Not Cool

You're fishier than I am. You guys had a HEATWAVE in recent years, followed by a BLIZZARD which is proof of how funky the weather in general is getting.

And all the European cows dying of heatstroke? You do know there is a world outside of NYC, right?

:P

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

pega

Jun. 8th, 2004 05:45 pm (UTC)

A world outside of NYC? Where is this world? When did it come into being?

lol The heatwave lasted a total of 8 days. That does not constitute a trend. And we get blizzards every year.

I still say things are getting colder not warmer. But the effects will be just as dire....what if the ice cap covers all of canada? If that happens we'll have no one to blame for anything!

O:-)

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

elven_wolf

Jun. 8th, 2004 05:56 pm (UTC)

*facepalms*

Do you have any actual literature to support this global cooling thing of yours?

Ann Coulter doesn't count.

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

pega

Jun. 8th, 2004 06:01 pm (UTC)

Re: *facepalms*

lol None at all. I just like the argument ;)

In all honesty I have some scientific trouble with Global Warming. I think it's a definite possibility, I just don't think scientists have been keeping accurate records of weather trends for a long enough period of time to be able to say with any kind of certainty that this is not a normal shift in the weather patterns.

I am still open to the idea, but until I get more substantiation, I'm going with cooling, 'cuz I just like it better ;)

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

elven_wolf

Jun. 8th, 2004 06:18 pm (UTC)

Re: *facepalms*

I'm just with Global Warming because we ARE putting too much shit in the atmosphere that shouldn't be there, and it's doing more damage than the average person wants to think about. If they want to use GW as a reason to cut back on emisions, I'm all for it. But your argument about 'not enough data' is the same line BushCo pushes, just so they can use that as an excuse to keep rolling back the controls that were being put in place. Whichever theory ends up being the true one, do we really want that as the official stance of the highest consuming country in the world?

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

pega

Jun. 8th, 2004 06:24 pm (UTC)

Re: *facepalms*

I agree with limiting emissions, and I agree on Environmental Protections (most of them), but I think using Global Warming to further them actually decreases the chances of going through because there isn't enough data to support it. It erodes the environmental argument by giving reasons that aren't substantiated well enough.

Yes, the pollution and consumption rate need to be reduced, but find an argument that can be proved more easily then Global Warming. /soapbox ;)

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

elven_wolf

Jun. 8th, 2004 06:33 pm (UTC)

Re: *facepalms*

Well, GW is a kind of umbrella issue politically. Like BushCo's WMD's. They weren't real, but they got Shrubby his war.

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

pega

Jun. 8th, 2004 07:12 pm (UTC)

Re: *facepalms*

;)

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

pega