Quote: Originally Posted by smac972"El Niño and La Niña are officially defined as sustained sea surface temperature (external - login to view) anomalies of magnitude (external - login to view) greater than 0.5°C across the central tropical Pacific Ocean. When the condition is met for a period of less than five months, it is classified as El Niño or La Niña conditions; if the anomaly persists for five months or longer, it is classified as an El Niño or La Niña episode. Historically, it has occurred at irregular intervals of 2-7 years and has usually lasted one or two years."
Again, I'll state my case. Stephen "Opy" Harper and his crew of autobots finally had to acquiesce when the World's leading Scientists declared that there was absolutlely no doubt that global warming was attributed to none other than human activity. Finally, it seemed that those who profited from endangering the Earth could no longer put up red herrings, shut up and get to fixing things.
Yet, here we are saying things like, "Oh yeah? It was COLD this winter, so what about that?"
The answer is clear and well documented. This year the Earth was in an "El Nina" cycle which calls for colder winters.
Yay... both are spin terms to explain something they decided to invent up. When things get warmer they call it El Nino, and when it's colder it's La Nina.... both of which explains nothing but a name and a generic explination that things are going to be warmer or colder.
But once again.... what causes this? Go back to what I was explaining.... because this La Nina and El Nino crap is a waste of time and produces no results we can use to apply to real life.
What causes these effects to occur? When were these terms created and adopted for use?
Here allow me to get those answers:
"Causes of El Niño
The mechanisms which might cause an El Niño event are still being investigated. It is difficult to find patterns which may show causes or allow forecasts. As the phenomenon is located near the equator, events in both hemispheres may have an effect. As the weather events are somewhat chaotic, the onsets of El Nino-events may also be. This is not to say predicting is totally impossible."
Why is this still being investigated? Why is it hard to find patterns?
Because they don't know wtf they're talking about and relying on some cocked-up invention that doesn't exist..... just like Global Warming.
All offical reports in which I have read still classify El/La as theories still. Theories are not answers, let alone solutions.
And I didn't just claim "Oh but this winter is colder, so...."
as I explained my reasoning why I came to the conclusions I have. Heck if you want, I could even pin point the paticular hurricanes which had the effect to make this winter colder. I seem to know more of what's going on then these idiots getting paid because they're focusing on two "Theories"
as being the answers, which they're not... they're Theories.
It seems logical to me that global warming doesn't happen overnight and it's not going to instantly replace the Earth's weather patterns. Our weather will obviously fluctuate but what THOUSANDS of scientists agree on is that steadily as the Earth warms, our climate will change. Even Al gore that Nobel Prize for Science winning "fool" We are reaping what we are sowing.
Those thousands and thousands of scientists you like to use as a defense did not unanomously agreed
on Global Warming's existence.
In fact here's some ligit information as to why many still oppose the idea:
www.matchdoctor.com/blog_7997...STS_AGREE.html (external - login to view)
You, of course, have heard all of this before, and since it apparently has become branded as a partisan viewpoint, you like many others refuse to acknowledge it.
I have heard it all before, and I have acknowledged it for what it is.... pure tripe.
If you care to step outside that viewpoint, watch the Denial Machine, a Canadian documentary. (you can actually download it - go ahead - at the risk of having to change your mind) You may be surprised to discover that Big Oil hired a PR firm called APCO (who coincidentally worked very hard for Big Tobacco). APCO's job was to diminish the threat that Global Warming played. So, THEY coined the term "Climate Change"
So what's your point? That I'm an undercover tobacco guy trying to downplay global warming? Hardly. As I have explained before in other threads.... the original predictions of global warming back in the mid/late 80's didn't occur..... now 20 some years later.... all those predictions are back, only it'll occur in the next 20-50 years. Well what happened to the older predictions? You don't seem to hear about those, where apparently by the end of the 90's New York was supposed to be under several metres of ocean due to the ice caps melting.
That didn't happen. Oh but now it's certainly going to happen in another 20-50 years.... then it'll be another 100-130 years after that.... then where do they go?
What you'll also learn is that your biggest allies in this battle, that is, Big Oil, are well aware of the damage we're doing.
I agree that there are various levels of damage occuring to our planet based on fuels and other things we humans are creating and using..... but that's a different matter to the overall effect of the climate. I agree that seeking more environmentally friendly alternatives can't hurt but probably make things better.... so why not? What my concern is, is about their approach of fear mongering over something in which they created in their minds from a limited perspective of the entire situation and telling us the planets going to be destroyed or the end of the civilisation as we know it will occur if we don't do what they say.
Hell Gore is stll flying around in his private jets and burning more then his fair share of pollution. If he truly believed in what he was preaching, one would logically think he'd change his ways a little.
I mean look, let's say you and every other armchair scientist has grasoed the right straw and you're right. What's wrong with cleaning up our act anyhow? We're going to run out of oil. Our current means of power are heavy on pollutants. And investing in new science creates jobs.
I never said there wasn't anything wrong with improving things. I'm not a big oil/fossil fuel fan myself. I'll admit, I've been an environmental wing nut for most of my younger life, recycling long before it became manditory, etc..... I'm just PO'd about the approach. I'm tired of the fear mongering and BSing of the public by these people.
Then again, I suppose in the 80/90's nobody really listened to them before and not much changed, so perhaps their only logical tactic now is to scare the hell out of everybody. Sorry, but I fell for it once, I won't be fooled again.
Yet, despite the mountains of evidence supporting global warming, it seems there are still a very few that are sticking to their guns, largely for the sake of bravado. Along that line...there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Thanks for the verbal spar. Honestly, download that video.
Perhaps I will when I get home. I'm aware there wern't any WOMD in Iraq.... I also knew that long before they invaded. No evidence was provided to prove their case, no evidence was found afterwards..... just like this Global Warming stuff.
Seriously, I am not trying to downplay the enviroment's health and current status, and I am not a skeptic. I'm down right calling Global Warming Bull Shat because they pulled this stunt before and their predictions came out as blaitent lies. Since Gore made his little movie, now all of a sudden the entire world knows about Global Warming. What a hero.
They said in the late 80's (and I remember it well, because it scare the crap out of me as a kid) they had reports, studies and diagrams shown on TV, claiming that if we did not switch to electric cars, start recycling, cut our greenhouse gasses, start biodegrading and all that crap, by the late 90's (and they showed diagrams of the future) that most of the atlantic coast of north america would have submerged under 7 metres of water, that there would be drastic droughts, starvation, wars.... blah blah blah.
At the time I believed it.... now that time has past, and apparently we really haven't improved our ways, if not, we're even worse with our emissions today then before.
So how does that push their prediction up another 20-50 years from now? Would we logically have had it come our way much sooner and much worse?
Come on, even you have to admit something is up.
And besides all that, other scientists have studied samples from glaciers and determined timelines and heat/cold patterns through the last couple of thousand years. Guess what? Halfway through the Roman Empire's rule, they had tempratures on the planet which are even higher then what we have today.... so how does that work? Must have been burning down more villages and salting more lands then we do today I suppose.
Granted when you just look at the last 100 years, sure the planet appears to be warming.....
but look further back:
Now why do you suppose that Global Warming charts, graphs, reports, studies all seem to focus more on just the last century or so? How come they won't show you these bigger charts determined from glacial studies?
Probably because they know those blow the hell out of their theory of Global Warming, as you can see it's been hotter in the past then it is today, long before we started to pollute the snot out of the planet.