|
0
Nerd-Its
|
|
current event
by Global warming is a controversial subject that on one hand is causing problems for polar bears, and on the other giving Austin, Texas 59 consecutive hours below the freezing mark--for the first time since 1983. The low in Manhattan yesterday was Seven degrees Fahrenheit below the average low. Despite these conditions, Congress is considering drastic changes to legislation concerning corporate tax breaks and incentives for oil companies. Considering that the price of gasoline has finally dropped to a reasonable level, would taking $15 billion worth of tax breaks from the oil companies be a popular move in America? Is this controversial subject truly backed by science? If global warming is a true crisis, is slapping more tax on "Big Oil" going to help?
Add a Comment (13)
Email This
Message Author
I think science is supporting the fact that the earth is as a whole is growing warmer; especially in the arctic studies where the effects of even a slightly higher temperature seem to stand out more.
Science also shows that greenhouse gasses from whatever their cause have the potential and ability to raise temperatures on the earth. The contention is whether or not the gasses caused by man are the only thing causing this rise in temperature, or if it is mostly due to a natural cycle. It seems like even if it could be proved it was part of a natural cycle, our contributions on top of it can’t be helping.
The low in Manhattan yesterday was Seven degrees Fahrenheit below the average low.
I live in Massachusetts and this has been the warmest, mildest winter I or anyone I’ve talked to ever remembers. I have never been able to consistently be outside in my shorts and T-shirt for as long and as many times as this year. There were several weekends in December where if I wasn’t a human being and knew the date by the calendar, I would have said it was late May. The buds on the trees were coming out, and the crocuses were starting. This though, was caused by El Niño, the weather people are saying. Take heart; as I write this it is miserable winter again. The wind is blowing and it’s about 15 degrees out.
The real issue is of course is the last question of the news article:
If global warming is a true crisis, is slapping more tax on "Big Oil" going to help?
These political moves seem to just be a way for politicians to give the illusion that they are “doing something about it.” I would be much more interested in a slow, deliberate move towards other energy sources to remove our dependence on foreign oil, and at the same time reduce the greenhouse gasses which are not so good for other pollution reasons anyway. Taxing the oil companies may make our energy costs go up. The only thing good about that is it could create a greater will in every person with scientific capability to perhaps develop a new or better energy source. (Who is John Galt?)
Global warming is an unfortunate term adopted early on. Climate change is better. Given humans infinite capability for denial of inconvenient facts, every cold snap is cited as proof...
Extreme weather is a result, the arctic lobes are much more variable then recorded history, this sends short term extreme weather both north and south.
Global Warming is about the global trend for the averages to go up.
Right now in Boston, we have -16 C (+3 F), near the record low temperatures for this day from 1927 when they suffered -17 C (0 F). The wind chill is -28 C (-18 F). It will be neither too pleasant nor too easy to walk outside, even for the last of the real men. It's going to be the second coldest day in this century so far in Boston: the coldest day was 1/15/2004 when Al Gore gave a major speech about the global warming in New York City (this frequently observed type of correlation is known as the Gore effect).
According to Wunderground, other places have already breeched their daily record lows. For example, -11 C seems enough in Philadelphia. -13 C (+9 F) in Stamford, CT seems to tie the record from 1982, and they may have already broken it. The flag at Buffalo airport, NY froze in full-wave mode. Recall that the freezing point for flags is rather low. ;-)
The winds from North and Northwest seem to go on. They're the main reason why the high on this day will be a record low for January 26th in much of the East Coast.
Cold weather is also moving to North Dakota and is already creating headaches in Utah. Alaska saw record low temperatures today, too. Frigid weather is expected to go on throughout February in Colorado. Denver's January has so far been the seventh coldest January on record.
Western and Central Europe has experienced some snowstorms. For example, 100 flights were cancelled in Prague. 100,000 families in France were cut out of electricity. Snow arrived in Spain, too. The picture above is a signpost for Madrid.
When the winter was balmy, every other journalist would find a climate scientist who would say that this could really be a result of the "climate change". Once the weather becomes frigid, you won't find any articles about the climate. Suddenly it's only the cold facts themselves - cold weather - that is reported. Isn't it interesting that warm weather is related to the climate but cold weather is not?
The thing is, I think that cold weather in certain places can be related to global warming, as the real effect of it shows up in shifting weather patterns and such. But until the howler monkeys in the palms outside my window start waking me up in the middle of the night, I’m probably not going to lose much sleep over it at the moment. The real issue is the point taken though. The media has been thriving on churning fear into almost every facet of life lately; it makes us pay attention more and sells more news than just plain old facts can.
Real hot story today--pun wasn't intended, but i think that's pretty good for doing it by accident--the UN climate panel (in a report that was criticized before it came out for being too meek) reports there's a '90% certainty that the burning of fossil fuels and other human activities are driving climate change.'
China says that the UN report could go *&%$ itself, in a manner of speaking. The same China that will be putting out the equivalent of something like 1 million Ford Expeditions being driven a billion miles a year's worth of pollution (keep in mind I heard the statistics on Glen Beck, and I suck at remembering numbers, but you get the point.) So, if China doesn't give a rat's ass about Global Warming, and China is looking at being a huge polluter (more than the U.S.), than where does that leave us?
So, if China doesn't give a rat's ass about Global Warming, and China is looking at being a huge polluter (more than the U.S.), than where does that leave us?
Well, we're supposed to take solace that we're the "bigger people" - also no pun intended.
Hillary wants those profits, as she said. Since Hillary is always right, those profits must not really belong to big oil and all of their shareholders.
RSS
crisis? by Anonymous :: NR0 :: on 20 January 2007
If global warming is a true crisis? It is so bloody true we are on the verge of destroying our own existance. Stick your head a little further up your rectum and you could be safe when we reach the point in the near future (and I mean REALLY near) when we are all dying from the extremes in the weather we have created.
End of an Ice Age ... or maybe it's God's Fault? by VnutZ :: NR8 :: on 20 January 2007
You know ... there is proof that mankind has contributed to atmospheric changes. Nobody is really going to deny that. But the Earth's climate is not a static condition that would remain over the eons had we done nothing. Geology shows that long before man, the Earth has had dramatic swings in climate, weather ... even flipping its entire magnetic fields around. Ice ages happen. Ice ages end. There's a point of idiocy with proclaiming man has everything to do with rising temperatures. The smartest thing man can do is learn to live with it rather than trying to reverse it. How stupid would we look centuries from now when all the global cooling pundits are complaining that we're entering a new ice age because man has altered the climate to counter rising temperatures?
Of course, if you truly believe in Creation, all that geology and ice age stuff is bunk. And it would be God's fault for global warming because he works in mysterious ways and is teaching us something.
RE: End of an Ice Age ... or maybe it's God's Fault? by Anonymous :: NR0 :: on 20 January 2007
There's a point of idiocy with proclaiming man has everything to do with rising temperatures.
There would be if anyone were claiming that. On the other hand, the argument that environmentalists are presumptuous, even arrogant, for supposing that humans can have a significant effect on the environment is silly, but more importantly it's provably wrong.
The smartest thing man can do is learn to live with it rather than trying to reverse it.
Why is that smartest? If you can defend that claim, it would be fresh and interesting and get a lot of well-deserved attention.
How do "we", including billions of people already near famine in undeveloped areas, learn to live with it?
How stupid would we look centuries from now when all the global cooling pundits are complaining that we're entering a new ice age because man has altered the climate to counter rising temperatures?
Probably really smart. Centuries from now we'll have at least the same tools we do now, and we'll be glad we didn't wipe out millions of people back in the 2020s.
You're not thinking clearly about causality and ethics. We have power. We can use it. You're proposing, metaphorically, that we keep playing with matches and just learn to live with it if our house is on fire. Because how silly will we look in a week if there's fire extinguisher foam on the sofa?
RE: End of an Ice Age ... or maybe it's God's Fault? by VnutZ :: NR8 :: on 20 January 2007
The smartest thing man can do is learn to live with it rather than trying to reverse it.
Why is that smartest? If you can defend that claim, it would be fresh and interesting and get a lot of well-deserved attention.
Man vs. Nature? Nature wins. Always.
RE: End of an Ice Age ... or maybe it's God's Fault? by twabulldogg :: NR5 :: on 22 January 2007
Man vs. Nature? Nature wins. Always.
Nature always wins given enough time to overcome man's modifications.
With that, it is probably a good idea for scientists to take a look at what man made events are contributing to the fluctuating global climeate (unless whichever deity you pray to is bringing his wrath down upon mankind for some reason) and recommend ways for mankind to reduce their influence.
The smartest thing man can do is learn to live with it rather than trying to reverse it.
Since we do have an effect on the Earth's climate, the best thing would be to have a minimal impact on climate change and learn to live with what nature throws at us.