Global warming is good for us now...

[malorn]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Apr 9 2007, 10:13 AM) [snapback]420256[/snapback]</div>

great article. AGW has become a religion for the atheists.

amazing that at least SIX MLB games have been cancelled due to snow :-)

here in Gotham City it was snowing over the weekend.
[/b]

Stop it DOC! You and I both know weather events may only be cited when they support AGW!

[dbermanmd]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(larkinmj @ Apr 9 2007, 11:33 AM) [snapback]420272[/snapback]</div>

You're a physician, right? My grandfather smoked four packs of cigarettes a day for most of his life. He lived to be well in his 90s.
Ergo, smoking increases life expectancy, and you would recommend it to your patients?
[/b]

there is a difference between the science and studies connecting smoking with lung cancer and that of AGW, no?

or do you think that the science behind AGW is as solid as that behind the association of cigarettes and lung cancer?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Apr 9 2007, 11:40 AM) [snapback]420280[/snapback]</div>

Exactly!

I crack up everytime I see a post like the OP and it turns out to be from the SAME small handful of scientists. Lindzen and Christy stand out the most. You are reading what you want to hear and not doing enough real research. It's like going to a christian website to find out about athieism or taoism. *shakes head*
[/b]

ditto

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Apr 9 2007, 11:32 AM) [snapback]420270[/snapback]</div>

Three cheers for the Metrodome! (and Twins games, like the Dollar-Dog night last wed, not being canceled!)
[/b]

too bad they could not enclose the golf course in augusta they were playing with snow gloves so much for agw - unless of course we expect a frigid april in '07 - what did the models say about this coming may?

[larkinmj]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Apr 9 2007, 12:01 PM) [snapback]420293[/snapback]</div>

there is a difference between the science and studies connecting smoking with lung cancer and that of AGW, no?

or do you think that the science behind AGW is as solid as that behind the association of cigarettes and lung cancer?
[/b]

My point was that a weather anomaly of one place over one weekend is as much evidence one way or another of climate trends as the case of my grandfather is evidence that smoking is harmless.
And while I don't think anyone today would believe anything as absurd as smoking is good for you, or even harmless; there is plenty of "research" funded by tobacco companies (and the restaraunt industry, which vigorously opposes anti-smoking laws) that is intended to at least raise uncertainty as to the harmful effects of smoking and exposure to second-hand smoke.

[dbermanmd]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(larkinmj @ Apr 9 2007, 12:12 PM) [snapback]420298[/snapback]</div>

My point was that a weather anomaly of one place over one weekend is as much evidence one way or another of climate trends as the case of my grandfather is evidence that smoking is harmless.
And while I don't think anyone today would believe anything as absurd as smoking is good for you, or even harmless; there is plenty of "research" funded by tobacco companies (and the restaraunt industry, which vigorously opposes anti-smoking laws) that is intended to at least raise uncertainty as to the harmful effects of smoking and exposure to second-hand smoke.
[/b]

the science (i use that term with trepidation) behind AGW is far from reliable. there are several excellent points the author makes concerning co2 production and gw - how do you refute them?

[hycamguy07]

Yeah, who ever herd of it being 62* in April !!!
Its cold out side for Florida But in 1940 it was 91* today..

[EricGo]

There used to be around 5 prominent GW scienctist skeptics. Their numbers have shrunk to two.

And BTW, even Lindzen has backtracked in the last couple years. He has quickly gone from 'the earth is NOT warming', to 'well, it's warming, but it's not from humans', to 'humans play a part, but the severity of GW is uncertain', to his current stance of 'yeahh, it's humans, but who knows what difference cutting carbon pollution will make'.

So ostriches, enjoy your pied piper while you can.

[eagle33199]

Heck, who ever heard of it hitting 80 degrees in March in Minnesota? And yet that happened... set a new record, too. Must be definite proof for Global Warming.

[adam1991]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ichabod @ Apr 9 2007, 11:30 AM) [snapback]420266[/snapback]</div>

I can't get enough of the argument that local weather patterns somehow refute global warming.
[/b]

When it was warm this past winter, I saw a talking head on TV sit there and smugly exclaim that "well, yes, this is proof of global warming."

So apparently local weather patterns DO *confirm* global warming, according to that talking head.

Then it got cold--BITTER cold.

Was that also proof of global warming?


This reminds me of one of my favorite Cheers teasers. Norm and Cliff are sitting at the bar on a bitter February day, drinking cold beer. Diane wants to know how they could possibly drink cold beer on such a cold day. Norm looks at Cliff and says, "Cliff?" Diane interrupts to ask, "How can you know he'll have an answer to this?" Cliff just looks at Diane and says, "Five bucks says he does, ten bucks says it's a doozy."

At this Cliff looks up and pontificates, "When the, uh, British ruled the Punjab....", at which point Norm interrupts with, "Ten bucks it is."

Cliff went on to explain how on the hottest days in India, the British would drink hot tea to equalize their internal temperatures with the outside temperature, in order to feel more comfortable. By extension, then, drinking cold beer on a cold day has the same effect.

Diane then asks, "Well then why do you drink cold beer on a hot day?" to which Cliff answers, "What else you gonna do wit' it?"


At any rate, the talking heads who so desperately wanted to be on TV didn't hesitate to take advantage of the warm weather over the winter to get themselves on TV to spout things like, "Clearly, this is global warming."

What we need are fewer talking heads.

[larkinmj]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(richard schumacher @ Apr 9 2007, 11:31 AM) [snapback]420268[/snapback]</div>

Thanks for sharing. Lindzen is a brother to that minority of aging geology professors who circa 1980 didn't think plate tectonics were real. He too shall pass.

For discussion of the facts of global warming see http://realclimate.org
[/b]

Facts have a well-known liberal bias!

[SW03ES]

Here's what I don't get. How can anybody NOT realize that the gases and pollutants we release in the atmosphere are created by artificial and not natural means, and that if we were not a civilized world these pollutants would not exist. How can anybody NOT realize that these enormous changes in the composition of the atmosphere can have effects on the weather patterns and climate of the planet?

It only makes sense...