Weird Winter Weather Puzzles Scientists

[gotmuddy]

But I guess that'd be an easier pill for me to swallow from a different messenger. I googled Marc Morano, and it seems as though he's worked for a lot of folks who get a lot of money from the oil and gas industry- I can see why he would have a vested interest in debunking global warming science. When the source is that biased to begin with, it makes me awfully suspicious...

BP gave Barrack Hussein Obama money, so he would have a vested interest too wouldnt he?

[eric1978]

The Real "Inconvenient Truth".

That's so sad that it's almost hilarious, JD. Junkscience.com is run by Steven Milloy, a FOX News columnist and a lobbyist for Phillip Morris and Exxon-Mobil.

Try harder next time.

[flytyer57]

I wonder how they measured global warming before the farenheit thermometor?

The first thermometers were actually called "thermoscopes" and were made using water in the 1500's.

The Fahrenheit scale, named after Daniel Gabriel Fahrenheit the inventor of the alcohol thermometer in 1709 and the mercury thermometer in 1714, has been used widely since.

So to answer your question, it was basically a thermometer invented by Santorio Santorio. The guy who is first credited with putting numbers to the thermoscope.

[flytyer57]

So it is your side based on the last 10 years or my side for the last several billion years?

You have the choice to believe modern science or Rush Limbaugh.

It's up to you to think for yourself.

I can't do it for you.

Although Rush will tell you what to think so you don't hurt yourself.

[Outside Bend]

BP gave Barrack Hussein Obama money, so he would have a vested interest too wouldnt he?

If The President had received millions from energy companies and at the same time was telling me not to worry about greenhouse emissions, yes, I'd be suspicious.

[Mitch f]

Yeah, I ain't gonna beat my head against the wall any more on this one. Same tired arguments, easily refuted if you will just lay off the uninformed guesses and the Rushbeckian talking points and take a few hours to read the science. Plenty of it. Google it. Read BOTH sides. Read what both sides are saying about the East Anglia stuff. Read what both sides are saying about the data and the evidence. THEN make your own decisions. But when you parrot the same old arguments against (and on the other side, some arguments for) that have been refuted effectively, it tells me you're only listening to one side.

There ARE a few reputable scientists who think it isn't human induced, or at least question the degree to which it's human induced. And they have a few good arguments. Find those, and talk about them, and I'll listen.

And please, please, get off the kick of calling others hypocrites because they use fossil fuels. We all do. We all HAVE to. The solution is not for everybody to just stop using fossil fuels, the solution is for governments and industries and entrepreneurs and societies to come up with viable alternatives. And that takes an agreement among the members of those societies that finding alternatives has a high priority. Meanwhile, limiting use of fossil fuels through conservation measures and better use of existing alternative technologies is the way to go, but no sane person is expecting nor demanding that everybody just stop using fossil fuels and suffer. That's a Rushbeckian talking point.

I take it you're not fond of Rush and Beck

[gotmuddy]

If The President had received millions from energy companies and at the same time was telling me not to worry about greenhouse emissions, yes, I'd be suspicious.

What I am saying is you can't always go by where the money comes from(although most of the time you can)

[Al Agnew]

On stuff that I know something about, Rush and Beck are usually either wrong or skewing the facts or cherry-picking the parts that support their assertions. Anybody who thinks they are giving a true or complete picture of ANYTHING is sadly deluded. And they make their money and their reputations on fomenting discord. With this country in the shape it's in, the LAST thing we need is more discord and polarization.

And yes, there are people on the other side who do the same thing. Maybe we need that balance, but I'd much rather that there were more honest and competent journalists where people could get their "facts" from both sides, instead of the incessant slugfest of conservative vs. liberal.

I stopped listening to them a long time ago, but you can't get away from their talking points, because they have become the spokesmen of conservatism. If you don't agree with Rush and Beck, you ain't a conservative, you're the enemy of America.

[Al Agnew]

I think I've said this before, but industries give money to politicians for two reasons. One is that they give money to those who are on their side already to help those politicians get elected. But they also hedge their bets and give money to politicians on the other side, on the assumption that the money will buy them access and an ear. President Obama might not be BP's greatest friend, but BP's millions might just dispose him to at least listen to what their viewpoint is. Following the money, when it comes to politicians, is not nearly as cut and dried as it usually is when we're talking about people like authors and scientists.

[troutfiend1985]

On stuff that I know something about, Rush and Beck are usually either wrong or skewing the facts or cherry-picking the parts that support their assertions. Anybody who thinks they are giving a true or complete picture of ANYTHING is sadly deluded. And they make their money and their reputations on fomenting discord. With this country in the shape it's in, the LAST thing we need is more discord and polarization.

And yes, there are people on the other side who do the same thing. Maybe we need that balance, but I'd much rather that there were more honest and competent journalists where people could get their "facts" from both sides, instead of the incessant slugfest of conservative vs. liberal.

I stopped listening to them a long time ago, but you can't get away from their talking points, because they have become the spokesmen of conservatism. If you don't agree with Rush and Beck, you ain't a conservative, you're the enemy of America.

Maybe this is why politics isn't allowed on this forum. . . But while I have a chance let me put something out there. Look at where CNN, Fox and all the major news sources are getting backing from, where do you think it is? Right, either the democrats or republicans, no big secret and you can tell by watching both sides god awful journalism that there is favoritism to one side or the other. So stop with the holier than thou bashing and stop with the references to talking heads, I’m sure both sides have embarrassments that Lilley won’t let me talk about.

So let’s get to this global warming debate, and I can start by saying we should stop. Why? Because neither side has irrefutable evidence that man made Co2 emissions are/aren't the direct and major cause to the warming of the earth of late. Yes, one side can point and say look at our recent evidence, shouldn't this concern you? And the other side counters with the earth goes in cycles and Co2 is produced in large quantities through natural decay. I get it, same bullshit and finger pointing, no evidence that is beyond a reasonable doubt on either side and both sides probably have economic agendas in this race(don’t tell me that I’m the first one to think of blue and red chasing money in an issue).

Personally, I don't care whether you are a democrat, republican, libertarian, or an independent cynic like myself, what matters is what is best for the long run. I hate it when people can't see both sides on an issue that is as gray as this one, and I've seen a lot of gray in my short 25 years. Look, why not switch to wind power? It would make the US money and for that cause alone it is a good idea. I've read that Kansas and the Midwest are the equivalent to the Saudi Arabia of wind, so what's so bad with that? The reason we have this argument isn't common sense, no it's arbitrary political lines. If one side would just say "Hey, we're a capitalist society and we can make a crap ton of money off of converting wind/solar/geothermal/cow poop energy and we could increase jobs at the same time." then there would be no gripe. Keep throwing rocks like Israelis and Palestinians, but the middle ground is money, money makes sense(or cents) and that is where I'm at on this issue.