The climate is more instable since 30 years ago, that moonbat says. No science confirm that! Higher carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere may increase the temperature (maybe0.1 degree of the 0.7 since 100 years ago) Warmer climate allways yields a more stable biosphere. Bullsh*t producing moonbat.
These eco nuts want every body else (not for them selves of course) to live like the Unabomber. The popular science has changed 4 times in the last hundred years. Any effort would find a dozens of articles form the 70's that had the ice was coming
businessandmedia org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/fireandice_execsum asp
That's a possibility. Whatever the monitoring devices record will be analyzed and various conforming models will be suggested. It's called the scientific method. Observe, hypothesize, observe...confirm or refute hypothesis. Our computers and data gathering have advanced quite a bit in the last 3 decades, despite the Bush administration's obscurantist slashing of budgets for research.
You're kind of a redneck aintcha? We just might be headed toward a catastrophic climate change good buddy. Remember the earth is vast. 25,000 miles in circumferance. Trouble is, the comfort zone for humans is a very thin "film" from sea level to 10,000 feet in altitude, primarily in the moderate latitudes. We are despoiling OUR environment, a limited territory, because of toxic emissions and overpopulation. I guess Jesus will see the righteous through it all, and on up into hebben, lawdylawd.
I remember the last time the eco nuts said it was global cooling and they were CERTIAN that the glaciers would be down to the Dakotas by the year 2000. Saying that man is warming the planet is like two fleas on a dog arguing over who get to steer
The scientific community are not a bunch of eco nuts. They are people who are usually tentative in their conclusions and yet now there is virtual consensus that global warming is occurring, it is extremely dangerous and it is being caused by our burning of fossil fuels.
That same consensus was in the 70's with global cooling, and they are just as accurate now as they were then.
The Earth has been warming and cooling since bacteria started multiplying, and to say that man is doing this is the height of vanity. I will be happy when the Earth is fully recovered from the Little Ice Age and Greenland is green again
There are more hurricanes and tornados when Northern Hemisphere is cooling. Record was in Little Ice Age (1600's and early 1700's). So Gelbspan is talking bullshit and pseudoscience.
"Whatever the cause of the cooling trend, its effects could be extrememly serious, if not catastrophic. Scientists figure that only a 1% decrease in the amount of sunlight hitting the earth's surface could tip the climatic balance, and cool the planet enough to send it sliding down the road to another ice age within only a few hundred years."
Does Hannity know about the 9/11 climate change? Maybe not. The sky was clearer and it was 1 degree C cooler than normal days due to the fact the planes had to be grounded for a few days. This shows how POWERUL human are in SPEEDING the warming. Yes, I still believe there are other causes.
What happens in the media doesn't matter. If you are going to discredit the scientific consensus on global warming you should only reference the peer-review literature. That is the only thing that represents the state of the science. Imminent global cooling predictions were never made. People were worried about aerosols from coal blocking out sunlight though. But no disasters were predicted. This is referred to as global dimming. How the media spun this is an entirely different matter.
I'm not trying to discredit global warming. I am merely stating the facts of the matter. The early global cooling talk was based on global warming. So Hannity didn't check his facts as usual. From the very start, people were trying to find out what global warming would do. Cooling was just one offshoot idea. So I don't think we are arguing. I am just saying Hannity's whole argument is baseless no matter how you look at it.
Hannity is such a dumbass. Did he actually say that the global warming theory was being touted by people whose agenda is to make us all drive Yugos and Hondas? WTF?? If that nut had any credibility, he might be dangerous. And BTW, the ice age theory was based on global warming causing a massive release of polar ice into the oceans. So it is the same theory tempered with new data.
The climate is more instable since 30 years ago, that moonbat says. No science confirm that! Higher carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere may increase the temperature (maybe0.1 degree of the 0.7 since 100 years ago) Warmer climate allways yields a more stable biosphere. Bullsh*t producing moonbat.
magnusea 4 years ago
Leftard moonbats are an extreme risk.
magnusea 4 years ago
These eco nuts want every body else (not for them selves of course) to live like the Unabomber. The popular science has changed 4 times in the last hundred years. Any effort would find a dozens of articles form the 70's that had the ice was coming
businessandmedia org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/fireandice_execsum asp
cupera1 4 years ago
Science advances. Stupidity, in the form of you and Hannity, does not.
strandwolf 4 years ago
So, in the next 20 to 30 years the "science" will be back to global cooling again?
cupera1 4 years ago
That's a possibility. Whatever the monitoring devices record will be analyzed and various conforming models will be suggested. It's called the scientific method. Observe, hypothesize, observe...confirm or refute hypothesis. Our computers and data gathering have advanced quite a bit in the last 3 decades, despite the Bush administration's obscurantist slashing of budgets for research.
strandwolf 4 years ago
So, if the warming trend continues how long will it take to fully recover from the little ice age?
cupera1 4 years ago
You're kind of a redneck aintcha? We just might be headed toward a catastrophic climate change good buddy. Remember the earth is vast. 25,000 miles in circumferance. Trouble is, the comfort zone for humans is a very thin "film" from sea level to 10,000 feet in altitude, primarily in the moderate latitudes. We are despoiling OUR environment, a limited territory, because of toxic emissions and overpopulation. I guess Jesus will see the righteous through it all, and on up into hebben, lawdylawd.
strandwolf 4 years ago
I remember the last time the eco nuts said it was global cooling and they were CERTIAN that the glaciers would be down to the Dakotas by the year 2000. Saying that man is warming the planet is like two fleas on a dog arguing over who get to steer
cupera1 4 years ago
The scientific community are not a bunch of eco nuts. They are people who are usually tentative in their conclusions and yet now there is virtual consensus that global warming is occurring, it is extremely dangerous and it is being caused by our burning of fossil fuels.
legjoints 4 years ago
That same consensus was in the 70's with global cooling, and they are just as accurate now as they were then.
The Earth has been warming and cooling since bacteria started multiplying, and to say that man is doing this is the height of vanity. I will be happy when the Earth is fully recovered from the Little Ice Age and Greenland is green again
cupera1 4 years ago
Gelbspam made another mistake. He had an stupid idea of climate "stability". Climate will never been stabily.
timo1595 4 years ago
There are more hurricanes and tornados when Northern Hemisphere is cooling. Record was in Little Ice Age (1600's and early 1700's). So Gelbspan is talking bullshit and pseudoscience.
timo1595 4 years ago
"Whatever the cause of the cooling trend, its effects could be extrememly serious, if not catastrophic. Scientists figure that only a 1% decrease in the amount of sunlight hitting the earth's surface could tip the climatic balance, and cool the planet enough to send it sliding down the road to another ice age within only a few hundred years."
Monday, June 24, 1974 Time
iloveemo1984 4 years ago
Does Hannity know about the 9/11 climate change? Maybe not. The sky was clearer and it was 1 degree C cooler than normal days due to the fact the planes had to be grounded for a few days. This shows how POWERUL human are in SPEEDING the warming. Yes, I still believe there are other causes.
here4ever 5 years ago
yeah. But I still remember the talk. They were based on initial warming.
smokeskull 5 years ago
What happens in the media doesn't matter. If you are going to discredit the scientific consensus on global warming you should only reference the peer-review literature. That is the only thing that represents the state of the science. Imminent global cooling predictions were never made. People were worried about aerosols from coal blocking out sunlight though. But no disasters were predicted. This is referred to as global dimming. How the media spun this is an entirely different matter.
wackster17 5 years ago
I'm not trying to discredit global warming. I am merely stating the facts of the matter. The early global cooling talk was based on global warming. So Hannity didn't check his facts as usual. From the very start, people were trying to find out what global warming would do. Cooling was just one offshoot idea. So I don't think we are arguing. I am just saying Hannity's whole argument is baseless no matter how you look at it.
smokeskull 5 years ago
Hannity is such a dumbass. Did he actually say that the global warming theory was being touted by people whose agenda is to make us all drive Yugos and Hondas? WTF?? If that nut had any credibility, he might be dangerous. And BTW, the ice age theory was based on global warming causing a massive release of polar ice into the oceans. So it is the same theory tempered with new data.
smokeskull 5 years ago
actually the imminent predictions of global cooling never made it into the scientific literature. See the link in the top right.
wackster17 5 years ago