<p>[Br-r-r</a>! Where did global warming go? - The Boston Globe](<a href=“http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/01/06/br_r_r_where_did_global_warming_go/]Br-r-r”>http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/01/06/br_r_r_where_did_global_warming_go/)</p>
<p>With 3 feet of snow in NH, and bitterly cold recent temperatures, the Global Warming issue has not been a hot topic with the political candidates running around the state this week! </p>
<p>In any case, the new buzz words are “climate CHANGE”. Jumping on the whole change thing I guess. But remember, change is good! :rolleyes:</p>
<p>[IPCC</a> - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change](<a href=“http://www.ipcc.ch/]IPCC”>http://www.ipcc.ch/)</p>
<p>The definitive words on global warming from the worldwide scientific community of global warming experts. Most current assessment.</p>
<p>It is January thaw time here in Western NY - supposed to be 60 degrees by Tuesday. NO snow for the snowshoe fest here today…</p>
<p>All kidding aside, one has to look at the longer-term trends, thanks for the link to the article, it was very interesting!</p>
<p>Sounds pretty warm to me</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[The</a> Canadian Press: Weather extremes: records broken in heat waves in North America, Europe](<a href=“http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5ipv4-RfBloS-sAdAcw4PB9YOcTdQ]The”>http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5ipv4-RfBloS-sAdAcw4PB9YOcTdQ)</p>
<p>Yea, I mean, who cares about South America anyway? :/</p>
<p>actually it is a classic global warming scenario. Extreme weather with more severe storms</p>
<p>The problem with the “Global Warming Alarmists” who believe that they are experts, is that they don’t know very much. And what’s worse, is that many people will believe anything they say because; “They are the experts”. Unfortunately, no matter what the climate does, they can and will say that it’s because of global warming. If it’s too warm, it’s because of global warming; heating the oceans and causing more warm air movement and the ice shelf melting. If it’s too cold, it’s because the guld stream and other “Warm temp” factors are being affected by global warming. In other words, our climate and planet are SO FRAGILE AND IMPRESSIONABLE, that any impact to the planet at all and it’s a major concern.</p>
<p>Well, the truth is, there is global warming. Unfortunately, the truth also is that there’s been global WARMING on and off for a few million years. It is not cause mainly by humans and their fossil fuel usage. Matter of fact; most studies show that the CO2 affects of the planet are between 0.5-4% affected by mankind. Just like we’ve have major cold spells, we will have major warming periods.</p>
<p>Because of economic reasons, we will eventually move away from fossil fuels and more towards solar, wind, hydro, hydrogen, nuclear, etc… Our contribution of CO2 and other pollutants will have been reduced to almost nothing. The planet will still do it’s think and have global temperature shifts. The 11 year solar cycle, which is the largest contributor, will continue it’s thing (Unless of course you believe that mankind is so powerful that we also affect the Sun). And no matter what happens, there are going to be those who believe that it’s still mankind causing all these problems. These new energy sources will be more efficient, cheaper, easier to use, better for our direct health, and better economically for the planet. That’s why we will go that direction. It will ultimately take away the claims of mankind’s contribution to the global temperature issue. Yet, people like Al Gore will claim victory in this shift. And of course, the yearly temp shifts that show in favor of their global warming theories will be evidence of us improving our energy policies. Even though when there are yearly shifts that show the opposite, these people say that isn’t accurate and we must look long term. </p>
<p>What a waste of talent and brain cells. If they would just take all the money that is used for these political causes about global warming, and diverted all those funds into University research programs on alternative energies, we could shift to solar, hydro, etc… at a cheap cost in no time at all. Instead, because of political reasons, they introduce ethanol and such. Just as bad for the environment. More expensive than gasoline. (It’s subsidized). And it’s only reason is to gain votes in the farming belt which is now very small on local Mom and Pop farmers and more into MEGA corporate farms and such like Archard Daniels Midland. Anyway, it’s fun to listen to the “Experts”. LOL!!!</p>
<p>^What a waste of a thread.</p>
<p>Because anecdotal evidence from one small geographical region trumps scientific evidence on a global scale anyday, amirite?</p>
<p>Jeff Jacoby is a moron.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s sad that a large faction of society doubts scientific knowledge that relates to evolution, stem cells, climate change?</p>
<p>Yes, the evidence of that is clear???</p>
<p><a href=“https://bostonglobe.com/newsroom/Editorial-Opinion/jacoby.stm[/url]”>https://bostonglobe.com/newsroom/Editorial-Opinion/jacoby.stm</a></p>
<p>The evidence for climate change hardly belongs in the same sentence with the other two. It’s a theory only supported by flimsy and questionable statistical analysis. It’s about as well supported as the food pyramid.</p>
<p>of global warmings is that insurance companies are raising insurance rates on coast properties and thereby limiting the development in these areas. But the other compensating affect is that those developments that are being developed are done by the wealthier class (who can afford better architects). And if the periodic hurricane hits, we can depend on our local congressperson to mobilize FEMA to compensate for the loss and the current President commiserating with the victims. Thankyou Jeb.</p>
<p>Here’s the thing that gets me with climate change denial: it’s already happened before, and we know it. It’s not like the climate hasn’t changed before during HUMAN history, so why is it so shocking that it’s going to happen again?</p>
<p>Furthermore, let’s say that somehow it isn’t changing. The near entirety of the scientific community is wrong (it has happened before.) So what? We’re better off working toward emissions controls anyway. Even if global warming is somehow a myth, perpetuated by those dastardly scientists, then we still will benefit from looking for ways to reduce our emissions.</p>
<p>Or is this somehow bad too?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Shifting a paradigm is often difficult. It just so happens that we’re, uh… shifting rather large ones rather quickly and concurrently.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s incredibly ignorant, but okay.</p>
<p>I’m not even going to reply to Christcorp, because so much of what he said is completely false and I don’t have the time to dissect it point by point today.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Anyone who knows anything about our energy needs knows how untrue this is. We could pour trillions of dollars into researching alternative energy and still not get what we need in decades.</p>
<p>Fossil fuels are unique in their high energy yield coupled with portability. You cannot expect “The Jetsons” anytime soon. Long before economic pressures will move us toward hydrogen cells and portable nuclear generators, we’ll have super high yield gas/fuel solutions to compensate for high oil prices. Yes, the market responds to shifts, but it’s not going to force companies to put themselves out of business or change their strategy so rapidly.</p>
<p>Actually I pretty much agree with UCLAri. If indeed there is climate change it seems unlikely that something we have added over the last 100 years is the major cause as there have been FAR more significant changes in climate without any influence from man. The northern half of North America was covered with ice 10,000 and more feet thick. Not all that long ago by earth standards. Now that was climate change. Then whoosh–it was gone in the virtual blink of an earth eye.</p>
<p>[Ice</a> Age Clues Unearthed From Construction Hole](<a href=“http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/01/060108233340.htm]Ice”>Ice Age Clues Unearthed From Construction Hole | ScienceDaily)</p>
<p>barrons,</p>
<p>Don’t get me wrong. I think that humans ARE involved. I personally don’t know enough of the science myself to make any firm claims either way, but I tend to believe that we should err on the side of human causes. This has the benefit of making us reduce admissions even if we are somehow wrong.</p>
<p>The big problem with erring on the “humans aren’t the cause” side is that it means that we have no culpability for anything. Not pretty, if you ask me.</p>
<p>[IPCC</a> - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change](<a href=“http://www.ipcc.ch/]IPCC”>http://www.ipcc.ch/)</p>
<p>Barron, if you want to argue science, you need to use sources that are reliable and valid. Both. </p>
<p>The most recent report from Valencia by REAL SCIENTISTS
is long, but it has lots of graphs and charts. You will understand.</p>