All I want to know is if we could send some of that freaking global warming to Iowa...

Interesting that relentlessly, and in some cases record, ice cold temps and snow and have been reported worldwide. Makes you wonder if there is cause for climate change alarm, just not warming, but global cooling.

Time magazine already tried that fear mongering in the 70's (I think that was the decade they wrote we were in for another ice age)

If we realize that global warming really isn't happening and that global cooling isn't really happening, that everything eventually evens out, will Global Middling be the new battle cry?

On the other hand Pale, if global cooling phase is actually upon us, what could we really do about it? If it is global warming, and not man-made, well same thing, except the climate extremems of course would be different.

Time may have fallen for that, but most of the scientists of that era didn't:

Global cooling????

hmmm, well Yo, I guess this is the decade the scientists fall for something

using this same criteria, there is no scientific consensus today that global warming is real either...

or do you fail to recognize that?

They based it upon the consensus of peer-reviewed scientific literature, which at the time was actually in favor of global warming and is now OVERWHELMINGLY supportive of global warming.

didn't we just discuss methodology for tracking global warming in another thread? i guess if you dont like it, just ignore it and create another thread...

Apparently you did not read the title or original link, or you would see that this is not simply about tracking global warming trends, but about the OVERWHELMING number of dissenting voices in the scientific community coming together to vet their side of the issue without misrepresentation.

what does that have to do with constantly mentioning stuff about "if this is global warming, why is it so cold here right now?! "

doesn't vet roughly mean to "run it by for clearance" btw?

why are these groups wasting so much money on convincing everyone that the status quo for the environment is a good thing? that's my real beef. for me, this isn't an al gore issue, this is an environmental stewardship/natural resources mangement/economics issue.

Precisely why what they are doing is anything but a waste of time and money. To make the drastic changes proposed by the Gore campers to our way of life would have very significant effects on ours and the world economy. If we are to do that, then we mmust be certain that the threat of man-made global warming is an absolute reality. If it turns out to be as the dissenters claim, then a major service to our nation and the earth will have been rendered by them for dticking to their guns. And environmental stewardship does not necessitate the need for extreme measures where such are not definably called for.

really though? that is a very myopic view of economic implications. of course you ignored my other points about stewardship, and that's ok i guess, but even if this is not man-made, the effects certainly are real economically.

what extreme measures are being called for?

Hmmmm....maybe TO GET TO THE TRUTH?

Not just how you see it, not just how Yo Yo Ma sees it, and maybe not how some of the scientific community sees it.

elimination of the internal combustion engine

shutting down nuclear plants

no drilling for oil

outlaw incandescents

no building of refineries

public transportation where it isn't wanted or needed

you name it gozy baby, it runs the gamut

I did not ignore anything about stewarship in your post, since you have brought it up a million other times in a million other posts, and I and others have repeatedly responded that environmental stewarsdship does not require the acceptance of debateable theories, nor the implementation of changes that have serious implications for economic productivity. You apparently, choose to ignore that each and everytime.

that's an awful lot of money i'm sure they are spending on a philosophical debate.

now how about you answer my question that you quoted, sport?

Well, why is everyone wasting so much money trying to figure out if global warming is occurring?

It's called dissenting opinions, and I am guessing they are trying to prove their side of the argument.

I am all for caring for and conserving the earth, including not needlessly wasting resources that could be used by future generations, but there is no definitive proof that man is causing the earth to warm or cool.

I think the truth is somewhere between the two extreme views. I doubt the world is on the verge of ending, but I do believe there's environmental harm occuring. Instead of arguing the point, we should just be trying to take some reasonable actions.

I'm confused, why does Ron want to be a stewardess?

Agreed, and the key word here is "reasonable."

sounds like hyperbole to me.


i don't support this. who does, exactly? "liberals"?


i think you have to be a bit more specific. first, i think more effort needs to be put into exploring alternatives than into how to get the last of the peanut butter out of the jar. second, if the issue with prices is not supply per se but refining capacity, i think we shold fix that first.


sounds like hyperbole. i would rather incentivize the use of alternatives (other than their built in incentives)


clearly i am on the polar opposite of this point. d**m those dirty hippies for wanting this!


i'm not too sure about this topic. where's this debate and what are the cpntours of it? public transportation is a beautiful thing.

well, your friends seem to be spending an awful lot of money to defend these "debateable theories". seems like they have ulterior motives, that's all.

as far as economic productivity goes, i did say "myopic" right? and that word still means "short-sighted" right?