the highest temperatures occurred in about 1940. during the past 20 years, atmospheric temperatures have actually tended to go down
the global-warming hypothesis predicts that global temperatures will rise significantly, indeed catastrophically, if atmospheric carbon dioxide rises.
most of the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide has occurred during the past 50 years, and the increase has continued during the past 20 years. yet there has been no significant increase in atmospheric temperature during those 50 years, and during the 20 years with the highest carbon dioxide levels, temperatures have decreased.
I think it's pretty obvious humans are fucking things up, ecosystems are constantly being destroyed or altered and the weather is far from immune to all of these changes. Additionally, increasing mortality rates arent helping things (despite all of these new diseases that seem to come springing up - flu variants, cancers, etc) so all in all I think were a doomed race.
We wont kill the planet, as far as history goes we are a speck of dust on the timeline - we'll just end up killing ourselves.
Updated: 8:10 a.m. ET Oct. 27, 2004
IOWA CITY, Iowa - The Bush administration is trying to stifle scientific evidence of the dangers of global warming in an effort to keep the public uninformed, a NASA scientist said Tuesday night.
“In my more than three decades in government, I have never seen anything approaching the degree to which information flow from scientists to the public has been screened and controlled as it is now,” James Hansen told a University of Iowa audience.
Hansen is director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York and has twice briefed a task force headed by Vice President Dick Cheney on global warming. He was also one of the first government scientists tasked with briefing congressional committees on the dangers of global warming, testifying as far back as the 1980s.
just a snippet of the latest flap,
reguarding the political flunky who's job was to edit the reports coming out of NASA....
do a little research though,
and you will find that most of the numbers Rush cites are all manufactured by hack Scientists to justify the Republican position.
Are we to assume that anyone who publishes a study that you disagree with is funded from a source that has ulterior motives, but the ones you agree with are funded from "objective sources"?