How about some Global Warming discussion :) :)

[QUOTE=RoadToad;470523]You can call it "arrogant pontification," but the alternative is to ignore the facts in front of us, which I would call irresponsible in the extreme. And there's nothing arrogant about analyzing historical data, coupling that with information about current behavior, and trying to extrapolate where that might lead. In fact, I'd say the ability to do that is the primary reason we no longer live in caves.[/QUOTE]

Well said, agreed. Better to wonder "What if", then to find out with no plan.

A summary of four recent papers on GW for those who are interested:

[URL]http://www.berkeleyearth.org/Resources/Berkeley_Earth_Summary_20_Oct[/URL]

The full papers can also be found on the site.

Andrew

[QUOTE=pontooner;470457]And just think the pubs want to all but get rid of the EPA.

Bob even though not much was made of the science before the times you mentioned the data the they use for the studies dates back much, much longer than 31 years.


Here's a good starting place with lots of ino for anyone interested in climate change or even for you non-belivers to visit and make fun of.

[url]http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/[/url]


I don't think anyone with a brain would argue that the climate has and always be changing but if you look at the rate it's changing then you have to wonder what might be causing it.

Here's a quote from one of the linked articles in the link above.

"The main reason for the current concern about climate change is the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration (and some other greenhouse gases), which is very unusual for the Quaternary (about the last two million years). The concentration of CO2 is now known accurately for the past 650,000 years from antarctic ice cores. During this time, CO2 concentration varied between a low of 180 ppm during cold glacial times and a high of 300 ppm during warm interglacials. Over the past century, it rapidly increased well out of this range, and is now 379 ppm (see Chapter 2). For comparison, the approximately 80-ppm rise in CO2 concentration at the end of the past ice ages generally took over 5,000 years"[/QUOTE]

The data that is collected today is highly accurate using modern instruments and even satellites. The data collected years ago wasn't so accurate. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that when you compare the two, the results will be skewed. An archaeologist will tell you that the cooling and warming of the earth has been happening for millions of year by examining rock samples. It is a natural occurrence. However something should be done about air pollution and water pollution caused by man. P.S : a politician will want you to buy pollution credits from the Russians or Chinese.

[QUOTE=apb;470706]A summary of four recent papers on GW for those who are interested:

[URL]http://www.berkeleyearth.org/Resources/Berkeley_Earth_Summary_20_Oct[/URL]

The full papers can also be found on the site.

Andrew[/QUOTE]



Thanks for the link.

Found it interesting that ocean temperatures have not risen as fast as land temperatures.

Would make you think that since practically all the earths population is land based that we would have a much bigger impact on the atmosphere above land, thus the difference in ocean and land based temps.

In case you didn't know I'm no scientist but I did stay at a Holiday Inn once abou two years ago. :)

Just curious, how does anyone think we have anything to compare to to tell that something is say maybe 350,000 years old versus 6.259789654 billion years old or 5-7000 years old? What historically recorded comparison do we have that dates back far enough to get an accurate translation of these numbers? If the earth is millions of years old and we only have recorded scientific data dating hundreds or even thousands of years, who can accurately extrapolate that into millions or billions of years? Just wondering if anyone can back these theories up with some math, science, or anything concrete. And as roadrunner, Olgrey, and Tom523 stated i do believe we go in cycles, and as many others have stated with the increasing population, increased fossil fuel consumption, deforestization and what-not, surely we have some impact, but to what degree? And paying more on my energy bill for the companies to update facilities and technology hardly seems enough to make much change in our contribution other than the money leaving my nearly empty pockets.