I've made no claim of expertise on the matter, though I'm glad you acknowledge what Bamaro and I say as fact. Thanks for that. Made my day. :biggrin2:What's silly is when guys like you and Bamaro start spouting off facts like you actually studied climatology. What makes you qualified to talk about this? Would you tell a heart surgeon how to replace a heart?
This may surprise you, but I did not. In fact, I generally vote third party for ballot access reasons.They voted for Obama.
:biggrin2:
But if it's only freaking cold locally, it's not exactly "global."That global warming is sure hurting the Northeast USA as we speak.
The flaw here is that it is BY NO MEANS even close to a guarantee that we win the game.Similarly, I could not tell you what Alabama's first play from scrimmage will be when we play Middle Tennessee, but I bet we win the game.
Yeah, just think how cold it would really be if it wasn't for global warming.That global warming is sure hurting the Northeast USA as we speak.
Touche'Yeah, just think how cold it would really be if it wasn't for global warming.
If they'd just eliminate the Bureaucracy and lying Politicians in Washington, D. C., the global warming or whatever would end. The hot air coming from Politicians (head end and tail end) and the Bureaucracy just can't continue if we plan to survive.I miss the winters thru 2000 to 2010. They were mild winters but the last four have been getting colder every year. I hope that trend stops because I hate cold weather. Back to topic I will agree with others on this board that believes its the government just trying to get more power and taxing us to the poor house.
Ya know? if we really have the ability to alter the temps -- if you are cold -- just have you and 1000 of your closest friends go outside and empty a few dozen cans each of Air Freshener......and VO5......that should raise the temperature at least .00001 degrees......nice and toasty.I miss the winters thru 2000 to 2010. They were mild winters but the last four have been getting colder every year. I hope that trend stops because I hate cold weather. Back to topic I will agree with others on this board that believes its the government just trying to get more power and taxing us to the poor house.
And getting information from The Telegraph is better, how?Relying on factcheck.org is like complaining of police brutality to the cop that just beat the crap out of you.
Welcome back.And getting information from The Telegraph is better, how?
Yankee Go Home!!I'll take "In Every Way" for 1,000, Alex.
Then do your homework; dispute their "facts". I get this garbage from folks about Snopes and factcheck.org all the time (and yes, I actually know a few hard core conservatives who swear by factcheck.org).Relying on factcheck.org is like complaining of police brutality to the cop that just beat the crap out of you.
So you trust scientist who have been given millions by government to study climate change more than scientist being given millions by oil companies to disprove it?Then do your homework; dispute their "facts". I get this garbage from folks about Snopes and factcheck.org all the time (and yes, I actually know a few hard core conservatives who swear by factcheck.org).
I would trust them much more than an engineer who, after being given millions by big oil, says climate change is a hoax. Believe what you want.
You have a great point. However, your word choice is particularly telling. A government entity paying a scientist to "study" climate change would allow for a positive or negative response. The oil and gas companies pay for a particular answer. In your words: to "disprove" it. Even if your suggestion is true that many scientists would fabricate data in order to keep getting funded, would ALL? We are talking about 97+% generating the same result no matter if it is privately funded or government funded. The government doesn't just drop funding if they don't get the result they want. An oil and gas company can and does.So you trust scientist who have been given millions by government to study climate change more than scientist being given millions by oil companies to disprove it?
Governments (especially ours) drop funding when they don't get the results they want all the time. Writing a grant to get/continue funding for almost anything has become very politicized.You have a great point. However, your word choice is particularly telling. A government entity paying a scientist to "study" climate change would allow for a positive or negative response. The oil and gas companies pay for a particular answer. In your words: to "disprove" it. Even if your suggestion is true that many scientists would fabricate data in order to keep getting funded, would ALL? We are talking about 97+% generating the same result no matter if it is privately funded or government funded. The government doesn't just drop funding if they don't get the result they want. An oil and gas company can and does.
No argument there.Also, journalists have an incentive to write articles that generate a lot of interest. Especially one that works for a tabloid like The Telegraph. Everyone has a bias.
Sounds like we need a natural way to stay warm...maybe burn a few more fossil fuels in advance.And then there's this:
Scientists predict significant drop in solar activity will cause a Little Ice Age in about 15 years.
Now, I remember from history class that the Little Ice Age generally was from 1350 to 1850. That is five centuries. This article talks about seven decades. Maybe the Little Ice Age was a collection of cooling events that got lumped together.
Interesting fact, the Norse quit Greenland some time after 1408. It just got too cold to grown their crops.