2006/2007 winter warmest on record

[Drocket]

The world experienced its warmest period on record during this year's northern hemisphere winter, the US government said today.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration report said the globally averaged combined land and sea surface temperature for December to February was the highest since records began in 1880.

During the three-month period, known as boreal winter, temperatures were above average worldwide, with the exception of Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and areas in central United States.

Link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/weather/Story/0,,2035667,00.html)

[Labrocca]

A significant contributing factor to the record warmth was an El Niño weather pattern, a periodic warming of the tropical Pacific Ocean. It was particularly strong in January - the warmest January ever - but the ocean surface had since begun to cool.

You forgot to mention that part of the article too. You don't mention anything about "Global Warming" but I think you infer it. Yeah...so some parts of the world had an average warmth that was higher...since 1880...big deal.

[Buck Laser]

I find it amusing that so many people bitch, whine, piss and moan whenever a winter storm hits them and act as if a single storm--or even a series of storms is absolute proof that there's no such thing as global warming. This phenomenon is more marked the further over on the conservative scale one goes. I visit the Freeper forum fairly often to see what they're on about, and global warming is a hot topic (so to speak) for them right now. But you can bet that if it's a hot, dry summer this year, they'll be whining about THAT as well.

It's just hard for some people to realize that the US doesn't represent the entire world. And from my perspective, it's hard to see why people want to make climate change a right-left political issue.

[Labrocca]

And from my perspective, it's hard to see why people want to make climate change a right-left political issue

Oh that's easy to understand...it's the politicizing of an issue that helps split the left and right. It makes it easier to attack and choose a side. Same goes with the immigration bullcrap which now that the election is over...is brushed aside...

I find it amusing that so many people bitch, whine, piss and moan whenever a winter storm hits them and act as if a single storm--or even a series of storms is absolute proof that there's no such thing as global warming. This phenomenon is more marked the further over on the conservative scale one goes.

Are you really a Republican? I have yet to see a post from you affirming that. But to remark on that quote...the same exact logic is applied to those that view 30 years of data as absolute proof that global warming does exist.

[Buck Laser]

And from my perspective, it's hard to see why people want to make climate change a right-left political issue

Oh that's easy to understand...it's the politicizing of an issue that helps split the left and right. It makes it easier to attack and choose a side. Same goes with the immigration bullcrap which now that the election is over...is brushed aside...

I find it amusing that so many people bitch, whine, piss and moan whenever a winter storm hits them and act as if a single storm--or even a series of storms is absolute proof that there's no such thing as global warming. This phenomenon is more marked the further over on the conservative scale one goes.

Are you really a Republican? I have yet to see a post from you affirming that. But to remark on that quote...the same exact logic is applied to those that view 30 years of data as absolute proof that global warming does exist.


Doesn't it say right there on my user panel that I'm a Republican? So I hereby swear, affirm and proclaim that I yam what I yam.

Do you really believe that the case for global warming is built on only 30 years of data? That has to be the most ridiculous claim I ever heard. Data are available for many years, and there's indirect data for many thousands of years of climate through such things as tree rings, lake sediments, and many other methods. Still, global warming may not be happening--but when most of the people who are real scientists think it is happening, and that people are making it worse, I think it's a good idea to pay attention.

Did you ever hear of Blaise Pascal, the 17th century polymath? One of the things he's famous for is Pascal's wager, which states, more or less, that the evidence for the existence of God may not be absolutely beyond question--but in deciding whether to believe in God, there's no way that believing in God can turn out worse than not believing. Therefore, it makes sense to believe in God. I'm not sure I'm stating this exactly right, but it's close enough.

I apply the same reasoning to global warming and human effects. It's possible that humans aren't affecting climate change, but there's no real downside to acting as if they do. That's why I choose to try to act as if what I do can affect the future. So I'm careful to recycle, I use organic methods whenever I can, I'm working on making my home more energy-efficient, I drive a hybrid car, and I'm working hard at 'treading lightly" on the earth. Am I foolish to do that? Those are some of the things, by the way, that make me a republican. I'm trying to CONSERVE. Isn't that republican?

[Labrocca]

Oh I am very environmentally conscious myself. Pascal's wager is interesting btw.

And however their isn't belief that there is global warming caused my humans...there are BILLIONS of our dollars spent on "researching" it. That imho is harmful. Pascal was referring to religion...which if one chooses to go to church and believe doesn't really effect the rest of us. However if one decides the Global Warming is a result of the human footprint then radical changes will be made socially and economically that will effect the rest of us.

As for your tree rings....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/56456.stm

Read that...

The researchers point out that much of the half-a-degree rise in global temperature over the last 120 years occurred before 1940 - earlier than the biggest rise in greenhouse gas emissions.

Using ancient tree rings, they show that 17 out of 19 warm spells in the last 10,000 years coincided with peaks in solar activity.

Seems that big giant gasball of fire in the sky causes a warming effect...hmm...what a shocker!

[Stoner]

Doesn't it say right there on my user panel that I'm a Republican?

It's called RINO.

[Buck Laser]

Doesn't it say right there on my user panel that I'm a Republican?

It's called RINO.

What? That's not good enough?

[Buck Laser]

Oh I am very environmentally conscious myself. Pascal's wager is interesting btw.
As for your tree rings....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/56456.stm

Read that...

The researchers point out that much of the half-a-degree rise in global temperature over the last 120 years occurred before 1940 - earlier than the biggest rise in greenhouse gas emissions.

Using ancient tree rings, they show that 17 out of 19 warm spells in the last 10,000 years coincided with peaks in solar activity.

Seems that big giant gasball of fire in the sky causes a warming effect...hmm...what a shocker!

In the first place, no one is arguing that the sun doesn't affect earth's weather. That's one of those "duh!" things. But to argue that humans don't contribute to global climate chage is just silly. Why? Secondly, that's only part of the evidence. You seem to be acting as if that's a great discovery that falsifies the whole climate change thing.

You should realize that the reason we're dumping all that shit into the air is that we're burning up the limited supply of energy we have at an utterly foolish rate. If you don't want those billions spent on global warming research, just consider that exactly the same research will probably help us find ways to conserve our limited resources. Are you seriously saying that people will be WORSE off if we do what we can to reduce our emissions? You must be an utter fatalist--or pessimist.

I'm not the kind of guy who's willing to burn up energy at a prodigious rate in the belief that "something will turn up" to save us from our profligate ways. And when other people recklessly waste resources that by rights should be going to our dependents, I get a bit pushed out of shape, too.

[Labrocca]

Energy conservation and global warming are 2 seperate debates. Energy conservationists have USED global warming to alarm the general public. I have ALWAYS been for energy conservation. However it should presented to the public in a truthful manner.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_global_warming

Every page you turn and the deeper you look into global warming you get the sense that science has nothing to do with it and politics have everything to do with it. And yes...I realize that both sides use this equally.

Global warming is now "big business"...BILLIONS spent yearly world-wide. It has to be the most heavily funded research on the planet by governments. Scientists now can make a living "proving" global warming is caused by man. Do you think they get funded if global warming isn't a product of man?

[Buck Laser]

Every page you turn and the deeper you look into global warming you get the sense that science has nothing to do with it and politics have everything to do with it. And yes...I realize that both sides use this equally.

No, Labrocca. Not every page I turn. You may have the sense that it has nothing to do with science, but I see big business trying to use its influence to convince the public of one of two things: either that they're doing everything humanly possible to combat global warming (e.g., the Big Energy "touchy feely" ads telling us all the good things they're doing);or trying to discredit the science that makes the strongest possible case for making changes in our energy use to reduce the effects of global warning. Make no mistake--they've spent billions on this, and they're prepared to spend billions more.

In the end, and in accord with the Pascal's wager analogy, I think reason is on the side of the people who believe we must reduce as much as possible the human contribution to global warning.

There's a legal principle called cui bono?. It asks "who benefits?" from trying to debunk global warning. Clearly, the biggest beneficiaries will be the global energy companies. If they win, they get free rein to rape our wilderness resources for benefits now. The car manufacturers don't have to mess with energy efficiency. The power companies get to build more coal-powered electric plants and fuck the atmosphere. And Joe Six-Pack can jump into his Ford Excursion to drive two blocks to the store for a pack of cigarettes with a clear conscience.

I'm not buying it, and I don't know why you do either. I wonder if living in Las Vegas, which wouldn't be habitable without HUGE energy expenditures, might have something to do with your beliefs.

[Labrocca]

Actually almost all of Vegas is powered by hydro via the Hoover dam. As a matter of fact it creates enough electricity for parts of Arizona and even California gets some. I plan to build solar panels on my home one day (5 years) at a cost of about 30k...hopefully less by the time I want to do it.

As for Cui Bono...who benefits from global warming being publicized? The left politically and the scientists monetarily.


If I had my way..we would all be using nuclear power...have electric small lightweight cars (as most of EU does) and force polluting companies to pay extremely heavy fines. My personal beliefs are VERY VERY VERY green...almost radical as a matter of fact. However...that doesn't mean I believe something just because it fits into my green agenda. I hate the damn oil companies..I really do. I hate the car manufacturers..I really really do.

If you don't like the color purple that doesn't mean everytime you see it you call it blue. Purple is still purple.

Global warming and it's premise are not convincing imho. A couple storms in a season (Katrina) and suddenly a presidential hopeful grabs a mic and says "global warming look out"...yeah...sure buddy. The government and politicians tell us all types of poppycock on a day to day basis. Many feel that Iraqs WMD was a bald face lie...proof or no proof. So what's the stretch that Gore is full of poppycock? Is the belief that only right-wing politicians are con-artists?

F'em all. I would be a libertarian if I thought it could mean something beyond a principle.

[Drocket]

who benefits from global warming being publicized? The left politically and the scientists monetarily.
Or maybe they, you know, don't want the planet destroyed.

Many feel that Iraqs WMD was a bald face lie...proof or no proof. So what's the stretch that Gore is full of poppycock? Is the belief that only right-wing politicians are con-artists?

Um, the fact that, of the people that saw the actual evidence on Iraq's WMDs, basically only Bush, Cheney and assorted Bush administration appointees thought that there were WMDs while essentially ALL the career intel guys thought it was BS (which is, of course, why the ones who spoke out needed to be destroyed. See: Valerie Plame), versus the fact that Gore has about 98% of the scientific community on his side, with pretty much the only exceptions being people in the direct employ of oil companies and other major polluters?

The scientific evidence at this point for global warming, and man's role in it, is getting pretty darn close to the evidence of cigarettes causing cancer. Just because there's a few "scientists" working for the tobacco industry who say otherwise doesn't change that.