What Global Warming?

[ExcitableBoy]

As for temperature uncertainties, Ed, you ask great questions. I am not privy to the algorithms used to extrapolate temperature between points.

What I do know, is that short of putting thermometers some impracticably short distance apart, it seems virtually impossible to know for sure what the temperature is doing around the world. Even then, if somehow I could prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that the global mean temperature has risen by a half of a degree, it still wouldn't matter because I wouldn't have proven the cause of the rise in temp.

What I do know, however, is that in one of those wonderful 'mistakes' that science sometimes makes, we have monitored the CO2 levels on top of Mauna Loa for about 40 some years now. The graph is shown here: tinyurl.com/2pladv.

On top of a mountain, in the middle of an ocean--about as far away from human influence as you can get--CO2 levels have been rising, even after seasonal variations.

Again, I can't say with any certainty that human activity caused this increase. Just as you can't say with any certainty that human activity didn't cause the increase. But what do we lose if we make real efforts to cut down our contribution to the problem/natural phenomenon?

[EasyEd]

Responding to some of ExcitableBoy's comments.

Yes, I did restrict my comments on deaths from nuclear accidents to those that were domestic (none). However, expanding it to international deaths still yields, I believe, a very small number when compared to deaths associated with oil, gas and coal mining, processing and transport. And, yes, I did react to the earthquake in Japan and the nuclear plant with "gee I hope it's not too serious", just as I reacted today with the mine accident in Utah? and the bridge collapse in Minnesota.

The American supersonic transport did not die because it failed commercially. It died circa 1960 because environmentalists had it killed. I know this from personal experience because, at the time I had a job offer from Boeing who had the initial contract for the SST.

I did not demonize the scientific profession but attempted to show that, because they have cried wolf so many times and often these turned out to be lambs, I am suspicious (maybe leery is a better word) and don't necessarily take what they say at face value. My suspicion is not confined to the scientific community as it extends also to politicians of both parties and the media. We seem to go from one "crisis" to another. Today it's a crisis of infrastructure, yesterday it was health care, the day before it was education, before that, mad-cow disease, and so on.

[hifigator]

(in response to easyed) excitableboy wrote:

You've also heard the "dangers" of smog because they're real. I assume you do not live in Beijing or Mexico City or some other equally polluted city, where even the biggest science skeptic would recognize their persistent hacking cough that magically seems to go away when out of the city. I don't need science to tell me that I don't want to live my life in that type of environment.

You also mention the “dangers” of the flu. Maybe you remember the Spanish flu in 1918/1919? Were the scientists wrong about that? Or does it not count because they're now talking about a different type of flu?

Let me ask you: what was your initial, gut reaction when you first heard reports that the recent earthquake in Japan caused a leak of nuclear waste? Was it that since the scientists were wrong about domestic deaths, that the waste probably wasn't all that dangerous? Or was it "gee, I hope it's not too serious"?

If you had any of the latter, I would seriously hope you could at least recognize this irony. What you lambaste scientists for doing (studying theoreticals, often ad nausea, to know how they will affect us and our environment), you do so because there simply haven't been chances for you to need their expertise.

(Also, supersonic air travel failed commercially, and there was a fairly large oil spill just this past year. I'm not sure how either of these reflect poorly on scientists.)

I’m not trying to say that scientists get it right all of the time. Indeed, skepticism is a very healthy trait. But what I simply do not understand is how you can dismiss a profession because you’ve been warned of a potential danger that you personally have not witnessed.


I think you make some good points and miss on some others.


You've also heard the "dangers" of smog because they're real. I assume you do not live in Beijing or Mexico City or some other equally polluted city, where even the biggest science skeptic would recognize their persistent hacking cough that magically seems to go away when out of the city. I don't need science to tell me that I don't want to live my life in that type of environment,

I wholeheartedly agree on this one. I was fortunate enough to win a trip to the 84 summer Olympics in Los Angeles. I had never been to California. Every single night when I laid down, I would start caughing and it pretty much continued all night. And no, we weren't at some dirty hotel. They put us up at a fairly nice hotel by Disneyland. While we were there we rented a car and drove to see some of the sights. One in particular sticks out in my mind. We went along McMullenbooth Road, which is where the famous "inspiration point" is located. For those unfamiliar, it is a winding road in the hills north of the metropolitan area. On the eastern edge, you can see the Freeway that runs north to San Bernadino I think. To the south you see LA in the distance. I remember saying something about it getting ready to storm. There was literally this black cloud over the city. I had never seen something like that, but my dad told me no, that was just smog. Putting two and two together led me to believe that my nightly caughing must be related to the smog. The fact that it continued everyday we were there and disappeared as soon as we left reassured me that was the case. Incidentally it was even more noticeable from the air. My dad is a pilot and we rented a plane and flew up the coast. We saw Pepperdine University from over the ocean and it was beautiful. But we also saw that ominous cloud hanging over the city. It is not a pretty sight.


You also mention the “dangers” of the flu. Maybe you remember the Spanish flu in 1918/1919? Were the scientists wrong about that? Or does it not count because they're now talking about a different type of flu?

I don't think ed ever said or implied that no epidemic ever happened, just that in the interest of safety we tend to jump the gun so to speak. I'm not saying that is necessarily a bad thing, but in any case it is valid to point out the numerous times where the impending epidemic never materialized.


Also, supersonic air travel failed commercially, and there was a fairly large oil spill just this past year. I'm not sure how either of these reflect poorly on scientists.)

I will mostly defer to you all since this was before my time. But I have read numerous articles on projects of this sort which were derailed by pseudo-political motivation. I am inclined to side with ed on this one, but in all honesty, I don't have enough information on this specific issue.



I’m not trying to say that scientists get it right all of the time. Indeed, skepticism is a very healthy trait. But what I simply do not understand is how you can dismiss a profession because you’ve been warned of a potential danger that you personally have not witnessed.

I think you confuse two different points here. Yes, skepticism is a good thing and as you suggest encourages further analysis. But I didn't see ed dismiss the entire profession. In fact I saw him respond in the positive way by questioning the presumption of fact.

Lastly, like I have said numerous times, I think being aware of potential dangers and specifically potential changes to the worldly climate due to our actions is both prudent and wise. Accordingly, responding with those potential effects in mind is as well.

[Coast2CoastHoya]

Here's a fun article from Newsweek:
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20122975/site/newsweek/

Now, considering it was our friends at Newsweek that came out with the global cooling scare article in 1975, and also that it's completely biased, I'm not posting this piece as an endorsement of it.

The article does, however, touch on some very interesting socio-political points that seem to have come up a whole lot in this thread ....

[hifigator]

I didn't have the time or the patience to read the whole article. I read the first 2 and a half pages. The writer clearly has an agenda, not that that is inherently a bad thing. The problem however is EXACTLY what I said before. There is a presumption of accuracy of one side from one side of the argument. Then anyone offerring a different opinion is categorized as being paid off. I don't doubt that there are interested parties who want the research to show their desired outcome but to act as if that is only a one way street is false. Once again, when history shows us sustained periods of higher temperatures than the unseasonably high temperatures we are seeing now over an admittedly infinitesimal scale, it calls into question whether or not we are the cause. It doesn't refute it, but to act as if the case is closed is every bit as wrong as denying that global warming is a possibility. That is all I am saying and this very article confirms my very point. The issue is being politicized with each side blaming the other.

All of that being said, I have zero problem exploring ways to reduce fuel dependency, increase efficiency and decrease emissions. I am all for that.

[hifigator]

One more thing:

The point about the temperatures being higher because of civilization is certainly not some right wing pipe dream. The growth of cement and other pavements as well as the overall increase in population must have an effect mustn't it? I am not saying that is a good thing or that the warming is fine since that is the cause, just simply that that is a fact. There is no denying that much.

[EasyEd]

I'd like someone to count the number of times the term "denial machine" is used, along with "climate naysayers" and "greenhouse deniers". How can any magazine allow such a slanted article to appear under its cover?

[EasyEd]

My fourth (and longest) post on why I do not believe man is causing global warming. The first three addressed my suspicion of scientists, the apparent intimidation of any who dared to disagree with the "consensus", and thoughts on the large uncertainties in the measurement and interpretation of temperatures over the entire earth. This post will address the "models" used to predict future earth temperatures.

At the outset let me state I have absolutely no knowledge of the "models" used by scientists to predict change in temperature and their impact on such things as water levels in the oceans. I do, however, have education and significant work experience in thermodynamics and aerodynamics.

If I were a scientist (or weatherman) trying to predict tomorrow's high temperature in Washington, I would gather data for the last 12-72 hours on the weather (atmospheric pressure, temperature, winds, direction of movement, humidity, etc.) in areas where movement suggested it might approach Washington tomorrow. I then might use computer models to predict how heat might disperse and transfer in the presence of pressure and temperature gradients for the Washington area tomorrow. This would be a sample of what is a micro-model. Then, if I predicted a high of 98 degrees and it turned out to be 96 or 101 degrees, I would be satisfied with my prediction. A two or three degree error margin would certainly be acceptable.

Now, if I were to try to predict how greenhouse gases might effect the temperature over the entire earth over the next decade or century, a micro-model would be out of the question so I would have to resort to some sort of macro-model. I don't know what macro-models scientists use but it might be one where an assumption is made that, all things being equal (unrealistic), what would be the effect of, say, X-percent change in CO2 (for instance)? This effect would have to be predicted based on real (uncontrolled) or lab (controlled) measurements where the level of CO2 was known to have changed or controlled and the temperature measured over a period of time, all of this empirical treatment combined with some theories as to the effect. I can't imagine how such (or similar) models could be capable of accurately predicting average earth temperature changes over the next decade or century when we can't accurately predict tomorrow's temperature.

The way the scientific method usually proceeds is to check the predicted results with actual "measured" values (as integrated over the entire earth through some questionable methods) and, then, to "adjust" their models (usually through constants in equations) for the uncertainties present. Another way to describe this process is that scientists force measurements to agree with their theory. An example: I read somewhere (don't remember where) that the models had predicted a 2.5 or 3.5 degree C change over a certain period of time but the actual "measured" results were only 0.7 degrees C (or thereabouts). In other words the model missed by a factor of 3-5. My guess is they have now "adjusted" their models to account for this - they have forced the data into the theory (model), rather than saying that, perhaps, the model is not reflective of reality.

I repeat, I do not know what models are being used and this is merely an attempt to illustrate the difficulty involved and to show there is bound to be a large degree of uncertainty (error band) in predicting average earth temperatures over the next decade or century.

[Coast2CoastHoya]

I'm going to split this into three posts (to pad my count and get closer to Golden Hoya, of course )

Climate Change Forum
SirSaxa and interested others: without further ado, here are the materials from the climate change forum I attended two Fridays ago. I figured it better to give you guys the source documents rather than my feeble attempt to paraphrase them. The links within the page will take you to pdf files of the presentations that were given during the forum:

www.climate.noaa.gov/index.jsp?pg=./news/news_index.jsp&news=events/7-27-2007-agenda.html

I agree with your political analysis as well.

[Coast2CoastHoya]

Response to easyed
Easyed, your points and your positions are yours to have; i have no problem with that and have never - nor will ever - tell you to "shut up," despite that i disagree with many of your predicates and conclusions. I hope my style of discourse didn't give you that impression, but if it did, i apologize. I think skepticism is healthy and welcome because it discourages unproductive groupthink while encouraging more accuracy in data and analysis - something we could use a lot more of on any political issue facing this country. Stigmatizing an opposing view is not helpful, and if and where i've done that, i retract.

Taking things back to their origin, easyed wrote: "eems like the 'consensus' is falling apart." Whether this was tongue-in-cheek or not, we've since been arguing about whether the consensus is correct, not whether it's falling apart or not. Regardless of whether the consensus is correct, the "consensus" it not falling apart; on the contrary, it has never been stronger, and is backed up by better science, more minds and leaders in more disciplines, and more national and global public support than ever before. You are right about margins of error, latent uncertainty, and previous errors. In light of that, what do you think is the prudent course of action?

Ultimately, we simply seem to disagree at a fundamental level about whether humanity is causing the temperature of the earth to increase, and whether an increase in earth's temperature can or will cause the climate to change. Fair enough. I won't quarrel with you on that anymore, and i'm glad we finally know why you believe what you believe.

[Coast2CoastHoya]

At the outset, I'm glad we're having this discussion. How many other forums out there allow folks from this many perspectives to speak so openly on this issue with each other? I honestly feel smarter just reading what you all are writing. Too often we get stuck in our own social and professional circles, which I think leads to the same kind of "intellectual inbreeding" that leads to disastrous policy decisions: liberal, conservative, and moderate.

So, onto a more practical matter:
Based on the fundamental disagreement underlying this thread and as highlighted by the thrust of the Newsweek article posted above, we seem to - as a result - also disagree about whether anything is happening and whether anything can or should be done. I think that's a bigger issue. I think the climate is changing and I think that things can and should be done.

Like hifi says, we lose nothing (and may stand to gain quite a bit) by operating under the assumption that humans are causing climate change. I think one reason is because it can facilitate our evolution to a better society: one that produces energy more cleanly, reduces waste, recognizes that ecosystem functions don't stop at political boundaries, gets us to an understanding that healthy economies, healthy communities, and healthy ecosystems are inextricably linked, and (slightly Ameri-centrically) can help spur the kind of innovation that's made this country great many times over (innovation, according to the Wall Street Journal, the lack of which is hurting America's economy).

Like sirsaxa and sfhoya99 have pointed out, it would behoove us, where there may be uncertainty, to operate under the precautionary principle for many of the same reasons, not the least of which being that a conservative approach to the use of natural resources is a better long-term strategy for national security, economic prosperity, and the health and welfare of communities and individuals.

easyed, you seem to be an advocate of doing nothing - and correct me if I'm wrong - because you're not convinced anything is happening.

We know (without getting into causality or temperature) that sea levels are and have been rising, erosion is increasing, island nations are sinking beneath the waves (a few even have total population evacuation plans), alaskan native communities are being forced to move, galciers are receeding rapidly, artic icepack is melting, antarctic ice shelves are breaking apart, permafrost in asia and north america is melting, plant and animal species are shifting their ranges and habitats, observed extreme weather events (droughts, floods, storms, etc.) have increased in frequency and severity, and fresh water is being inundated by salt water (like in So Cal and Bangladesh) or drying up (like in the arid West, Africa, and other places). In a geological timescale, none of this is cause for doomsday predictions or great alarm because it's part of the great path of planetary change. In a human timescale, though, these changes are cause for great consideration because they're happening (a) faster than we've ever seen, (b) in unpredicable ways, and (c) in ways that effect the very foundations of societies and economies.

The growing human population puts more pressure on nature, and consequently more people at risk as nature adjusts to deal with the pressure. People's lives are being negatively affected and the best data points toward a continuation of this trend: not in the future, right now. I think responsible governance means doing something to address that - not in a knee-jerk short-term solution, reactive kind of way, but in a proactive, constructive, ecologically sound way. Proactivity requires good planning, and planning requires good, multi-disciplinary data and analysis, public awareness of the facts, range of alternatives, and projected impacts of each alternative, and strong leadership that facilitates the establishment of priorities and implementation of decisions.

In order to get there, the issue needs to be made a national priority backed by a president and Congress aware of its ins-and-outs and committed to its resolution, without an agenda and without a preconceived notion of how we "want" the objective, raw data to shake out.

Ultimately, and in my opinion, it's high time we started working with the earth and not against it. It is the greatest hubris to think we can continue to live and work without regard to the impacts upon the natural processes, products, and services which our lives, societies, and economies are based.

[hifigator]

tothebeach said:

At the outset, I'm glad we're having this discussion. How many other forums out there allow folks from this many perspectives to speak so openly on this issue with each other? I honestly feel smarter just reading what you all are writing. Too often we get stuck in our own social and professional circles, which I think leads to the same kind of "intellectual inbreeding" that leads to disastrous policy decisions: liberal, conservative, and moderate.

So, onto a more practical matter:
Based on the fundamental disagreement underlying this thread and as highlighted by the thrust of the Newsweek article posted above, we seem to - as a result - also disagree about whether anything is happening and whether anything can or should be done. I think that's a bigger issue. I think the climate is changing and I think that things can and should be done.

Like hifi says, we lose nothing (and may stand to gain quite a bit) by operating under the assumption that humans are causing climate change. I think one reason is because it can facilitate our evolution to a better society: one that produces energy more cleanly, reduces waste, recognizes that ecosystem functions don't stop at political boundaries, gets us to an understanding that healthy economies, healthy communities, and healthy ecosystems are inextricably linked, and (slightly Ameri-centrically) can help spur the kind of innovation that's made this country great many times over (innovation, according to the Wall Street Journal, the lack of which is hurting America's economy).

Like sirsaxa and sfhoya99 have pointed out, it would behoove us, where there may be uncertainty, to operate under the precautionary principle for many of the same reasons, not the least of which being that a conservative approach to the use of natural resources is a better long-term strategy for national security, economic prosperity, and the health and welfare of communities and individuals.

easyed, you seem to be an advocate of doing nothing - and correct me if I'm wrong - because you're not convinced anything is happening.

We know (without getting into causality or temperature) that sea levels are and have been rising, erosion is increasing, island nations are sinking beneath the waves (a few even have total population evacuation plans), alaskan native communities are being forced to move, galciers are receeding rapidly, artic icepack is melting, antarctic ice shelves are breaking apart, permafrost in asia and north america is melting, plant and animal species are shifting their ranges and habitats, observed extreme weather events (droughts, floods, storms, etc.) have increased in frequency and severity, and fresh water is being inundated by salt water (like in So Cal and Bangladesh) or drying up (like in the arid West, Africa, and other places). In a geological timescale, none of this is cause for doomsday predictions or great alarm because it's part of the great path of planetary change. In a human timescale, though, these changes are cause for great consideration because they're happening (a) faster than we've ever seen, (b) in unpredicable ways, and (c) in ways that effect the very foundations of societies and economies.

The growing human population puts more pressure on nature, and consequently more people at risk as nature adjusts to deal with the pressure. People's lives are being negatively affected and the best data points toward a continuation of this trend: not in the future, right now. I think responsible governance means doing something to address that - not in a knee-jerk short-term solution, reactive kind of way, but in a proactive, constructive, ecologically sound way. Proactivity requires good planning, and planning requires good, multi-disciplinary data and analysis, public awareness of the facts, range of alternatives, and projected impacts of each alternative, and strong leadership that facilitates the establishment of priorities and implementation of decisions.

In order to get there, the issue needs to be made a national priority backed by a president and Congress aware of its ins-and-outs and committed to its resolution, without an agenda and without a preconceived notion of how we "want" the objective, raw data to shake out.

Ultimately, and in my opinion, it's high time we started working with the earth and not against it. It is the greatest hubris to think we can continue to live and work without regard to the impacts upon the natural processes, products, and services which our lives, societies, and economies are based.

I think you make some good points, but I also think you neglect to consider a few others. With regards to actions, I think the easiest proper path is to start with areas in which we mostly all agree. Fuel efficiency for instance is better for "all" of us. Obviously "all" would exclude those at the top of the oil chains, at least in the short term, but essentially all of us benefit from better fuel efficiency. How do we get there? The two most obvious avenues would be greater efficiencies of the fuels we now use as well as development of those we don't currently use, or at least use is comparatively lesser amounts. I would think we would mostly all agree to this point.

Now how exactly do we do this? In the first case, the free market works very well, although not perfectly. I am at this very moment, trying to find a "beater" truck. I really want a 4 cylinder standard transmission small truck, like a Toyota or maybe an old Mazda B-2000. The point is that during the summer I drive between 60 and 70 miles a day at least several days a week, and the difference between $6 a day in gas and $13 a day in gas adds up pretty quickly. I am currently driving an 85 Toyota truck of a friend of mine. It looks like absolute crap. He hit a deer a couple of years ago, and the front is all dented. I kid you not, the hood is held down by bungee cords and one chain. It has random dents and scratches all over it and the tailgate doesn't even open. Oh, and by the way it doesn't have a/c, and it is routinely 100 degrees down here daily right now. I don't say this to pat myself on the back however, I am merely driving it because gas is so damn expensive. The point is that the free market is working in this case. I certainly wouldn't be driving that truck if gas wasn't so expensive. And like I said at the beginning, I am looking as we speak for a very similar truck with a working a/c.

Now the question is how do we encourage greater efficiency in vehicles? As the illustration above suggests, higher gas prices will encourage some to seek more efficient transportation. But it is a bit silly to think that raising the price of gas or taxing it more is a "good thing" from that standpoint. Yet, that is a prevailing mentality among certain free thinkers. Some of these actually believe that if you make driving enough of a nuisance, then people will forego their car and choose other means of transportation, whether it be walking, biking or taking a bus. We currently have a city commissioner who has said that very thing straight up. I'm sorry, but that is a kooky idea. Here in Gainesville, we have the highest gas taxes in the state, but mostly what she was talking about was restricting traffic. She really has this goofy idea that if we narrow a bunch of roads and replace normal parking with inconvenient parking garages, that more people will walk or ride the bus. Enough on that issue.


The second issue is the development of alternative fuels. This is an area with tremendous potential in my mind. Biodiesel energy is virtually completely untapped. If we can turn what is essentially waste into an energy source then we have killed two birds with one stone. But like any new venture, the start up costs and the expenses in research and development are prohibitive. I don't think that getting the cars to the market at a fair price is the real issue, but rather the fuel. Right now there isn't a supply of fuel so the car makers are totally uninterested in creating a vehicle with little or no demand. Accordingly, companies are hesitant to sink their money into developing products which have little or no users aka demand. In this case, I think it might be worthwhile for the government to step in with some form of subsidy, tax credits or other financial incentives to spur development in the fiels. Incidentally, that last statement goes against my general view of govenment, so it illustrates how serious I think this issue is on the grand scale of things.

What I have described avoids political boundries and further unites us all in similar thought. The fact that it would also unite to a degree the global warming crowd with the skeptics is either icing on the cake or a slight side effect, depending on your point of view. I think this is a far more productive approach than the "sky is falling" fear tactic which the global warming crowd is currently trumpeting.

[Deleted]

Hifi drives a beater. Shocking.

[Coast2CoastHoya]

Hahaha, classic Cam.

hifi, of course I neglected to mention some things. I agree with all of your points except the nuisance one: one of the reasons I don't have a car is that it's too expensive and too much of a pain in DC.

I especially agree with your last two paragraphs.

[hifigator]

tothebeach said:

Hahaha, classic Cam.

hifi, of course I neglected to mention some things. I agree with all of your points except the nuisance one: one of the reasons I don't have a car is that it's too expensive and too much of a pain in DC.

I especially agree with your last two paragraphs.

I am not much of a fan of big cities in general. Granted I have never lived in one, but I have visited many of them many times. When I was in Los Angeles, what I noticed (other than the smog) was that it took an hour to go or return from ANYWHERE. They had greyhound buses to take us from the hotel to whatever event we were going to. They would start a movie on the ride there and then finish it on the ride back. I think we always had time to finish whatever movie they were showing. Because of the nature of the trip, I didn't really get the entire LA experience, but I can do without everything I did see.

I have been to Atlanta many times and in spite of the fun activities I have enjoyed, the town leaves a lot to be desired. Again it takes an hour to go anywhere. That is one of the running jokes with a good friend who lives "in" Atlanta. Whenever we go up and stay with him, it still takes an hour to do anything. Georgia Dome ... an hour away. Buckhead ... an hour away. The airport .... an hour away. To get out of Atlanta (on the way to Knoxville for example) ... an hour away. I can do without that.

Miami, New Orleans, New York .. you can have them all.

I did enjoy Washington D.C. but in fairness I was only 13 and 14 the two summers I was up there.

Right now the only "big" city I really like is Las Vegas. Not surprisingly, it is the only big city that I have been to that sitting in traffic for a couple of hours a day isn't the norm.

[EasyEd]

Just heard on the radio that NASA has admitted new errors in their temperature measurements and now 1934 is listed as the hottest year on record and 4 of the hottest 10 years were in the 1930s. The only link I have found is
www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1878524/posts
but the embedded links for the full story haven't worked for me yet.

Wonder what this means to arguments on global warming.

[hifigator]

ed said:

Just heard on the radio that NASA has admitted new errors in their temperature measurements and now 1934 is listed as the hottest year on record and 4 of the hottest 10 years were in the 1930s. The only link I have found is
www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1878524/posts
but the embedded links for the full story haven't worked for me yet.

Wonder what this means to arguments on global warming.

Now, now ed, stop clouding the issue with facts! We are the cause of global warming. We are being wasteful in our gas guzzling SUVs and by keeping our thermostat at 68 degrees. We must increase gas taxes tremendously and really penalize those who drive or else the planet will explode. We must do this now!


Sarcasm brought to you as a public service announcement by none other than HiFiGator.

[Filo]

hifigator said:

ed said:

Just heard on the radio that NASA has admitted new errors in their temperature measurements and now 1934 is listed as the hottest year on record and 4 of the hottest 10 years were in the 1930s. The only link I have found is
www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1878524/posts
but the embedded links for the full story haven't worked for me yet.

Wonder what this means to arguments on global warming.

Now, now ed, stop clouding the issue with facts! We are the cause of global warming. We are being wasteful in our gas guzzling SUVs and by keeping our thermostat at 68 degrees. We must increase gas taxes tremendously and really penalize those who drive or else the planet will explode. We must do this now!


Sarcasm brought to you as a public service announcement by none other than HiFiGator.

There have been actual mistakes made in a developing theory. Here we now have tangible proof that any theory positing that global warming is occurring is now completely and utterly wrong.

Sarcasm right back at you, HiFi.

By the way, HiFi, you should visit Manhattan. It doesn't take an hour to get anywhere -- you can do everything and see everything just by walking and cabbing.

[Coast2CoastHoya]

Manhattan ... and San Diego, DC, San Fran, Denver ...

[hifigator]

tothebeach said:

Manhattan ... and San Diego, DC, San Fran, Denver ...

I already said that I enjoyed D.C., but in all honesty I haven't been there since I was a kid. I've never been to any of those other cities. Actually, I have been to New York a couple of times, but I never really paid too much attention as to exactly what part of New York, so I might have been to Manhattan.

One town that I really do want to visit however is Austin. I have heard so many great things about it. I know it's not LA or New York, but I still can't wait to try it out for taste.