dolebot_Broward_NW]

Just like if you spend 8 hours on a plane reading a magazine about diabetes, by the time you land.... You have it!

[Hurricaneman]

I dont know, but things in our climate seem to have changed

[mike18xx]

I dont know, but things in our climate seem to have changed

Not terribly long ago, after fire and arrowheads but before cars and computers, where you're living was buried under a mile of ice.

The so-called "changes" everyone keeps hollering about every four seconds are barely discernable mouse-farts compared to that.

[HurricaneJoe22]

mouse farts? LMAO

[Florida_brit]

I heard that last year the Atantic Ocean was 1 degree warmer than average. There was meant to be lead to the larger and stronger force hurricanes last year.

Depending on who argument you believe
Bush - there isn't such a thing as man made climate change
Blair (UK Prime Minister) - act now to stop irreversible effects of man made climate change which will be in place in 20 years.

I am on Blair's side.

What ever side you are on....It is a konw fact that if the earth warms up hurricanes will increase in intensity and frequency.

[TSmith274]

I personally think it's a cycle. But, I can remember duck hunting 20 years ago and breaking ice with the mudboat. And this is south of New Orleans! But I do believe we seem to be warming up. Years ago, we had plenty of ducks every year in Louisiana. They would migrate down here to escape the extreme cold up north. Nowadays, they are stopping short because the midwestern states are warm enough. It's made for several years of dissapointing duck hunting.

[mike18xx]

Depending on who argument you believe
Bush - there isn't such a thing as man made climate change
Blair (UK Prime Minister) - act now to stop irreversible effects of man made climate change which will be in place in 20 years.
....I am on Blair's side.

I think everyone who thinks my money is necessary to "stop irreversible effects" should go push up daisies.

[HurryKane]

Just like if you spend 8 hours on a plane reading a magazine about diabetes, by the time you land.... You have it!

Tee hee.

[facemane]

I personally think it's a cycle. But, I can remember duck hunting 20 years ago and breaking ice with the mudboat. And this is south of New Orleans! But I do believe we seem to be warming up. Years ago, we had plenty of ducks every year in Louisiana. They would migrate down here to escape the extreme cold up north. Nowadays, they are stopping short because the midwestern states are warm enough. It's made for several years of dissapointing duck hunting.

count me in this opinion as well, the climate of the Mesozoic era was much
warmer than the one today,and I don't believe Dinosaurs were driving
SUV's,bulldozing Rain forrests,or operating Coal plants. A single Volcanic
eruption spews more poisonous gasses into the atmosphere than mankind
produces in 30 years. Let me know when the Scientific community finds a
way to stop them You can't forget about the Political aspect of this debate.
Imo,those scientist crying about Global Warming also have an Agenda.They're
doing their best to get a few Million dollars in Grant money,

http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjec ... /mesozoic/

[angelwing]

The so-called "changes" everyone keeps hollering about every four seconds are barely discernable mouse-farts compared to that.

[mahicks]

I heard that last year the Atantic Ocean was 1 degree warmer than average. There was meant to be lead to the larger and stronger force hurricanes last year.

Depending on who argument you believe
Bush - there isn't such a thing as man made climate change
Blair (UK Prime Minister) - act now to stop irreversible effects of man made climate change which will be in place in 20 years.

I am on Blair's side.

What ever side you are on....It is a konw fact that if the earth warms up hurricanes will increase in intensity and frequency.

Did Bush really make that comment??
If so, that has to be one of the most irrational, ignorant, slap in the face of Americans comment I've ever heard..
(In my Best Napolean Dynomite Voice GOSH!!!....IDIOTS!!)

Ok...Back on topic

[jasons2k]

Depending on who argument you believe
Bush - there isn't such a thing as man made climate change

If you are going to summarize the President's stance on climate change, please PLEASE at least get it right.

Bush's position IS NOT "there isn't such a thing as man made climate change". That's what the New York Times may want you to believe but that is not correct and please do not post as such.

The general stance of the Bush administration is that while it is quite possible that man is probably influencing climate change, the answer is by no means yet definitive, especially "how much" we are influencing it. That seems to be the key question.

As far as doing something about it, the Bush adminsitration is working hard to get something on the table that works for everybody. He is often called evil for not endorsing the Kyoto treaty - but why on earth should we bear the brunt of the COSTS involved (and yes, it is EXPENSIVE) when other countries like China and India get a free pass? How is that fair or effective?

Furthermore, when you start assessing the real dollars involved to make some of the changes, you have to be pretty darn sure that you're not wasting money on a lost cause - which it would be if we can't get developing countries to be on board as well.

Please don't misinterpret my post as anti-environment or pro-pollution because I am not. I want clean, clear air just like the guy next door with 4 kids. All I'm saying is first - quote accurately and second, look a little deeper into the issue.

And to answer the other post "Did Bush really make that comment??" the answer is NO he did not.

[dhweather]

Depending on who argument you believe
Bush - there isn't such a thing as man made climate change

If you are going to summarize the President's stance on climate change, please PLEASE at least get it right.

Bush's position IS NOT "there isn't such a thing as man made climate change". That's what the New York Times may want you to believe but that is not correct and please do not post as such.

The general stance of the Bush administration is that while it is quite possible that man is probably influencing climate change, the answer is by no means yet definitive, especially "how much" we are influencing it. That seems to be the key question.

As far as doing something about it, the Bush adminsitration is working hard to get something on the table that works for everybody. He is often called evil for not endorsing the Kyoto treaty - but why on earth should we bear the brunt of the COSTS involved (and yes, it is EXPENSIVE) when other countries like China and India get a free pass? How is that fair or effective?

Furthermore, when you start assessing the real dollars involved to make some of the changes, you have to be pretty darn sure that you're not wasting money on a lost cause - which it would be if we can't get developing countries to be on board as well.

Please don't misinterpret my post as anti-environment or pro-pollution because I am not. I want clean, clear air just like the guy next door with 4 kids. All I'm saying is first - quote accurately and second, look a little deeper into the issue.

And to answer the other post "Did Bush really make that comment??" the answer is NO he did not.

Nail meet hammer.

Back to the topic......

Now, we are undergoing some sort of climate change. What exactly, we do not know.

In my opinion it is absurd to believe that we (mankind) are the sole
source of the changes ongoing in the climate. We have a couple of
hundred years of climatological data to base this on. The earth is
how many mucho-millions years old?

It might be that we are entering a normal phase for mother earth - she
owes us no explanation.

It also might be that we (mankind) are contaminating mother earth so
much, that we are enhancing the changes ongoing.

There are some things we know are bad - rising mercury levels in fish are
a clear indicator that something is changing. The likely source for that
is the burning of coal around the globe. I know for a fact that larger
fish in the GOM have dangerously high levels of mercury in them.
The same holds troue around other countries that burn coal.

China is, by far, the largest coal burning country in the world.
They go unchecked and the Kyoto treaty did nothing to enforce them
to clean up. While there is still room for improvement in our
environmental policies, the US, by far, does a much better job than most
other countries in keeping some form of regulation on pollution.

[Ivanhater]

Depending on who argument you believe
Bush - there isn't such a thing as man made climate change

If you are going to summarize the President's stance on climate change, please PLEASE at least get it right.

Bush's position IS NOT "there isn't such a thing as man made climate change". That's what the New York Times may want you to believe but that is not correct and please do not post as such.

The general stance of the Bush administration is that while it is quite possible that man is probably influencing climate change, the answer is by no means yet definitive, especially "how much" we are influencing it. That seems to be the key question.

As far as doing something about it, the Bush adminsitration is working hard to get something on the table that works for everybody. He is often called evil for not endorsing the Kyoto treaty - but why on earth should we bear the brunt of the COSTS involved (and yes, it is EXPENSIVE) when other countries like China and India get a free pass? How is that fair or effective?

Furthermore, when you start assessing the real dollars involved to make some of the changes, you have to be pretty darn sure that you're not wasting money on a lost cause - which it would be if we can't get developing countries to be on board as well.

Please don't misinterpret my post as anti-environment or pro-pollution because I am not. I want clean, clear air just like the guy next door with 4 kids. All I'm saying is first - quote accurately and second, look a little deeper into the issue.

And to answer the other post "Did Bush really make that comment??" the answer is NO he did not.

best post ive read in a while!!!

[x-y-no]

Must ... stay ... away ... from global warming ... arguments ....



Seriously, though ... can we take this up in November or something? There's a pretty extraordinary tropical season out there to discuss right now.

Jan

(p.s. dhweather makes some good points although I'd quibble some .... ack! ... must ... stay ... away ... from global warming ... arguments .... )

[Steve]

Kind of agree with the 'don't know but anything's possible' scenario and completely agree with cycles providing the warming. That doesn't mean that man isn't responsible for some warming (look at any urban concrete jungle and or Phoenix, AZ for pretty much proof of what development can do). But I also agree with the veto of Kyoto since we shouldn't be held responsible for the developing world's ambitions. If the EU wants to do it, fine. And while we should step as lightly as possible on the earth wherever possible, they can't be blaming America for everything and force us to pick up the tab for everyone else.

>>I think everyone who thinks my money is necessary to "stop irreversible effects" should go push up daisies.

Just a question - I saw your "please don't politicize" post on s768. You said the topic's been locked already once. Yes it has. And I didn't respond in that one because you took too simplistic of a libertarian approach to a topic you hadn't scratched the surface on. FYI, there are 10-12 other threads on this bill that didn't get locked.

So here's the question - why be arrogant in your posts? It's okay to back what you believe in, but seriously dude, there are enough arrogant s.o.b.'s that get away with posting here that they really don't need any more of them. I like and appreciate your weather takes, but none of us knows it all. /food for thought.

Steve

[Ivanhater]

[quote="Steve"]Kind of agree with the 'don't know but anything's possible' scenario and completely agree with cycles providing the warming. That doesn't mean that man isn't responsible for some warming (look at any urban concrete jungle and or Phoenix, AZ for pretty much proof of what development can do). But I also agree with the veto of Kyoto since we shouldn't be held responsible for the developing world's ambitions. If the EU wants to do it, fine. And while we should step as lightly as possible on the earth wherever possible, they can't be blaming America for everything and force us to pick up the tab for everyone else.

>>I think everyone who thinks my money is necessary to "stop irreversible effects" should go push up daisies.

Just a question - I saw your "please don't politicize" post on s768. You said the topic's been locked already once. Yes it has. And I didn't respond in that one because you took too simplistic of a libertarian approach to a topic you hadn't scratched the surface on. FYI, there are 10-12 other threads on this bill that didn't get locked.

So here's the question - why be arrogant in your posts? It's okay to back what you believe in, but seriously dude, there are enough arrogant s.o.b.'s that get away with posting here that they really don't need any more of them. I like and appreciate your weather takes, but none of us knows it all. /food for thought.

Steve[/quote

i tell ya, there really are some arrogant people on this forum..nobody in this thread but there are a lot out there

[wxcrazytwo]

Depending on who argument you believe
Bush - there isn't such a thing as man made climate change

If you are going to summarize the President's stance on climate change, please PLEASE at least get it right.

Bush's position IS NOT "there isn't such a thing as man made climate change". That's what the New York Times may want you to believe but that is not correct and please do not post as such.

The general stance of the Bush administration is that while it is quite possible that man is probably influencing climate change, the answer is by no means yet definitive, especially "how much" we are influencing it. That seems to be the key question.

As far as doing something about it, the Bush adminsitration is working hard to get something on the table that works for everybody. He is often called evil for not endorsing the Kyoto treaty - but why on earth should we bear the brunt of the COSTS involved (and yes, it is EXPENSIVE) when other countries like China and India get a free pass? How is that fair or effective?

Furthermore, when you start assessing the real dollars involved to make some of the changes, you have to be pretty darn sure that you're not wasting money on a lost cause - which it would be if we can't get developing countries to be on board as well.

Please don't misinterpret my post as anti-environment or pro-pollution because I am not. I want clean, clear air just like the guy next door with 4 kids. All I'm saying is first - quote accurately and second, look a little deeper into the issue.

And to answer the other post "Did Bush really make that comment??" the answer is NO he did not.

Sorry, but I felt the need to bust in here. Climate change is happening and happening quickly. The Bush administration is not handling this issue very well and has done little to improve environmental controls.

Quote:

The general stance of the Bush administration is that while it is quite possible that man is probably influencing climate change, the answer is by no means yet definitive, especially "how much" we are influencing it. That seems to be the key question.

RESPONSE:

How do you figure? I think there is enough evidence over the last 100 years to say that man has influenced the climate tremendously. I think the top scientists have given Bush all the evidence he needs to make an assertive effort in controlling pollutants.

Quote:

Bush adminsitration is working hard to get something on the table that works for everybody.

RESPONSE:

Are you serious? In what way is he working hard?

Quote:

but why on earth should we bear the brunt of the COSTS involved (and yes, it is EXPENSIVE) when other countries like China and India get a free pass? How is that fair or effective?

RESPONSE:

Why not. If we are the major polluters, then why shouldn’t we bear the responsibility of paying the costs involved. Australian and Americans have the dubious distinction of being the two biggest greenhouse gas polluters in the world.


Lastly, it is not a lost cause to spend the money, if it has not been tried.

[jasons2k]

Just gotta add my 2 cents that I think you guys are awesome too.

I don't like to write controversial posts and stir the pot myself, but nothing irks me more than to see people get misquoted and then the next 5 posts read "Did he really say that?? What a jerk" etc.

I guess after seeing it 10,000X with Joe B. it starts to get old.