@EmperorNero,
Okay then, let's argue global warming.
How about this for starters. As you probably know it's easier to put thermometers in the periphery of cities, where it is easy to get to them.
In the last centuries the cities grew into where these measuring stations are. Cities are warmer than the countryside, because among other factors pavement reflecting sunlight. Moving them would corrupt the data, so when the scientists get their measuring data, they subtract a arbitrary amount from the temperatures for now being warmed up by the city. They however have no idea what that number should be. It might well be that all the warming we measure can be accredited to this.
This is called the heat island effect. You can easily search for it on google. I would also encourage you to search something like "global warming myth" just to see see a few of those lists the opponents of the theory made. I also saw some fine posts
here.
Lastly, here is a highly interesting (
video) speech by Michael Crichton, that isn't directly about global warming, but about our human tendency to think the world is going to end because we think the future will be a linear continuation of today. He goes through like half a dozen similar doomsday scenarios that didn't happen. He makes this point: "Let's think back to people in 1900 in, say, New York. If they worried about people in 2000, what would they worry about? Probably: Where would people get enough horses? And what would they do about all the horseshit? Horse pollution was bad in 1900, think how much worse it would be a century later, with so many more people riding horses?"
As for your post:
Quote:Nero i would be only to happy to be convinced that global warming is not happening but in my opinion there is no doubt about it. To imagine that within ten to twenty years there will be no snow in the arctic is a frightening prospect. Even now the NW passage is navigable for longer and so much easier ,that is in itself a worrying trend.
I don't believe this is actually happening. You don't know whether the north west passage is actually navigable. I hear just as many stories about glaciers freezing. And as you surely know temperatures have been going down since 1998. This is just what people claim.
As for 'extreme' weather. The weather has always been 'extreme', it's just these days we hear about it all the time. And how could you really disprove that the weather is 'extreme'?
Quote:These events can not be ignored and to imagine it wont get worse is ignoring accepted scientific evidence.
I actually think we do ignore real environmental problems because of global warming alarmism.
It should not be ignored? Well, our cap and trade schemes can literally only make such a tiny difference, that they are completely meaningless. The number is so small that there ale like 10 zeros after the comma. That's how much of a percentage change on global warming we can make. I don't believe that anybody with expertise on this thinks this is going to help.
As for the scientific evidence, you can't judge that for yourself. You can only believe what "experts" are telling you. And claiming to have
consensus is a very suspect argument.
This is the heart of what I hate about the global warming theory. We believe the experts because we kind of interpret the scientific evidence to confirm that. But we can't really judge the scientific evidence, but we believe it because the scientists say so. So neither argument to believe in it is sufficient, but they sort off back each others. I don't have to be a logician to know that's begging the question.
Quote:Local differences and strange anomalies are not the trend but the usual variations we did not once consider. Cornwall in my lifetime , snow and frost was once quite common, it is now a very unusual occurrence. Vineyards are becoming the new crop and certain vegetables we could once grow are becoming a difficult crop to grow.
Now you are mixing the claims of people who try to sell you something (quite literally since you have to pay for global warming), with your own subjective observation. But the latter is pretty unreliable since we tend to confirm what we hear on the news. It's selective memory.
Quote:Sorry you will need to do more than tell me its an illusion created by interested parties.
It's not even that. They just claimed that everyone agrees with them and it's pretty hard to deny that.
Global warming opponents are not driven by big oil, if you think that, there are just as many corporations who would benefit from the legislation than there are those who wish to stop it. And the government is highly interested in the cap and trade revenue.
And a question I have recently been asking myself is what do the politicians care about saving the world. Are they not self-serving, short-term opportunists? So why do they care about saving the climate. And shouldn't they know their impact can't make a difference.
And should it really be the governments task to protect us from controversial and debated hypothetical problems by taxing us and limiting our freedoms?
