Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Valley Girl who wrote (85180)	11/9/2004 8:34:15 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Respond to of 793883

30 years does not an ice age make. HEY! The steam engine (it burns coal) dates back to the 18th century! Now: YOU prove that any increase in temp is (a) not just a fluctuation, and (b) not due to other causes. Because the average earth temp was fluctuating wildly long before we existed as a species. Remember back in the '70s the prediction WAS of a new ice age? Maybe you'd like to get some warming to ward that off. Half of N. America under a few miles of ice is going to make for d***ed tough farming, lady! science.nasa.gov Earth's Fidgeting Climate Is human activity warming the Earth or do recent signs of climate change signal natural variations? In this feature article, scientists discuss the vexing ambiguities of our planet's complex and unwieldy climate. speaker logoListen to this story (requires RealPlayer) Human Industrial ActivityOctober 20, 2000 -- Newspaper headlines trumpet record-breaking temperatures, dwindling sea ice, and retreating glaciers around the world. Concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide, one of the greenhouse gases responsible for scalding temperatures on Venus and at least 33 degrees C of normal warming here on Earth, are on the rise. Our planet seems destined for a hot future! But is it really? Or are we simply experiencing a natural variation in Earth's climate cycles that will return to "normal" in time? Correlations between rising CO2 levels and global surface temperatures suggest that our planet is on a one-way warming trend triggered by human activity. Indeed, studies by paleoclimatologists reveal that natural variability caused by changes in the Sun and volcanic eruptions can largely explain deviations in global temperature from 1000 AD until 1850 AD, near the beginning of the Industrial Era. After that, the best models require a human-induced greenhouse effect. In spite of what may seem persuasive evidence, many scientists are nonetheless skeptical. subscription image Sign up for EXPRESS SCIENCE NEWS delivery They argue that natural variations in climate are considerable and not well understood. The Earth has gone through warming periods before without human influence, they note. And not all of the evidence supports global warming. Air temperatures in the lower atmosphere have not increased appreciably, according to satellite data, and the sea ice around Antarctica has actually been growing for the last 20 years. It may surprise many people that science -- the de facto source of dependable knowledge about the natural world -- cannot deliver an unqualified, unanimous answer about something as important as climate change. Why is the question so thorny? The reason, say experts, is that Earth's climate is complex and chaotic. It's so unwieldy that researchers simply can't conduct experiments to check their ideas in the usual way of science. They often rely, instead, on computer models. But such models are only as good as their inputs and programming, and today's computer models are known to be imperfect. Most scientists agree that no single piece of data will likely resolve the global warming debate. In the end, the best we can expect is a scientific consensus based on a preponderance of eviden continues..... Fight with NASA, lady. They say they can't tell what's going on. Near the end of that: When drawing a conclusion from the mosaic of evidence, different scientists will use different criteria, Crowley said. "I think that there are many scientists that are still locked into the idea that we have to prove something (about causes of climate change) beyond a reasonable doubt," Crowley said. "I don't think we necessarily have to do that. ... In a court of law you can convict based on a weight of evidence. ... That's the way you approach this type of problem." THat's nice. If you implement Kyoto in this country now, you could be looking at 10's of millions out of work. You could be looking at civil war and/or revolution. Worldwide, the instability could be enormous. Maybe the one good (?) to come of it might be that the fighting and starvation would reduce world population to a level that could be supported by a low level industrial world. So what do you think YOUR chances of surviving the upheaval are? This isn't a silly game of Sierra Club vs. US Chamber of Commerce. You're talking real people and real blood on a massive scale.