[Helmling]

All the opponents of action on global warming around here are fond of saying, "these scientists don't know what they're talking about--back in the 70's they were saying the planet was going to cool down!" I'd never actually read anything about this, but I knew enough to know that it wasn't any major environmental movement with mountains and mountains of evidence supporting its theoretical predictions like the consensus on climate change that exists today.

Well, now I've finally read something about global cooling, and I can't help but laugh at the people who try to use it as evidence against the global warming camp.

You see, a few climatologists noted that earth's warming and cooling trends in the past seemed to be linked to variations in its orbital position that follows a wobbly cycle over the eons. So based on our position in that orbital warble, they predicted the planet would cool mildly.

But that didn't happen.

Why not? Because of anthropogenic global warming. Their theoretical prediction not coming true is actually a prediction of the theorists working on global warming. So all of you who try to use "global cooling" as a reason for sticking your heads in the sand about global warming are actually citing yet another piece of evidence for global warming.

Life is just delicious with irony.

[Spliffdaddy]

Yeah it is.

As the Earth slowly cools....

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by Helmling

All the opponents of action on global warming around here are fond of saying, "these scientists don't know what they're talking about--back in the 70's they were saying the planet was going to cool down!" I'd never actually read anything about this, but I knew enough to know that it wasn't any major environmental movement with mountains and mountains of evidence supporting its theoretical predictions like the consensus on climate change that exists today.

Well, now I've finally read something about global cooling, and I can't help but laugh at the people who try to use it as evidence against the global warming camp.

You see, a few climatologists noted that earth's warming and cooling trends in the past seemed to be linked to variations in its orbital position that follows a wobbly cycle over the eons. So based on our position in that orbital warble, they predicted the planet would cool mildly.

most of the global cooling articles mention this happening in like 20,000 years too. another popular counter to climate change is that the plates move across the globe, and that affects climate. well, no **** - at a few mm/year those plates aren't going very far very quickly and aren't doing the job that humans seem to be doing.

[edit to add: i don't think that AGW is the reason that global cooling hasn't happened rather the timescale involved (above). geologists have known for quite a while that we are in a warm period of an otherwise cool era in earth's history. getting cooler is expected, but it's not happening. now that's the weird part.]

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by Helmling

....I knew enough to know that it wasn't any major environmental movement with mountains and mountains of evidence supporting its theoretical predictions like the consensus on climate change that exists today.

Read the actual article. It clearly states that scientists were in near "unanimous" agreement on the global cooling trend and its outcome...

"... they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic."

[badidea]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Yeah it is.

As the Earth slowly cools....

That's your aircondition - turn it off!!

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

Read the actual article. It clearly states that scientists were in near "unanimous" agreement on the global cooling trend and its outcome...

"... they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic."

I don't know what "actual article" you're talking about. But however many scientists were unanimous then, it doesn't change the fact that what has countered the global cooling fear is the rising mountain of evidence in support of global warming.

It really seems like you didn't read my comments at all...

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

Read the actual article. It clearly states that scientists were in near "unanimous" agreement on the global cooling trend and its outcome...

"... they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic."

And how do you know that the reason they were wrong isn't because they assumed, as you seem to, that humans couldn't possibly have a significant effect on global climate?

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by Helmling

I don't know what "actual article" you're talking about.

this one - Newsweek on the cooling world

interesting to note that no single scientist is actually quoted as saying this. it's called an unnamed source, and generally frowned upon in these forums, though they do pop up quite often. anyhow...

Originally Posted by Helmling

But however many scientists were unanimous then, it doesn't change the fact that what has countered the global cooling fear is the rising mountain of evidence in support of global warming.

... it's interesting that the best support against global warming seems to be digging up articles from the seventies with questionable sources that are supposed to disprove the state of science in the 21st century. it's laughable - imagine a thread forecasting apples demise because of the introduction of 8-track technology.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by Helmling

But that didn't happen.

Why not? Because of anthropogenic global warming.

Rather presumptuous of you to state that as a fact, don't you think? It's difficult to deny the trend towards a warmer climate in recent years, but none yet have conclusively shown a causal link between human activity and global warming, which is exactly what your term "anthropogenic global warming" defines.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by nonhuman

And how do you know that the reason they were wrong isn't because they assumed, as you seem to, that humans couldn't possibly have a significant effect on global climate?

How do you know that it was? You're the one making the positive claim here; doesn't that sort of put the burden of proof on you?

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Millennium

How do you know that it was? You're the one making the positive claim here; doesn't that sort of put the burden of proof on you?

I'm not making any positive claims. I'm saying that, based on what we (as laymen) know there are at least two seemingly reasonable options: 1. the scientists back them were completely wrong, or 2. they were right except in that they didn't take into account the human factor. I'm not claiming either one is necessarily the case, merely that we don't know and so it's foolish to make absolute assertions either way.

I suspect that humans play at least a small part in global climate trends. However I doubt that anyone here knows enough to take it any further than that. I certainly don't. We (as a people) need to research this issue more, but I think that in the meantime it would be a good idea to hedge our bets and work towards minimizing our impact on the environment just in case. If nothing else it will extend the duration of our natural resources and save us money in the long run.

[black bear theory]

for yr enjoyment.

TIME.com: Another Ice Age? -- Jun. 24, 1974 -- Page 1

In Africa, drought continues for the sixth consecutive year, adding terribly to the toll of famine victims. During 1972 record rains in parts of the U.S., Pakistan and Japan caused some of the worst flooding in centuries. In Canada's wheat belt, a particularly chilly and rainy spring has delayed planting and may well bring a disappointingly small harvest. Rainy Britain, on the other hand, has suffered from uncharacteristic dry spells the past few springs. A series of unusually cold winters has gripped the American Far West, while New England and northern Europe have recently experienced the mildest winters within anyone's recollection.

As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.

Telltale signs are everywhere —from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest.Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F. Although that figure is at best an estimate, it is supported by other convincing data. When Climatologist George J. Kukla of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory and his wife Helena analyzed satellite weather data for the Northern Hemisphere, they found that the area of the ice and snow cover had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since. Areas of Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic, for example, were once totally free of any snow in summer; now they are covered year round.

Scientists have found other indications of global cooling. For one thing there has been a noticeable expansion of the great belt of dry, high-altitude polar winds —the so-called circumpolar vortex—that sweep from west to east around the top and bottom of the world. Indeed it is the widening of this cap of cold air that is the immediate cause of Africa's drought. By blocking moisture-bearing equatorial winds and preventing them from bringing rainfall to the parched sub-Sahara region, as well as other drought-ridden areas stretching all the way from Central America to the Middle East and India, the polar winds have in effect caused the Sahara and other deserts to reach farther to the south. Paradoxically, the same vortex has created quite different weather quirks in the U.S. and other temperate zones. As the winds swirl around the globe, their southerly portions undulate like the bottom of a skirt. Cold air is pulled down across the Western U.S. and warm air is swept up to the Northeast. The collision of air masses of widely differing temperatures and humidity can create violent storms—the Midwest's recent rash of disastrous tornadoes, for example.

Sunspot Cycle. The changing weather is apparently connected with differences in the amount of energy that the earth's surface receives from the sun. Changes in the earth's tilt and distance from the sun could, for instance, significantly increase or decrease the amount of solar radiation falling on either hemisphere—thereby altering the earth's climate. Some observers have tried to connect the eleven-year sunspot cycle with climate patterns, but have so far been unable to provide a satisfactory explanation of how the cycle might be involved.

Man, too, may be somewhat responsible for the cooling trend. The University of Wisconsin's Reid A. Bryson and other climatologists suggest that dust and other particles released into the atmosphere as a result of farming and fuel burning may be blocking more and more sunlight from reaching and heating the surface of the earth.

Climatic Balance. Some scientists like Donald Oilman, chief of the National Weather Service's long-range-prediction group, think that the cooling trend may be only temporary. But all agree that vastly more information is needed about the major influences on the earth's climate. Indeed, it is to gain such knowledge that 38 ships and 13 aircraft, carrying scientists from almost 70 nations, are now assembling in the Atlantic and elsewhere for a massive 100-day study of the effects of the tropical seas and atmosphere on worldwide weather. The study itself is only part of an international scientific effort known acronymically as GARP (for Global Atmospheric Research Program).

Whatever the cause of the cooling trend, its effects could be extremely serious, if not catastrophic. Scientists figure that only a 1% decrease in the amount of sunlight hitting the earth's surface could tip the climatic balance, and cool the planet enough to send it sliding down the road to another ice age within only a few hundred years.

The earth's current climate is something of an anomaly; in the past 700,000 years, there have been at least seven major episodes of glaciers spreading over much of the planet. Temperatures have been as high as they are now only about 5% of the time. But there is a peril more immediate than the prospect of another ice age. Even if temperature and rainfall patterns change only slightly in the near future in one or more of the three major grain-exporting countries—the U.S., Canada and Australia —global food stores would be sharply reduced. University of Toronto Climatologist Kenneth Hare, a former president of the Royal Meteorological Society, believes that the continuing drought and the recent failure of the Russian harvest gave the world a grim premonition of what might happen. Warns Hare: "I don't believe that the world's present population is sustainable if there are more than three years like 1972 in a row."

TIME.com: FORECAST: UNSETTLED WEATHER AHEAD -- Jan. 31, 1977 -- Page 1

After carefully studying woolly bear caterpillars, the thickness of fur on squirrels' tails and other natural signs, "Abe Weatherwise" late last year predicted in The Old Farmers'Almanac that the current winter would be a cold one. Jerome Namias, a meteorologist at California's Scripps Institution of Oceanography, had made a similar forecast. But even Namias is surprised at the subfreezing temperatures that have prevailed over most of the eastern half of the U.S. Says he: "I was a little too conservative. Our forecast was for the coldest winter in perhaps 20 years, but it now looks as if it is proving to be even colder than that. In many locations, 75-year-old records are going to be broken before the winter is over."

Namias and other meteorologists agree on the immediate reason for the bitterly cold weather. The high-level westerly winds—including the jet stream—that whistle through the upper atmosphere high above the U.S. have been circulating in an unusual pattern. Normally in winter these winds flow more directly across the country from west to east. This winter they are cutting across the Rockies much farther to the north than usual and then, as they head toward the East Coast, dipping much farther south than normal.

The product of that unusual pattern is this winter's wild weather. According to Namias, the jet stream has been picking up Pacific storms and guiding them across the U.S., "pepping up" each one as it crosses the country. The resulting heavy snowfalls that have accumulated on the ground in Eastern states further refrigerate Arctic air as it moves down from Canada. The snow covering also contributes to the dramatic difference between land and water temperatures, which in turn stimulates more storms along the East Coast—including the nor'easters that have been battering oil tankers. All the while, Western states have remained relatively unscathed. Says John Firor, executive director of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo.: "This year winter seems to have become stuck east of the Rockies."

What triggered these changes, however, remains unclear. Namias notes that water temperatures in the Pacific rose a few degrees higher than normal last fall off the west coast of North America, while dropping off in midocean. He believes that these temperature shifts influence the winds and determine the course of storms that work their way up to the jet-stream level. Harry Geise, a California meteorologist, blames the storms and frigid temperatures on a high-pressure zone of warm air hovering off the country's Pacific coast and sometimes shifting over land.

Whatever the cause of current weather patterns, they cannot yet be related to any of the long-range cooling —or warming—trends foreseen by scientific Cassandras. Says George Kukla, a climatologist at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory: "Just because we can't get our cars started, are suffering from frostbite, and have a few feet of snow in our driveways, we should not start worrying about an Ice Age." Among scientists who fear that significant worldwide climatic changes have already begun, there are those who believe that another Ice Age is not far ahead—as well as others who predict that a potentially devastating warming trend may occur.

Ice Age doomsayers note evidence that average temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere dropped 1° Celsius during the 1950s and 1960s. Kukla found that the average snow and ice cover in the Northern Hemisphere increased sharply in 1971 compared with the years between 1967 and '70. It reached a peak in '72 and '73 and then retreated about halfway back to what it had been in the late '60s. Now, says Kukla, satellite studies indicate that the snow and ice cover last fall increased again to about the level of '71. German Oceanographer Martin Rodewald has noticed a slow, general cooling of the waters of the North Atlantic and North Pacific and an air-temperature drop in the Arctic regions over Canada and Russia.

Global cooling might be explained by a link between ice ages and changes both in the earth's attitude and in its orbit around the sun. That concept was championed by Germany's Alfred Wegener (best known for his ideas about continental drift) and later refined by Yugoslav Mathematician Milutin Milankovitch, for whom the theory is now named. Last year three scientists —James Hays of Columbia, John Imbrie of Brown University and Nicholas Shackleton of Cambridge University in England—published the strongest evidence yet that Milankovitch was right. Analyzing cores of sediments taken from beneath the floor of the Indian Ocean, the trio assembled an accurate record of the earth's climate dating back 450,000 years and correlated this information with data about the earth's orbit.

Their finding: the timing of each of the planet's major ice ages was closely related to changes in the earth's attitude and orbit that reduced the amount of summer sunlight striking the polar caps. Unless man somehow unbalances the equation, these scientists concluded, the trend over the next 20,000 years will be toward a cooler global climate and the spread of glaciers in the Northern Hemisphere—a new Ice Age.

The consequences could be catastrophic. A worldwide average temperature drop of only 1° Celsius could shorten growing seasons in the temperate zones enough to threaten global food supplies. Increased heating requirements would further strain energy resources such as coal, natural gas and oil.

Other scientists believe that the earth is actually getting warmer. As they see it, the cooling trend of the '50s and '60s has leveled off and worldwide temperatures are rising. As evidence, they point to uncharacteristically mild winters during recent years in Scandinavia and, with the exception of this year, in New England. Temperatures in Australia and New Zealand as well as Antarctica have risen slightly. Glaciers in the Alps have retreated slightly, and temperatures measured at 40 scattered points in the middle latitudes of North America have either stayed the same or risen during the past six years.

If a warming trend is indeed under way, many scientists say it probably has been caused by increasing amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2) spewed into the atmosphere by the burning of coal and petroleum products. While the CO2 does not prevent solar radiation from reaching the earth, it blocks the escape into space of heat rising from the earth's surface—the so-called greenhouse effect.

To those shivering through the current winter's chill, that prospect has a certain appeal. But a global warming trend could be just as disastrous as a worldwide freeze. More than a modest rise in temperatures could melt polar ice caps, cause extensive coastal flooding, drastically alter air circulation and rainfall patterns, and cut the productivity of many important agricultural areas.

Only time and more research will reveal which, if either, of these scenarios is correct. But whatever the long-term forecast may be, scientists do agree on one thing: earth's climate is entering a period of increased variability in which weather patterns are likely to fluctuate far more dramatically than they have in the past few decades. Geise believes next winter's weather will be the reverse of the present pattern. His forecast should come as welcome news to the Southeastern U.S.—which would get warmer weather—and as a mixed blessing to the Mississippi and Ohio valleys, which may get too much rain. Californians may have less to be thankful for. They are likely to experience temperatures next winter as uncomfortable for their area as this year's readings are for the beleaguered East.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Millennium

but none yet have conclusively shown a causal link between human activity and global warming, which is exactly what your term "anthropogenic global warming" defines.

Well, this is a bit of an incorrect and/or misleading statement. None have yet "conclusively shown a causal link" because it's pretty much impossible to do. We can't very well get a big store of CO2 together and pump it up into the atmosphere and then sit back and see if things get warmer in the following decade, can we??

What we can do is take our knowledge of the sciences (chemistry labwork, physics, biology, etc.) and the environment around us, and combine that with some of the events which have happened in the past. Take, for example, the ozone hole: did we "prove" that? Well, we saw that it was getting bigger, we figured out the chemistry between ozone and the chemicals we were putting in the atmosphere, and the rest was pieced together rather convincingly over time. We're doing the exact same thing with climate change/global warming, but due to the far-greater complexity of the system - and the far-greater political impact of the conclusion - it's become a lot harder to identify this "causal link" you're looking for.

For example, we think we pretty much have the chemistry of global warming worked out. We think we know how the relevant compounds "work" in the atmosphere, and we can chemically explain - in impressive detail - how CO2 causes heat to be trapped in the Earth's atmosphere. When you consider that we pretty much know exactly how much "greenhouse gas" we produce, it doesn't take a whole lot to do some fairly convincing math.

And, just to agree with the title: yes, humans do cause global cooling. In fact, we think the reason why global warming hasn't been more severe is because of the concurrent cooling effect we have. Things like jet contrails and our impressive addition of sulfate aerosols to the atmosphere (which have the same effect as large volcanic eruptions...cooling the earth) have been called "global dimming."

So yeah. Booyaa.

greg

[ink]

Originally Posted by Millennium

Rather presumptuous of you to state that as a fact, don't you think? It's difficult to deny the trend towards a warmer climate in recent years, but none yet have conclusively shown a causal link between human activity and global warming, which is exactly what your term "anthropogenic global warming" defines.

It's hard to do a case-control study. We only have one planet.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Millennium

Rather presumptuous of you to state that as a fact, don't you think? It's difficult to deny the trend towards a warmer climate in recent years, but none yet have conclusively shown a causal link between human activity and global warming, which is exactly what your term "anthropogenic global warming" defines.

This is the scientific consensus, that human activity is affecting global climate. Were it not for human activity the world would be cooler today--some scientists suggest this has been happening for thousands of years, but is accelerating markedly in the industrial era.

So, yes, the link is "conclusive." Anyone arguing to the contrary is arguing against the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community by and large.

The issues of contention among reasonable men and women is to what extent this will affect civilization and how to act in accordance with this consensus.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

Well, this is a bit of an incorrect and/or misleading statement. None have yet "conclusively shown a causal link" because it's pretty much impossible to do. We can't very well get a big store of CO2 together and pump it up into the atmosphere and then sit back and see if things get warmer in the following decade, can we??

Actually...that's pretty much what we have been doing...and as you note, the results are in.

[nonhuman]

Of course it's probably worth noting that the vast majority of major scientific breakthroughs have been made by individuals bucking the trend and going against the 'scientific consensus'.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by black bear theory

... it's interesting that the best support against global warming seems to be digging up articles from the seventies with questionable sources that are supposed to disprove the state of science in the 21st century.

It's also interesting that people consistently make posts that portray others as being "against" global warming. We all know the earth is in a warming cycle. This is not in doubt.

What is in doubt is that the USA is the main cause of global warming, and this crockpot theory that if we don't completely devastate our economy by immediately reverting to a 19th century lifestyle, that us Americans will destroy all of civilization.

We still can not predict next week's weather, yet we know the earth will melt in 10 years because I want to drive my SUV? Give me a break. Oceans rising? They've been rising for ages. Me being relegated to driving an electric buggie is somehow going to stop that? This is laughable.

We'll deal with the crap as it comes. If not, perhaps we die. It's that simple. Trying to ground every American's car and shutdown every American factory because a bunch of anti-capitalist, uber-rich elitists and their hungry band of grant-seeking scientists claim the earth will melt if we don't... well, it just isn't happening.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

It's also interesting that people consistently make posts that portray others as being "against" global warming. We all know the earth is in a warming cycle. This is not in doubt.

What is in doubt is that the USA is the main cause of global warming, and this crockpot theory that if we don't completely devastate our economy by immediately reverting to a 19th century lifestyle, that us Americans will destroy all of civilization.

We still can not predict next week's weather, yet we know the earth will melt in 10 years because I want to drive my SUV? Give me a break. Oceans rising? They've been rising for ages. Me being relegated to driving an electric buggie is somehow going to stop that? This is laughable.

We'll deal with the crap as it comes. If not, perhaps we die. It's that simple. Trying to ground every American's car and shutdown every American factory because a bunch of anti-capitalist, uber-rich elitists and their hungry band of grant-seeking scientists claim the earth will melt if we don't... well, it just isn't happening.

This reminds me of industry's reaction to the Clean Air Act when it was proposed. It was going to be an economic disaster! The earth was going to open up and swallow America whole! We could not survive the disaster of regulating pollution in our air!

Of course, what really happens is that mandating responsible environmental practices creates a multiplier effect across the economy so that in the end, it's good for the economy and for the world we live in.

You people with your absurb either-or's are just walking arguments against conservatism. I mean, if it limits your thinking so much that all you can see is the choice between polluting and economic ruin, or on another issue "staying the course" or letting the terrorists win, then why would you want to cling to such an ideology? Oh, that's right, because it's comfortable and you never have to do any growing or learning, because you know everything already and that "everything" tells you to just keep doing exactly as you've always been doing.

Change is impossible and certainly any moderate, reasoned approach to complex problems that might involve something like compromise or rethinking some of your assumptions, well, that simply won't do. Better just to cling to what has always not worked for us, because at least it's comfortable.

[Spliffdaddy]

It might help the 'global warming' cause if there were some reasonable people behind it.

Maybe it's just me, but it seems that the only folks who believe the global warming hype are the very same people that think 9/11 was a government/neo-con conspiracy, there was an assassin in the grassy knoll that killed JFK, UFOs exist, Wal-Mart is evil, and the Palestinians are misunderstood freedom fighters.

[Buckaroo]

This is all starting to sound like a soap opera, As the World Turns.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by Helmling

You people with your absurb either-or's are just walking arguments against conservatism. I mean, if it limits your thinking so much that all you can see is the choice between polluting and economic ruin, or on another issue "staying the course" or letting the terrorists win, then why would you want to cling to such an ideology? Oh, that's right, because it's comfortable and you never have to do any growing or learning, because you know everything already and that "everything" tells you to just keep doing exactly as you've always been doing.

Change is impossible and certainly any moderate, reasoned approach to complex problems that might involve something like compromise or rethinking some of your assumptions, well, that simply won't do. Better just to cling to what has always not worked for us, because at least it's comfortable.

Nice elitist response - one that is fully degrading while also carefully manuevering around the issue so as to not engage my point that the America-is-causing-the-world-to-melt congregation is full of crap.

And on the matter of compromise, why is it that liberals are always demanding compromise from conservatives without ever offering compromise themselves?

[ink]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

Nice elitist response - one that is fully degrading while also carefully manuevering around the issue so as to not engage my point that the America-is-causing-the-world-to-melt congregation is full of crap.

Actually, most scientists are afraid of what the industrialization of China and India are going to do to the environment. When all 2-3 billion of them purchase a car, refridgerator and washer/dryer, it's going to dwarf America's CO2 output.

But that goes against your preconceived notion that this is all about a sinister plot by smug, elite liberals who want to destroy the USA. That almost sounds like a ficticious book plot...

Helmling is correct. The country that houses the industries that reduce CO2 pollution will reap the economic gains that are coming down the pipeline. The US government had the foresight to establish the EPA and pass the Clean Water Act (both done by Republicans, BTW). The government also had the foresight to build an insterstate system to facilitate interstate trade (done by another Republican). How about sending a man to the moon in ten years? That was an enormously expensive government program which led to technologies that we're still benefiting from.

And on the matter of compromise, why is it that liberals are always demanding compromise from conservatives without ever offering compromise themselves?

Nice bumper sticker.

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

It's also interesting that people consistently make posts that portray others as being "against" global warming. We all know the earth is in a warming cycle. This is not in doubt.

i only mention it b/c (a few) people have posted those ideas here before, yes, ludicrous as it sounds.

Originally Posted by spacefreak

What is in doubt is that the USA is the main cause of global warming, and this crockpot theory that if we don't completely devastate our economy by immediately reverting to a 19th century lifestyle, that us Americans will destroy all of civilization.

i would think that alternative energy vehicles would not be a step towards the past, actually a step forward into, say, the 21st century. gas engines have remained stagnant for a good 100 years. the model-t had as good gas mileage as modern cars.

and i'd ask for your definition of 'main'. does it mean over 50%? does it mean the primary culprit, then yes the US (5% of the population) uses 25% of the world's resources. it beats the next five countries combined in gasoline usage yet only trails china slightly in coal. do others play a part? yes. *cough* kyoto *cough*.

and as far as the economic aspect. you can't tell me that people aren't going to make a killing developing and implementing this new technology. is it change? of course. is it a death knell? not by any stretch.

Originally Posted by spacefreak

We still can not predict next week's weather, yet we know the earth will melt in 10 years because I want to drive my SUV? Give me a break. Oceans rising? They've been rising for ages. Me being relegated to driving an electric buggie is somehow going to stop that? This is laughable.

as far as weather prediction goes, it's true. but i bet in ten years it will still be cold in the winter and warm in the summer and that won't change for a very long time.

Originally Posted by spacefreak

We'll deal with the crap as it comes. If not, perhaps we die. It's that simple. Trying to ground every American's car and shutdown every American factory because a bunch of anti-capitalist, uber-rich elitists and their hungry band of grant-seeking scientists claim the earth will melt if we don't... well, it just isn't happening.

i agree with you if that's what people are proposing. those who are looking to actually do something about the problem aren't saying those things. but i'm sure you know that already - it's just a harder target to attack.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

It might help the 'global warming' cause if there were some reasonable people behind it.

Maybe it's just me, but it seems that the only folks who believe the global warming hype are the very same people that think 9/11 was a government/neo-con conspiracy, there was an assassin in the grassy knoll that killed JFK, UFOs exist, Wal-Mart is evil, and the Palestinians are misunderstood freedom fighters.

Hammer.Nail.Head.

Now to get back to my vacation before the world ends...