PLEASE PLEASE HAVE ANTHONY BOURDAIN DOING PIERS'S SHOW
A MILLION TIMES YES
Strombo would be a good call too, but I can't imagine he's getting another shot on CNN any time soon.
In the 70's it was "global cooling"
In the 90's it was "global warming"
In the 2000's it became "climate change" so that no matter what happens, environmentalists can blame it on plastic bottles.
Global cooling never gained any serious traction in the scientific community, and climate change was actually coined by conservative strategists because it sounds less scary than global warming. The scientific community adopted it simply because it cuts down on on people saying sh*t like "Global warming? But it was cold today!", and AGW (anthropogenic global warming) still gets plenty of use.
huh? Where was she shot? IF he pulled a gun out of his waist, ONLY possible spot would be getting hit get in leg/foot.... IF any where else Clearly dude was raising it at herk2theswiss
Shockingly, Hollywood isn't the best source for information on gunshot wounds. Getting shot in the leg (or shoulder, or arm, or pretty much anything that isn't an extremity or ass cheek Band of Brothers style) carries a risk of hitting a major blood vessel.
Arent you the one who throws around that "97%" of scientists support the man made global warming theory? You really think that that is true? What source do you want dude?
The fact is "global warming" is much slower than predicted, if its there at all. And the more important question, why should I care? Why should I change my life? Al gore is the one brought the global warming craze to the mainstream and pop culture. AdamPA1006
Here's the cool thing about science:
W. R. L. Anderegg, Expert Credibility in Climate Change, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107.
P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22; DOI: 10.1029/2009EO030002.
N. Oreskes, Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change, Science Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686 (3 December 2004); DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618.
Those are all studies backing the whole ~97% of climate scientists support the case for anthropogenic global warming thing. If their methodology and/or conclusions are flawed, you can just go right ahead and point out where they went wrong! As a rule they generally even leave their contact information in their papers, so you can even let the authors know how much smarter you are than them!
Global warming isn't slower than predicted. It currently appears slower than predicted if you compare the past 10-15 or so years of temperature data to simulations that are designed to be accurate on multi-decade scales, but that's because only a stupid person would judge a multi-decade scale simulation on 10-15 years of data. Climate by definition is about long-term trends, and it's all a moot point anyway because we already know that mean global temps over the past decade were damped by a prevalence of La Nina events (and some other weather/short-term climactic events).
And the reason you should care is the climate is kind of a big f*cking deal. You're not just dicking around with the thermostat, you're changing one of the most fundamental factors in how the earth functions. One of the better examples being the impact of changing precipitation patterns in the US resulting from climate change. Some places get a little wetter and some places get a little dryer, right?
Sure, but it turns out there are some industries that are kinda reliant on it precipitating X amount in location Y, to the point where a recent study estimated precipitation changes alone will cost the US 7 million jobs and $1 trillion in GDP by 2050 (and it's probably a conservative estimate since it doesn't cover international trade). That's essentially a 4/5ths scale great recession, and it only takes into account one facet of climate change. But yeah, I'm sure you don't have anything to worry about.
Translation: people don't know what La Nina is, how statistics work.
Average of 1.5*C change? I'd be more concerned about running out of food, land, and clean air and water. Then bees, renewable energy, garbage, and treatment resistant diseases.CptJSparrow
Like, half the things you just listed will be directly impacted by the climate change resulting from that 1.5C change (and generally not in a good way).
The base graph comes from the IPCC reports. The observed data comes from NASA satellites.
[QUOTE="Slow_Show"]Whoever put that graph together doesn't know what mean, err, means.
Which has nothing to do with what I said. C'mon hokie, make an effort here.
Interesting graph showing how off the IPCC predictions have been:
Whoever put that graph together doesn't know what mean, err, means.
Log in to comment