Hmmm..Global Warming in a negative direction?

here you go again Mr. FBB, sneaking in the political forum, dropping a bomb, and then hauling ass. :funn:

Some disturbing news this week:

The Canadian Space Agency?s radio telescope has been reporting Flux Density Values so low they will mean a mini ice age if they continue.

China's worst winter storms in five decades have highlighted the vulnerabilities of the country's booming economy, bringing transportation and much industry to a halt and prompting the government to deploy nearly 500,000 army troops to assist troubled areas Wednesday.

In today's world, it is irresponsible for news or scientific organizations to muddle the politically correct topic of Global Warming with something as mundane as actual facts.

Clearly, these folks need to be ridiculed and fired.

In order to combat skepticism, such as yours, the term "Global Warming" has been changed to "Climate Change." Proponents of Climate Change point out that the greenhouse affect doesn't necessarily make every place warm, but changes regional climates i.e., places that are arid become more temperate, temperate climates experience drought, etc., etc. They've covered their bases.

here you go again Mr. FBB, sneaking in the political forum, dropping a bomb, and then hauling ass. :funn:

Hasn't gone off yet, must have a long fuse.

This morning as I was getting dressed I saw CNN's 'Extreme Weather' segment. The reporter was live in St Louis holding a thermometer...it was 28 degrees and there was a bit of snow on the ground. Extreme. :roll:

In order to combat skepticism, such as yours, the term "Global Warming" has been changed to "Climate Change." Proponents of Climate Change point out that the greenhouse affect doesn't necessarily make every place warm, but changes regional climates i.e., places that are arid become more temperate, temperate climates experience drought, etc., etc. They've covered their bases.

Exactly. And some day, when they realize that climatic change on this planet is cyclic in nature, they'll change the title again and claim total victory.

I think the extreme in St Louis was that it had been 73 degrees a couple of mornings ago, later that that same day it had gone down to 23 degrees. I think Peapod might be able to testify that the 28 degrees and snow was not the extreme part of a St Louis February.

Trends of the past 30 years verses trends of the past 300,000 years are the scientific discussion. It was cold here or there, or my aunt Martha remembers... those are nice anecdotes, but are not quite science.

I think the extreme in St Louis was that it had been 73 degrees a couple of mornings ago, later that that same day it had gone down to 23 degrees. I think Peapod might be able to testify that the 28 degrees and snow was not the extreme part of a St Louis February.

Trends of the past 30 years verses trends of the past 300,000 years are the scientific discussion. It was cold here or there, or my aunt Martha remembers... those are nice anecdotes, but are not quite science.

If Aunt Martha was 300k years old we would be in business

Ya gotta wonder....

China battles "coldest winter in 100 years"

In order to combat skepticism, such as yours, the term "Global Warming" has been changed to "Climate Change." Proponents of Climate Change point out that the greenhouse affect doesn't necessarily make every place warm, but changes regional climates i.e., places that are arid become more temperate, temperate climates experience drought, etc., etc. They've covered their bases.

I don't object to calling it climate change or global warming. I object to the total lack of scientific objectivity in the process. There is as much evidence that climate change is not anthropogenic in origin as that it is and lots and lost of mistakes along the way by people on both sides.

Today, this is no longer a 'science' issue. It has become basically a vehicle to move forward political agendas. Any scientist or reporter that questions any aspect of that 'agenda' is held up to ridicule, is denied funding, etc...

Only a fool proposes solving a problem that they don't understand. Only an evil fool, vilifies respected scientists for examining a side of an issue that they don't agree with.