More proof of global warming

15 Comments

1. Chris Gillibrand says:

   6 March 2007 at 11:54 AM

   But the daffodils were blooming in January in Brussels.

   Something must be done, even if America and China are buried in deep snow.

   The irony is that if global warming is caused by C02 emissions (I doubt, and the latest UN report is thick on assertion low on detail) not taking the anti-polution measures 20 years ago would have slowed it to a snail’s pace.

   Once heard a person from the UNEP stand up at a conference and say “You can’t say that, its my job and I understand it” and then sit down. Trust me, I have an Oxford chemistry degree!
2. Jim McM says:

   6 March 2007 at 12:20 PM

   Surely there is a mis-translation and those snowfall amounts should be in CENTImeters.
3. Aq says:

   6 March 2007 at 1:13 PM

   Storms in Rome expected March 13th: http://212.77.1.245/news_services/bulletin/news/19818.php?index=19818&lang=en
4. Jordan Potter says:

   6 March 2007 at 2:36 PM

   If human activity is to blame for the apparent global warming or climate change that might possibly be happening, then how come both earth AND Mars’ ice caps have been shrinking? Did George W. Bush find a way to outsource America’s evil carbon dioxide to other parts of the solar system?

   Anyway, the fact that the average global temperature has increased a teeny tiny smidge is nothing to get worked up about. It’s just life on this planet, and there is absolutely nothing we can do about it. Passing new and more oppressive and costly laws will make some people feel better about themselves, but will only increase misery and achieve no benefits. It’s time for people to start ignoring these modern-day Phlogiston Theorists.
5. P.Bunyan says:

   6 March 2007 at 4:00 PM

   I find it interesting that doubters of global warming always
   point to exceptions as disproving the general rule or trend,
   when, at the same time, they demand absolute cause-and-effect
   proof that any and all events suggestive of global warming (like
   Katrina) are indeed directly related to climate change.
   So, one anomalous instance proves their case, whereas a thousand
   examples of the contrary arguement aren’t enough. We are talking
   about trends here and the trend lines are indisputable, whatever
   the particular zigs and zags.
6. the Twin says:

   6 March 2007 at 4:12 PM

   Even if global warming is real (about which I remain agnostic) isn’t that better than the alternative? I’d rather see glaciers melting than heading thru Canada toward my home in NY state :-)
7. TJM says:

   6 March 2007 at 4:25 PM

   That global warming is caused by Man is sheer hubris.
   And the so-called “evidence” for this assertion is lame.
   Only the left-wing loon press perpetuates this nonsense.
   Of course you all know that Europe was far warmer in
   the middle ages than it is today when the population
   was a fraction of todays and there were no evil
   combustion machines or carbon emissions. I recall the lunacy of the 1970s,
   “global freezing” and the 1980s “global economic
   collapse and mass starvation.” Same old, same old. This
   is just another ploy to grab our money to support
   lefty social schemes. Tom
8. RBrown says:

   6 March 2007 at 5:09 PM

   In Edith Hamilton’s book on mythology, she points out that at the core of Nordic (germanic) myths the heroes are always trying to stave off coming disaster.

   Perhaps this is why we always seem to need an imminent crisis. Twenty five years ago it was the Coming Ice Age. Before that, it was the Population Bomb. Now it’s Global Warming.
9. P.Bunyan says:

   6 March 2007 at 7:54 PM

   The discussion of global warming always reminds me of similar
   conversations about evolution — according to one side of the
   debate, the people who know least about climate are the
   climatologists, the people who know least about evolution are
   the biologists, the people who know least about science are the
   scientists. But the ones who know most about these subjects are
   unknown, untrained amateurs (if that) who have political/social
   axes to grind.
10. TJM says:

    6 March 2007 at 9:06 PM

    Global Warming Caused by Man is the new religion of the
    looney left. It’s dogma is stricter and more sacrosanct
    for its adherents than those of the Roman Catholic Church.
    The very things the looney left accuses the Church of,
    i.e. blind obedience to all of its precepts without
    questioning or reason is found with this group. Day by
    day more evidence is put out (by not by the looney MSM)
    but credible alternative scientific sources that should
    cause these dogmatists pause. But it won’t. Their minds
    are closed like a trap. I pity them. Tom
11. Jordan Potter says:

    7 March 2007 at 2:34 AM

    P.Bunyan said: “But the ones who know most about these subjects are
    unknown, untrained amateurs (if that) who have political/social
    axes to grind.”

    Like climatologists never have political axes to grind.

    Seriously, P.Bunyan, what’s your explanation for the shrinking of Mars’ ice caps? Is that caused by United States carbon dioxide too?
12. Jordan Potter says:

    7 March 2007 at 2:38 AM

    P. Bunyan said: “We are talking about trends here and the trend lines are indisputable, whatever the particular zigs and zags.”

    In other words, we are talking about guessing what the weather will be like 50 to 100 years from now. Anyone who thinks he knows that will get only a smirk or a snigger from me, climatologist or not.
13. Chris Gillibrand says:

    7 March 2007 at 11:08 AM

    The global warming brigade are scared of a new judgement day. They will claim of course that the general and particular judgements are myths!
14. Sean says:

    7 March 2007 at 1:46 PM

    I too am sceptical of the ‘global warming is man-made’ hypothesis but if it puts the brakes on the me me me consumerism that is turning the people of west into fat chavs in shellsuits living in houses stuffed full of plastic crap then it will have served a good purpose.
15. RBrown says:

    7 March 2007 at 3:02 PM

    The discussion of global warming always reminds me of similar
    conversations about evolution—according to one side of the
    debate, the people who know least about climate are the
    climatologists, the people who know least about evolution are
    the biologists, the people who know least about science are the
    scientists. But the ones who know most about these subjects are
    unknown, untrained amateurs (if that) who have political/social
    axes to grind.
    Comment by P.Bunyan
    

    You make several mistakes.

    1. The evidence is that that there is Global Warming, but that doesn’t mean the 50-100 year projections on climate are accurate. Those projections assume that the same conditions continue, and, as we both know, assumptions are anathema to good science.

    2. Although a certain type of man-made pollution by man is a cause of this warming, there is no consensus among scientists that this pollution is the primary cause.

    3. Adherents of Evolutionary Theory consider it proven by because of progressive complexity in similar material structures. For example, the Australopithecus is thought to have been ancestral to man because fossil evidence indicates that it was bi-pedal.

    I grant that it was a predecessor of homo sapiens, but it does not follow that it was the ancestor of him.

    Generally, evolutionists consider either:

    A) That such progressive similarity in structure over millions of years IS evolution.

    or

    B) That such similarity is proof of evolution.

    I reject A) because it is an implicit denial of causality.

    I reject B) because there is not sufficient evidence that it is true: Evolutionists connect the dots by a synthetic structure of the mind.

    4. The strength of modern science is its specialization, concentrating resources on very specific problems. But this strength is a weakness because that specialization doesn’t lend itself to understanding broader, more general problems, which are often the consequence of their own specific conclusions.

    I suggest you read Plato’s Apology and see why he was considered to be the wisest of men.

Comments are closed.