Global Warming Health Threat?

Discussion in 'Environment' started by Hayen Mill, Jun 15, 2009.

  1. Hayen Mill
    Offline

    Hayen Mill Rookie

    Joined:
    May 23, 2009
    Messages:
    30
    Thanks Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Ratings:
    +3
    GLOBAL WARMING HEALTH THREAT?

    What are your thoughts on this seeming contradiction?
     
  2. FactFinder
    Offline

    FactFinder VIP Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2009
    Messages:
    2,641
    Thanks Received:
    202
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +237
    There is no contradiction because they are just theories based on AGW theory that is all but totally debunked. In case you haven't been outside lately we are in a naturally occurring cyclical cooling period. No sunspots, low solar irradiance and low solar winds.

    See spaceweather.com

    Sunspot number: 0
    What is the sunspot number?
    Updated 15 Jun 2009

    Spotless Days
    Current Stretch: 3 days
    2009 total: 130 days (78%)
    Since 2004: 641 days
    Typical Solar Min: 485 days
    explanation | more info
    Updated 15 Jun 2009
     
  3. Oddball
    Offline

    Oddball BANNED Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    41,428
    Thanks Received:
    8,397
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
    Ratings:
    +8,409
    Total bunk.


    More people die from extreme cold than extreme heat.
     
  4. Hayen Mill
    Offline

    Hayen Mill Rookie

    Joined:
    May 23, 2009
    Messages:
    30
    Thanks Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Ratings:
    +3
    Yeah i was only assuming it was a contradiction by ASSUMING the actual threat of global warming to be true. However, i think this counts as a nice example of how often negative alarmistic news are more often talked about in the media rather than the "heat-may-not-kill-at-all " type of news.

    By the way, i've been in the skeptical GW scene for a while, and I was wondering if anyone knew any more very credible facts that come straight from scientific research, because all i've got so far is globalwarminghoax and globalwarmingswindle to go by, so a really down-to-earth website with the FACTS would be of great help. A relatively well known scientific website would do. Any help appreciated.
     
  5. k2skier
    Offline

    k2skier Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2009
    Messages:
    713
    Thanks Received:
    48
    Trophy Points:
    51
    Ratings:
    +50
    There are no credible sites that debunk GW because it isn't bunk, AGW "MAY" be but not GW, it's statistically a fact, we're warming, and the ice melting all over the world is first hand proof it's not bunk.
     
  6. Tech_Esq
    Offline

    Tech_Esq Sic Semper Tyrannis!

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2008
    Messages:
    4,408
    Thanks Received:
    558
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    Ratings:
    +558
    You're still buying that crap?

    Hey K2, wanna buy a bridge? It'll come in handy when those waters start to rise and all....:lol::lol::lol:
     
  7. Hayen Mill
    Offline

    Hayen Mill Rookie

    Joined:
    May 23, 2009
    Messages:
    30
    Thanks Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Ratings:
    +3
    apologies if i expressed myself correctly; i meant Anthropogenic/man-made Global Warming.

    By the way, there are some threads on this forum that show how some ice caps are not melting, but remaining stable or advancing, do you suppose these are the GW deniers?

    anyway, let me re-express my wish: a scientific website with scientific data that shows, or assumes that there is little chance human beings are actually causing this, either because temperature and CO2 are not cause-effect, but correlation, or because the measures proposed by Kyoto are impossible to accomplish anything, or any other FACT that can show and demonstrate humans should not be the first to blame after all, and we should look into every possible scenario before making assumptions and engaging in measures that will change lives.
     
  8. Oddball
    Offline

    Oddball BANNED Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    41,428
    Thanks Received:
    8,397
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
    Ratings:
    +8,409
    "Credible" as in credible to you.

    The latest statistics also show that the current temperature cycle peaked in '98, and that the last two years have cooled to the point that the increase has been nullified.
     
  9. k2skier
    Offline

    k2skier Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2009
    Messages:
    713
    Thanks Received:
    48
    Trophy Points:
    51
    Ratings:
    +50
    Credible to anyone that uses logic. Yes, there are some way off the deep end that spew the world is coming to an end, which is nothing more than fear mongering.

    Global warming controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    On April 29, 2008, environmental journalist Richard Littlemore revealed that a list of "500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares"[25] distributed by the Heartland Institute included at least 45 scientists who neither knew of their inclusion as "coauthors" of the article, nor agreed with its contents.[26] Many of the scientists asked the Heartland Institute to remove their names from the list.
     
  10. code1211
    Offline

    code1211 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2009
    Messages:
    5,999
    Thanks Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +845
    The problem with most sites is that they are mostly agenda driven. globalwarmingart.com is a good site that I think is actual a pro-AGW but one that presents data in graphic form and allows the viewer, even a scietific illiterate as myself to see what is being recorded in the way of data.

    I don't know of any unbiased sites beyond that one. Real climate is a bought and paid for shill for the CO2 is bad and Mankind is worse crowd and a site from the Universtity of West Virginia is a pretty slanted one in favor of CO2 being just one of the boys in an atmospheric gas sense.

    Just gather info and see what makes sense and what won't pass the smell test.
     

Share This Page