|
Post by kevin on May 31, 2007 7:13:05 GMT -5
Sure do...saw it on a movie the other day. Haven't experienced any personally lately though. Its so strange -- flooding elsewhere and drout here. Weird the way weather works.
Wasn't Korea accused of tampering with the weather somehow?
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Jun 1, 2007 17:42:39 GMT -5
Twista-
I didn't mean to give the impression that Luntz had anything to do with any of the focus groups. If that was the impression I left, then I phrased myself poorly.
That said, it is very possible that Luntz- who is a Republican pollster- might have convinced the Bush Administration to use the term 'climate change' rather than 'global warming', purpose unknown.
|
|
|
Post by Twista on Jun 2, 2007 0:19:55 GMT -5
Twista- I didn't mean to give the impression that Luntz had anything to do with any of the focus groups. If that was the impression I left, then I phrased myself poorly. I just have doubts that the Democrats would want to go with climate change rather than global warming. One would think that global warming has a more sinister and powerful sound, when picking descriptors for a political conflict... (Not that the Dems would ask my opinion... LOL) That said, it is very possible that Luntz- who is a Republican pollster- might have convinced the Bush Administration to use the term 'climate change' rather than 'global warming', purpose unknown. It's possible that climate change could be more accurate, considering for example, that warming could cause rising sea levels which may interrupt or change the flow of the gulf stream. This could result in cooling for northwestern Europe, while other areas of the world would be hotter. Or then again it could be the political angle. I tend to think that has a bit of validity, when comparing the wording of the present "climate change" page with the archived "global warming" page on the EPA site.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Jun 2, 2007 12:52:16 GMT -5
twista-
"Climate Change" is a much more accurate and therefore valid term to use than "global warming" and for the very reasons I've mentioned before:
It is virtually impossible to 'disprove' climate change because ther fact is that the climate does indeed change over great periods oftime (dramatically) and even over shorters spans (incrementally).
The task yet to be completed is to prove how much of an effect man's activities have on the process- if any- and what man can do to slow, stop or reverse the process- if any.
|
|
|
Post by Twista on Jun 4, 2007 2:46:23 GMT -5
"It is virtually impossible to 'disprove' climate change because ther fact is that the climate does indeed change over great periods oftime (dramatically) and even over shorters spans (incrementally)."
And it's especially hard to prove when them dam republicans keep moving the goal posts about what climate change is...
Just feeding their "business pig" friends and lining their own pockets, while ruining the world! Neocon!!!! (Because we all know that all the problems of the world are because of Republicans, and their shills, anyway...) Shill!!!! Heh heh, Gotcha last buddy! LOL
(I wonder if anyone will jump in here and "get me last" after I go off to bed... LOL) Good night and goodbye all!!!
|
|