Thread: Political control or a real danger.

Originally Posted by azjoe

Even when I do think a theory is plausible, I remind myself that we still can't forecast tomorrow's weather with better than a 60% a certainty.

Well said!

I can't find it, but I was researching some temperatures gathered from some NASA satellites and it showed that temperatures haven't changed very much at all since the 60's, even though CO2 levels had risen quite a bit. I'm inclined to believe hard data from surface scanning satellites. Furthermore, research suggests that some of the hottest periods on earth were in the middle ages. All those damn horses I guess

Hey X
Your posts are welcome here, but this is not a personal attack against you! So please keep your bold type in check and be respectful of your fellow posters!

Thank you
Mark Avery

I think global warming is a threat, it will change the way we live. Maybe not so much in the 1st world but certainly in the developing world, creating a deluge of climate refugees coming our way. Parts of the world will become barren, hopefully some other parts more fertile.

Though man's hand in it is I think more or less proven, it has happened before.

Originally Posted by JMS

Hey X
Your posts are welcome here, but this is not a personal attack against you! So please keep your bold type in check and be respectful of your fellow posters!

I know. I'm not feeling personally threatened. I've reduced the size to match my honourable debate partner.

Originally Posted by Quick Orange

Furthermore, research suggests that some of the hottest periods on earth were in the middle ages.

Which research would that be please?

X

Originally Posted by xman

I know. I'm not feeling personally threatened. I've reduced the size to match my honourable debate partner.


Which research would that be please?

X

Under that rogueish persona I knew there lay the heart of a true gentleman!

Originally Posted by JMS

Under that rogueish persona I knew there lay the heart of a true gentleman!

aw shux ...

Originally Posted by xman

Which research would that be please?

X

Eureka! It was a Harvard study and the press about it can be found here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...06/ixhome.html

The review, carried out by a team from Harvard University, examined the findings of studies of so-called "temperature proxies" such as tree rings, ice cores and historical accounts which allow scientists to estimate temperatures prevailing at sites around the world.
The findings prove that the world experienced a Medieval Warm Period between the ninth and 14th centuries with global temperatures significantly higher even than today.

I'm sure the journal article would make for some interestingly dry reading.

X, thanks for the gristmill reference... there's lots of interesting stuff referenced there that gives me pause for thought.

My problem is it doesn't take very much Googling to find an equally impressive list of counterarguments from people with equally good credentials as far as I can tell... I listed a couple earlier, here's another "Just how much of the Greenhouse Effect is caused by human activity?" Quick Orange's reference is seemingly valid as well and my earlier references contained similar findings.

So which argument(s) are correct? Different (seemingly reputable) scientists have differing data and cause/effect theories which lead to different conclusions.

The question in my mind remains... is mankind primarily responsible for the current global warming situation or are we just a minor contributor???

Originally Posted by azjoe

The question in my mind remains... is mankind primarily responsible for the current global warming situation or are we just a minor contributor???

How about this then: Erring on the side of caution, if we reduce the greenhouse gasses which are suspected to cause climate change, we should see a decline in the rate of radical change. Experimentation seems to be the only solution to our impasse and I suggest we take it up.

X

Originally Posted by xman

How about this then: Erring on the side of caution, if we reduce the greenhouse gasses which are suspected to cause climate change, we should see a decline in the rate of radical change. Experimentation seems to be the only solution to our impasse and I suggest we take it up.

X

Now you're talkin'. I would like to see some more efficient/environment friendly vehicles built for a reasonable cost. I don't know if any of you are familiar with the evolution that is dirt bike engines, but up until about 2001, almost all serious race bikes we two strokes. They're noisy, burn gas like crazy, and pollute quite a bit. Following pressure, the big mfr's did research and development into 4 stroke race engines and what used to be the dog of the race is now better than 2 strokes! They're more efficient, don't burn oil, and kick just as much ass for the same price.

The direction I'm going with this is that the car makers can build an environmentally friendly engine that can compete with sports cars. They just need a little pressure to do so. It is my opinion that once they do that, more people (including myself) will go for the greener cars.