http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...489955,00.html

Very interesting article, as the Scripps institute is a very reputable research organization, and the sampling they have done appears to be very thurough. I'd much rather read the actual report when it comes out, as opposed to some newspaper article, but this looks really interesting and possibly very indicitive of the course of change our climate is experiencing.

 

What about the times when the earth's temperature flucuated more than 4 degrees in the course of 200 years (that's 1 degree every 50 years), before humans were even around?

That's what confuses me, the Earth has always had a cycle of warm to cold, cold to warm, and only until recently (the past 40,000 years) has it remained relatively stable.

And many times in its history, it has flucuated every bit as fast, or faster, than it is now -- and cars/humans weren't even around. Yet it happens now and it's somehow humans fault.

Plus, so what? It's not like we're all going to put aside our fossil fuels tomorrow.

If these scientists spent half as much time trying to figure out how to make another form of energy as reliable and easy-to-use as fossil fuels as they do trying to prove their global warming theory, we wouldn't have this problem.

 

yeah honestly I'm going to use all the natural resource that I can use, but don't worry, I'll pay through the nose to use it. last check 1gal gas premium was $2.29 h:

 

Where's your data on the 1 degree every 50 year fluctuation? And did you even read the article before you posted? If you read the article, you would know that your point on this is invalid because it isn't looking at the distant past. Looking at recent temperatures, and comparing them to models on how the temperatures should have behaved looking a specifc factors of adjustment, and guess what? In both instances where they used seperately defined models based on greenhouse gas emissions, the graphs of anticipated weather change and actual weather change were statistically similar. The other samples based on natural forces did NOT fit.

Also, scientists need to prove this because otherwise they will not be able to get the funding required to figure out how to fix this. If you've paid attention, funding for these programs have dwindled and money is going elsewhere. Unless they get through to people that something is wrong, people will ignore it and, before long, things will get ****ed.

That's not "through the nose", that's inconvenience. If it was up to $5~9/gal, which is what the rest of the world pays, then it would be through the nose.

 

scripps is located at my school h: go UCSD h: ok yeah i'm done representing but yeah global warming has been going on for decades. that's what the CO2 cycle is for.

 

i agree with you. Global Warming occurs naturally, and even though we might be speeding it up, it'll happen anyway.

 

My data on the 1 degree thing? I don't have a link for you, sorry. It was some television show on the subject, on TLC or The Weather Channel or something like that.

And really, it *doesnt* matter.

Cavemen lived in the ice ages without modern equipment, we can live in a warmer climate w/ our modern equipment, or colder for that matter.

It's really a moot point, not to mention, unproven to be influenced in any major manner by humans.

 

"Might" is the key word; And you are completely correct, the Earth's temperature moves in cycles. It always has, and always will.

People are just afraid of change and need to quit finding something new to worry about every year.

 

A lot will get destroyed by the ice packs though. There will be loss of life.

 

There's a loss of life from everything on this planet.

Such is life. Kind of "the way it goes."