The sky could fall
"Climate Change and Oregon"
But scientists can´t say exactly how these gases will affect the world or when their levels will reach a crisis point.
They "can't say?" Then let's just make things up and tell people they are "facts."
Snowpacks might melt faster, increasing flooding.
Coast towns could experience more flooding...
Oregon´s crops and livestock could be affected by warmer temperatures, less water availability and drier soils.
Some crops, such as wheat, might thrive in warmer temperatures, while others, such as potatoes, could be harmed.
Quick, amongst all these "could's" let's throw in an undeniable fact:
Less water available for irrigation would harm agriculture.
Way to go ladies, you might as well have said that "by waving this magic wand the oceans could dry up. A fish out of water will die."
Different trees would flourish and grasslands might replace some forest land.
Heat waves could increase, causing a rise in heat-related illnesses and deaths.
Some scientific models show Oregon average temperatures could increase by 5 degrees in winter and 4 degrees in summer.
Models such as the one that little Jimmy got an A+ on from his kook 6th grade science teacher.
Native species adapted to Oregon´s climate could suffer if temperatures rise.
This is really sounding like hard science here.
35 comments:
They "can't say?" Then let's just make things up and tell people they are "facts."
Ah yes, you mean the Bush Doctrine.
Global Warming is a bunch of BS
Not only that, but I can't believe that everyone buys the bullshit idea that the earth is round. I invite you all to see the web page for the Flat Earth Society. Google it, my friends! You will find there "scientific data and measurements backing up our claims." We provide "evidence" refutes "common myths" about the alleged "proof" from the world's scientists that the earth is actually round. DO NOT LET THEM HAVE THE FINAL WORD ON THE SUBJECT!!! GET THE FACTS!!!
So basically, you're looking for more of a definitive statement. Like Donald Rumsfeld's March 30, 2003 statement about WMDs: "We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."
Guess we should have paid closer attention. He did say "around" and "somewhat," while referring to an "area."
Ooh, global warming! Please explain to me where the claciers that once covered the Columbia River Gorge and the Pacific Northwest. I'm not buying into the hype because global warming has been happening for several ten-thousand years now.
You should all see An Inconvenient Truth. I don't care what you think of Al Gore, nor even if you don't accept his arguments, as long as you simply get the facts that they're based on. The best refutation I've seen so far is the calling of the global climate crisis "a bunch of BS." The best counterargument so far is that it's "been happening for several ten-thousand years now," which is supported by neither the pattern of atmospheric carbon content recorded in the Antarctic ice layer, nor simple temperature measurements over the last fifty years.
No scientist can say, for sure, what is going to happen, but those who remain skeptical about the issue are the ones exploiting that barest uncertainty in order to pressure the experts into using "could" and "might" so frequently. What science can give us, just as it does in the fields of meteorology and economics, which we all trust implicitly, are chances. There is a 99% chance that this is happening. It would be foolish not to do what we can do. This, if nothing else, is not political, but truly a matter of the welfare of ourselves and our children.
“…99% chance that this is happening”
I love it when libs pull statistics out of their ass. As someone with two science degrees (physics and engineering) I have yet to find a substantiated argument to support the “theory” of global warming. I think your tinfoil hat may be a little tight.
ok global warming is just a scare and not real. u.f.o's are not real,
but you believe in god?? oh sure that's a real thing. You dip shit
Wrong about WMD's, wrong about global warming. 'Nuff said.
You know, the best argument against Global Warming having some sort of man-made cause is the actions of the Global Warming supporters themselves.
They claim to be acting on science, not emotion. They claim the debate is over, that this is settled science but yet they act in direct contradiction to this.
Why, if man made Global Warming is such settled science do so many meteorologists, including our own state climatologic disagree with their theory? Why do these people tend to get fired if they speak out? Why are documents such as the recent IPCC report by the UN so leaden down with outright fraudulent statements that scientists are willing to sue the UN to get their name taken off the report? Why are smear tactics, such as “they work for big oil” used against any scientist who speaks out?
Most of all, why does anyone believe in this cause when its chief supporter, Al Gore, clearly does not? Gore claims this is settled science and an emergency but his actions vis a’ vie his use of energy do not support this at all.
Given this record, the proclamation that Global Warming, caused by man, is any sort of settled science is absolute folly. However to expect reason from those that would still not question the orthodoxy of their belief system when its leader has been proven an absolute hypocrite is, perhaps, more foolish still.
It's not necessary to be a liberal, a fan of Al Gore, alarmist or paranoid to look at the overwhelming preponderance of evidence to know that global warming is real, it's serious, and that if we don't do something about it now, we are going to have some serious problems in the next few decades. I think it says a great deal about the intellectual honesty of the reactionary right in this country that they were willing to accept a few scattered slivers of "fact" -- which have long since been revealed as total fabrications or errors, disseminated by politicians who have long since been revealed as shameless liars -- that WMDs existed in Iraq, and yet when thousands of scientists (and not a few in international business and industry) acknowledge the reality of global warming based on an overwhelming preponderance of scientific research, there are still fools like Daniel and Anon 9:26 who are determined to ignore and deny it. Amazing.
Scientists cannot say for sure when, or even if, an earthquake will strike the NorthWest. So lets stop being prepared - hell, lets not even care...
Scientists cannot say for sure when or even if you will ever have a car accident, nor can they predict with certainty what the damage might be if you do. So lets get rid of airbags, seat belts, crumple zones, and even bumpers.
Scientists cannot with certainty predict when you will die, or even of which cause. So obviously you cannot die. PARTY!
Of course scientists cannot nail down the exact consequences - because nothing like this has ever happened since humankind has been on the planet. It is like a snowball or a runaway train - the impacts we are having could be unstoppable.
But here is the question we need to ask ourselves. If we take steps to reduce our impact on the environment, and global warming plays out to not be drastically damaging - will the steps we have taken have hurt us in any way?
The answer is no. We can ALWAYS use a cleaner, more sustainable place to live. We always need forests and farmlands. We always need clean air and water.
But look at the other alternative - if we pretend that Global Warming does not exist or that we can't do anything and it DOES pose a problem we could be in for drastic impacts!
We need to look at the possible outcomes of all of our choices, based on the best evidence we have.
Scientists HAVE to say "could" and "possibly" because until it actually happens we have no way of guaranteeing ANYTHING!
For you Global Warming deniers:
Of all the peer-reviewed scientific journal articles regarding global warming, how many of them argue either that there is not significant global warming that is occurring, or that humans are not the cause of said warming?
It's not a majority, it's not a substantial minority, it's not a few, it's not even one. It's ZERO.
If there truly is significant doubt about humans causing global warming, don't you think those scientists who doubt it could have produced at least one peer-reviewed article on the subject?
Some 20 or 30 years ago, the guys with the tinfoil hats were running around saying the sky was falling because of "global cooling", that it would be just a few years and the average temperature would be something below zero. Now these same ones with the tinfoil hats are saying the sky is falling because of "global warming". Even the looney Bill Brabbury has said that in a few years Tillamook will be under 25 feet of water and the Willamette River will be up to 5th Avenue in Portland.
The earth is going through normal changes and there will be no "catastrophic" events like AlGore is predicting. One has to wonder who is the haberdasher that is fitting him for his tinfoil hat.
Scottiebill,
Can you show me the peer-reviewed research from 20-30 years ago talking about global cooling?
And, again, show me the peer-reviewed research disputing that humans are responsible for global warming and that it is a potential disaster.
I can't beleive you guys. It is obvious that Man has done nothing to destroy the ozone layer and that climate shifts are not man made.
R Huse: I assume you're referring to that story, a while back, concerning the Gores' home energy use? A few things you might want to know. First, the Gores use an electricity program called the Green Power Switch, in which they buy energy produced by clean, renewable sources - wind, solar, methane - at considerable personal expense: $4 for 150 KWh. Second, Gore invests in carbon offsets not only for the rest of his energy bill, but for every car or plane trip he makes, in an attempt to remain "carbon neutral." The man is doing what he can.
As for your other question - why do so many meteorologists disagree? - the answer, as Anon 9:28 provided, is simple. They don't. Zero peer-reviewed articles - in other words, whatever public dissent there is exists only in the mainstream media. I compare that unfavorably to the exhaustive report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
In turn, I ask you the following: if global warming is a ridiculous, unfounded theory, or at least too controversial to be a convincing motivation for a movement away from the use of carbon fuels, would you please offer your explanation for the Bush Administration's persistent attempt to downplay the significance of global warming by interfering with the work of climatologists?
Finally, for those who, among other arguments, claim that we are experiencing a natural phase of Earth's ecology, I invite you to look at some pictures.
As with most topics Daniel raises, his approach to this one is smeared with the usual hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty.
Several days ago, he posted the conclusions of a supposedly scientific study published by an “institute” allegedly proving that illegal aliens are disproportionately represented amongst those guilty of other crimes, particularly violent crimes. I’m not going to waste time finding it, but I looked into it at the time. The “institute” turned out to be one woman, her statistical “analysis” was undercut at the outset by the fact that she was not a statistician, and anyone with fairly decent math skills with some measure of objectivity who took the time to actually read her report and think about her methodology would have been able to see that her findings were absurd, manufactured in an extraordinarily clumsy way and obviously intended to “prove” what she wanted to be true.
So on one hand, we have a “study,” produced by an “institute” that isn’t, based on a statistical “analysis” written by someone who is not a statistician, not published in any legitimate scientific journal, not peer-reviewed, and this is held up by Mr. Miglavs as gospel in a triumphant “Ah-HA!” moment, like some sort of smoking gun in the debate about illegal immigration.
And on the other, like someone said, thousands of scientific studies, produced by scientists, peer reviewed, etc., but it’s all “BS” because, apparently, you are politically opposed to the man who has emerged as a chief spokesman.
The degree of hypocrisy, civic irresponsibility and willful stupidity on display here is nothing short of spectacular.
You should read the "Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming". It basically refutes everything Al Gore says in his movie.
Or watch the movie "The Great Global Warming Swindle". Also refutes it all.
When data from the Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey satellites shows accelerated melting of polar CO2 "ice" on Mars in the last few years and is dismissed as an "inconclusive" indicator of a natural increase in solar radiation, you know the GWB's (global warming bullies) are unbiased.
I suspect some of them actually believe the other GWB is causing increases in solar radiation - it just fits so well with their preconceptions.
...and that's all that really matters, isn't it?
As Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, has repeatedly written, the average global temperature has increased about one degree Fahrenheit over the past century. It's a natural cycle and, since we are at the end of the current 12,000-year interglacial cycle of temperate climate, we are due another Ice Age.
Global warming is about controlling the world's population by impeding or making more costly the use of energy "oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear" in developed, industrial nations and thwarting efforts to expand the use of electricity in Third World nations. Keeping people ignorant and ultimately dependent on a vast one-world government based on failed socialist utopian policies is the name of the game.
This explains in part why so much of the global warming propaganda has been coordinated and emanated from the United Nations. Its International Panel on Climate Control and its Kyoto Protocol on Climate Control are just two examples of the mischief that is generated by the UN. The Panel has revised its estimates of global warming so many times that it has become a farce. Worse yet, those estimates are all based on deeply flawed computer models.
I'll watch Al Gore's movie when you agree to watch The Great Global Warming Swindle. While almost everyone will agree that we do have a small amount of global warming, we should direct our money and effort to how we can better cope with this natural phenomena. Instead we will waste billions of dollars and precious time rearranging our lives to address a problem that we have little or no control over.
Big Mike: Have you seen the movie?
Woops – Sorry, the claim that there are zero peer reviewed studies questioning anthropogenic global warming is erroneous. As examples I would suggest the recent studies regarding cosmic ray influence on cloud formation, since water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas. Tied into this would also be the related studies on solar activity and its relationship to terrestrial weather patterns. Another good source for peer-reviewed work would be the fact that it seems the Martian ice caps are melting and this has raised questions regarding anthropogenic global warming as it is more consistent with weighting non anthropogenic weather change more heavily.
Also the idea Al Gore is anything but a hypocrite is quickly disproved by his actions. Buying carbon offsets does nothing to cut ones carbon emissions; it merely is a transfer of the burden to someone else. Gallivanting around the globe on private jets and then buying carbon offsets from ones own company, as Al Gore does, is simply combining a good time with a really neat tax shelter. My hat is off to him, as he seems to have lost none of his followers even after refusing to sign a pledge that Sen. Inhofe presented to him to cut his electrical usage at recent senate hearings. Regardless of the source, using 20 times the average Americans electricity in just one of his homes aint exactly cutting back.
As for the interference with climatologic work, yes, I suppose that does happen. Our governor is in the process of firing the state climatologist for questioning anthropogenic global warming. Let us also not forget that the entire CO2 based global warming movement was given its big push into the main stream by political interference from Margaret Thatcher. At the time she was trying to promote nuclear power as a lower emitter of CO2 than coal. So it happens on both sides.
Lastly, I’d like it clear that I never said global warming is a ridiculous theory. In fact I do believe it is happening. Anthropogenic global warming is another matter. Adherents to that belief system tend to be zealots of the same stripe that annihilationists have been since time immemorial. It is nothing new; people have been predicting the end of the world with every generation. The message is always the same; “you must change your ways to be like me or the whole world will die, if you don’t you are evil, we have no time to waste”. I find the entire thing fascinating as the timeline from inception to wide spread belief in this latest incarnation of doom has been so rapid. If nothing else it will be interesting to see how it plays out this go round.
Anon 6:43, I'm curious about this cave you live in. How do you heat it? Fire or electric?
There is just too much evidence that points to any climate changes being caused naturally and not by man. The responsibility falls on the GW hoax artists to prove that man causes GW. They haven't been able to do it. This should be enough to end the argument, but it's not because they are too stubborn to say they're wrong.
7:44, I think it is the other way around.
72F today, 74F tomorrow. Global warming? Bring it on!
Don't be alarmed, but the planet is getting hotter. According to the latest computer models, surface air temperatures rose by 1.17 degrees Fahrenheit just between the 1970s and the '90s. Earlier estimates had the Earth warming by 1.33 degrees over an entire century.
Hey, we told you not to be alarmed. It's Mars that's warming--"four times faster than Earth," according to Agence France-Presse:
The explanation is in the dirt.
Glistening Martian dust lying on the ground reflects the Sun's light--and its heat--back into space, a phenomenon called albedo.
But when this reddish dust is churned up by violent winds, the storm-ravaged surface loses its reflective qualities and more of the Sun's heat is absorbed into the atmosphere, causing temperatures to rise. . . .
Exactly what triggers the planet's so-called "global dust storms" remains a mystery.
We'll bet it's little green men driving their SUVs off-road.
An irony of this week's Supreme Court decision is that the beneficiary of the ruling won't be wind power, solar power, or any of the other renewable technologies favored by the Green establishment. Their economic and technological limitations are too severe for them ever to occupy more than a small niche in the American energy economy. Instead, one of the winners from may be something that many of the environmentalists who brought the suit have long abhorred: nuclear power.
The two posts above are from WSJ and TCS. I'm too stupid to make up my own BS.
Anon 11:47am: Google "Global Cooling" than go the second refernce line on the first page and click on it. There will be an article from Newsweek dated October 23, 2006, written be Jerry Adler, referring to the global cooling propaganda that was prevalent in 1975. This should be required reading for all you guys wearing the tinfoil hats and sipping on your kool-aid.
BTW, there are numerous other references to global cooling on the Google pages. These articles might tend to cool your position that AlGore is the see-all, know-all of the era when it comes to the environment. All this hoo-haw is to Gore is another way for him to keep his name in the news. He is just as bad as Jesse Jackson for being a media whore. Even Jesse Jackson hasn't gotten himself an Oscar yet. But you can bet he is working on it.
Of course the nature of science has become less sure over the years. Science now talks in probabilites rather than laws.
You can either measure an electron, or determine where it is, but you can't do both.
Just because global warming happens naturally, doesn't mean that we either need to speed up the process or make it more severe. I would think that it would be a no-brainer that pouring tons of pollutants into the atmosphere would be a bad thing anyway.
However, I do appreciate the "head in the sand" approach. It's just funny to see Conservatives get their undies in a bunch over science. Everything from Global Warming to Evolution. I'm sure there are some of you out there that think the earth is only 10,000 years old. Or less.
And of course we all know that cigarette smoke doesn't cause cancer, because there is no definitive proof that it does.
In fact, why don't we just go back to pumping all sorts of so-called "carcinogens" into the environment, 'cause, except for Asbestos, we really can't PROVE beyond a shadow of a doubt that they do cause cancer.
So how many of you global warming sceptics would be willing to subject your family members to exposure to those alleged carcinogens? The science on that isn't exact ya know, so I'm sure it wouldn't be a problem.
You know, the previous two replies demonstrate, to my mind, exactly why I think we are on the down swing of the current incarnation of Apocalypsism – Global Warming
The audience has changed as it has widened. At inception, Government leaders and the UN were of course easy to convince. Subscription to the theory gives them expanding economic control, which equates to power and they love that. Scientists who operate under government grants of course love it because now there is all this new funding.
Now we are at the classic backlash point. The general populace, still remaining to be convinced, begins to ask the very pertinent question “what if you are wrong? You know God may have come to you in a dream and told you the world was going to end, but frankly you didn’t have much of anything to give up in the first place. Plus you are getting all this neat new stuff and a whole bunch of followers. I think before I sell all my possessions and follow you around in a loin cloth Id really like a note from God as well”
That’s where we are now. The Anthropogenic Global Warming clergy has completely missed the fact that what they are asking is not cost free. It would entail virtually all US manufacturing jobs moving to India or China as a result of Kyoto as well as a crippling of our economy that could quite likely bring on a depression.
People are beginning to understand that glibness of the Apocolyptic leaders. It reveals that though they purport to be trying to save them; they really know nothing of the people’s lives and thus probably don’t really care about them.
That is where we are now in my opinion. People resent their country being trashed for not signing Kyoto while very few of the European countries that did sign it are projected to meet its demands. People resent Al Gore telling them how to live yet making no sacrifices of his own. People resent his carbon credits sold as some sort of moral currency whose inscription bears not the words “In God We Trust” but rather “Let The Little People Suffer”.
The collective middle finger is slowly turning upward at this crowd, and its all falling to bits…. Gloriously.
Post a Comment