Climate Expert Says NASA Tried to Silence Him

[glatt]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

so it's getting warmer, so what? Is that a bad thing?

Global warming = severe local weather more often. Can we deal with a Katrina sized storm every couple years? Can we deal with a loss like California's entire citrus crop every once in a while? Can we deal with changes in precipitation and another dust bowl like they had in the 30's? As global warming continues, scientists are pretty sure that severe weather like this will increase. I'd say that is a bad thing.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by glatt

Global warming = severe local weather more often. Can we deal with a Katrina sized storm every couple years? Can we deal with a loss like California's entire citrus crop every once in a while? Can we deal with changes in precipitation and another dust bowl like they had in the 30's? As global warming continues, scientists are pretty sure that severe weather like this will increase. I'd say that is a bad thing.

I suppose you have evidence that these things are caused by global warming..... even though they have all happened before... many times.
I also suppose you can prove it's worse than ever before....and it's our fault....and we can do something about it?
The total time man has recorded the weather, is a pisshole in a snow bank compared to the weather we haven't. A hunded years, a thousand years, ten thousand years, are nothing

Despite tw ranting and raving that I said all kinds of shit I never said, it makes sense to do what ever you can (can afford) to cut your energy consumption just for the cost savings alone. But to actually have a chance of having an effect on the climate, we need more than that.
It's got to be a national effort...a plan....which we don't have. Walmart trying to force everyone to buy their bulbs is not a national plan. Neither are the other schemes tw cites.

Next to where I work is a coal fired power plant that spews more shit into the air in one day than I will in my whole life.
I am not the key to any solution for global warming, if in fact there is one. I did a lot of looking and reading for the Inconvenient Truth thread. The only thing the experts could agree on is that global warming exists. Of course tw says the scientists that agree with him are right and the ones that don't are scumbags, but realistically what are we supposed to believe? And what can we do about it?
Will it make a difference? Damifino.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

so it's getting warmer, so what? Is that a bad thing?

Originally Posted by glatt

Global warming = severe local weather more often. Can we deal with a Katrina sized storm every couple years? ....

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

I suppose you have evidence that these things are caused by global warming..... even though they have all happened before... many times.

There is a clear causal correlation between the temperature of the Atlantic Ocean's surface and the hurricane activity for that season. There are also clear causal correlations between the Pacific Ocean's surface temperatures and storms in California and elsewhere. (El Nino and La Nina.) As the Earth gets warmer, the oceans will get warmer. We already know that warmer oceans mean more hurricanes. Is it such a stretch to say that warmer oceans will have a major impact on the weather?

Sure, we don't know the extent of man's responsibility for global warming. We don't know if we can reverse the trend. But I think we can say that global warming (1) exists and (2) is bad. Those are two points that I think can be put into the category of "settled." There's still plenty to argue about.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Increase in violent storms and flooding along the coasts....at least for the southern half of the country. Yeah, that sounds like a minus, but think of all the bugs that will get blown away, plus the windsurfing will be awesome. Of course you won't be able to get homeowners insurance so that precludes a mortgage. I guess that's a minus.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

but think of all the bugs that will get blown away,

Sure, but do you really want the palmetto bugs blown up here to the Mid-Atlantic region?

[yesman065]

Originally Posted by glatt

Sure, we don't know the extent of man's responsibility for global warming. We don't know if we can reverse the trend. But I think we can say that global warming (1) exists and (2) is bad. Those are two points that I think can be put into the category of "settled." There's still plenty to argue about.

Glatt, global warming and cooling has been happening since the beginning of the "globe." It is most likely a cyclical situation and we are in the warm side of the cycle. In the 70's it was global cooling we were worried about.
Should we do our part as individuals, communities and nations to reduce our repair whatever damage we are or have done to the environment -absolutely. I don't think any disagrees with that.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by yesman065

In the 70's it was global cooling we were worried about.

If by "we" you don't mean the scientific community.

[yesman065]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

If by "we" you don't mean the scientific community.

I most certainly do mean the scientific community - its a fact.

[yesman065]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

If by "we" you don't mean the scientific community.

Here's a quote I found this morning.

" Here is the real point -- and I will quote one of the top climate scientists in the world:

"We simply cannot afford to gamble. We cannot risk inaction. The scientists who disagree are acting irresponsibly. The indications that our climate can soon change for the worse are too strong to be reasonably ignored."

This scientist is so credible that I am very fearful for my future. I agree, that scientists who disagree are acting irresponsibly, and must be censured. There is too much at stake. I think we should start by outlawing the burning of fossil fuels altogether, as this eminent scientist argued.

One little detail I should point out --- this scientist was quoted in 1972, and was talking about the horrors of the coming ice age, caused by human activity, which was responsible for global cooling. And these beliefs were held by the eminent climatologists of the day -- Dr. Reid Bryson, Dr. S.I Rasool, Dr Steven Schneider, and others, and reported in peer-reviewed journals.

Here's the important point: what are the common threads between the climate debate in 1972 and the climate debate today? 1) The solution is to punish producers of, and users of energy -- to put an end to the evils of capitalism and free markets, and 2) scientists who didn't agree were marginalized by the true believers.
True Believer | January 22, 2007"

[Griff]

That's been the worrisome thing all along. The first folks to embrace GW as real were those with other agendas. If it really is a problem folks need to sell it in a way that doesn't attack human progress. That is why I'm looking at the energy security issue. That is a good reason to shift away from fossil fuels and results in an economy not wedd to freeing co2.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by yesman065

" Here is the real point -- and I will quote one of the top climate scientists in the world:

Are there any more details, like the name of the scientist, or the rest of the article?

[glatt]

Reminds me of the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark, where the Ark is wheeled into a huge warehouse just after the CIA assures Indy that "top scientists" are studying the Ark, but won't name them.

[yesman065]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Are there any more details, like the name of the scientist, or the rest of the article?

Climate expert Heidi Cullen

Global Warming