Al Gore and Nasa claimed that 1998 was the hottest year in the U.S.
Now NASA is saying that it was not 98 and in fact it was 1934.

We also have learned that half of the ten hottest years on record occured before man started dumping co2 into the atmosphere.
Guess this blows a hole into the theory that we hold alot of the responsibility of global warming.

http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/246027

Al Gore and Nasa claimed that 1998 was the hottest year in the U.S.
Now NASA is saying that it was not 98 and in fact it was 1934.

We also have learned that half of the ten hottest years on record occured before man started dumping co2 into the atmosphere.
Guess this blows a hole into the theory that we hold alot of the responsibility of global warming.

http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/246027

Oh please,how many times do we have to Rehash some Liberal
bullcrap.We're technically In an Ice Age NOW.
Whenever both Polar ice caps have Glacial ice,it means an
Ice Age.
Just Goddamned watch that - Deadliest Catch - show on Discovery
where King Crab fisherman,have to battle the Baltic and the
Ice.Plus even Russia don't done even got an Ice Breaker vessel capable
of beraking thicker than 20 feet of soild pack ice,near the North Pole.

Bee 4 real.
Furgit what Liberals say.

Oh please,how many times do we have to Rehash some Liberal
bullcrap.We're technically In an Ice Age NOW.
Whenever both Polar ice caps have Glacial ice,it means an
Ice Age.


It might not be as big as an issue as some people make it out to be i do agree. If the world continues according to the trend since 1977. It is going to rise an average of 2.34 degrees every 5 years. To me I am not really worried. My children and thier children should not be really concerned much. Ofcourse it could happen more quickly due to the higher the comsumption rate/rise in population. Point I am trying to make is I do not think we as a planted need to worry as much. Us and everyone we will ever know will be dust before it becomes a problem. I am sure my great great great great grandfather was not taking it easy due to the fact I was going to be born 200years later.

BESIDES I am under the impression that when and if things get bad it is not going to come sudden like an earthquake or a landslide. It will be graduall and man will have time to adapt. Sure maybe the 3.5 million dollar homes in malibu might be non existant,but i am sure Mel can move his church out to the mid west.


All in all it doesnt hurt to be responsible to take care of the planet. Minimize pollution,recycle,look for alternative fuels....

[QUOTE=LiquidFork]It might not be as big as an issue as some people make it out to be i do agree. If the world continues according to the trend since 1977. It is going to rise an average of 2.34 degrees every 5 years.

2.3 degree every 5 yearrs would spell Doom,almost immediately.
They have already exhausted studies on how many degree the
world has changed {temperature} in a century {last 100 years}.
I remember 10 years ago the scientists said between 1/2 and 1
degree.In the last 5 years that estimate has doubled.
2 degree in 100 years would also be troublesome.

[QUOTE=LiquidFork]It might not be as big as an issue as some people make it out to be i do agree. If the world continues according to the trend since 1977. It is going to rise an average of 2.34 degrees every 5 years.

2.3 degree every 5 yearrs would spell Doom,almost immediately.
They have already exhausted studies on how many degree the
world has changed {temperature} in a century {last 100 years}.
I remember 10 years ago the scientists said between 1/2 and 1
degree.In the last 5 years that estimate has doubled.
2 degree in 100 years would also be troublesome.

I am probably going to be laughed at for this but I have to know how the average temp going up 2 degrees in five years would be doom.... (honest question)

If it happened where I live instead of it being average 90 degrees in the summer it would be 92 degrees on average. I know alot of people say global warming is a myth..... or that it wont be a huge problem in the forseeable future.... I want to believe it is a problem we are facing today,but to me 90 degrees is hot and 92 degrees is still hot.

I am probably going to be laughed at for this but I have to know how the average temp going up 2 degrees in five years would be doom.... (honest question)A lot of scientists disagree on it so you certainly shouldn't be laughed at.

The "doom" wouldn't come in five years. But in fifty years that would translate to twenty degrees, and fifty years later there would be no more winters in some areas. Glaciers would put more freshwater into the oceans causing the extinction of some oceanic plants and animals and affecting the weather.

Altered growing cycles would cause extinction for many plants which in turn would cause the extinction of many different animals.
Much less food.

The "doom" would be for many of us but not the earth. When the earth warmed up too much for the wooly mammoths, something else thrived. New organisms will thrive again, it just won't be us.

Well, I don't know theories of science certainly, and certainly many scientists are discovering new theories everyday.

But, I want to exclaim something.

When oxygen will diminish to dangerous concentration in atomosphere, we as human will die.

[QUOTE=Foolsworth]

I am probably going to be laughed at for this but I have to know how the average temp going up 2 degrees in five years would be doom.... (honest question)

If it happened where I live instead of it being average 90 degrees in the summer it would be 92 degrees on average. I know alot of people say global warming is a myth..... or that it wont be a huge problem in the forseeable future.... I want to believe it is a problem we are facing today,but to me 90 degrees is hot and 92 degrees is still hot.

Literally there is no such thing as an AVERAGE Temp.Maybe a mean
Temp.Weather has trends.In the dust bowl years the trend was
hot & dry.So,averages during that trend weren't averages but
high for the mean.
Global Warming Alarmists have been spewing falsidy.
The warmest year on record is 1934,NOT 1998 as the press was
fond of citing.1998 moved to 2nd.
5 of the last 10 warmest years happened BEFORE WWII.
So,there was a high mean warm temp prior to WWII and then
a drop in mean Temp during the 60's & 70's.
Be carefull to listen to what Global Warming Alarmists use for
wording.Just like there has been a steady decrease Downward
on the # of Hurricans expected to hit the U.S. this year.
Last year not a single Hurricane struck U.S.soil.

Two degrees in five years means nothing to us personally.

However, ecosystems don't just turn up the AC. It is a major impact on ecosystems and climate patterns that have persisted for a very long time. We, in turn, are impacted by those ecosystems and your climate patterns.

Ask your local farmer what a year with a temperature of two degrees higher than normal does to his crops. Then try to wrap your mind around those consequences on a global level.

Btw, if anyone actually still listens to the crap 'sisko posts, here's NASA's actual take (Believe it or not, you don't have to look to thestar.com...)

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/2005_warmest.html

The "doom" wouldn't come in five years. But in fifty years that would translate to twenty degrees, and fifty years later there would be no more winters in some areas. Glaciers would put more freshwater into the oceans causing the extinction of some oceanic plants and animals and affecting the weather.

Not to mention the fact that so much fresh water in the oceans would interrupt the Gulf Stream... And there's bye-bye to Western Europe. ;)

But you're right that it spells doom only for us, and not for the planet.

The whole "global warming" paranoia marked up to Al Gore is based on half-truths and politicking...

Nobody knows for certain what is happening...

The whole "global warming" paranoia marked up to Al Gore is based on half-truths and politicking...

Nobody knows for certain what is happening...

....

Al Gore didn't invent global warming anymore than he invented the internet, he isn't making arctic ice melt, he isn't causing the hottest years on record, and he doesn't fly around on a broom cackling gleefully.

....

Al Gore didn't invent global warming anymore than he invented the internet, he isn't making arctic ice melt, he isn't causing the hottest years on record, and he doesn't fly around on a broom cackling gleefully.


He might not have invented global warming but he is sure as hell exploiting it. He hasn't caused the hottest years on record because evidently the ones he claimed as the hottest were not the hottest years on record. No, AlGore doesn't ride around on a broom cackling gleefully. He flies around in a jumbo jet adding to global warming, that is when he isn't in his overly large, overly polluting house.

He might not have invented global warming but he is sure as hell exploiting it. He hasn't caused the hottest years on record because evidently the ones he claimed as the hottest were not the hottest years on record. No, AlGore doesn't ride around on a broom cackling gleefully. He flies around in a jumbo jet adding to global warming, that is when he isn't in his overly large, overly polluting house.

As much as I would like to be drawn into a debate about the ethics of Al Gore with a guy who thinks an accidental killer is as dangerous as an intentional killer, you can't get around the fact that you people constantly try to dismiss the realities of global warming by digressing into an obsessive character assassination of Al Gore.

It's like if you started talking about world hunger and I responded by talking about the flaws of Mother Theresa. It's pretty damn silly if you think about it.

You people, that's a good one. Just who are you people?

Two false premises in one post, that's a good one too. I don't think an accidental killer is as dangerous killer and I never posted anything that would cause a person to believe that. Unlike you, I think actions have consequences and the policeman has to answer for his actions. I also do not feel the necessity to use Al Gore's actions to argue against the global warming alarmists. I mentioned Mr. Gore in response to you first having mentioned him or have you already forgotten your post, you know, the one to which I was responding?

In my opinion, and not my opinion alone, the Global Warming scare is an overblown issue that is at least partially hyped for political reasons. I do not believe that Global Warming poses either an imminent or a future danger to mankind. I also do not believe that the global warming that exist is primarily caused by man's actions. I base this belief not on my personal dislike of Mr. Gore but on my readings on the issue and my personal talks with scientists whom I respect.

You may disagree with my assessment of the Global Warming issue but please do not twist or misrepresent my views or my tactics in refuting what I feel is a political issue.

....

Al Gore didn't invent global warming anymore than he invented the internet, he isn't making arctic ice melt, he isn't causing the hottest years on record, and he doesn't fly around on a broom cackling gleefully.

Ah...Ya wanna Bet !

Al Gore, with his frequent trips by private jet and his gigantic house is doing far more to melt the ice caps than I am.

Al Gore is a Global Warming criminal and should be brought to justice.

You people, that's a good one. Just who are you people?

You, Decka, and sisko. Read the context of the exchange....

I don't think an accidental killer is as dangerous killer and I never posted anything that would cause a person to believe that.


This is what you posted that caused me to believe that. Call me crazy, but these are your words, not mine.

What do I think the chances are the officer will commit the same crime again, Vilepagan? Probably about the same as a wife killer killing another wife.

Leper, I don't deny that our planet might be getting warmer at the present, but I deny the outrageous claims and I question the motives of certain individuals who are gaining from them.

To me... "global warming" is a political term, and then there is the fact that our planet is getting warmer. They two different ideals. Global Warming suggests that humans are responsible for the warming of our planet, and it even ties in the current united states administration as some kind of culprit. It highly over exaggerates these points.

The fact that our planet is warming is something I don't deny, but the human element in it all is not as drastic...

Plus, certain factors are skewed when trying to determine the "average temperature" of a certain year... like the fact that more and more land is cultivated and paved so that these "rural areas" which are chosen to measure these temperatures aren't nearly as rural anymore.

Lately, it has been hot as balls... "heat indexes" almost in the 100's here in Ohio. Some say it's global warming... I say "where have you been"?... Back in 1988 here in Ohio we had 5 straight 100 degree days, when there was no such thing as a "heat index"... it was a drastic heat wave, the worst I have ever experienced. I was young then, but i remember it.

Just do keep in mind, Leper, that I perceive "Global Warming" as a political scare tactic, while meanwhile I don't deny that our planet may be getting warmer at the moment.

It is overblown. It is hyped. Al Gore is exploiting it. Environmentalists are biased.

But that doesn't mean it isn't happening.

Conservatives shouldn't fall into the trap of doubting the possibility simply because the spokespeople lack credibility. We risk sounding like certain dhregs and dhrips on AllForums who doubt a story simply because it appeared on FoxNews.

I've always maintained that hardcore environmentalists do their cause more harm than good when they go overboard. It gives naysayers reasons not to listen.

Al Gore brought much needed attention to this issue, but he can do more good right now by stepping aside.

Sure the temperatures are getting a bit warmer, nothing like the 2.5 degrees in five years liquidfork said but yeah, the planet's getting warmer.

The planet is not static. It is dynamic and being dynamic it will periodically get warmer and colder. It has done it before and it will do it again.

I would like to respectfully direct you to post # 1.


....

Al Gore didn't invent global warming anymore than he invented the internet, he isn't making arctic ice melt, he isn't causing the hottest years on record, and he doesn't fly around on a broom cackling gleefully.

By studying the content in post # 1, I can easily come to the fair minded conclusion that Global Warming is more hype than it is fact.


As much as I would like to be drawn into a debate about the ethics of Al Gore with a guy who thinks an accidental killer is as dangerous as an intentional killer, you can't get around the fact that you people constantly try to dismiss the realities of global warming by digressing into an obsessive character assassination of Al Gore.

It's like if you started talking about world hunger and I responded by talking about the flaws of Mother Theresa. It's pretty damn silly if you think about it.

Btw, if anyone actually still listens to the crap 'sisko posts, here's NASA's actual take (Believe it or not, you don't have to look to thestar.com...)

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/2005_warmest.html

Yep, those are the warmest years on record, as determined by NASA. This is not the same as saying they are the warmest years in history.

It gives naysayers reasons not to listen.


Conservative "naysayers" were never going to listen to begin with. Their reactions are always knee-jerk and in line with whatever talking points they were handed. As soon as they percieved a "liberal" believing in global warming their automatuic reaction was to be against it. It has always been that way. I remember listening to Rush in the late 80s when he was castigating "tree-huggers" for wanting to simply clean up pollution from our environment. All the conservative "ditto-heads" have been anti-environmentalist as a matter of course ever since.

Yep, those are the warmest years on record, as determined by NASA. This is not the same as saying they are the warmest years in history.
What's the difference then?

Conservative "naysayers" were never going to listen to begin with. Their reactions are always knee-jerk and in line with whatever talking points they were handed. As soon as they percieved a "liberal" believing in global warming their automatuic reaction was to be against it. It has always been that way. I remember listening to Rush in the late 80s when he was castigating "tree-huggers" for wanting to simply clean up pollution from our environment. All the conservative "ditto-heads" have been anti-environmentalist as a matter of course ever since.

Dude there's a difference...

First off your ignorance and blanket statements make you look foolish

Second, I doubt it's the "cleaning up air pollution" that Rush had a problem with, but the message they carried and they way they presented it. If people respectfully present items, that normally isn't met with much resistance. It's when people get nasty, rabid, and snappy that you get people like Rush questioning them.. and then people like you say it's because of pollution and Rush and the entire right wing must like pollution and want to destroy any "environmentally friendly" alternative.. which is not true.

I'm all for "doing our part"... The amount of fault which lies with humans is greatly and drastically over-hyped for political and economical gain though.

Even if humans only cause like 2% of global warming, it doesn't mean that we should litter or carelessly use energy. It annoys me when people leave lights on in rooms that they're not in or leave TVs on that they aren't watching. We should try to conserve resources and not ruin our planet, not because of some ice age or whatever that might come, but because we need those resources and because we should keep our planet beautiful and clean.

This isn't directed towards anyone in particular, by the way.

This isn't directed towards anyone in particular, by the way.Except maybe 98% of the teenagers in this country. :)

Even if humans only cause like 2% of global warming, it doesn't mean that we should litter or carelessly use energy. It annoys me when people leave lights on in rooms that they're not in or leave TVs on that they aren't watching. We should try to conserve resources and not ruin our planet, not because of some ice age or whatever that might come, but because we need those resources and because we should keep our planet beautiful and clean.


Yep, what you are seeing are people trying to justify being careless with their environment. Evidence can be piled on, and piled on, and piled on, but they will continue to quote Rush Limbaugh or some other sort of propaganda to justify their carelessness.

They can't accept the idea that the cars, trucks, and appliances they love are contributing to permanent damage to the environment that will destroy things that have been in existance for millions of years. They don't understand how stamping out everything other than the human species, not only leaves the planet in shambles but will leave the human species in shambles along with it.

They will cry that the science is too uncertain on the same evening that they depend on the same science to tell them whether it will rain or not tomorrow.

Out of site, out of mind...it's the credo of anti-environmentalists. They won't move until disaster strikes.

It's useless to reason with them.

So Leper you are saying you don't drive a car and don't live in a house using harmful electricity?

So Leper you are saying you don't drive a car and don't live in a house using harmful electricity?

I drive a car and use electricity (both in conservative manners), and I'm not ashamed of that. I also respire CO2. Being environmentally-conscious doesn't mean you have to commit suicide or live in the Dark Ages. No mainstream thinking has ever advocated that, contrary to what you seem to think.

You think that because Al Gore flies in planes makes him a hypocrite, and that's just idiotic. To spread a message, you have to expend resources. If you don't do that, then your message won't be spread. For environmentalists to never travel, remain silent, live in caves, etc. will only transfer human progress to the hands of people like you, who can't even recognize the problem. Myself, Al Gore, and the most environmentalists are plenty smart enough to realize that.

You know, you can have electricity without producing greenhouse gases, don't you? It's public policy and a careless society that prevents us from using that technology, not the actions of isolated individuals.

Now, answer my question. Do you care about the environment?

I drive a car and use electricity (both in conservative manners), and I'm not ashamed of that. I also respire CO2. Being environmentally-conscious doesn't mean you have to commit suicide or live in the Dark Ages. No mainstream thinking has ever advocated that, contrary to what you seem to think.

You think that because Al Gore flies in planes makes him a hypocrite, and that's just idiotic. To spread a message, you have to expend resources. If you don't do that, then your message won't be spread. For environmentalists to never travel, remain silent, live in caves, etc. will only transfer human progress to the hands of people like you, who can't even recognize the problem. Myself, Al Gore, and the most environmentalists are plenty smart enough to realize that.

Not only is it idiotic but fallacious. How Al Gore travels the world has no bearing on his case unless you want to start admitting the validity of ad hominem arguments.

The environmental movement is bold in forcing people to think about big practical questions. We will have to eventually face a future in which we either won't have fossil fuels to burn or if we do, we can only do more damage to the environment in the process. Why either one of those scenarios is probable is based on the fact that human populations will only increase geometrically and thereby drive up demand for resources needed to sustain those populations.

Except maybe 98% of the teenagers in this country. :)
Was that a crack, sedan? I hope you know that I'm in the other two percent...

What's the difference then?

Simple we've really kept records for the past few decades, say the last century. How can we possibly compare the "average" global temperature between the present and say a thousand years ago?
Think about it, how does one calculate the average temperature of the globe and what does it really mean? Now change how many readings you take and where you take the readings. Do you think you'll get the same answer. Of course you won't.
I do not deny the globe is warming. But, it has warmed in the past and also cooled again.
Sure CO2 may be the cause, but why should towns in close proximity have different temperature changes over the same decades? One has increasing temperatures, another decreasing and a third stays the same.
There are still many anomalies to be explained before the CO2 hypothesis can be fully accepted.

You know, you can have electricity without producing greenhouse gases, don't you?


True, but to meet Kyoto targets we will have to shut down all coal-powered generating stations, according to the experts anyway. That's a lot of electrical energy to replace.

Simple we've really kept records for the past few decades, say the last century. How can we possibly compare the "average" global temperature between the present and say a thousand years ago?
Think about it, how does one calculate the average temperature of the globe and what does it really mean? Now change how many readings you take and where you take the readings. Do you think you'll get the same answer. Of course you won't.
Okay, yes, that's all obvious. I thought you were somehow saying that gmsisko's source was right about NASA's warmest year data being inaccurate. The whole argument was about warmest recorded years...

I do not deny the globe is warming. But, it has warmed in the past and also cooled again.
Sure CO2 may be the cause, but why should towns in close proximity have different temperature changes over the same decades? One has increasing temperatures, another decreasing and a third stays the same.
There are still many anomalies to be explained before the CO2 hypothesis can be fully accepted.
Absolutely no one is saying that CO2 is the only cause of global warming. Most people (here anyways) aren't even saying it's the biggest cause.

Okay, yes, that's all obvious. I thought you were somehow saying that gmsisko's source was right about NASA's warmest year data being inaccurate. The whole argument was about warmest recorded years...


Of course gmsisko's source was correct. It refers to the hottest year in the US. The NASA response given did not refer to or deny the original quote, but referred to the global hottest years. Just another way of obfuscating the issue.

Of course gmsisko's source was correct. It refers to the hottest year in the US. The NASA response given did not refer to or deny the original quote, but referred to the global hottest years. Just another way of obfuscating the issue.
Aha. I didn't even look at them.

Sure CO2 may be the cause, but why should towns in close proximity have different temperature changes over the same decades? One has increasing temperatures, another decreasing and a third stays the same.
There are still many anomalies to be explained before the CO2 hypothesis can be fully accepted.
It seems to be a "which came first, the chicken or the egg" question. The biggest green house gas is water vapor. Both water vapor and CO2 are generated by heating the oceans. Therefore, the hotter the oceans, the more H2O and CO2 are in the atmosphere. What is triggering what? Why the earth is getting hotter, I do not know (it got colder from 1945 - 1974). Is it all the fault of mankind, or is it a natural cycle? Again, I do not know.

I think we need to develop alternative energy sources, build more nuclear power plants, try to become energy independent from the "kooky" middle east, and do as little harm to the environment as practical. I just don't think we need to "henny penny" ourselves into a lather over an issue that we do not fully understand.

True, but to meet Kyoto targets we will have to shut down all coal-powered generating stations, according to the experts anyway. That's a lot of electrical energy to replace.

What experts? Rush Limbaugh? Do you know the terms of Kyoto? It requires that greenhouse emissions only be reduced by five percent below 1990 levels! Frankly, I think that's a meager target, but it's better than nothing.

In the meantime, coal power is responsible for about 20 percent of our energy consumption.

http://energy.cr.usgs.gov/energy/stats_ctry/Stat1.html

Thus, your statements are just plain untrue.

Nevertheless, your overall point is understandable. I don't think anyone believes clean energy will magically appear overnight. Yet, we're still building coal power plants every day in this country, so we're obviously not reacting in a proactive manner....hell, we're not even reacting in a passive manner.

Leper,

If there was an Olympic event in jumping to conclusions you would easily win it. Those of us who do not believe the U.S. should not sign the Kyoto Accords are not in favor of pollution as you suggest. We are not in favor of killing off every other species on the planet as you also suggest. I haven't read a single argument in favor of pollution or destroying other species. I haven't read a single argument in favor of continuing to burn fossil fuels.

I have read posts in which people have said we should continue to develop alternative sources of energy. I have read posts in which some of those sources have been named, ie, wind, solar, nuclear, tidal, geothermal, river, and wave among others.

It has also been stated that Al Gore's actions do not really matter since he is a proponent of the man causes global warming theory. That is an argument that simply does not hold water. Of course his actions matter. He doesn't need to fly around in a private jet when there are commercial flights to every venue he visits. He doesn't need to drive around with an entourage sitting in SUVs. He doesn't need to live in a house that uses more energy than ten average people. Al Gore's actions are a case of, "Do as I say, not as I do", that is so common among global warming alarmists. He, along with his supporters in Hollywood and the arts constantly tell us to reduce our energy footprint all the while living energy large.

No one is denying the earth is getting warmer. The difference in opinion is over the reasons. You and those who agree with you see man as the prime causer of global warming, ignoring all evidence to the contrary. You simply dismiss the fact that other planets in the Solar System are also getting warmer, suggesting a force other than man is the reason for the increase in temperature. You ignore the fact that global temperature readings have been fudged to the extent that they are almost meaningless. You ignore the fact that ruminants contribute far more to greenhouse gases than do people. You ignore the fact that the Earth has gone through cycles of warming and cooling long before the extensive use of fossile fuels. You ignore the fact that under the Kyoto Accords the world's greatest pollutors will be allowed to continue to pollute and to in fact profit by their continued polllution.

The Earth is getting a bit warmer. The Earth has gotten a bit warmer in the past, in fact much warmer than it is getting at present. There was a time when wine grapes were grown in England because the temperatures there were so warm. The Earth has also gotten much cooler. When some of we who are posting were youngsters the temperatures in the United States were cooler than they are now and followed a period during our parent's and grandparent's time when the temperatures were warmer. The Earth has had Little and Great Ice Ages and Little and Great Optimums in the past and will have them in the future. It had them long before man had the ability to be a contributing factor.

You can continue to rant and rave and accuse those who disagree with you of wanting to destroy the planet and all other species on it or you can suggest workable solutions. Destroying the economic capacity of the United States and the West is NOT a workable solution.

Simple we've really kept records for the past few decades, say the last century. How can we possibly compare the "average" global temperature between the present and say a thousand years ago?
Think about it, how does one calculate the average temperature of the globe and what does it really mean? Now change how many readings you take and where you take the readings. Do you think you'll get the same answer. Of course you won't.
I do not deny the globe is warming. But, it has warmed in the past and also cooled again.
Sure CO2 may be the cause, but why should towns in close proximity have different temperature changes over the same decades? One has increasing temperatures, another decreasing and a third stays the same.
There are still many anomalies to be explained before the CO2 hypothesis can be fully accepted.

"Average" is not a beneficial word to describe the weather.
In point of fact,it is entirely worthless.If we're in a cyclical
warm period,then cooler temps are not the norm and warmer
temps are.The same with a cooling off period.
What was normal or "average" as a summer temp during the
Dust Bowl years,was an anomaly during the 60's & 70's.
Plus different regions and places on Earth,also vary
according to weather patterns and shifts in previous years ecosytems.
Weather is a constant variable.Unlike time or Mother nature.
Hurricane rarely happen in Winter or Spring,in other words.
Also Hurricans travel North.Northeast or northwest.
Weather does not behave in any ways that result in "averages".
What could would it do to have a mean temp of 86 degree one
summer and 76 the next.That's averages out to 80 degree.
So,the next summer if it's 88 mean degree,what was gleaned by
an 80 degree "average".
Going back more years won't help much.It just means dividing
by more years and coming our with a slimmer mean.
My point being,it is Normal,some years to have Hot summers
and normal some years to have just warm summers.
"average" isn't normal.The Law of averages applies to Gambling.
And The Weather is ALWAYS a gamble.That's a Fact.

It seems like all those Carbon Credits Al Gore and his cohorts purchase to ausuage their guilt over being among the planet's greatest polluters don't do diddly squat. Maybe they should simply pollute less and use less energy rather than employing phony feel good solutions.

Carbon offsetting schemes not so green
By Jasper Copping, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 12:43am BST 19/08/2007



As millions of Britons jet off to foreign climes for their holiday this month, the more environmentally minded travellers will have salved their consciences by paying for trees to be planted to compensate for the carbon emissions caused by their flight.


Coldplay hoped mango trees would offset pollution


But a ground-breaking study has now called into question the effectiveness of using trees to "offset" emissions, suggesting that their ability to "lock-up" carbon dioxide has been greatly exaggerated.

Forests have long been seen as an effective way of absorbing the greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, which are thought to trap the sun's heat in the atmosphere, causing global warming.

Celebrities, including the Rolling Stones and Leonardo DiCaprio, the film actor, have signed up to schemes to plant trees to offset their own emissions.

However, the new research found that trees bathed in extra carbon dioxide grew more tissue, but did not necessarily store significant extra quantities of carbon. Instead, the tree's capacity to absorb the gas depended on water and nutrient levels.

advertisement
The news will come as a blow to the carbon-offsetting industry, which has expanded rapidly as individuals and companies try to atone for their carbon dioxide emissions by paying companies to plant trees for them.

In 2003, the Rolling Stones held a "carbon neutral" tour, planting one tree for every 60 tickets sold.

Dido, the singer, and even the celebrity drinking club, the -Groucho, are all reported to have paid out for trees to be planted.

In 2002, Coldplay, the band fronted by Chris Martin, the husband of actress Gwyneth Paltrow, announced it would offset the environmental impact caused by the release of its second album, A Rush of Blood to the Head, by planting 10,000 mango trees in southern India. By last year many of the trees had died.

David Cameron, the Conservative Party leader, also says he pays into offsetting schemes for all his flights, road and rail trips, and a growing number of blue chip companies and airlines, as well as Government departments, now sign up to such projects.

According to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Britons spent £60 million on such schemes last year. This is forecast to grow to £250 million annually by 2009.

The latest findings come from an ongoing study - known as the Free Air Carbon Enrichment project - which has been running for 13 years at Duke University, North Carolina, in the US.

Researchers bathed plots of pine trees in extra carbon dioxide every day for 10 years and found that while the trees grew more tissue, only those that received the most water and nutrients stored enough carbon dioxide to offset the effects of global warming.

Ram Oren, the ecologist who led the project, said the research suggested that planting more trees would not be successful in slowing the pace of climate change. "More trees don't necessarily mean less carbon dioxide," he said. "Planting trees is not going to do a whole lot to decreasing carbon concentration.

"What we're finding is that extra carbon very quickly goes back into the atmosphere if there are low nutrients and water available.

"And we are not going to be able to increase the capacity of forests to hold carbon, because we couldn't fertilise such large areas or provide sufficient water. It would cause such pollution that the consequence would be much worse than carbon dioxide enrichment in the atmosphere."

But Ru Hartwell, the director of Treeflights, an offsetting company planting trees in Wales and Peru, said: "There are problems with tree planting but it is only one way in which we are going to get on top of the problems of global warming. I have complete faith that tree planting is positive and we should not just chuck away our spades and do nothing."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/08/19/ncarbon119.xml

1. Conservative "naysayers" were never going to listen to begin with. Their reactions are always knee-jerk and in line with whatever talking points they were handed.
2. I remember listening to Rush in the late 80s when he was castigating "tree-huggers" for wanting to simply clean up pollution from our environment.
3. All the conservative "ditto-heads" have been anti-environmentalist as a matter of course ever since.1. First of all, to look at a post from me advocating the reality of global warming, and then say that conservatives are "always knee-jerk" against the notion seems a little riduculous.
It is your criticism of conservatives that seems knee-jerk in this case.

2. Rush's appropriate criticism of some environmentalists was aimed at their scare tactics and exaggeration.
Back in the late eighties he ripped Ted Danson for saying that the oceans would be sterile within ten years, Meryl Streep's claim that Alar was going to cause illness and death in many children, etc.....
Even the relationship between the old growth forest and the Spotted Owl turned out to be exaggerated.
And let's not forget that the first Earth Day in 1970 warned us against Global Cooling.
The hardcore environmentalists have burned up so much of their credibility at this point that they have hurt their cause.

Granted, Rush Limbaugh has gotten it wrong about the environment on many occasions and is extremely closed minded about it.
However, he is able to see through the exaggerations and the pure BS of the extremists who have, unfortunately, made him actually look good on several occasions.
The more credibility he acquires on this issue, the worse it is for everyone.

3. Either you're wrong or I'm not a conservative. Which is it?

The environmental movement is bold in forcing people to think about big practical questions.
And that is important but there is also the law of diminishing returns.

They do need to make people aware, and maybe even scare the population a little.

BUT, some have gone too far and turned people away from their cause.
They have to start balancing their message and have the maturity not to make a claim until they are more sure of the science behind it.

The people that don't believe in global warming or just misinformed. It's for real! The ice caps are melting at a alarming rate!!I don't care what you think about Al Bore, oops I mean Gore. And who wants Tipper as first lady? Yuck!

The point is not whether the icecaps are melting, PurpleKush. The argument is about why the icecaps are melting and why the earth is warming.

Thanks for your link, but it has no relevance to my statement. I said we, that referred to us folks that live in Canada, you remember that place north of the US?
Yes I do know the terms of Kyoto, and it would be economic disaster to implement within the time frames required. We would need to reduce CO2 emissions by just over 1/3.
Do you know what Kyoto would mean to the US?

The point is not whether the icecaps are melting, PurpleKush. The argument is about why the icecaps are melting and why the earth is warming.

Because weather is not constant.it is always in some minor flux.
If we're slowly warming,that is cyclical.
To put things in perspective,I remember a few years back
Charleton Heston did a Discovery channel presentation on
the Planet and it's age.He ended with about THE most depressing
statement a human could bear to hear.
Somethin about {loose paraphrasing} Us humans in respect to
the actual life span of Earth.He said,given what we know about how
long humans have occupied earth,and the actual age of earth,
we're little more {in time span} than what a sheer grain of sand is
in size to the actual planet.
In other words,Human beings in captivity in relation to the
the age of Earth,is absolutely meaningless.Where not even as important
as a single ant,is now.
Howz Dem potatoes.

...Indeed.