Something to add to the global warming debate

[AtlCB]

These temperature stations are used to determine the average global temperatures and temperature trends:

http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/
http://www.surfacestations.org/odd_sites.htm

Many of these thermometers are next to metal or brick buildings, air conditioner exhausts, asphault, concrete, parking lots, airports, jets, barbecues, and even a trash burn bin.

[Rackat]

Originally Posted by AtlCB

These temperature stations are used to determine the average global temperatures and temperature trends:

http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/
http://www.surfacestations.org/odd_sites.htm

Many of these thermometers are next to metal or brick buildings, air conditioner exhausts, asphault, concrete, parking lots, airports, jets, barbecues, and even a trash burn bin.

LOL! I watched that the other night. How the heck can they say there is anything akin to accurate reporting?

[iceberg]

Originally Posted by AtlCB

These temperature stations are used to determine the average global temperatures and temperature trends:

http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/
http://www.surfacestations.org/odd_sites.htm

Many of these thermometers are next to metal or brick buildings, air conditioner exhausts, asphault, concrete, parking lots, airports, jets, barbecues, and even a trash burn bin.

for global freezing they were next to the slurpee machine, inside the random 7-11 freezer, and only brought out on the coldest day of the winter but that temp. was used to say what the temp was the entire year.

[AtlCB]

Originally Posted by Rackat

LOL! I watched that the other night. How the heck can they say there is anything akin to accurate reporting?

What is absolutely disturbing is that we are measuring temperature trends in tenths of a degree per decade. Does anyone actually believe these thermometers in these locations can actually measure temperature accurately to a tenth of a degree????

[Rackat]

Originally Posted by AtlCB

What is absolutely disturbing is that we are measuring temperature trends in tenths of a degree per decade. Does anyone actually believe these thermometers in these locations can actually measure temperature accurately to a tenth of a degree????

And therein lies the crux of the debate. An accused person, according to our system, can only be convicted if there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Basically, the global warming alarmists are convicting the entire human species, and mostly blaming the United States, when there is reasonable doubt to believe that we are indeed the cause of the global warming TREND that we are currently in. Perhaps we CONTRIBUTE, but I have yet to see definitive evidence that we CAUSE global warming. Old Sol is more to blame than animal farts or humans.

[joseephuss]

Originally Posted by Rackat

And therein lies the crux of the debate. An accused person, according to our system, can only be convicted if there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Basically, the global warming alarmists are convicting the entire human species, and mostly blaming the United States, when there is reasonable doubt to believe that we are indeed the cause of the global warming TREND that we are currently in. Perhaps we CONTRIBUTE, but I have yet to see definitive evidence that we CAUSE global warming. Old Sol is more to blame than animal farts or humans.

I agree. It goes both ways. There is reason to keep studying the situation. There is doubt on both sides of the issue. No one can definitively say that their side is 100% right.

Even if completely wrong, what is wrong with some of the recommendations to slow global warming? Recommendations to find cleaner fuels and other "green" friendly things. Maybe it won't have anything to do with global warming, but they can still be good things. Cleaner air to breathe for one. Initial costs may be high, but in the long run things can be cheaper. That is a big benefit. Getting away from a reliance on oil. These kind of things can have great benefits and may or may not effect global warming. I don't see anything wrong with that even if it does nothing to global warming.

[Rackat]

Originally Posted by joseephuss

I agree. It goes both ways. There is reason to keep studying the situation. There is doubt on both sides of the issue. No one can definitively say that their side is 100% right.

Even if completely wrong, what is wrong with some of the recommendations to slow global warming? Recommendations to find cleaner fuels and other "green" friendly things. Maybe it won't have anything to do with global warming, but they can still be good things. Cleaner air to breathe for one. Initial costs may be high, but in the long run things can be cheaper. That is a big benefit. Getting away from a reliance on oil. These kind of things can have great benefits and may or may not effect global warming. I don't see anything wrong with that even if it does nothing to global warming.

Oh, I do agree. We SHOULD be good stewards of the planet. I want my grandchildren to have a nice planet to live on. The problem I have with the entire issue is that both sides are being touted as the correct side with no middle gorund. And on an issue where there really is so much reasonable doubt, it irks me that so many are so quick to condemn and rant.

A consensus only shows a lack of proof. 600 years ago the consensus was that the world was flat and that sea monsters roamed the seas. If you sailed too far from land you would fall off the edge of the Earth. 2000 years ago the consensus was that the Earth was the center of the universe and the universe revolved around our planet. Less than 40 years ago the consensus was that we were entering into a new ice age.

If you say something often enough, and with enough emotion, and maybe a few 'facts' thrown in to offset the holes in the theory, it starts to become taken as truth when in fact it is nothing but a hole-filled theory.

[AtlCB]

Originally Posted by joseephuss

I agree. It goes both ways. There is reason to keep studying the situation. There is doubt on both sides of the issue. No one can definitively say that their side is 100% right.

Even if completely wrong, what is wrong with some of the recommendations to slow global warming? Recommendations to find cleaner fuels and other "green" friendly things. Maybe it won't have anything to do with global warming, but they can still be good things. Cleaner air to breathe for one. Initial costs may be high, but in the long run things can be cheaper. That is a big benefit. Getting away from a reliance on oil. These kind of things can have great benefits and may or may not effect global warming. I don't see anything wrong with that even if it does nothing to global warming.

Nobody has a problem with funding research into new types of fuels. The U.S. government actually pumps more funding into finding new types of fuels than into global warming research. We have a problem with the carbon trading scheme garbage that Kyoto proposes. Carbon trading in harmful to the economy and does little to decrease man-made global warming (if you believe in the theory).

[Danny White]

Originally Posted by joseephuss

I agree. It goes both ways. There is reason to keep studying the situation. There is doubt on both sides of the issue. No one can definitively say that their side is 100% right.

Even if completely wrong, what is wrong with some of the recommendations to slow global warming? Recommendations to find cleaner fuels and other "green" friendly things. Maybe it won't have anything to do with global warming, but they can still be good things. Cleaner air to breathe for one. Initial costs may be high, but in the long run things can be cheaper. That is a big benefit. Getting away from a reliance on oil. These kind of things can have great benefits and may or may not effect global warming. I don't see anything wrong with that even if it does nothing to global warming.

I don't disagree at all.

My main problem is with politicians like Al Gore who I believe exploit this "climate change" issue largely as a means to an end of centralizing more power in government's hands... especially with regards to global government.

You can say "what's the harm" in being careful about global warming... well, the harm can potentially be great if we end up crippling our economy, transferring even more of our freedom into the government's hands, and forcing people into draconian life changes simply because of a theory that may not even be a problem.

You have these treaties like Kyoto, which would be disastrous for the U.S. -- and by the global warming advocates' own admissions, really won't do much at all to even slow global warming.

[burmafrd]

Kyoto did not involve china- who is rapidly reaching the point of becoming the #1 polluter on earth. Just one of its flaws.