In my opinion,I think,global warning is of the weather shifting from place to place.The warmer states will become cooler which our cooler states will get warmer.Am I right on that?

Note: You will be prompted to set up an account once done with your message

You have probably heard that the scientific consensus is that global warming is happening and it will cause very bad things to happen in the near future.

At the same time, you may have also heard that thanks to this "consensus" of "everyone", we should consider "global warming denial" similar to Holocaust denial and shut people up who are trying to say it's not happening.

This raises a huge red flag in my mind.

When is it that you tell your significant other or child to "shut up"? Is it not when you have a sneaking suspicion that they are right, and that you don't want to hear it?

It's the same here. Suppressing any speech is a dangerous game. If your case is accurate, there's no question that you will gain your best traction against your enemies if you can meet them in intellectual battle and defend your side.

If you are trying to suppress speech, that means you don't think you can win an argument against your opponents. That makes your case look pretty weak.

Often people "argue to authority" - Person X is against global warming, you should be too. Or they argue based on people's perceptions - Oil companies are funding research to pooh-pooh global warming, you should contribute to us so our vital work against global warming happens.

But there are plenty of eminent scientists who do not agree with the publicity-driven consensus. And many scientists say that the topic is sensationalized beyond belief. You might also want to consider that environmentalist-funded research is just as likely to say that global warming is a problem than oil company research is to say it's not. In other words, both sides are interest groups and they are both advertising their cases. Nothing wrong with that, but listening to both sides, instead of blinding your ears to one of them, is the best way to learn the truth.

One thing that really makes me upset, and has caused me to write on this subject, is that people who write on global warming don't say that weather is a tradeoff. Global warming probably means better weather in most densely populated parts of the USA.

One account I read said that a consequence of global warming would be for Boston's climate to be the same as South Carolina's is today. It seems surprising that the person who wrote that didn't sit back and say "Wait, hold on a minute, I'll bet most people in Boston would RATHER it be that way!"

I grew up in Boston and never want to return to that frigid wasteland again!

There was another article I read about the impact of global warming in New York. It said summer temperatures would be warmer. It forgot to mention the warmer winters, which would probably please many New Yorkers. Likewise, it mentioned higher air conditioning bills, but said more electricity would still be used - there would be little offset during the winter season.

Why? The article did not address this question, but I know the answer. Of course this is because we don't normally use electricity to heat, we use oil and natural gas. So you will have much lower gas bills and higher electricity bills, something I suspect the average Northeastern household would be just fine with.

My personal research indicates that it's most likely that solar activity cycles are what determine the overall climate, not greenhouse gases. We are in a lowering period of sunspot activity, which may mean colder weather in the future.

Finally, I should admit that there are reasons conserving energy is a good idea. Fossil fuels are getting more expensive due to higher demand, and the way to decrease that expense is to use them more intelligently and efficiently. But I don't think we should go into a panic about global warming until we know for certain what's happening to our planet, and whether the new warmer world (if it even exists) is good or bad for us.

Future developments like the all-electric Tesla Roadster are already appearing to make fossil fuel dependency a thing of the past. There are going to be a lot of stumbles in this research area, but rest assured that a revolution in energy use is on its way through this and other projects. They will take a while to become mainstream, but the work is already being started.

I recommend the book "Cool It" by Bjorn Lomborg if you're interested in learning more. He specifically names programs that are endangered by the extremely high spending on global warming, which would serve real problems.

D

Note: You will be prompted to set up an account once done with your message

It is clear that someone of some country are controlling the weather, to make no cost to reduce the smoking and no panic. It is legal?
I think, the big money is not correctly distributed, why I get no pay to do? I need cash-pay firstly, then I can do sonething.

Note: You will be prompted to set up an account once done with your message

I told you about several areas around the planet experiencing record cold and snowpack — in the face of all the predictions of global warming.

Now there is word that all four major global temperature tracking outlets have released data showing that temperatures have dropped significantly over the last year. California meteorologist Anthony Watts says the amount of cooling ranges from 65-hundredths of a degree Centigrade to 75-hundreds of a degree.

That is said to be a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years. It is reportedly the single fastest temperature change ever recorded — up or down.

Some scientists contend the cooling is the result of reduced solar activity — which they say is a larger driver of climate change than man-made greenhouse gases.

Note: You will be prompted to set up an account once done with your message

1. Life outside of the tropics is ALWAYS more pleasant when the temperatures are warmer. Therefore, global warming offers genuine benefits that are being ignored.

I know that in the Northeastern United States, the environment is extremely hostile to human life during the winter. Increasing temperatures even a few degrees in these frigid wastelands would be an enormous benefit. Likewise, we are seeing plant growth in formerly frozen Greenland, which obviously benefits everyone there.

Warmer weather saves lives overall, makes people happier overall, and causes people to exercise and become healthier. Cold weather creates bad moods in people. It also encourages bad joints, colds and ill health in general. It seems to me that ignoring the enormous benefits of warmer weather is irresponsible to the extreme.

The very reasonable question, then, is to find out how we can take these benefits and mitigate the bad news that environmentalists add to the headlines every day. This is just what Bjorn Lomborg says in his book, Cool It, and I believed it intuitively before I even read Lomborg. Actually, Lomborg still says that global warming has bad consequences but after reading his book I am puzzled as to why he doesn't want to encourage it, like I do.

2. Temperatures in the tropics are unlikely to change significantly as a result of global warming. Winter temperatures and nightime temperatures will be affected far more than daytime temperatures. So global warming in terms of temperature appears to be a win/win for all involved.

3. It is true that species will die out as the world gets warmer. But even a short visit to the tropics should show that the warmer the weather, the more diverse the living environment. If we wanted to maximize species diversity, there is only one thing to do: Heat the planet to a constant 80degF. Cold weather species will die out, and warm weather species will replace them with blinding speed. The net effect will be far more species and a more hospitable habitat for humans. Of course it's not possible because of how the climate system works, but it's still worth chewing over that fact: Warmer weather means more species diversity, more rainforests, etc.

4. I find it remarkable that whenever someone is interviewed about the impacts of perceived global warming in their community, it's always the negative side. "Business is way down in our ski resort because of warmer weather!" Why not interview the boating people? "Our season is months longer! Business is booming and people are buying new boats for the new longer season!" How about the swimming pool operators? "We have more people swimming and they all love it!"

5. We are being asked to perform huge sacrifices to prevent global warming, while paradoxically almost all of us will benefit from it. I see that as an act that seems remarkable for its stupidity and cluelessness.

6. Why not simply remove the melting ice before it impacts our sea levels? What if we simply took a bunch of tankers, filled them with antarctic ice, and brought it to Dubai to make a new lakeside real estate development? I know that sounds silly but it sounds a lot LESS silly than changing the cars we drive, frying in the summer and freezing in the winter, and so on. And the Dubai people would pay for it all - the good publicity would be worth billions, and the waterfront homes would start at a million dollars a unit. Everyone benefits!

In short, why are we wringing our hands when we should be looking at the economic opportunity all changes bring?

7. I am not a total troglodyte. I am all for reducing our dependency on fossil fuel energy for OTHER reasons, such as lowering dependency on Arab oil, reducing pollution and so on. I think projects like the Tesla Roadster are great ideas. But this change is not going to happen overnight, no matter what we do.

8. A reasonable review of the evidence would show that stopping global warming is impossible. We are not going to be able to convince ourselves to lower our standard of living that much. Note that Kyoto has been fudged by every single country that signed it, and per Lomborg Kyoto would only postpone our evil future by a couple of years.

I think that we should accept that global warming will happen, and as problems occur due to it, we should take a small fraction of the money we were going to spend on Kyoto, and use it to solve those problems. In other words, I'm sold on the Lomborg book's premise.

Or will it? I've just read a new article that suggests decreasing solar activity might cause a new ice age. Can we all agree that would be a bad thing?

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm

Maybe we shouldn't give up those SUVs just yet.

Your thoughts?

D

Note: You will be prompted to set up an account once done with your message