Global warming questioned by U.N. agency!!!!
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)Posted by: j2k4
Well, then.
Do you die-hard global-warming enthusiasts question those who question global-warming?
After all, it is the U.N. ...:whistling
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,346310,00.html
Posted by: clocker
A small number of scientists doubt whether this means global warming has peaked and the Earth has proved more resilient to greenhouse gases than predicted, but Jarraud insists this is not the case and notes that 1998 temperatures would still be well above average for the century.
"When you look at climate change you should not look at any particular year," he told the BBC. "You should look at trends over a pretty long period and the trend of temperature globally is still very much indicative of warming."
Um, OK.
I have a question, j2.
If you doubt that "global warming" actually exists, what is lost by following the recommendations of those who believe it's true?
How can cutting down emissions and developing alternative energy sources be a bad thing even if it doesn't lead to a cooler planet?
Posted by: j2k4
A small number of scientists doubt whether this means global warming has peaked and the Earth has proved more resilient to greenhouse gases than predicted, but Jarraud insists this is not the case and notes that 1998 temperatures would still be well above average for the century.
"When you look at climate change you should not look at any particular year," he told the BBC. "You should look at trends over a pretty long period and the trend of temperature globally is still very much indicative of warming."
Um, OK.
I have a question, j2.
If you doubt that "global warming" actually exists, what is lost by following the recommendations of those who believe it's true?
How can cutting down emissions and developing alternative energy sources be a bad thing even if it doesn't lead to a cooler planet?
I realize now I should've formulated my post for the discriminating palate...
First of all - by way of amending my post - I don't quarrel the argument (however tenuous) that global warming may actually be occurring.
My dispute has to do with the part of any actual "warming" attributed/attributable to humans - I find the associated reasonings (the "science") to range from questionable to utterly silly.
As to your last:
Cutting emissions and developing alternative fuels/sources is naught but a good idea, but to do so at so drastic a cost as prescribed by the current crop of "experts" borders on suicidal.
These things should be done because they are sensible and good practice, not just because Al Gore says so.
Punitive taxation for the purpose of "fighting global warming"?
The Kyoto Treaty?
Rubbish.
One need look no further than the carbon credit scam or the ethanol boondoggle.
Ffs, a fellow can't afford to buy an ear of corn anymore. :whistling
Posted by: clocker
I like corn.
Posted by: j2k4
I like corn.
I'll remember that. :whistling
Another thought, one with horrible implication:
Rare (unaffordable) corn=expensive(r) bourbon.
Yoiks. :cry:
Posted by: clocker
I like bourbon as well.
Damn Al Gore.
Posted by: bigboab
Global warming will be a reality when they start saying 'This has been the hottest day ever', not, 'This has been the hottest day since 150 years ago'. How did the ice in the ice age melt away? We seem to have survived that 'global warming'.
1998 temperatures would still be well above average for the century
1998 Phew, that would melt iron.:whistling
Posted by: ilw
Well, then.
Do you die-hard global-warming enthusiasts question those who question global-warming?
After all, it is the U.N. ...:whistling
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,346310,00.html
are you taking the piss out of fox?
if not:
why have they picked 1998, is it because ten years is a nice round number... or is it because 1998 was the second hottest year in the last 118 years? Are they really comparing an el nino year just ten years ago to a la nina year and using that to justify anything? They'd have to either be cretins, or intentionally misleading
Posted by: clocker
They'd have to either be cretins, or intentionally misleading
One does not preclude the other.
Let's be generous and assume they're both.
Posted by: j2k4
Well, then.
Do you die-hard global-warming enthusiasts question those who question global-warming?
After all, it is the U.N. ...:whistling
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,346310,00.html
are you taking the piss out of fox?
Even a cretin would realize I'm taking the piss out of the U.N., Ian. :whistling
Posted by: ilw
are you taking the piss out of fox?
Even a cretin would realize I'm taking the piss out of the U.N., Ian. :whistling
perhaps i was giving you too much credit... :whistling
Posted by: j2k4
Even a cretin would realize I'm taking the piss out of the U.N., Ian. :whistling
perhaps i was giving you too much credit... :whistling
Cretins always do that. :whistling