With all the talk nowadays of global warming and temperatures being higher than they have in 400 years (CBS news report this evening), there's a couple things I was hoping you could help me get straightened out first.

1 - When was the thermometer invented?
2 - Where did it become widespread?
3 - At what date were temperatures regularly recorded through out the world?

6/22/2006 6:39:55 PM

the first mercury thermometer was invented by Gabe Farenheit a few hundred years ago, if i recall

but i want to say da vinci or galileo or somebody made a cruder one earlier

not positive about the other questions without looking them up

6/22/2006 6:43:47 PM

There are ways to approximate the temperature of an area, outside of thermometers.

6/22/2006 6:44:36 PM

i can usually tell its between 32-212f or 0-100c if i see water in its liquid form

usually

6/22/2006 6:48:40 PM

We have accurate, detailed weather information back to the 1600's with other weather reports going back much further than that.

(And to answer your question the thermoscope was invented in the late 1500's and the thermometer in the early 1600's)

6/22/2006 6:54:39 PM

Alright, I guess I'll simmer back down.

But I still rest uneasy with this global warming guff.

6/22/2006 6:56:52 PM

i dont know if global warming is caused by humans or not

but i am pretty confident that it tends to get really hot in the summer in the southeastern united states

6/22/2006 6:58:58 PM

I bet you know better than the general consensus of scientists.

6/22/2006 6:59:12 PM

link to a primary reference that somehow quantifies the views of "the general consensus of scientists"?

hahah man i'm not even saying global warming is fake...im saying i dont know one way or the other...im sure scientists would hate me for being skeptical of both sides

or were you arguing that it doesnt usually get hot in the summer in the SE united states?

6/22/2006 7:01:36 PM

^^

S/he was directing that at me.

And I pursued a degree in physics for five semesters, I've got a good idea about that sort of stuff.

Though I need to brush up on it a bit.

[Edited on June 22, 2006 at 7:03 PM. Reason : .]

6/22/2006 7:03:04 PM

I don't know how to link to the news that was being reported today.

6/22/2006 7:03:49 PM

You know what we need?

ANOTHER WELL-INFORMED GLOBAL WARMING DISCUSSION!!1@

6/22/2006 7:05:17 PM

^^

Quote :

"link to a primary reference that somehow quantifies the views of "the general consensus of scientists"?"

primary reference /= news report

i'm talking about scientific journals...aka primary resources

6/22/2006 7:05:50 PM

Like the scientific journals and studies they talked about... IN THE NEWS REPORT?

6/22/2006 7:08:58 PM

yeah, the ones i asked you to post a link for...wheres the link

i can hear stuff on tv too and post about it without links and nobody cares

6/22/2006 7:09:55 PM

Quote :

"I don't know how to link to the news that was being reported today."

I'm convinced that you don't know anything about anything and just post to try to get a rise out of people.

6/22/2006 7:11:32 PM

tell yourself whatever makes you feel better

fact is, if you dont reference a primary resource, you're just making generalizations based on hearsay

i know you think i'm a dumbass because i dont agree with you

but you might want to post a link to a scientific journal report instead of saying " i heard it on the news "

6/22/2006 7:16:12 PM

No, I am making comments based on the CBS news report that this thread is about

You lose, good day sir

6/22/2006 7:17:15 PM

exactly...you're making "comments"...you're not linking anything...you're not providing any specific information...you're just making "comments"

6/22/2006 7:19:01 PM

And you are an idiot who is posting to try to bait people into arguing with a retard.

6/22/2006 7:21:11 PM

yeah like my first post in this thread...clearly trolling just to bait people into arguing...no truth at all in my first post

you're the one who made the first mistake of claiming something about the "general consensus of scientists" and followed up with NOTHING to back that claim up...then you resorted to calling me a retard

but tell yourself whatever makes you feel better

6/22/2006 7:23:25 PM

You mean your first post where you made your best guess comment when you didn't know an actual answer?

6/22/2006 7:26:05 PM

didnt know an actual answer?

so you're saying farenheit didnt invent the first thermometer?

or are you saying either galileo or da vinci didnt invent the thermoscope?

or maybe you're the one baiting people into arguing

6/22/2006 7:29:23 PM

Your first post was a best guess. I could bold the phrasing that points it out, but it would be obvious to anyone that is not some stupid hip hop thug.

6/22/2006 7:30:32 PM

^


1 - smcrawff
0 - treetwista10


[Edited on June 22, 2006 at 7:32 PM. Reason : .]

6/22/2006 7:31:31 PM

aw, mcdanger isnt that cute

Quote :

"And to answer your question the thermoscope was invented in the late 1500's and the thermometer in the early 1600's"

wow that sure is precise dating!

Quote :

"but you might want to post a link to a scientific journal report instead of saying " i heard it on the news " "

smcrawff: -1

6/22/2006 7:51:06 PM

Quote :

"a few hundred years ago, if i recall"

Quote :

"but i want to say"

Quote :

"da vinci or galileo"

Quote :

"a cruder one earlier"

Go hype up a blunt and stop using a computer.

6/22/2006 7:53:10 PM

hey i make generalizations about people based on a screenname or tww profile created years ago

and what the fuck does "hype up a blunt" mean?

btw, still waiting for your primary sources

also i know who you're an alias for

6/22/2006 7:55:16 PM

Quote :

"CBS news report this evening"

6/22/2006 7:56:50 PM

Quote :

"primary reference /= news report i'm talking about scientific journals...aka primary resources "

ps i still know who you're an alias for

6/22/2006 7:57:52 PM

Quote :

" I am making comments based on the CBS news report that this thread is about You lose, good day sir"

6/22/2006 7:58:47 PM

Quote :

"ps i still know who you're an alias for"

6/22/2006 7:59:28 PM

Huh?

6/22/2006 8:03:04 PM

this rot was also on NBC, I think it's some report from the US academy of science or something like that, Rush was talking about it ealier today. The NBC folks were trying very hard to make the public understand that global warming was now a fact because the scientists said so. In fact, they went so far as to compare sceptics to flat-earth people. Gotta love NBC.

6/22/2006 8:05:01 PM

hey H, you gonna troll mathman or you just have it out for my nuts?

6/22/2006 8:08:21 PM

Oh great.. Tree takes over another thread and shits on it without adding anything of value.

6/22/2006 8:15:57 PM

Am I the only one that saw "An inconvienient truth"? There doesn't seem to be much dispute in the scientific community, only in the community of politics.

I'll be polite and say that Bush only has his head in the sand.

6/22/2006 9:02:46 PM

Quote :

"With all the talk nowadays of global warming and temperatures being higher than they have in 400 years (CBS news report this evening), there's a couple things I was hoping you could help me get straightened out first. 1 - When was the thermometer invented? 2 - Where did it become widespread? 3 - At what date were temperatures regularly recorded through out the world?"

6/22/2006 9:50:50 PM

Quote :

"Am I the only one that saw "An inconvienient truth"? There doesn't seem to be much dispute in the scientific community, only in the community of politics. I'll be polite and say that Bush only has his head in the sand. "

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Let me rephrase that for you
"I saw a propaganda film and its pretty clear that the jews are causing the demise of our fair Germany"


You cannot be serious! An inconvenient truth has already been lambasted by some in the scientific community. Some even on this message board. You want to know about a scientific consensus? Then ask climate experts, who still don't agree whether or not global warming is caused by humans or is a major problem.

6/22/2006 10:01:51 PM

scientific community = a lobbyist in a Canadian e-newspaper?

Nature and National Geographic each have articles on the film this month, and they say it's fairly accurate.

6/22/2006 10:04:16 PM

Quote :

"You cannot be serious! An inconvenient truth has already been lambasted by some in the scientific community"

I have not seen any serious scientist discount this movie. And the "free market approach" PAC groups that are championing this media blitz that environmentalists are nutjobs and that a free market is going to solve are insane. The free market is based on precepts based around economics, politics and social values. It takes very little into account about environmental factors.

The only reason that environmental factors are even considered in our policy decisions is because people have fought back against the free market. Factoring environmental values into our policy is not efficient for business, it is not cheap and it costs money in the forms of impact studies, less production and more time. Industry groups and economics interests are always going to fight for what is profitable and this is seldom what we would consider sustainable policy.

6/22/2006 10:35:12 PM

The study was conducted and reviewed by the National Academies of Science, which advises the Congress and the government. The report is on a link from this site:

http://www.nationalacademies.org/

6/22/2006 10:53:21 PM

Quote :

"I have not seen any serious scientist discount this movie"

Well, NPR did a thing on the movie and the climatologists complained that he only portrayed the worst-case scenario (hence ridiculously unlikely) and even then he ignored the time scales involved, specifically the fact that rising sea levels would take 100+ years yet Gore presented it as if we would have 100 million refugees suddenly fleeing inland overnight.

Now, I didn't see them, they were on the Radio, but I leave that issue to you.

And Scuba Steve: you are ridiculously naive, but you are right that "environmental factors" are only being considered because people have "fought back against the free market." Specifically, one group of business lobbyists are using the government to cannibalize consumers.

We have power plants operating today that are profitable, wasteful, and dirty, yet without our environmental policies they would have gone bankrupt and shut down years ago after being replaced by newer cleaner and more efficient plants.

It is called "grandfathering" and it has created a class of filthy rich business men that would be bankrupt tomorrow without the "clean air act" on the books, not to mention electricity would be cheaper and the air would be cleaner. You know, those nice guys that donate heavily to both Republicans and Democrats

To the best of my knowledge the only federal laws that have actually cleaned the environment was the elimination of lead from gasoline, the requirement for catalytic converters on cars, and a few elements of the clean water act.

But please, don't be so stupid as to suggest that Federal regulation has ever in any way harmed profits. Profits are derived from scarcity and I have never seen a regulatory scheme that has not in one way or another resulted in more scarcity and thus higher prices. Why most businesses support regulation in some way or another is because it not only increases company profits but it also gets to choose who gets to claim those profits, thus it is a battle between lobbyists, winner takes all, leaving consumers high and dry.

[Edited on June 22, 2006 at 11:39 PM. Reason : ]

6/22/2006 11:37:49 PM

I think the biggest problem with global warming is the fact that there is one side who wants to do nothing and the other wants to use it as an excuse to take a sledge hammer to capitalism.

Here is a good article on some of the sensible plans the U.S. has undertaken in recent years and that no one seems to pay any attention to:
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=052506B

I also think increasing gas taxes would be a sensible solution and we need is to continue working with China and India to help reduce their emissions in ways that will not negatively impact their continued economic growth.

With the already high demand for alternatively fueled vehicles (priuses sell out pretty quick) I dont think government investment will do much good especially since it tends to be in areas that arent likely to produce anything practical (hydrogen, corn ethanol). I would say we need more mass transit but that would be probably just end up like North Carolina's idiotic programs for wasting money.

6/22/2006 11:51:16 PM

Quote :

"I think the biggest problem with global warming is the fact that there is one side who wants to do nothing and the other wants to use it as an excuse to take a sledge hammer to capitalism."

Not really. We already have a very mixed economy. It's just a matter of rearranging what does what.

6/22/2006 11:57:40 PM

LS

I dont have time to argue this point tonight, but l will say that the scenarios you describe are more about political and economic aspects than the environment. The truth is that environmental considerations will almost always play second fiddle to economics, and the only way to make environmentalism popular is to make it more profitable.

[Edited on June 23, 2006 at 12:02 AM. Reason : .]

6/23/2006 12:01:44 AM

Quote :

"the other wants to use it as an excuse to take a sledge hammer to capitalism."

They should make one of these:



with a tinfoil hat. Just for the soapbox.

6/23/2006 12:05:33 AM

^^I gurantee you that if Enron had stayed around a little longer that we would have a CO2 cap and trade policy by now.

It would have made all of us poorer to some degree but it would have made them a ton of money.

There is huge difference between what is good for the economy and what is good for the profit of a few.


[Edited on June 23, 2006 at 12:07 AM. Reason : ]

6/23/2006 12:05:33 AM

Quote :

"I think the biggest problem with global warming is the fact that there is one side who wants to do nothing and the other wants to use it as an excuse to take a sledge hammer to capitalism."

This is fucking moronic. Is the only reason we have a police force because we wanted an excuse to take a sledge hammer to capitalism? Jesus.

For what it's worth, the movie mentioned that a recent survey of peer-reviewed works on global warming showed that 0 out of the 900+ papers published in the last ten years cast global warming in a dubious light, as opposed to something like 53% of the 600+ popular journalistic articles in the same period of time.

6/23/2006 1:15:41 AM

only 900 papers in 10 years? Seems kinda light.

How many of those papers proposed explanations for global warming that weren't human?

Quote :

"Is the only reason we have a police force because we wanted an excuse to take a sledge hammer to capitalism?"

He said one side, as in the far left, which do believe the only purpose for a police force is to take a sledge hammer to capitalism. They feel the police should stop harrassing the poor minorities and start confiscating the wealth of the rich.

6/23/2006 8:58:27 AM