The New Global Cooling Thread.

I still see a frightening amount of parallels between the Climate issues and the Lead issues some fifty years back... Thirty years of well-funded pseudoscience against an overwhelming majority of actual science finally took the majority of lead out of consumer products but it was one hell of an uphill battle. This is part of the reason why you need less politicians with "Law" degrees (Read: Professional bullshitters) and more scientifically literate people in positions of power.

Al Gore seems to be a stain on the scientific community just by virtue of a passing association. Personally, I'm one of those people who thought Al Gore's best contribution to the world was Voicework for Futurama, so I'm not in Manbearpig territory, I'm just in a very deliberate state of objective rational.

It's been an historic consistency that when you find large sums of money funding a tiny portion of global opinion taking an opposing consensus toward an academic majority, that opinion has invariably been false and self-serving. Meanwhile, if you take a step back to unfuck yourself and ask what kind of repercussions are we dealing with in both cases, you find that the only time in which negative outcomes are guaranteed is by simply doing nothing.

Climate change could be revealed as a hoax tomorrow and I'd still not feel dumb for believing it had existed. The circumstances of such a debunking would determine in what regard I still hold the scientific community though; bumbling climate-scientist virgins still looking for the G-spot of methodology, unfamiliar with the techniques needed to truly validate information objectively? Or deliberate falsification of facts for their own end? Which circumstances makes a difference.

But because the movement against Climate change (Especially in the plebes who just ingest the propaganda) is much like Religion, the argument against Climate change is shooting from the hip at best, and pissing directly into gale-force winds at worst. I'll take being wrong and rational over being right and a lucky moron any day.


Okay, I've fulfilled the "Page a day" rule for Friday. For those unfamiliar, it's the rule that if you ever wish to have a career writing anything, you should write(And read) at least a page a day. Doesn't matter what.

Global warming and Global Cooling will cancel each other out. Problem solved, needn't do anything.

"I agree with you -- in theory. In theory, communism works. In theory."

Well, besides the minor benefits like LA/Chicago/NYC being less smoggy (and who cares about those idiots, they deserve to live in smog cities)

You forgot Houston.

Houston isn't too bad though. It does have their smog days (so does SA, but at least we have advisory warnings, same as Houston) but it isn't as prevalent as the three above cities.

Once, maybe twice a year.

Houston isn't too bad though. It does have their smog days (so does SA, but at least we have advisory warnings, same as Houston) but it isn't as prevalent as the three above cities.

Once, maybe twice a year.

The American Lung Association disagrees with you sans CA...

What?

Historically Houston has had horrible pollution. In 2000 it was worse than L.A. and it is still in the top 10 cities with worse pollution in the US

Old articles
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/09/24/us/houston-smarting-economically-from-smog-searches-for-remedies.html
http://madmax.lmtonline.com/textarchives/102700/s25.htm

I'm not disagreeing with you. I just don't see smog in Houston often, if at all.

But then again, I don't look for it either. And the list points at specific sections (Baytown, Huntsville, Beaumont are all on the other side of town from where I come in from).

SA does have health advisories, and it's not often at all.

Ok.

I was born there, lived there through the 80's, and went back to visit family frequently in the 90's. I remember poor air quality.

Then there's the very visible pollution of the water ways around Houston/Beaumont area. Granted, the Sabine has been polluted since the Oil Boom. As for the Kemah Boardwalk and Galveston, fun times, but the water...

Then, you have the Trinity, which only gets worse the further south it flows. Even crossing the Trinity to go to Six Flags or the Forth Worth Zoo in DFW in the summers in the 80's and 90's, it had the sludgy look to match the smell that still permeates the air around it when temperatures reach God awful levels. Even passing over the Brazos on route to Houston, I have the passing thought that it may as well be a toss up as to which most resembles a miniature Mississippi.

Then there's the very visible pollution of the water ways around Houston/Beaumont area. Granted, the Sabine has been polluted since the Oil Boom. As for the Kemah Boardwalk and Galveston, fun times, but the water...

Then, you have the Trinity, which only gets worse the further south it flows. Even crossing the Trinity to go to Six Flags or the Forth Worth Zoo in DFW in the summers in the 80's and 90's, it had the sludgy look to match the smell that still permeates the air around it when temperatures reach God awful levels. Even passing over the Brazos on route to Houston, I have the passing thought that it may as well be a toss up as to which most resembles a miniature Mississippi.

Global cooling thread eh? I'll sit in here for a bit cause today is really hot *waits for the cooling effect of the thread*

Well, besides the minor benefits like LA/Chicago/NYC being less smoggy (and who cares about those idiots, they deserve to live in smog cities), how in the world will the US prevent global warming when it is developing countries like China who are the biggest contributors of pollution in the world....

Let's all destroy our lives and our economy to feel good about ourselves....yup, that's straight from the liberal playbook all right.

This implies that China is doing nothing about their emissions, which is flat-out not true. They've invested heavily in alternative energy, recently passed some regulations on coal, are experimenting with cap-and-trade programs in some of their cities, and are regular participants in climate talks.

Emission regulations and legislation will not "destroy our lives". Disrupt, potentially, but the alternative will very likely be worse. If the problem is warming spurred on by excess greenhouse gases, how is maintaining business as usual with regard to emissions somehow a solution? That's like saying the cure for this stab wound is more stab wounds.