<p>We have had a delightful “winter” thus far, here in Boston. Coldest day yet has been about 25, with most days in December averaging 35-40…unseasonably warm. And I have yet to see a single snowflake. Usually I have shoveled every other day, and been in my warmest parka all month (have yet to wear it this year).</p>
<p>Strange, to say the least.</p>
<p>“Sooner or later, someone will decide that earthquakes and volcanic activity are also due to global warming.”</p>
<p>It’s already happening (LOL).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0819/p16s01-sten.html[/url]”>http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0819/p16s01-sten.html</a></p>
<p>We are so guilty of everything. We should just go back to an earth friendly life style living in caves where we belong. (Who knew OBL was an ecofreak?)</p>
<p>I live in south Texas and when I was a kid, it ALWAYS got cold every winter. It didn’t stay cold all the time, but at least a half dozen times or so it would get down into the 20s or teens.</p>
<p>The last few years, we’ve hardly had any winter at all. The handful of ‘coolfronts’ have been wimpy and barely even get down to freezing.</p>
<p>We also used to get a snow about every 6 years. It has now been 22 years since our last snow. We got flurries a few times, but it melted instantly because it wasn’t cold enough.</p>
<p>We used to need a nice warm jacket for when those coldfronts came thru. Now we can pretty much get by the whole winter with only a light jacket or hoodie.</p>
<p>I don’t need a scientist to tell me the weather has changed. Just ask any of the locals.</p>
<p>I think the people who insist on scoffing at global warming are actually scared. Very scared. But, rather than doing something about it, they stay in a state of DENIAL.</p>
<p>Slow changes in anything are had to accept - we just get used to it.</p>
<p>Like that little frog. If you put a frog in a hot water it will jump out. But if you put a frog in cold water and slowly raise temperature, it will happily stay there.</p>
<p>Excuse me, but a Google search on “Lohachara island” suggests that people were being forced off the island, which is in the Ganges Delta, 22 years ago or more. Why the breathless reporting now? Could someone have an agenda in turning up this story now?</p>
<p>
<a href=“http://cities.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=207343[/url]”>http://cities.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=207343</a></p>
<p>Global warming may or may not be real and we may or may not be able to do anything about it if it is. Some people will choose to live in areas like river deltas of the Ganges or Mississippi, Outer Banks of North Carolina, steep hillsides of southern California canyons that are inherently unstable even in the absence of climate variation. Protecting them cannot be a top priority, given finite resources, if the world (and we know that means the US) is going to spend the billions/trillions that this undertaking is going to cost. Triage will be the name of the game.</p>
<p>The fact is that not a single poster here actually understands the science behind the global warming theory. Not one. So every opinion stated is simply an expression of how that person responds to a scientific consensus which, if correct, suggests that the future for people on earth will be very unpleasant unless we now make changes to our lifestyles which will be somewhat costly and inconvenient. The fact that such a response would negatively impact the profits of a number of savvy and proactive corporations means that any argument against such action - direct, indirect, subtle, overt, honest, dishonest - anything which can slow action on the consensus - will have been disseminated through innumerable means of communication and opinion shifting techniques. </p>
<p>So, predictably, from the right we have name calling and ad hominem attacks on anyone who suggests that the scientific consensus is an adequate basis for concluding that responsible action should be taken to minimize future suffering. “Al Gore’s a jerk! Democratic Senators voted against Kyoto! That must mean it’s all fake!”</p>
<p>The propaganda machine has done a good job of sowing doubt and mistrust in otherwise unalligned people - exactly the tactic which was so successful for the tobacco industry - and may I remind you, there still isn’t “proof” that tobacco use causes cancer. “Hey, it’s colder today than it was yesterday - the world must not be getting warmer after all.” Etc.</p>
<p>I don’t understand the science behind global warming theory either. But I do believe that science and scientists are a better source of explanations and predictions for the world than the slick propaganda and cheap shots of those who carry the water for those who profit from ignoring the warnings of science. </p>
<p>P.S. Simba - That frog thing has been debunked - by scientists.</p>
<p>I agree that a small island disappearing or an unusually strong hurricane season is too anecdotal. </p>
<p>But the more broad climate problems, the ones that may very well accelerate over the next century, should not be played off as the next generation’s problem. I think the next 15-20 years will be the make or break period for us. </p>
<p>I feel sorry for all the sea-side people around the world.</p>
<p>kluge…I stand corrected. Your post was very well written.</p>
<p>In the long run the global warming theories may not make much difference. We are rapidly depleting fossil fuels and the energy demands of China and emerging countries are huge. Like it or not, there is only one long term solution.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>We must grind up the world’s population of really cute puppies and kittens into an energy-laden paste?</p>
<p>I doubt Edad means that we are just going to have to start all over again, but I fear that is going to be the solution to this problem.</p>
<p>“We must grind up the world’s population of really cute puppies and kittens into an energy-laden paste?”</p>
<p>Ah, Soylent Green!</p>
<p>There is only one significant source of power available to replace fossil fuels: nuclear energy. Considering the incompetency of mankind and the potential to turn nuclear material into destructive force, I doubt many of us really want this choice.</p>
<p>“There is only one significant source of power available to replace fossil fuels: nuclear energy.”</p>
<p>I’m not so sure about that. Check this out:</p>
<p><a href=“Aviator error”>Aviator error;
<p>I know the guy who runs this site and he is the real deal. Quite a stickler for the science to back up the claims. His purpose is to provide a forum for education about new technologies that might not yet have mainstream support. Lots of interesting stuff on this site.</p>
<p>good site…</p>
<p>For Teachers only</p>
<p>We have 50,000 copies of An Inconvenient Truth to give away to teachers in the United States. The first 50,000 teachers who apply are eligible to win. There is a limit of one DVD per teacher. All entries must be received by January 18, 2007.</p>
<p>Fifty thousand (50,000) potential winners will be selected on a first come, first serve basis on January 25, 2007</p>
<p>Thank you for your submission. After verifying your educator status we will send you one copy of the DVD of An Inconvenient Truth if you were one of the first 50,000 submissions. It will take 6-8 weeks to receive the DVD.</p>
<p><a href=“http://participate.net/educators/DVD/giveaway[/url]”>http://participate.net/educators/DVD/giveaway</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is an excellent post, kluge.</p>
<p>I don’t really use the term “global warming” much anymore. “climate change” is a much more apt description, because the earth isn’t just heating up.</p>
<p>Some places are getting colder, and some places are getting warmer. All over the world, many glaciers are melting at an alarming pace, and many others are advancing at an alarming pace. What we can say is that the climate is getting more extreme. </p>
<p>The debate is getting further muddled by the fact that many rejectionists of climate change theory substitute their own erroneous information and assumptions in the place of data supported by reputable scientific organizations.</p>
<p>“Reputable scientific organizations” have looked at the theory that global warming is somehow caused by man’s activities. Field data demonstrate an slight increase in atmospheric CO2 and also document global warming. Computer models have been devised that attempt to explain the warming based on a greenhouse effect. Most of the models have predicted a very modest warming over centuries. You can change the models, re-assign different values to the variables and draw any conclusion you want. The alarmist models are popular. They generate media coverage and hopefully research funding. The attention given to the alarmist theories has no connection to scientific fact or reliabilitiy.</p>
<p>Other scientists are looking a global temperature changes and wondering why the earth has been unusually cold over the past few centuries. It is clear that the earth’s weather during the middle ages was both warmer and more variable than today’s weather. <a href=“http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/04/06/1049567563628.html[/url]”>http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/04/06/1049567563628.html</a>. Reputable scientific organizations cannot explain these changes. Science has not even been able to explain the major shifts which have caused ice ages. The predominant theory is that ices ages and warming periods have been caused by changes in solar activitiy and sun spots. It is possible to devise computer models and change the variables to make the models “work.” Since there is no information on solar output, all the models remain theoretical and may not have a connection with reality.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>this is, at best, an assumption</p>
<p>
Come on now, kluge, you know better than to put words into people’s mouths. The issue of the senate voting against Kyoto says nothing about global warming being a fake. Nor does it say anything about man’s responsibility for global warming. </p>
<p>However, it does say a lot to address the assertion that we have nothing to lose by applying the principles of Kyoto. The reality is that a) Kyoto would have serious negative economic impact with the result of even more jobs being outsourced from the US to Asia - and in so doing, merely pushing the CO2 generation from one continent to another b) If man is responsible for global warming, following Kyoto will have negligible impact on the warming.</p>