user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
Note: The study has not been published, yet, but involved scientists from the US Department of Energy, the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, and the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, as well as the Met Office's Hadley Center.
I don't really think GWB makes his own decisions. I think they made him a nice rubber stamp and every time a bill passes his desk it is either lone or accompanied by a jolly rancher. The bills with the jolly rancher get stamped and the others are shredded.
Not really, everygirl. Consider that, a month ago, parts of the country were having major heat waves, with temps ten to twenty degrees above normal. This planet's spinning apart at the seams, and Mister Bush just wants to stick his thumbs in his ears and ignore the chorus. He must be one of those lucky people, who can take a deep breath when he walks out the door.
A decade ago we were to be destroyed by global cooling, a new iceage. Twenty years ago the line was that oil would be gone within the decade. They lose some credibility by completely changing their opinion on why the sky is falling every ten years. Besides which: how does this include the corresponding global warming going on right now on mars? And of course it's based on an idea that is absolutely wrong: that there is some ideal temperature that the world was always at until we showed up. Which is of course ludicrous.
But doom on us if we're wrong. Maybe nuclear war won't take out exactly EVERYONE. Does that mean we should have nuclear war? Besides, do you think all the hurricanes that hit Florida last year were not caused by global warming? How many will it take this year? Maybe I should move to Venus to get used to the temperature.
herz: You're welcome to publish your study, refuting that of these scientists.
I don't have to, the same scientists who are now saying global warming will kill us all published the reports stating quite clearly that global cooling will kill us all not too long ago. And I already posted the mars global warming article.
herz: And I already pointed out that this was a spurious factoid: You imply that the causes are the same or linked, which has not been proven.
Global warming is a complex mechanism: there will be warming in some areas, cooling in others. There will be more precipitation in some areas and drought in others. Dismissing the phenomena by taking an overly simplistic approach doesn't make the problem go away, though.
So the fact that global warming is occuring simultaneously and at the same rate on two seperate planets is irrelevent? Funny, I'd say that has alot more science behind it than some of the more popular global warming theories, like the one that .3% of the manmade greenhouse gases are going to be responsible for ending all life on earth.
herz: I'd have to check the Mars info, but there is not a proven correlation. That falls under "bears further investigation." And, sorry to say, if you've gotten this off some Rightwing site, the "science" will be as suspect as that of the Tobacco companies who urged that cigarettes were good for you.
I'm looking foward to reading details of the study this ballot mentions; it asserts definitive proof of anthropic causes.
|
|