Study Confirms Global Warming’s Existence

I'll just leave this here and wait for the nut jobs to say it ain't so.

http://www.thestatecolumn.com/health...ngs-existence/

An independent investigation of global warming solidified that global warming remains supported by scientific evidence, leaving skeptics speechless. This study represents that most comprehensive independent review of historical temperature records to date.
Compiling more than a billion temperature records dating back to the 1800s from 15 sources around the world, the University of California, Berkeley researchers reaffirmed that global warming is occurring. More specifically, they found evidence indicating several key issues global warming skeptics claim actually have little to no effect on altering global warming figures.

Read more: http://www.thestatecolumn.com/health...#ixzz1bdUnNAy6

I enjoy the milder Winters.

I'm buying beachfront property two lots back, so when its the new shoreline I can launch my boat and enjoy a good troll.

I'm buying beachfront property two lots back, so when its the new shoreline I can launch my boat and enjoy a good troll. Originally Posted by gnadfly

Took a clue from Al Gore didn't you, you sly devil. No doubt Gore hopes that his ocean 'view' property will likewise become ocean 'front' in Montecito, Calif.

How green is Al Gore's $9 million Montecito oceanfront villa?

http://content.usatoday.com/communit...-front-villa/1

Future generations will not be able to buy sunscreen.

I reject the premise of this collection
of junk peddling scientists totally.
They are not king simply because
they say so. The matter is decided by
empirical means not imperial.
Divine right passed long ago.

Let me do you a favor and give you a quick
primer regarding gathering data for a classical
statistics. Ideally your data pool will be at least
6-8% for even remotely accurate ballpark luck
hits. For anything to fall below 10% of a given
sample it's really guessing. This is just for static
items at that; global weather is about as dynamic
as it gets that actually requires even larger samples
for data projection.

Out of an estimated 4.6 billion years of our planet.
We have partial weather records going back to
the mid 1800's AD. All you would/could prove
by declaring anything from that paltry sampling is:
1) You are either ignorant of proper stat/anl
or you are banking most people are
2) You are in either case being deceptive.
The level of your corruptedness depends
on the nature of your intent.

So now I will sit back and listen to the defense.
I am perfectly able to discuss in a civil manner
the myriad of disciplines involved. As you should
too, linking what some govt zipperhead parrots
does't qualify as independent thinking.
If anything it implies you yourself don't
understand exactly what they're saying;
only what their interpretation for you is.

So bring it.

STUDY PROVES GLOBAL WARMING NON EXISTENT

http://sanfrancisco.ibtimes.com/arti...heat-space.htm

Gee, you'd think all the studies would agree. The OP study must be fair, it was funded in part by UC Berkeley, long known for their fairness and tolerance.

what the article doesn't state is whether the climate change or global warming is anthropogenic.

I don't think the Global Warming is an issue with the skeptics, but the issue is whether its man-made or helio-centric.

Well, of course, if you're in a heliocopter, you'll be warmer. You're closer to the sun. Duh.

To my friends on the left:
We should welcome the critics of the science....that is in fact what science is all about!

To my friends on the right:
Remember the critics of cancer and smoking?

My opinion:
I have a feeling that is how this will turn out. Science will always trump junk science.... but right now let us enjoy the slow rise in temperature in the pot we are all in. We should all die of old age before we stew!

I think it is naive to think that certain chemicals/toxins that are man made don't have a serious impact on our planet ie; the ozone/air

If we go around with our head stuck in the sand like an ostrich saying this isn't happening, that the scientists can't even agree and so on.. well eventually it will catch up with us and we will be totally unprepared. But I guess it is human nature to not worry about something that one feels might not really impact them in the "now" or near future. So it might be something that seriously affects our future generations and it is sad to think that so many of us are so selfish as to not take a more serious and cautious approach to taking care of the earth we have now.

WTF your right the same thing went on with cigarettes, but mainly because the propaganda and promotion of cigarettes were backed by big money and the companies who were trying to get people to believe that there was no harm in their product. Same thing that is happening now, big corporations responsible for a lot of the chemicals and pollutions creating some of the air/ozone problems don't want restrictions or further restrictions so it is easier to buy scientists to tell the public there is no such thing as climate change. It is easier to buy lobbyists and buy political candidates to push back the clock on EPA laws too.

Just look at what they are doing to the EPA now.

what the article doesn't state is whether the climate change or global warming is anthropogenic.

I don't think the Global Warming is an issue with the skeptics, but the issue is whether its man-made or helio-centric. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

This I can agree with

I thought this was an interesting read by John Farley talking about Cockburn's theory's and his disagreements with him on his theories.
http://monthlyreview.org/2008/07/01/...global-warming

In my opinion it is good to have debate, discussion and continue to evaluate/challenge theories, however, it is also important that when it comes to something as important as the livelyhood/lives of people now and in the future on this planet we need to take precautions even if we disagree at this point until we have more scientific data and input.

I see nothing wrong with making big corporations put more effort into cleaning up the air, or for people to find ways to use energy in cleaner ways that helps everyone in the end. If we find down the road 20 years or later that the climate change is a cyclical type of change of the earth then so be it, but what if we don't? What if we reach the point where there is no turning back on the damage that has been done to the ozone? I know most of us might not be here if such a day comes, but why leave that legacy for future generations? So we make them pay for our selfish foolish ways now and just throw caution out the window?

I see nothing wrong with making big corporations put more effort into cleaning up the air, or for people to find ways to use energy in cleaner ways that helps everyone in the end. If we find down the road 20 years or later that the climate change is a cyclical type of change of the earth then so be it, but what if we don't? What if we reach the point where there is no turning back on the damage that has been done to the ozone? I know most of us might not be here if such a day comes, but why leave that legacy for future generations? So we make them pay for our selfish foolish ways now and just throw caution out the window? Originally Posted by Guilty Pleasures

You are right about this as long as the cost does not hurt the economy. This administrations hatred of oil has driven the cost of gas up and cost thousands of jobs.

it would seem to me that most big business loves government regulation (unless it happens to be specifically directed toward their economic livelihoods) and enviromental over reach.

those things are huge barriers to entry and keeps small businesses with better ideas more willing to be acquired at nominal prices.