In partnership with CBSSports.com
We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.
Where the madness isn't just in March.
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
No it was the dawning of a new ice age, then global warming and now it's just climate change...you know so that way no matter what happens they can say we told you so.
And it's all BS.
It is incorrect to say that scientists in the 1970s were predicting an ice age. There were opinion articles in Time and Newsweek that said this, but if you look at the vast majority of peer-reviewed literature from people conducting experiments, a warming trend was predicted. I have attached a peer-reviewed article highlighting this by analyzing all papers written during the time period.
You may run like Hayes, but you hit like $*!#
“A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”
"A survey completed last year (1974) by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972. "
Obsure socurces like the NOAA and National Academy of sciences were screaming ice age, but you have a peer reviewed article that disputes that.
Do you remember the newpaper and magazine articles, and evening news stories touting the coming ice age, back in the 70's, and quoting scientist after scientist who agreed? No, weren't alive then were you? But, you have a peer reviewed article that will explain to me what I remember and what really happened, did not happen.
I have no doubt you remember that people were saying that. I'm not saying they didn't. No one is saying they didn't. What I am saying, based on the above article, is that the vast majority of the scientists who were conducting experiments and publishing peer-reviewed literature were not warning of an ice age, but were rather predicting a warming trend. If 7 articles were published predicting cooling and over 40 were published predicting warming, it seems disingenuous to treat the 7 as gospel, ignore the 40+, and then state that all the scientists were predicting an ice age. It's simply not true.
And in 30 years when they are again predicting an ice age, you will reference this period and say that to state all scientist from this period believed in man made global warming simply is not true, and you will be right.
Absent the message board of today, but the same terms used today were used 40 years ago. "All Scientist now agree." "Almost all scientist agee."
I think you are right. It was a small number of scientists screaming ice age. The same as it is a small today screaming man made global warming.
How do you know that the previous cycle did not take longer than normal?
I don't know what you just said, but I support it.
"Nobody makes me bleed my own blood, nobody!"
It's climate change not global warming now. You really need to stay current with your liberal phrases, the Big O is going to be disappointed in you if you don't.
But I understand that you are probably more concerned, as I, that the damn weather is changing...sigh...it's the end of days.
No what sounds stupid is freaking out that the temperature is rising slightly...maybe. It was higher than this at points early this past century. There was a point in the Middle Ages where they were making wine in the British Isles not too far south of Scotland... can't do that now. There is plenty of evidence to suggest this is perfectly normal. Then there is the fact that in the last ten years it really hasn't warmed at all.
So you see this is all pretty retarded. I know it depresses libs to think that they may not be able to force their desired way of life, which few of them even live, on everyone else based on bull****. But that is exactly how this appears to be... complete and utter bull****. So go and sound the alarm about something else, because this looks like a whole lotta nothing.
Glad we have an understanding.
What exactly is it you're so mad about?
It's an awesome boogeyman, really.
This insistence that global warming is absolute fact and that everyone must agree that it is fact AND that since it absolute lt does exist it must, absolutely must, be caused by humans. Particularly humans that engage in business that requires a lot of industrial output which strangely are the same people that the left hates anyway.
So are you upset at the idea of trying to be greener 'cause you don't care to to be or that you think it would require you to spend money?
It's refreshing to know we can't predict the weather next week accurately, but know exactly what it will be in 50-100 years.
How are you saving the planet?
my dog gets mad at me because I leave her inside when its a 80% chance of rain and its beautiful all day. And occasionally there is a 0% or 10% chance and I leave her outside and it dumps on her. I should ask her what she thinks on this subject...she is as equally qualified as everyone else in this thread. She's a German Shepherd.
His car runs on love and good intentions.
Tracking macro trends is always easier then micro fluctuations. Duh
The best part is your Prius is destroying more of the ice cap than my truck.
But feel free to be condescending.
Looks like another perfect day.
There have been reports that the energy required to make a Prius and its residue it leaves in the production process, or what have you, is greater than that of an SUV and the use of the SUV.
That's all I know I am not that familiar with it I first heard about it a couple of years ago. But have never looked into it. It has something to do with the materials used to make it, specifically the motor I think. They are so energy intensive to produce that from creation thru a certain nuber of years or miles they are ultimately no better for saving energy than a Chevy Tahoe and may be a little worse.
Plus they are ugly.
That show sucks.
Like I said I am not that familiar with it so I am not going to vouch for it. But I personally haven't heard of anything debunking it so IDK.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports