Future Environmental Disasters

[MagicNakor]

Kind of. "Winter" is more late December through to late March/early April.

[j2k4]

Same here, as to the season-winter temps began (in earnest) about three days ago.

0 degrees F. right now.

(Happy New Year, MN&#33

[clocker]

10F here in sunny Colorado currently.
Might warm all the way up to 20 today.

T-shirt weather.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by clocker@5 January 2004 - 11:34
10F here in sunny Colorado currently.
Might warm all the way up to 20 today.

T-shirt weather.

Are you like me that way?

I gots me a pretty good furnace.

[Monkster]

we just got out of a cold spell (Arctic front) were we plunged down to -15 for a couple days and got a half a foot of snow...but now its warmed up to a confortable 10 degrees (Celsuis that is...not sure whats that in Farenhiet), and im in Vancouver

btw, check out this article

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Monkster@10 January 2004 - 01:00
we just got out of a cold spell (Arctic front) were we plunged down to -15 for a couple days and got a half a foot of snow...but now its warmed up to a confortable 10 degrees (Celsuis that is...not sure whats that in Farenhiet), and im in Vancouver

btw, check out this article

I think I used that same one a while back, Monkster.

Prepare yourself for a shitstorm of contrariness.

[thewizeard]

Originally posted by kAb@3 January 2004 - 06:39
sorry j2k4, i have to say this

global warming is a serious threat.

I agree....only the reason for global warming has very little to do with mankind; more to do with the sun radiating more energy. Our sun is a variable star, some time in the future, it will cool down again....

[leftism]

Here is a nice rebuttal to that article

OP-ED SCIENCE A MYTH: GLOBAL WARMING IS HAPPENING

This reminds me of the tobacco issue. For years we had most of the scientific community telling us it was harmful while 'scientists' employed by the Tobacco firms assured us it wasnt. Guess who turned out to be right

When most of the independent scientists start saying global warming isnt happening I'll begin to take it seriously. But while that argument is limited to employees of oil firms and scientists who's findings are mocked by the majority of their peers I'll keep my big pinch of salt handy .

[j2k4]

Originally posted by leftism@10 January 2004 - 17:46
Here is a nice rebuttal to that article

OP-ED SCIENCE A MYTH: GLOBAL WARMING IS HAPPENING

This reminds me of the tobacco issue. For years we had most of the scientific community telling us it was harmful while 'scientists' employed by the Tobacco firms assured us it wasnt. Guess who turned out to be right 

When most of the independent scientists start saying global warming isnt happening I'll begin to take it seriously. But while that argument is limited to employees of oil firms and scientists who's findings are mocked by the majority of their peers I'll keep my big pinch of salt handy .

So which of the two do we believe?

Leftism-

You seem to want to give the nod to those you call "independent".

I think, in the instances I've chased down or been shown documentation, that these should not be termed independent, as their research must be funded by some entity; they do not work for free.

I see indications these independents are funded by agenda-driven interests.

You would no doubt counter my belief by insisting that studies concluding global warming is a natural (not caused by humans) or non-event are funded by those (industry) with a vested interest in that conclusion.

The only thing I feel up to adding at the moment is my belief that those who work in the industries have a vested interest, yes, but more inclined toward honesty in most cases-after all-if they were trying to fudge figures or lie, outright, there are plenty of "private", or "impartial" studies out there aimed directly at proving them wrong, yes?

I don't ever recall hearing of an industry-funded study aimed at countering an "anticipated, but incomplete" private effort.

I see and ascribe different motivations to the respective sides.

[leftism]

Originally posted by j2k4+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I see indications these independents are funded by agenda-driven interests.[/b]

This is probably the most important issue here. We know that the studies produced by the oil companies have an obvious agenda. &#036;&#036;&#036;&#39;s

What agendas do you suspect these independents of having? Specifically, what do they stand to gain from arguing that global warming is a man made reality? Couldnt they make an easier and larger profit by working for the oil companies instead?

<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4
The only thing I feel up to adding at the moment is my belief that those who work in the industries have a vested interest, yes, but more inclined toward honesty in most cases-after all-if they were trying to fudge figures or lie, outright, there are plenty of "private", or "impartial" studies out there aimed directly at proving them wrong, yes?[/quote]

I&#39;m not sure if I&#39;m understanding your reasoning correctly here.

Your saying the industry funded scientists are more likely to be honest because there are many independent studies trying to prove them wrong? Couldnt you also argue that in the opposite direction? That there are well funded industry driven scientists ready to jump on any lies or fudged figures as evidence of the independents wrongdoings and the non-existance of man-made global warming?

From a laymans point of view I&#39;m always sceptical of industry driven studies. The tobacco firms being one of the more obvious examples. And when I look at a factory belching out thick black smoke, it seems hard to imagine that it is having little or no effect or, as that study you provided claims, is actually helping the environment by encouraging tree growth.

I suppose it really comes back to &#39;how independent are the independents&#39; and why are they not supporting the industry view. Could you describe these agendas-driven interests the independents are funded by?