georgesbluegirl Posted November 5, 2006 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 30 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,234 Content Per Day: 0.17 Reputation: 7 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/17/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/10/1987 Share Posted November 5, 2006 It's not a conspiracy theory nor a minority opinion when THERE IS A LARGE INTERNATIONAL CONSENSUS ON THE ISSUE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LadyC Posted November 5, 2006 Share Posted November 5, 2006 but not a scientific one. ever heard the old cliche that if you people here something often enough, it becomes true? at least in perception. "common wisdom" isn't always very wise. we're experiencing nothing "new" here. as pointed out, historical and scientfic evidence makes it very clear that what is occurring is part of a cycle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgesbluegirl Posted November 5, 2006 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 30 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,234 Content Per Day: 0.17 Reputation: 7 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/17/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/10/1987 Share Posted November 5, 2006 correction: there IS a consensus among the meteorologists and climatologists and geologists of the world. the data is there to a point where it's really hard to deny. look, my uncle is a republican ex-navy meteorologist who is by no stretch of the imagination an environmentalist. even he told me he'd revised his opinion on climate change based on examination of sea temperature data. like i said, IPCC. check it out. (also, i've spent the better part of a year looking at this issue from multiple perspectives, so i like to think i'm relatively well versed in the core facts and various arguments. it's really hard to make a case that natural fluctuation can be held accountable for recent, more drastic climate change.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
other one Posted November 5, 2006 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 29 Topic Count: 599 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 56,268 Content Per Day: 7.55 Reputation: 28,001 Days Won: 271 Joined: 12/29/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted November 5, 2006 correction: there IS a consensus among the meteorologists and climatologists and geologists of the world. the data is there to a point where it's really hard to deny. look, my uncle is a republican ex-navy meteorologist who is by no stretch of the imagination an environmentalist. even he told me he'd revised his opinion on climate change based on examination of sea temperature data. like i said, IPCC. check it out. (also, i've spent the better part of a year looking at this issue from multiple perspectives, so i like to think i'm relatively well versed in the core facts and various arguments. it's really hard to make a case that natural fluctuation can be held accountable for recent, more drastic climate change.) Why is mars heating up along with us???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonard Posted November 5, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 115 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 8,281 Content Per Day: 1.12 Reputation: 249 Days Won: 3 Joined: 03/03/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 10/30/1955 Share Posted November 5, 2006 http://www.oism.org/pproject/pproject.htm But, you guys still win. OK, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, the sky really is falling. I believe it now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LadyC Posted November 5, 2006 Share Posted November 5, 2006 georges, since you've done some study into the subject, are you familiar with the holocene maximum? can you explain that phenomenon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgesbluegirl Posted November 5, 2006 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 30 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,234 Content Per Day: 0.17 Reputation: 7 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/17/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/10/1987 Share Posted November 5, 2006 yup! the holocene maximum, as you probably know, was the "hottest part" of human history (somewhere between 9000-5000 years ago i think?). however, that warm period could have been predicted through modeling (were such technology around back then, haha) - it was mostly a result of orbital forcing (changes in the earth's rotational axis) and the shifts of climate happening post-ice age. in other words, it can be easily explained through examination of natural forces. not so today: we've deviated from the model and into a warming trend that really can't be explained any other way than through consideration of anthropogenic emissions. that's the issue. ps: funny that i'm having this conversation now as i write my environmental studies paper on environmental governance in modern china! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest yod Posted November 6, 2006 Share Posted November 6, 2006 It's not a conspiracy theory nor a minority opinion when THERE IS A LARGE INTERNATIONAL CONSENSUS ON THE ISSUE. There is also a LARGE INTERNATIONAL CONSENSUS on Jesus. shall we all follow them over the cliff? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LadyC Posted November 6, 2006 Share Posted November 6, 2006 georges, even the orbital tilting and rotation is cyclical. it might do you well to study a little further into that aspect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgesbluegirl Posted November 6, 2006 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 30 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,234 Content Per Day: 0.17 Reputation: 7 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/17/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/10/1987 Share Posted November 6, 2006 that's my point. we KNOW that orbital forcing is cyclical. we KNOW that climate is cyclical. you can MODEL its cyclic nature based on examining all these natural factors. but we're deviating from the natural, cyclic model of how climate change should look these days. why? anthropogenic outputs. when you create a new model including influence from releases from anthropogenic sources, it fits what's happening now. nobody really means that the sky is falling, or that the world is going to end. the issue is that we could do a lot of damage to ourselves and the planet as a whole if we don't start being conscientious about what we are releasing into it. the basis for the model might be a complicated synthesis, but explaining what it means is pretty straightforward. mindfulness. consideration. it's as simple as that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts