Originally Posted by niptuck

Ok, RS and other liberal try not to cop-out on these questions...

Do we need to reduce the tempature of the Earth?
If so then by how much?
What must be done to 'cool' the Earth to the liberal's idea of perfect tempature?
How much will it cost to do this ^?
What will the economic repercussions be from spending that money to cool ur Earf?

BONUS QUESTON
*How many scientis will get grants and how much more power will our politicians get to 'solve' this issue???? MUahahaha

1. No. We just need to stop it from getting too much hotter.
2. See above.
3. Stop pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.
4. Not as much as failing to do so will cost.
5. The economic repercussions will pale in contrast to failing to act.

6. Lots and probably not much.

 

Originally Posted by norcaljeff

what's the best temp for the earth to be?

THREE HUNDRED AND FIFTY DEGREES

adapted to when? right this second? in the 1950's? april 29th, 1992?

and why?

 

Originally Posted by Lord Supremo

lol at nuclear power haters. ncj is spot on re: this topic.

just stopped by to post this. it was really weird reading a norcaljeff post and thinking "exactly." Minus the part where he said nothing happened, of course. thats just dumb.

 

I think the future is gonna get real crazy in 30 years when the world becomes even more populated and there will be even less land space. A lot of islands are soon gonna be underwater.

Aren't you kind of ignoring all the land that would become more suitable for habitation such as most of Canada, Greenland and Siberia? Wouldn't global warming create more arable land than it destroys?

lol I saw the R. I thought Willard handled it with class but you could tell he didn't really say what he wanted to.

it depends on if they stand lengthwise or widthwise. Most likely people would fall off as the island tips and the weight lost would right itself. I wouldn't worry about it.

And User, Carl Sagan wasn't a flash in the pan guy, he was the TRUTH!!

Doubt Carl Sagan spent 40 years believing in global cooling, as more information came in (don't know though, didn't do the research). Isn't he an astronomer, though?

Also, on a different note, Howard Linzen, or whatever his name is, the holy saint scientist of deniers, believes that GW is at least partly anthropogenic. His main complaints were reserved for the policy section of the IPCC report.

 

Originally Posted by ginwilly

It was pretty much the consensus within the climatologists but there were some that were saying the opposite could occur.

I am skeptical of this.

GW was first put forth as a theory in the late 60s (?). It has gained consensus for the last 40 years.

 

Originally Posted by niptuck

Ok, RS and other liberal try not to cop-out on these questions...

Do we need to reduce the tempature of the Earth?
If so then by how much?
What must be done to 'cool' the Earth to the liberal's idea of perfect tempature?
How much will it cost to do this ^?
What will the economic repercussions be from spending that money to cool ur Earf?

BONUS QUESTON
*How many scientis will get grants and how much more power will our politicians get to 'solve' this issue???? MUahahaha

(1) 350ppm CO2 is one generally accepted goal number to avoid serious implications.
(2) See above
(3) There is no "liberals idea" of a perfect temperature. Natural and potentially undesired things happen when the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 become very high. For all of human history before ~150 years ago, we were at ~250ppm. We are now at ~390, and increasing at ~2ppm per year. There's also a lot of unrealized inertia in the system (i.e. even if we cut emissions to zero tomorrow we would still see warming for the next century). 350ppm is one of the most accepted goal numbers.
(4) No idea. Not an economist.
(5) No idea. Not an economist.
(6) Probably a few. But if they weren't getting grants for this they would be getting grants for solving other problems and trying to make your life better.

 

Originally Posted by ginwilly

the consensus was Global Cooling, not GW.
there were several books, time magazine, newsweek, the national science board and on and on. There were a lot of skeptics back then too though and most admitted back then that we really don't know.

check it out man

Allow me to type this in caps so everyone can read it.

GLOBAL COOLING WAS NEVER SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS.

I mean, FFS, this is from the wiki that you cited:

 

Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere along with a posited commencement of glaciation. This hypothesis had mixed support in the scientific community, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s and press reports that did not accurately reflect the scientific understanding of ice age cycles. In contrast to the global cooling conjecture, the current scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth has not durably cooled, but undergone global warming throughout the twentieth century.[1]

 

Originally Posted by ginwilly

granted, there were many scientists who disagreed, just as there are many who disagree with the level of hysteria now.

No. Literally the worst false equivalence of all time.

 

Originally Posted by ginwilly

you can be so stubborn in your defense of GW rocket. In 1974-75 it was so much so the consensus even the CIA did a scare paper on it.

http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/200...nsus-and-more/

granted, there were many scientists who disagreed, just as there are many who disagree with the level of hysteria now.

Just stop pretending that you know what the word "consensus" means. Seriously, this is just retardedly stupid, even for you, and that is saying a hell of a lot. There was no consensus for global cooling. Fucking hell.

Oh Gawd Rocket. Literary rags were threatened if they published articles that disagreed with GW. You have argued repeatedly that this isn't true.

leeches are making a huge come back, as are maggots in wound care. The point Neeek isn't that they were right, the point is they were wrong. Just like healthy smoking was wrong. That's the cool thing about science, we make advances, what we thought was true today we find wasn't.

Please don't take this as me saying the multitude of current climatologists are wrong, I'm not saying that at all. I'm just saying science makes advances.

 

Originally Posted by Underdog

Just stop pretending that you know what the word "consensus" means. Seriously, this is just retardedly stupid, even for you, and that is saying a hell of a lot. There was no consensus for global cooling. Fucking hell.

read the CIA report you exceptionally well grounded person you.
also this article explains a lot of the misinformation back then while concluding "the consensus" was wrong.
http://omniclimate.files.wordpress.c...pxiii-text.jpg

 

Originally Posted by Underdog

Repeating it over and over or finding a CIA report on it won't make it so.

global cooling.