fpb

The next person to mention "global warming" gets a thump right in the eye

Apr 06, 2008 07:15

It's snowing heavily under a driving wind. Winter is back, and according to the weatherman it will be around for the next few days.

personal disasters

Leave a comment

Comments 14

ani_bester April 6 2008, 06:54:21 UTC
You need a little Al Gore to throw snowballs at *L*

Reply

fpb April 6 2008, 06:55:45 UTC
Terrific idea. With a Gordon Brown doll to keep him company.

Reply


filialucis April 6 2008, 20:34:16 UTC
I remember back in the late '70s or early '80s some scientists were predicting that we were headed for a new ice age because of human influences on the global climate...

Reply

stigandnasty919 April 7 2008, 07:08:39 UTC
And they still are.... Global Warming is the simple-minded media term which everyone seems to use, Climate Change is much more accurate. The warming effects of greenhouse gasses could lead to a mini ice-age for the northern hemisphere, or at least northern europe, if enough fresh water is driven into the north atlantic that the gulf-stream is switched off. The mini-ice age in Northern Europe in the 16th century may be an example of a period of cold following a swift warming in climate.

As far a 'global warming' is concerned, more warming = more energy in the atmosphere = more extreme weather.

Reply

fpb April 7 2008, 07:36:15 UTC
Are you a scientist? Just curious.

Reply

stigandnasty919 April 7 2008, 09:23:25 UTC
I have a scientific/statistical background, but now work in financial Risk Management - more statistics.

I have read a lot on climate change, mainly to try to make some sort of sense of the terrible reporting on the subject in the media which simplifies everything down to sound bites. And also because I became interested when I helped a PhD student with his stats a few years ago. The process of accademic funding also has a lot to answer for here, but that is a subject for another day.

Truth is the only thing i've seen which most reputable scientists agree on is that man is having some impact on the climate, exactly what that impact will be and to what extent it will cause change seems to be less clear.

I would probably agree, generally, with Al Gore etc re. cleaning up our act regarding greenhouse gasses, which i'm guessing is not your position. (please excuse me if I am wrong) My reasoning being that since we are not totally sure what the impact on our climate of pollution will be it is better to be safe than sorry.

Reply


It's a conspiracy, man norwyn April 9 2008, 00:45:47 UTC
Personally, I would like to leave my carbon footprint on Al Gore's backside...

As a United Methodist, I believe that it is my obligation to be a good steward of the environment. Wesleyan social principles (as I oversimplify them) indicate that I need to leave as little mess as possible, and to make wise choices about what I use. Therefore, I try to conserve and recycle as I can, and not waste resources. Of course, social principles aside, growing up in a household where LIncoln cried out constantly from penny-pinchings, I learned to be careful about this sort of thing. We reused and reworked whatever we could to save money....and, oddly enough, the environment was not our main concern.

I agree that the greatest impact of the whole thing is not so much environmental, as it is political. The technology exists to reduce oil usage, but the "government conspiracy" just does not make the progression of alternate methods profitable.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up