Al Gore may have been wrong

[dutchboy]

http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/106922-earth_ice_age-0

I was looking forward to global warming.

[boxcar]

Gore "may have been wrong"? Did you really believe that his fear-mongering drivel about man-made global warming was right? :bang: :bang:

Why do you think the PC police haven't really employed the term "global warming" for about two years now? Scientists know the earth is going through a cooling cycle right now -- a natural cycle, I would add. Therefore, they have changed the name from "global warming" to "climate change" because this latter term is more inclusive. It covers all the bases very neatly. So, no matter what the earth does from hereon in -- cool down or warm up -- it's still man's fault. The greenie tree huggers get to have it both ways.

Boxcar

[sandpit]

I think when Gore invented the Internet all those microchips overheated his brain...while I have no doubt that anywhere there is a large cluster of industrialized civilization the air temperature rises a few degrees (I live about 30 miles outside the city, and it is always about 5 degrees warmer there each day), there is no way that humans should be sanctimonious enough to think we are exerting control over nature...we inhabit precious little space on this planet, and all it takes is one big natural disaster, such as the southeast Asian tsunami a few years ago to remind us who is really in control.

Plus, if the lid blows off Yellowstone (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jD9TgpkYUFJGpF8a23g-uBWMSpLAD95JO7BO2) soon, we're all doomed :(

[cj's dad]

I think when Gore invented the Internet all those microchips overheated his brain...while I have no doubt that anywhere there is a large cluster of industrialized civilization the air temperature rises a few degrees (I live about 30 miles outside the city, and it is always about 5 degrees warmer there each day), there is no way that humans should be sanctimonious enough to think we are exerting control over nature...we inhabit precious little space on this planet, and all it takes is one big natural disaster, such as the southeast Asian tsunami a few years ago to remind us who is really in control.

Plus, if the lid blows off Yellowstone (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jD9TgpkYUFJGpF8a23g-uBWMSpLAD95JO7BO2) soon, we're all doomed :(

So, you'll be pretty damn hot in a month or so?:eek:

[LottaKash]

to remind us who is really in control.

Amen to that.......:jump:

[LottaKash]

Scientists know the earth is going through a cooling cycle right now -- a natural cycle, I would add. Boxcar

I guess that explains why Both Polar Ice Caps, and the Glaciers in Greenland, Alaska and Siberia are melting at an alarming and disproportionate rate.....They are cooling....thank God.....

best,

[ArlJim78]

most sane climatologists are saying that it looks like that in the last 10 years the earth has shifted and is heading perhaps for another ice age cycle. Al Gore has the dubious honor of having predicted the exact opposite, insisting that there needn't be any debate about it. the clock is ticking on ole Al, he said that in five years the polar ice cap will have melted away. we'll just see about that.

[Floyd]

Impeachment is Not Enough. (http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/106172-september_11_attacks-0)

Now I see where you guys are coming from....

[LottaKash]

most sane climatologists are saying that it looks like that in the last 10 years the earth has shifted and is heading perhaps for another ice age cycle. Al Gore has the dubious honor of having predicted the exact opposite, insisting that there needn't be any debate about it. the clock is ticking on ole Al, he said that in five years the polar ice cap will have melted away. we'll just see about that.

ArlJim, perhaps the climatologists are correct in their predictions, but as a handicapper I only know what I see in front of me, and the Ice IS Melting, and that is my bet for now......:jump:

best,

[lsbets]

http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834

The end of 2008 saw the fastest change in sea ice levels ever recorded.

The sea ice expanded at a record level, and there is now exactly as much sea ice as at the end of 1979.

Weren't they calling for a new ice age back then?

[Floyd]

Agencies' Report Warns of Faster Climate Change (http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-climate26-2008dec26,0,5299371.story)

Did Early Global Warming Divert A New Glacial Age? (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081217190433.htm)

Rain Forests Release Carbon Dioxide in Response to Warmer Temperatures (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=rain-forests-release-carb)

Changes 'amplify Arctic warming' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7786910.stm)

Has the Arctic melt passed the point of no return? (http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/arctic-melt-passes-the-point-of--no-return-1128197.html)

These sane climetologists of which you speak, do they all write for Pravda? Because they don't seem to publish in the journals with which I'm familiar.

[toetoe]

Her Royal Highness Elizabeth Regina to Lotta Kash:

"We are not alarmed."

[boxcar]

Agencies' Report Warns of Faster Climate Change (http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-climate26-2008dec26,0,5299371.story)

Did Early Global Warming Divert A New Glacial Age? (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081217190433.htm)

Rain Forests Release Carbon Dioxide in Response to Warmer Temperatures (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=rain-forests-release-carb)

Changes 'amplify Arctic warming' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7786910.stm)

Has the Arctic melt passed the point of no return? (http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/arctic-melt-passes-the-point-of--no-return-1128197.html)

These sane climetologists of which you speak, do they all write for Pravda? Because they don't seem to publish in the journals with which I'm familiar.

And the ones you're so fond of -- do they know there's a sun out there?

And, by the way, the next time you talk to one of your greenie "scientists", please ask them for me: What do they think the ideal temperature should be for our little planet? I'll be waiting with bated breath for their answer -- perhaps derived from a consensus? :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[riskman]

Impeachment is Not Enough. (http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/106172-september_11_attacks-0)

Now I see where you guys are coming from....

Pravada-You dare question this source ? One of the finest and accurate news mediums on the net. Shame on you! :rolleyes:

[Floyd]

And the ones you're so fond of -- do they know there's a sun out there?

And, by the way, the next time you talk to one of your greenie "scientists", please ask them for me: What do they think the ideal temperature should be for our little planet? I'll be waiting with bated breath for their answer -- perhaps derived from a consensus? :rolleyes:

Boxcar

I live in a fact-based world, as do most scientists. Obviously, "book learning," "fancy degrees," and the "scientific method" mean nothing to you, but politicising science does a disservice to us all. I know you're not so big on "facts" and "numbers" and other sciencey thingies, but if you could set aside your ideology for a moment and perhaps link to some peer reviewed articles that you feel would support your position, we can talk. Otherwise I won't waste my time responding to you.

[Tee]

Did anyone see The Day After Tomorrow? :)

[Floyd]

Pravada-You dare question this source ? One of the finest and accurate news mediums on the net. Shame on you! :rolleyes:

No, I wasn't questioning Pravda (http://english.pravda.ru/world/americas/23-12-2008/106864-usa_change-0) , that bastion of rational thought. (http://english.pravda.ru/world/europe/03-12-2008/106784-Condoleezza_Rice-0) Its very name means "Truth (http://english.pravda.ru/world/americas/27-10-2008/106627-usa_syria-0) ."

I was just questioning the nutbag who wrote the article.

[Tom]

Give up Boxcar...weak minds cannot debate. Let them gradually "cool down" and freeze up! :lol:

[ArlJim78]

I live in a fact-based world, as do most scientists. Obviously, "book learning," "fancy degrees," and the "scientific method" mean nothing to you, but politicising science does a disservice to us all. I know you're not so big on "facts" and "numbers" and other sciencey thingies, but if you could set aside your ideology for a moment and perhaps link to some peer reviewed articles that you feel would support your position, we can talk. Otherwise I won't waste my time responding to you.
this is an odd statement imo, because manmade global warming is the best example of politicized science that you will find. It has not stood up to peer review. i won't bother to post a list of names or links, but if you're actually interested it's easy to find numerous dissenting opinions by knowledgeble scientists with "fancy degrees".

[Floyd]

this is an odd statement imo, because manmade global warming is the best example of politicized science that you will find. It has not stood up to peer review. i won't bother to post a list of names or links, but if you're actually interested it's easy to find numerous dissenting opinions by knowledgeble scientists with "fancy degrees".

That's exactly my point. It has been politicized by people with a vested financial interest in denying its existence. Anthropogenic climate change has stood up to peer review. I have provided you with a list of easy to understand articles, you seem to be unable, or unwilling, to do the same.
So far the only thing that's been provided to support your assertions is an unsourced op-ed piece by a 9/11 truther in a reactionary Russian rag.
There's a difference between healthy skepticism and willful ignorance.

[sandpit]

So, you'll be pretty damn hot in a month or so?:eek:

No, it's gonna be in the teens here the rest of the week. Maybe in July:blush:

[boxcar]

I live in a fact-based world, as do most scientists. Obviously, "book learning," "fancy degrees," and the "scientific method" mean nothing to you, but politicising science does a disservice to us all. I know you're not so big on "facts" and "numbers" and other sciencey thingies, but if you could set aside your ideology for a moment and perhaps link to some peer reviewed articles that you feel would support your position, we can talk. Otherwise I won't waste my time responding to you.

No, no, no, no! A thousand times NO! The fact that you so naively believe tells me you reside in La La Land. For your info, sir, "most scientists" (if indeed not all of them :rolleyes: ) are like you and me, i.e. mere mortals. They possess, just like you and me, all the weaknesses that all human beings have, They even put their pants on just like you and me. You really think that just because they wear the label "scientist" on their foreheads or lapel pin or wherever that this elevates them to something more than human? Do you think they're gods!?

Furthermore, the scientific community largely consists of a body of professionals who believe they are the educated elite whose mission in life is to dictate to the unwashed masses in virtually all areas of our life -- from what kind of light bulbs to screw into our lamps, to how to treat an ailment, to which foods are unhealthy, etc. For example, very many medical professionals tend to look down their condescending snouts at people who look askance at the Drug Dogma of Western Medicine -- at people who believe there are other viable and safer approaches to restoring and/or maintaining good health because, after all, if we're brutally honest, we know that the Pharmaceutical Industry's economic lifeline is tied to Doctors (such are the evils of capitalism).

Likewise, the scientific community, that is almost entirely funded by grants, is beholding to its grantors. If a scientist doesn't march to the beat of his grantor, chances are very good that bagging groceries somewhere will soon be in that guy or gal's future.

But in addition to all this, since scientists all have their own world views (as we all do) and they are in a unique position of power and authority to wield "knowledge" like a deadly weapon upon the "unwashed", it is reasonable to believe very many of them do just that in order to advance their own careers and agendas. In short, sir, scientists don't sprout angel's wings, wear halos or have a monopoly on the Fount of Truth. They are just wretched, fallible, sinful creatures, as we all are.

Now, having said all this, I don't have a thing against scientifically proven facts -- and man-made global warming or man-made climate change has never been proven conclusively, nor will it ever be. And for your info, there is a large body of brave dissidents within the science community who don't buy into this drivel. Bravo!

Finally, I come back to what I asked you earlier. It was a serious question. Since so many scientists seem to think that the planet will soon self-destruct if we mortals can't exercise better control over our climate, then it's reasonable to ask: What is the ideal temperature? What is the goal of this control? And is there an ideal temperature for the entire planet -- from pole to pole, from pole to equator? Would one temp fit all space on planet earth? These brainiacs must have some idea, shouldn't they? If they're saying that the temperature isn't it right for the earth currently, then aren't they really saying that the temperature isn't where it's supposed to be? Therefore, where should the temperature be? What is the ideal temp for these eggheads?

Ciao,
Boxcar

[LottaKash]

No, no, no, no! A thousand times NO!
saying that the temperature isn't where it's supposed to be? Therefore, where should the temperature be? What is the ideal temp for these eggheads? Boxcar

A fair enough question, I think............:cool:

best,

[Floyd]

More anti-intellectual ideology from you, Boxcar. You apparently just parrot whatever drivel is being spewed by whatever right-wing reactionary web site you've read or radio show you've listened to last. The articles I've linked to above are easy enough to read, I don't know why you haven't bothered to read them. I've asked for cites, and I get your willfully ignorant opinion.
You've got nothing.

[boxcar]

More anti-intellectual ideology from you, Boxcar. You apparently just parrot whatever drivel is being spewed by whatever right-wing reactionary web site you've read or radio show you've listened to last. The articles I've linked to above are easy enough to read, I don't know why you haven't bothered to read them. I've asked for cites, and I get your willfully ignorant opinion.
You've got nothing.

Well then, sir, since you evidently fancy yourself as educated, well-informed egghead, answer my question. You don't know? And you don't know because the junk-science to which subscribe doesn't address this fundamentally important question? And you call me "anti-intellectual"!?

Meathead, before presuming to address any perceived speck in my eye, remove the plank from yours first!

Boxcar

[Floyd]

Well then, sir, since you evidently fancy yourself as educated, well-informed egghead, answer my question. You don't know? And you don't know because the junk-science to which subscribe doesn't address this fundamentally important question? And you call me "anti-intellectual"!?

Meathead, before presuming to address any perceived speck in my eye, remove the plank from yours first!

Boxcar

Actually, talking to a plank would be more productive. A plank wouldn't attempt to change the terms of the discussion when it couldn't come up with an answer. A plank wouldn't resort to name calling when it had run out of talking points. A plank would have wisdom enough to remain silent rather than parade its ignorance for all to see.

[boxcar]

Actually, talking to a plank would be more productive. A plank wouldn't attempt to change the terms of the discussion when it couldn't come up with an answer. A plank wouldn't resort to name calling when it had run out of talking points. A plank would have wisdom enough to remain silent rather than parade its ignorance for all to see.

Well, then, surely you'll channel with your all-knowing plank and get it to reveal the answer to my good question, otherwise you will betray the depth of your own dark ignorance.

Boxcar
P.S. Caution: Plank petting can lead to serious splinter problems.

[Greyfox]

http://climatepatrol.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/stretching_the_truth_scientic_global_warming_fake. gif.

[Floyd]

Well, then, surely you'll channel with your all-knowing plank and get it to reveal the answer to my good question, otherwise you will betray the depth of your own dark ignorance.


That's it? That's all you've got? "What temperature is the world supposed to be?" You actually think that's a valid question, and that if we can't answer that question then all the evidence pointing to anthropogenic climate change is invalid? Are you really that dense? Or is this just a pathetic attempt at being disingenuous?
You know, at first I thought you'd value research, have an independent mind, not follow whatever line of reasoning you've been force-fed, be skeptical and exercise due diligence. Now I see that you're merely intellectually lazy.
You disappoint me.

[dav4463]

Gore didn't care if he was wrong or right. He made a lot of money off the global warming farce.

[Floyd]

Gore didn't care if he was wrong or right. He made a lot of money off the global warming farce.

Cites?

[Greyfox]

Mars is experiencing global warming.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_ice-age_031208.html

Pluto is experiencing global warming.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warming_021009.html

Jupiter is experiencing global warming.
http://seoblackhat.com/2007/03/04/global-warming-on-mars-pluto-triton-and-jupiter/

Al Gore's speaking fee is $ 175,000
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/117/features-gore.html

Al Gore is making money.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22663

[Tom]

That's it? That's all you've got? "What temperature is the world supposed to be?" You actually think that's a valid question,


It is the fundamental question. If you cannot specify the target temperature, how can you say warming is bad? Maybe a rise of 7 degrees would create an utopia of new species and plant life.

But before we go too far on temperatures, you need to address the questionable measurement of global temperature I posted a link to last year.
They data is a flawed.

[Floyd]

It is the fundamental question. If you cannot specify the target temperature, how can you say warming is bad? Maybe a rise of 7 degrees would create an utopia of new species and plant life.

But before we go too far on temperatures, you need to address the questionable measurement of global temperature I posted a link to last year.
They data is a flawed.

We're talking about a very narrow range, the last ice age was 4 or 5 degrees colder than today, the so-called Climatic Optimum (3000 - 5000 bc) was only 1 or 2 degrees warmer than today. 7 degrees either way would, indeed, usher in a new era of new species and plant life. Unfortunately humans would be about as prominent in that new era as dinosaurs are today. Earth doesn't care what its temperature is, but we sure do.
If you could dredge up that link you mentioned for me, I'd appreciate it. Trawling through your posts over the past year would be entertaining, but it'd take time away from this verrry verrry important work I have to do here, because, darn it, someone is WRONG on the internet!!!
After we solve this little problem lets fix the economy.
Maybe next week.

[boxcar]

We're talking about a very narrow range, the last ice age was 4 or 5 degrees colder than today, the so-called Climatic Optimum (3000 - 5000 bc) was only 1 or 2 degrees warmer than today. 7 degrees either way would, indeed, usher in a new era of new species and plant life. Unfortunately humans would be about as prominent in that new era as dinosaurs are today. Earth doesn't care what its temperature is, but we sure do.
If you could dredge up that link you mentioned for me, I'd appreciate it. Trawling through your posts over the past year would be entertaining, but it'd take time away from this verrry verrry important work I have to do here, because, darn it, someone is WRONG on the internet!!!
After we solve this little problem lets fix the economy.
Maybe next week.

So...in other words, we humans have to try to thread the needle -- within this "very narrow range", correct? And if we don't thread it just right -- if we miss its eye -- we're doomed to extinction because the earth will either warm up too much or cool down too much, right? The planet will be become uninhabitable for us, and for many other species of life, correct? Soo...since our lives and the lives of so many other species hang in the balance here (most especially horses and cats :) ), how could you essentially imply earlier with a straight face that my question is irrelevant? It seems to me it's extremely relevant because we can't afford to be wrong, can we? We need to know what temperature to shoot for because the greenies of the world want us humans to become the earth's thermostat -- they're telling us we must control the earth's temperature... or else. So... at what temperature should we be setting the thermostat? What's the ideal setting?
Surely, some greenie scientist out there has come up with the answer.

Boxcar
P.S. Fairly soon, The Goron will be proven wrong because nearly 5 years ago he gave us the earth 5 years to survive because at that time he said the planet would be facing catastrophic consequences if we didn't act immediately. :rolleyes:

[Floyd]

So...in other words, we humans have to try to thread the needle -- within this "very narrow range", correct? And if we don't thread it just right -- if we miss its eye -- we're doomed to extinction because the earth will either warm up too much or cool down too much, right? The planet will be become uninhabitable for us, and for many other species of life, correct? Soo...since our lives and the lives of so many other species hang in the balance here (most especially horses and cats :) ), how could you essentially imply earlier with a straight face that my question is irrelevant? It seems to me it's extremely relevant because we can't afford to be wrong, can we? We need to know what temperature to shoot for because the greenies of the world want us humans to become the earth's thermostat -- they're telling us we must control the earth's temperature... or else. So... at what temperature should we be setting the thermostat? What's the ideal setting?
Surely, some greenie scientist out there has come up with the answer.

Boxcar
P.S. Fairly soon, The Goron will be proven wrong because nearly 5 years ago he gave us the earth 5 years to survive because at that time he said the planet would be facing catastrophic consequences if we didn't act immediately. :rolleyes:

You're letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. You know, if you'd take a couple hours to sound-out the articles I linked to up-thread you might find it enlightening. I'm sure someone could help you with the big words. The data seem to indicate the early stages of the Arctic amplification effect which, if true, would mean that in fact, Al Gore is right. We are well and truely feck'd. I would love to be wrong on this, really I would. Not so much for my sake but for the sake of my children and grandchildren. But it appears that the damage has been done. If you've got any actual, you know, facts to dispute those findings I'd be interested and relieved to see them, but so far you've just presented obfuscation and sophistry wrapped in your right-wing ideology, and that's not going to feed my great-grand kids when Nebraska is a desert.

[Tom]

If this stuff is so real and so dangerous, how can anyone justify Al and Nancy Pelosi flying around in their big carbon spewing jets and killing our planet? Should we not band together and stone them?

I fins it really hard to take anyone serious when they refuse to walk the talk. Al and Nancy are either frauds or planet killers. Either way, a large rock to the head seems to be in order.

[Tom]

Here is the link I posted back in 2007....I'll see if I can find an update on the story.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=44629

[boxcar]

You're letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. You know, if you'd take a couple hours to sound-out the articles I linked to up-thread you might find it enlightening. I'm sure someone could help you with the big words. The data seem to indicate the early stages of the Arctic amplification effect which, if true, would mean that in fact, Al Gore is right. We are well and truely feck'd. I would love to be wrong on this, really I would. Not so much for my sake but for the sake of my children and grandchildren. But it appears that the damage has been done. If you've got any actual, you know, facts to dispute those findings I'd be interested and relieved to see them, but so far you've just presented obfuscation and sophistry wrapped in your right-wing ideology, and that's not going to feed my great-grand kids when Nebraska is a desert.

Well then...if you're so worried, the end is very, very near, according to Gore. Mudder Earth should be undergoing catastrophic calamity any day now.
Feel free to bend over and kiss you know what -- and by all means...spend as much time with your kids, grandkids, great grandkids, etc.

The whole notion that man can control the temperature of the earth is absurd on the face of it. Natural forces can do more harm in one day to this planet than man can do in a thousand years. Unbelievable that otherwise intelligent people can fill their head with this kind of mush. :bang: :bang:

Boxcar

[Floyd]

Here is the link I posted back in 2007....I'll see if I can find an update on the story.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=44629
Thanks for helping me with my homework, Tom.

That article references the Urban Heat Island (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island) effect, a real phenomenon, which has been thoroughly investigated (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/population/article2abstract.pdf) and the data has been examined and reviewed found to have a negligible effect on temperature trends. NASA GISS (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/) takes specific steps to eliminate those anomolies and uses a variety (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements) of data sources (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources/gistemp.html) to plot (http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/temp/angell/angell.html) the trends. No salvation there.

[Floyd]

The whole notion that man can control the temperature of the earth is absurd on the face of it. Natural forces can do more harm in one day to this planet than man can do in a thousand years.
Boxcar

I wish that were the case, but denying the the truth isn't going to help anything. Since we began burning fossil fuels in earnest over 150 years ago, the atmospheric concentration of CO2, which had been relatively stable for the previous several thousand years has now risen by over 35%. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon_History_and_Flux.png) Help me out here, do you have any facts to back up your beliefs?

[Tom]

Thanks for helping me with my homework, Tom.

That article references the Urban Heat Island (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island) effect, a real phenomenon, which has been thoroughly investigated (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/population/article2abstract.pdf) and the data has been examined and reviewed found to have a negligible effect on temperature trends. NASA GISS (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/) takes specific steps to eliminate those anomolies and uses a variety (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements) of data sources (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources/gistemp.html) to plot (http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/temp/angell/angell.html) the trends. No salvation there.

I think it will all become clearer to you if you actually "Trawl through my posts over the past year..." ;) A trip well worth the time it takes.:D

[Floyd]

I think it will all become clearer to you if you actually "Trawl through my posts over the past year..." ;) A trip well worth the time it takes.:D

Tonight: A bottle of wine, a nice steak, and a whole evening with Tom.
It's gonna give me righteous indigestion!
I'd bettter make it two bottles....

[LottaKash]

I think it will all become clearer to you if you actually "Trawl through my posts over the past year..." ;) A trip well worth the time it takes.:D

Tom with 31,000 posts, we would have to pack a suitcase and take a motel for a good while to catch up......:jump: War and Peace would be a breeze....Go Tom!

best,

[Floyd]

Tell you what, we'll split 'em up. You take posts 1 through 15,568 and I'll take 15,569 through the present. Let me know when you find something good.
We'll evaluate and catalogue Tom's accumulated wisdom for future generations. You know, for the children.
Tom, you're going to have to take a couple weeks off, otherwise we won't be able to keep up.
Come to think of it, I can't keep up with Tom as it is, so there's a slight flaw in my cunning plan....

[Tom]

13,787 is one of my favorites.

[Pace Cap'n]

13,787 is one of my favorites.

Mine too.

[hcap]

13,787 is one of my favorites.Oh yeah. That's the one where the infinite number of monkeys, typing on their infinite number of typewriters, actually got lucky. :lol:

Not quite a Shakespearean Sonnet, but as the bard said."For my part, it was Greek to me"

[hcap]

I wish that were the case, but denying the the truth isn't going to help anything. Since we began burning fossil fuels in earnest over 150 years ago, the atmospheric concentration of CO2, which had been relatively stable for the previous several thousand years has now risen by over 35%. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon_History_and_Flux.png) Help me out here, do you have any facts to back up your beliefs?
Floyd, look at this stuff from boxcars' point of view. Maybe Tom shares the same end time philosophy? It will all end way way before global warming will be a real problem.

Only problem is some REAL HOT burning sensations during Armageddon.
But being raptured and flying through the air minus clothing is somewhat cooling.

[Floyd]

Oh yeah. That's the one where the infinite number of monkeys, typing on their infinite number of typewriters, actually got lucky.
Not quite a Shakespearean Sonnet, but as the bard said."For my part, it was Greek to me"

That's the true genius of Tom.
One monkey,
One typewriter,
An infinite number of posts.
At least one laugh a day.
Once we collate all his posts into book form they'll be longer than the Upanishads, just as enlightening, and twice as funny.
I can see the TV ad now, Sally Strothers walking in some desperate slum holding Tom and his banana, looking teary-eyed into the camera and saying: "The PaceAdvantage Tom Project, won't you help?
For the children."

It'll generate millions, I tell you. Millions!

[Floyd]

Floyd, look at this stuff from boxcars' point of view. Maybe Tom shares the same end time philosophy? It will all end way way before global warming will be a real problem.

Only problem is some REAL HOT burning sensations during Armageddon.
But being raptured and flying through the air minus clothing is somewhat cooling.

Tom's got his own philosophy, all will be revealed once I study the writings.
Boxcar, however, will be flapping in the breeze whilst he gets transported up to "I Told You So Land." You and I will be left here on Earth to dodge the falling airplanes, runaway buses, and driverless cars.
Then again, once the dust settles we get to divvy up his stuff.
Win win!

[hcap]

I believe in some posts Tom goes on and on about nuking Canada.**

My theory? [I]I think he had previously slipped over the border into Montreal, argued with a French Canadian barkeep, and was caught on hidden camera, denying the existence of the "French Fry". A fist fight ensued. :lol: Ah, the good old days of "freedom is on the march"!!

** (Not much of a stretch for Tom. He has probably called for nuking 90% of non-American entities. Any one caught wearing a turban qualified for extreme shocking and aweing. I think recently he called even some Americans suffering from poverty sub-humans. Nuke 'em !!!)


.................................................. .........................................


Boxcar the Sanctimonious, will deny he believes in any such rapture-like stuff.
Meanwhile he is selling insurance......

"Mammon Enterprises, providers of fundamentalist financial products as well as Christian-themed bumper stickers, has branched out once again into the area of personal liability. Rapture insurance compensates policy holders for damages caused by Rapture-related disappearances, dissipations, and heavenly ascensions.

For traditional conservative Christians, this new insurance product is a load off their minds," said Mammon president Jerry B. Jenkins. "Once you no longer have to worry about your coverage, you can concentrate on the true purpose of the rapture- looking down from heaven on your horrified neighbors as they scramble to atone for their sins."

"Traditional insurance does not cover vehicular liability in case of Rapture just as homeowners policies usually omit coverage of flood damage," said Althea Thoon, spokesperson for the Insurance Association of America. :lol:

For all you left-behinders.

http://www.youvebeenleftbehind.com/services.html

[melman]

Back in the 60's the "in" thing was global cooling with teachers telling us there would be a huge food shortage with the upper half of the US being in a deep freeze. This was acccepted "taken for granted" science. The last few years the grant money grabbers are using climate change.

What was learned
After providing quantitative estimates of the scope and extent of these major forces on earth's climate - not only here but in two earlier studies as well (Khilyuk and Chilingar (2003, 2004) - the two researchers from the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles (USA) conclude that "the theory of currently observed global atmospheric warming as a result of increasing anthropogenic carbon dioxide emission is a myth," and that it has "proved to be an enduring one."
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V9/N48/C2.php

[melman]

Some more data.

It is clear from the data presented in this study that the climatic episodes referred to as the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age were indeed real - and, likely, global - phenomena and that earth's climate consistently fluctuates between natural warm and cold phases. Given the author's finding that the 20th century warming is "not extraordinary" when compared to other warmings of their 2200-year record, it stands to reason that the warming of the 20th century is probably nothing more than a natural recovery from the global chill of the Little Ice Age, rather than a response to the buildup of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere

http://www.co2science.org/articles/V3/N10/C2.php

[melman]

Some thinking on "end times" by science.

I mentioned earlier that if the universe is currently suspended in a meta-stable false vacuum state, then at some point in the future it will inevitably tunnel into a lower energy state, bringing with it a complete metamorphosis of nature. Because this tunneling is an indeterminate quantum phase transition, it is unpredictable and could happen, in the words of Adams and Laughlin, "at virtually any time, as soon as tomorrow."40 In such a transition regions of true vacuum will begin to form at places throughout the universe, rather like ice forming on the surface of a pond, except that in this case the regions of true vacuum will propel themselves across the universe at fantastic speed, approximating the speed of light. Adams and Laughlin describe such a cosmic apocalypse in the following words:

Silently, and without warning of any kind, it came. Every cosmic structure it swept over was left disembodied and disfigured in its wake. The destruction was frightening in both its awful swiftness and its devastating completeness.

The shock wave began at a particular but rather undistinguished point of space-time and then traveled outward at blinding speed, rapidly approaching the speed of light. The expanding bubble then enveloped an ever larger portion of the universe. Because of its phenomenal velocity, the shock wave impinged upon regions of space with no advance warning. No light signals, radio waves, or causal communication of any kind could outrun the advancing front and forewarn of the impending doom. Preparation was as impossible as it was futile.
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5533

[Marshall Bennett]

We're all dead .

[Floyd]

Some more data.

It is clear from the data presented in this study that the climatic episodes referred to as the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age were indeed real - and, likely, global - phenomena and that earth's climate consistently fluctuates between natural warm and cold phases. Given the author's finding that the 20th century warming is "not extraordinary" when compared to other warmings of their 2200-year record, it stands to reason that the warming of the 20th century is probably nothing more than a natural recovery from the global chill of the Little Ice Age, rather than a response to the buildup of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere

http://www.co2science.org/articles/V3/N10/C2.php

Oh. The CO2 Science (http://research.greenpeaceusa.org/?a=view&d=4390) website. You're aware that the Idso (http://www.co2science.org/about/chairman.php) family (2) (http://www.co2science.org/about/president.php) (3) (http://www.co2science.org/about/vice_president.php) (4) (http://www.co2science.org/about/operationsmgr.php) receive the bulk of their funding from ExxonMobil, The Western Fuels Association which provides coal for electric power companies in the mid-west and southeast and Peabody Energy, the world's largest private coal company, right? I'll address the "science" tomorrow, because I understand that those corporations have no vested interest in this debate, and it would be unfair of me to impune the Idso family's obviously pure motives based solely on their source of funding. After all, there are climatologists raking in literally thousands of dollars in research grants every year who want to maintain not just a ramen lifestyle, but a Top Ramen existence by keeping that veritable trickle of research dollars coming in to their three figure credit union accounts. And that money won't come if they reveal the "truth."
But that can wait. Today, background. Tomorrow? Science!

[Floyd]

Some thinking on "end times" by science.

I mentioned earlier that if the universe is currently suspended in a meta-stable false vacuum state, then at some point in the future it will inevitably tunnel into a lower energy state, bringing with it a complete metamorphosis of nature. Because this tunneling is an indeterminate quantum phase transition, it is unpredictable and could happen, in the words of Adams and Laughlin, "at virtually any time, as soon as tomorrow."40 In such a transition regions of true vacuum will begin to form at places throughout the universe, rather like ice forming on the surface of a pond, except that in this case the regions of true vacuum will propel themselves across the universe at fantastic speed, approximating the speed of light. Adams and Laughlin describe such a cosmic apocalypse in the following words:

Silently, and without warning of any kind, it came. Every cosmic structure it swept over was left disembodied and disfigured in its wake. The destruction was frightening in both its awful swiftness and its devastating completeness.

The shock wave began at a particular but rather undistinguished point of space-time and then traveled outward at blinding speed, rapidly approaching the speed of light. The expanding bubble then enveloped an ever larger portion of the universe. Because of its phenomenal velocity, the shock wave impinged upon regions of space with no advance warning. No light signals, radio waves, or causal communication of any kind could outrun the advancing front and forewarn of the impending doom. Preparation was as impossible as it was futile.
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5533

Oh. Well then. If that's the way you want to go, debunk this:

"Harmonic Cubic Wisdom that transcends and contradicts the Bibical 1st Day - Genesis 1.5 - when the greatest math & scientific scam of all human existence was deified. Claim of single 1st Day composed of Day, Night, Morning & Evening was a Lie, as they were Static points as 4 corners and did not rotate as Time motion. Instead each of the 4 quadrant Times represented a single and separate 24 hour Day rotation within a common 24 hour rotation of Earth. You would be wiser if unschooled then be taught ONEness stupidity to worship Evil of ONEism, contradicted by Opposite Creation. Religion is Organize Crime to collect $Tithes."
http://www.timecube.com/

[melman]

Floyd--You may like to go to google and type in "string theory". I do not wish to "debunk" anyone. If that's the way you want to go so be it. I can mention many other sources of information besides the co2 science site but I don't think your interested. After all a "battle of links" really solves nothing.

[Greyfox]

Dumb as I am, who measured these temperatures before 1700 or so?
The first thermometer was apparently invented by
Fahrenheit 1714.
Ho hum, just a question.

[HUSKER55]

What would a scientist do if he(she) didn't work for a corporation or was not good enough to get a government grant or aid from some foundation? If they did receive that money wouldn't it be prudent to expect them to perform according to the givers code?

I was just wondering if they (scientists) went out on their own what would happen?

Maybe witches from our past history were nothing more than estranged scientists and miss understood by the "establishment". There was a time in history where aspirin was considered herasy and they were burned at the stake.

My science teacher taught me that when I was in college many moon ago.

[Tom]

Looks like hcap and Floyd have run out of ammo.
Oh, wait, hcap never had any.

[hcap]

Melman,

There is ample evidence of a "heat death" in cosmology, at least at this time and perhaps the end times of the New Testament is somehow connected. But philosophically there is no necessity for supernatural first causes. That of course does not rule out such beings. But I suspect reconciling the dualism of no God (science and materialism) with God (first cause, consciousness) is the trick. I believe understanding such a paradox is what you are really trying to do. I believe this can only come from letting go of dualism itself.

But as your interesting article states......

"The plausibility of Christian eschatology vis à vis the projections of physical eschatology is thus inherently bound up with one's ontology"

Ones ontology is psychologically bound up in our own limitations of perception and dualism itself. Believing in the New Testament end times as literally the case, is the most primitive application of the external workings of the dualistic mind. Going beyond that opens a door to a deeper understanding and unity.

[hcap]

Tom,

Your favorite post # 13,787
You are at 31,141 now.

According to Biblical scholars who have done "Bible Code" studies,
if you divide 31,141 by 13,787, the resulting number 2.258721984
is a universal constant extremely predictive in bowl movement cycles.
:lol:

Well, nuke Canada already?

[JustRalph]

Dumb as I am, who measured these temperatures before 1700 or so?
The first thermometer was apparently invented by
Fahrenheit 1714.
Ho hum, just a question.

The first "mercury" thermometer was invented in 1704 I believe. They were using other elements from the mid 1500 hundreds. Mostly to measure water temperature.

I saw it on "Nova" just last week. The funny part, Celsius came up with his stuff and as it was duplicated around the world........ many places were measuring it just the opposite of the way he was. He measured things that were colder, with a higher number. So 20 Celsius was colder than 10 Celsius......... after many years he finally settled on doing it the other way around because that is how everybody else was doing it. Because they read his instructions wrong............ :lol:

I am sure the accuracy was right on though ;)

[Floyd]

Looks like hcap and Floyd have run out of ammo.
Oh, wait, hcap never had any.

Me? I'm shootin' blanks.

[Floyd]

Dumb as I am, who measured these temperatures before 1700 or so?
The first thermometer was apparently invented by
Fahrenheit 1714.
Ho hum, just a question.

Paleoclimatology! (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/paleo.html)

[hcap]

Be careful Floyd, the National Climatic Data Center is not a trusted source. Obviously Al Gore has brainwashed all weak minded scientists. (Or at least paid them off from the zillions he made inventing the internet and writing "Love Story".)

Our governmental scientists!, scientists from all other governments!, the weak willed scientists at the UN!, all compromised!!

Unlike the free minded but slightly oily geniuses at.........

http://www.co2science.org/articles/V3/N10/C2.php

[Greyfox]

Paleoclimatology! (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/paleo.html)

So prior to 1500 or 1704 or whatever all temperatures are estimated by inferences from tree cores or sediments etc.
That of course is similar to me estimating how fast a horse race was run by measuring the disturbance of the track after a race.
Inferential evidence is the weakest form of evidence imo.
The fact is that we really do not know the temperatures of the planet prior to 1500 or 1704 or whatever with any degree of accuracy.

[Floyd]

Melman,

There is ample evidence of a "heat death" in cosmology, at least at this time and perhaps the end times of the New Testament is somehow connected. But philosophically there is no necessity for supernatural first causes. That of course does not rule out such beings. But I suspect reconciling the dualism of no God (science and materialism) with God (first cause, consciousness) is the trick. I believe understanding such a paradox is what you are really trying to do. I believe this can only come from letting go of dualism itself.

But as your interesting article states......

"The plausibility of Christian eschatology vis à vis the projections of physical eschatology is thus inherently bound up with one's ontology"

Ones ontology is psychologically bound up in our own limitations of perception and dualism itself. Believing in the New Testament end times as literally the case, is the most primitive application of the external workings of the dualistic mind. Going beyond that opens a door to a deeper understanding and unity.

Which brings us back to the Upanishads.

[Floyd]

So prior to 1500 or 1704 or whatever all temperatures are estimated by inferences from tree cores or sediments etc.
That of course is similar to me estimating how fast a horse race was run by measuring the disturbance of the track after a race.
Inferential evidence is the weakest form of evidence imo.
The fact is that we really do not know the temperatures of the planet prior to 1500 or 1704 or whatever with any degree of accuracy.

Actually, it's more like reconstructing a race using an old, yellowed DRF. The information is there, it's just a little harder to read, and in a different format.
You'd be surprised what we can infer from ice cores in Antarctica (http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig2-22.htm), tree rings (http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/annrep94/trees/) (dendroclimatology) borehole analysis, (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/pollack.html) or other Proxy Reconstructions. (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html) Of course we know a lot more about what's going on today than we know what happened in the past. But everything we've found out so far shows that there is no known climate change in the Earth's past that contradicts the theories that support Anthropogenic Global Warming.

[Greyfox]

But everything we've found out so far shows that there is no known climate change in the Earth's past that contradicts the theories that support Anthropogenic Global Warming.

Right. However, there is no known climate change in the Earth's past that contradicts the theories that support Solar Global Warming.
In your staunch beating on the drum for anthropogenic causes, you still haven't addressed the fact that the other planets are heating up as well- a convenient glissando past the elephant in the kitchen.

[bigmack]

Between Supercilious Floyd and the always pesky hcap you two featherbrains could bore mere jugheads to tears.

[boxcar]

Between Supercilious Floyd and the always pesky hcap you two featherbrains could bore mere jugheads to tears.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[boxcar]

Per our "learned" 'cap:

Boxcar the Sanctimonious, will deny he believes in any such rapture-like stuff.Meanwhile he is selling insurance......[/b]

You're as clueless as they get. I never denied I believe "in any such rapture-like stuff". However, I have rejected the ever-so-popular Dispensational view of the rapture -- and, of course, the entire Dispensational view of eschatology. Big dif. Obviously, though, too big for a small mind like yours to grasp.

Boxcar
P.S. Layoff the "Left Behind" series of books. Your skull is already overloaded with mush.

[oddsmaven]

...and journalist Tom Friedman who makes a lot sense...here's two paragraphs from a recent book of his:

If those of us who have become concerned about climate change turn out to be wrong – but we refocus America anyway on producing clean electrons & the most energy-efficient vehicles, appliances, and buildings in the world, and we make America the global leader in aiding the protection of tropical forests & natural habitats, what is the worst that will happen? Our country will have cleaner air and water, more efficient products, more workers educated in the next great global industry, higher energy prices but lower bills, greater productivity, healthier people, and an export industry in clean power products that people across the world will want to buy – not to mention the respect & gratitude of more people around the world than ever. And we’ll have to fight fewer wars over natural resources – because if the human race cannot create greater abundance, we will fight over everything that is in shortage, which is going to be a lot of things in a world that is hot, flat & crowded.

And what if the climate skeptics and deniers who say climate change is a hoax turn out to be wrong – but we listen to them and do nothing? What will happen? We will have a future full of droughts, floods, melting glaciers, rising sea levels, resource conflicts, massive disruptions along coastal areas all over the world, and, as the eco-consultant Rob Watson puts it, the human race as a bad biological experiment on the planet.”

[Lefty]

There has been climate change on this Earth eons before man ever appeared on the surface. And now to ascribe what has been going on since time began as the fault of man is the dumbest thing I have ever hoid. If you think we humans can stop floods drought and various other extreme weather patterns, then you need to get over yourself.
This hoax is just another way for the elite to control the masses. While assholes like Gore, Reid and Pelosi and others, ride around in jets and limosenes, we the pipples will become localized.
We will be paying more for less efficent energy whilst we sdit atop abundant supplies of oil coal and natural gas.

[boxcar]

Me? I'm shootin' blanks.

No need to sound so incredulous. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck and floats like a duck....well, you know the rest.

Now, let me ask you something: The really big concern of the greenies is all the CO2 that is going into atmosphere, right? Now as little as 10 years ago, all this CO2 was supposed to be producing the terrifying greenhouse effect, which would cause the earth to warm up -- hence "global warming", right? And of course, along with all this man-made global warming theory, we had all these horrific predictions of rising oceans, rivers, worldwide floods, yada, yada, yada, yada, right?

Now, in the past two years, there's been a 180 degree turnaround about all this global warming hype because even the greenies have to admit the earth is now cooling down. (Whatever happened to the greenhouse effect?) So...all this CO2 that is supposedly killing our planet can produce a warming and cooling effect, which is why the greenies have changed the terminology to "climate change" -- because this phrase is conveniently a lot more inclusive, isn't it?

So...for one period of time, the earth warms up, then enters into a period where it cools down. Sounds rather cyclical, doesn't it? And this is a very old cycle, isn't it? And I bet this weather cycle is as old as the seasons, as old as day and night. Yet, the greenies forgot all about natural cycles when they they started preaching about global warming doomsday because they were so mesmerized and brainwashed by and fixated on the "imminent" end of mankind that would be caused by "man-made global warming" -- UNLESS WE ACTED NOW. After all, like most unthinking people and liberals (forgive the redundancy) they cannot think beyond the end of their noses. They simply never thought we'd be entering into another cooling off cycle -- just like that moron Gore didn't 5 short years ago. And you know why they didn't think of it? Because how could something that is man-made interrupt a natural cycle that's been going on since the dawn of time!? The greenies in the height of their arrogance really believed that man would end the natural cycle! Most greenies didn't foresee this global cooling coming because it isn't part of their eco-fundamentalism. It is isn't in their Goddess Earth theology. It wasn't in their playbook.

And then you wonder why some of us get a wee bit incredulous over this scam? Because that's what it is. It's con game designed to relieve the "unwashed" of more of their hard-earned money through taxation and to further a worldwide socialist agenda. And all this would by achieved by more doomsday propaganda that would induce a massive guilt trip and fear upon the populace.

Boxcar

[Floyd]

Right. However, there is no known climate change in the Earth's past that contradicts the theories that support Solar Global Warming.
In your staunch beating on the drum for anthropogenic causes, you still haven't addressed the fact that the other planets are heating up as well- a convenient glissando past the elephant in the kitchen.

Elephant? (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192)
Nope, no elephant. You've got one little spot on Mars melting, that's it. I've got a spot outside my window that melts, too.
Solar influence? The PMOD World Radiation Center (http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant) (they've got satellites!) shows no increase in irradiance since they started measuring in 1978. So over the last thirty years, when the temperature's been rising fastest, (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/) the sun hasn't been a factor. The Max Planck Institute (http://www.mps.mpg.de/en/projekte/sun-climate/) has been studying past solar irradiance and has found that, even though there's been no increase since 1940, (http://www.mps.mpg.de/images/projekte/sun-climate/climate.gif) they have detected a correlation between an increase in the early part of the 20th century (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Climate_Change_Attribution.png) with a global temperature increase from 1900 to around 1940, but not enough to explain the entire change.
I'm only "beating the drum" for anthropogenic causes because that's where the evidence points. My assumption was that handicappers would be more willing to investigate the issue for themselves, but it seems that most put more thought on which horse to place a 2 dollar bet than on the future of the planet.

[Floyd]

Now, let me ask you something: The really big concern of the greenies is all the CO2 that is going into atmosphere, right? Now as little as 10 years ago, all this CO2 was supposed to be producing the terrifying greenhouse effect, which would cause the earth to warm up -- hence "global warming", right? And of course, along with all this man-made global warming theory, we had all these horrific predictions of rising oceans, rivers, worldwide floods, yada, yada, yada, yada, right?

Now, in the past two years, there's been a 180 degree turnaround about all this global warming hype because even the greenies have to admit the earth is now cooling down. (Whatever happened to the greenhouse effect?) So...all this CO2 that is supposedly killing our planet can produce a warming and cooling effect, which is why the greenies have changed the terminology to "climate change" -- because this phrase is conveniently a lot more inclusive, isn't it?

You haven't read anything I've linked to, have you. I've linked to studies that show that the Earth is warming, you say (without attribution) that "...even the greenies have to admit the earth is now cooling down."
Who are these "greenies" to which you refer, and why would it matter what they admit? Climatologists, you know, scientists who study climate? Yeah, those guys. They have done studies that show the Earth is rapidly warming. I have linked to those studies upthread. I've asked you for facts that would support your beliefs. You can't seem to find any. The phrase "climate change" is more descriptive, and it lessens the problem of the ignorant claiming that "It's the coldest winter ever here in Frostbite Falls, so Global Warming is a bunch of hooey!" It doesn't eliminate it, but it does seem to lessen it.

So...for one period of time, the earth warms up, then enters into a period where it cools down. Sounds rather cyclical, doesn't it? And this is a very old cycle, isn't it? And I bet this weather cycle is as old as the seasons, as old as day and night. Yet, the greenies forgot all about natural cycles when they they started preaching about global warming doomsday because they were so mesmerized and brainwashed by and fixated on the "imminent" end of mankind that would be caused by "man-made global warming" -- UNLESS WE ACTED NOW.

Again with the "greenies." Who are they? People who live in Greenland? Why are you listening to folks who live in Greenland if they piss you off so much? Maybe you should listen to scientists who actually study this stuff, they obviously know more about it than these "greenies" you've been listening to. I won't link to a paper discussing the difference between the Milankovich cycles and what we're experiencing now, because you wouldn't read it, and, apparently, neither have the "greenies."


And then you wonder why some of us get a wee bit incredulous over this scam? Because that's what it is. It's con game designed to relieve the "unwashed" of more of their hard-earned money through taxation and to further a worldwide socialist agenda. And all this would by achieved by more doomsday propaganda that would induce a massive guilt trip and fear upon the populace.

Boxcar

And here we get to the heart of your objection. Fear.
Do you actually think that the oil companies and other big energy companies have your best interest at heart? Do you honestly think that they'd willingly give up a short term profit for any reason?
A little advice, these "greenies" of which you speak? I'd quit listening to them. They way you explain the way they think doesn't sound very rational.

[Tom]

Those who cry the loudest about GW do the least to prevent it. We call them frauds. Those who know this and still believe them anyway.....what do we call them?

[Floyd]

Those who cry the loudest about GW do the least to prevent it. We call them frauds. Those who know this and still believe them anyway.....what do we call them?

He's leaving office in six days.
Just let it go, man. ;)

[Tom]

GW = Global Warming

[Floyd]

GW = Global Warming

C'mon, you can't blame everything on the guy....

[hcap]

Although there are some qualified climatologists who disagree with the consensus, there is a consensus. I am familiar with most of the tech stuff, but by no means consider it an easy read. I prefer to handicap the handicappers with the best credentials. I also find it hard to believe ALL these organizations are in the bag for Al Gore.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy

Existence of a scientific consensus

Environmental groups, many governmental reports, and the non-U.S. media often state that there is virtually unanimous agreement in the scientific community in support of human-caused global warming, although there is less agreement on the specific consequences of this warming. Opponents either maintain that most scientists consider global warming "unproved," dismiss it altogether, or highlight the dangers of focusing on only one viewpoint in the context of unsettled science.[16][17][18] Others maintain that either proponents or opponents have been stifled or driven underground.[19]

The majority of climate scientists agree that global warming is primarily caused by human activities such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation.[20][21][22][23] The conclusion that global warming is mainly caused by human activity and will continue if greenhouse gas emissions are not reduced has been endorsed by more than 50 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences,[24] the American Association for the Advancement of Science,[25] and the Joint Science Academies of the major industrialized and developing nations[26] explicitly use the word "consensus" when referring to this conclusion.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the IPCC position that "An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities."[1]


* 1.1 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007
* 1.2 InterAcademy Council
* 1.3 Joint science academies' statement 2008
* 1.4 Joint science academies’ statement 2007
* 1.5 Joint science academies’ statement 2005
* 1.6 Joint science academies’ statement 2001
* 1.7 International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
* 1.8 European Academy of Sciences and Arts
* 1.9 Network of African Science Academies
* 1.10 Royal Society of New Zealand
* 1.11 National Research Council (US)
* 1.12 European Science Foundation
* 1.13 American Association for the Advancement of Science
* 1.14 Federation of American Scientists
* 1.15 World Meteorological Organization
* 1.16 American Meteorological Society
* 1.17 Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
* 1.18 Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
* 1.19 Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
* 1.20 Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
* 1.21 International Union for Quaternary Research
* 1.22 American Quaternary Association
* 1.23 Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London
* 1.24 International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
* 1.25 International Union of Geological Sciences
* 1.26 European Geosciences Union
* 1.27 Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences
* 1.28 Geological Society of America
* 1.29 American Geophysical Union
* 1.30 American Astronomical Society
* 1.31 American Institute of Physics
* 1.32 American Physical Society
* 1.33 American Chemical Society
* 1.34 American Society for Microbiology
* 1.35 Institute of Biology (UK)
* 1.36 World Federation of Public Health Associations
* 1.37 American Public Health Association
* 1.38 American Medical Association
* 1.39 American College of Preventive Medicine
* 1.40 American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
* 1.41 Wildlife Society
* 1.42 Australian Coral Reef Society
* 1.43 Water Environment Federation
* 1.44 Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management
* 1.45 American Statistical Association
* 1.46 Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)
* 1.47 Federal Climate Change Science Program (US)

# 2 Noncommittal statements

* 2.1 American Association of State Climatologists
* 2.2 American Association of Petroleum Geologists



http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a2/Climate_Change_Attribution.png

Oh yeah.......

"Statements by dissenting organizations

With the July 2007 release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate.[62]

[hcap]

http://logicalscience.com/consensus/consensusD1.htm

"Climate change critics like Richard Lindzen try to say "There's no consensus on global warming." in the Wall Street Journal, in front of Congress, and many other places. This argument has also been made repeatedly on Fox News.1,2 Other researchers like Dean Dr. Mark H. Thiemens say this "has nothing to do with reality".1,2,3 The following is a list of quotes from scientific organizations, academies, scientists, industry spokesmen, etc supporting the existence of man made climate change and the need to take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Many of these quotes reference the IPCC or Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which is widely regarded by mainstream scientists as either the "most reliable" or one of the most reliable sources for accurate information on climate change. As you will notice, the evidence against the consensus critics like Lindzen and pundits on Fox News is overwhelming. If you are confused as to whose opinion matters, just pay attention to the peer review science journals and the National Academy of Sciences. For those that don't know, the National Academies are like the Supreme Court of science. The number of climate scientists in the US can be found by examining the members of the American Geophysical Union (AGU). As of November 10, 2006 we know that there is a minimum (no official count of foreign climatologists is available) of 20,000 working climatologists worldwide 1,2. An important fact to remember is that many high profile critics you see in the news do not qualify as climate scientists when these standards are applied. Keep both of these concepts in mind the next time you see a handful of self proclaiming "climate scientists" with dissenting opinions. It is also important to note that Exxon Mobil is funding a $10,000 bounty for climate denialists and skeptics.

More at the link..........

[hcap]

More Gore.....

http://www.global-greenhouse-warming.com/images/tempindicators.JPG

[hcap]

Between Supercilious Floyd and the always pesky hcap you two featherbrains could bore mere jugheads to tears.
So Juggy, for someone who is a skeptic you sure seem hot under the collar!
I wouldn't say "mere" if I were you Juggy. That sort of demeans Jughead status :lol:

[Floyd]

I'm not just cilious, I'm super cilious!
I promise to use my super powers only for good, or evil.

[bigmack]

hcap has learned to slide in a laughing icon to cue the reader of his feeble attempts on humor. Albeit he's never come close to delivering material within an area code of generating a measly snicker.

You seem equally far removed from snappy wit, Pretty Boy Floyd.

Overall boys, I'd stick to your otiose parley of convincing others on a subject that is riddled with interpretation.

Teach us your ways, then crawl back in your holes.

[Floyd]

You seem equally far removed from snappy wit, Pretty Boy Floyd.


It takes some wits to get some wit, mack. But good for you for picking up on what all the ladies call me.

Overall boys, I'd stick to your otiose parley of convincing others on a subject that is riddled with interpretation.

It's not really open to interpretation, the science seems pretty well settled. Unless you have something to add?


Teach us your ways, then crawl back in your holes.

I don't know about Hcap, but I've got a comfy house, and I don't even have to leave it to post here. So I'm not getting your reference to "holes."

[hcap]

Overall boys, I'd stick to your otiose parley of convincing others on a subject that is riddled with interpretation.

Teach us your ways, then crawl back in your holes.Speak like a human

You write like an large, preposterous, posturing, overstuffed turd thinking "How grand I am". A perfumed turd pretending to be a flowering wit, dancing an annoying dingleberry dance until mercifully severed from your overlord Ur-anus.

Alas BM, your existence as a man of letters is as an ounce of puffery dissolved in a sea of unnecessary, obtuse, palavering space filling silly words.

Spare us the snobbery and contribute something other than your vaudevillian rendition of Alice B Tolkas to Mistah toetoes' Gertrude.

[hcap]

BM still doing paisley cuffs or have you moved on to frilly lace?

I would worry though about the layers of powdery makeup however. I believe some fops suffered from mercury poisoning.

But hey all is vanity and pretend time is loverly egocentric self stroking mindlessness:lol:

http://www.blakeneymanor.com/images/carryon/fop.jpg

[HUSKER55]

I think there is a lot of things we could do and should do to improve the world we live in. I am for that.

But, if I read hcap's graph right, it will be 4000 years before we have to hit the panic button.

The sky is not falling and I have other priorities right now. This doom and glum is just hype.

[Floyd]

I think there is a lot of things we could do and should do to improve the world we live in. I am for that.

But, if I read hcap's graph right, it will be 4000 years before we have to hit the panic button.

The sky is not falling and I have other priorities right now. This doom and glum is just hype.

The graph isn't linear, that's the problem. We're already seeing signs of the predicted Arctic Amplification Effect. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7786910.stm)

[hcap]

I think there is a lot of things we could do and should do to improve the world we live in. I am for that.

But, if I read hcap's graph right, it will be 4000 years before we have to hit the panic button.

The sky is not falling and I have other priorities right now. This doom and glum is just hype.



Not quite. Relatively small changes may have large scale effects. Most qualified climatologists are becoming more concerned..

"Even a warming in just the middle range of scientific projections would have devastating impacts on many sectors of the economy. Rising seas would inundate coastal communities, contaminate water supplies with salt and increase the risk of flooding by storm surge, affecting tens of millions of people globally. Moreover, extreme weather events, including heat waves, droughts and floods, are predicted to increase in frequency and intensity, causing loss of lives and property and throwing agriculture into turmoil.

Even though higher levels of CO2 can act as a plant fertilizer under some conditions, scientists now think that the "CO2 fertilization" effect on crops has been overstated; in natural ecosystems, the fertilization effect can diminish after a few years as plants acclimate. Furthermore, increased CO2 may benefit undesirable, weedy species more than desirable species.

Higher levels of CO2 have already caused ocean acidification, and scientists are warning of potentially devastating effects on marine life and fisheries. Moreover, higher levels of regional ozone (smog), a result of warmer temperatures, could worsen respiratory illnesses. Less developed countries and natural ecosystems may not have the capacity to adapt.

The notion that there will be regional “winners” and “losers” in global warming is based on a world-view from the 1950’s. We live in a global community. Never mind the moral implications — when an environmental catastrophe creates millions of refugees half-way around the world, Americans are affected."

.................................................. ................................................

And if I remember correctly the Pentagon is taking this very seriously. Wars may be triggered by global shortages of needed items-notably-water. They have studied this not as a contingency situation, but in terms of strategic planning

[Lefty]

Now that global warming has been refuted by Mother Earth herself, the only implications to us is in our pocketbooks. They use global warming as an excuse to control us through our wallets. When I say they, i mean all the Washington elitests that want us as defacto slaves.

[Floyd]

Now that global warming has been refuted by Mother Earth herself, the only implications to us is in our pocketbooks. They use global warming as an excuse to control us through our wallets. When I say they, i mean all the Washington elitests that want us as defacto slaves.
Oh, hi Lefty.
You missed your cue.

[Lefty]

floyd, ??????????????????????

[boxcar]

And here we get to the heart of your objection. Fear.

Actually...fear and guilt.

Do you actually think that the oil companies and other big energy companies have your best interest at heart?

No. But do you actually think government has your best interest at heart?

Do you honestly think that they'd willingly give up a short term profit for any reason?

No. But do you honestly think that the government would willingly give up its short or long term quest for power and money?

little advice, these "greenies" of which you speak? I'd quit listening to them. They way you explain the way they think doesn't sound very rational.

Nor does your group of greenie scientists who are are essentially telling us the sky is falling. :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[Greyfox]

http://www.climateprotectioncampaign.org/whats-so-funny/images/cartoon-weatherman.gif.

[Floyd]

No. But do you actually think government has your best interest at heart?
Of course not.


No. But do you honestly think that the government would willingly give up its short or long term quest for power and money?
Of course not. I also don't think the Mets will win the pennant this year, but that has nothing to do with this discussion.


Nor does your group of greenie scientists who are are essentially telling us the sky is falling.
I don't know what your imaginary "greenie" scientists say, but, based on what you've said about them I wouldn't trust 'em. I do know that nearly every real scientist says that the data show we had better make some changes and buy a hard hat.
If you've got a credible source that says something different I'd love to see it.

[Floyd]

floyd, ??????????????????????

Sorry. I shouldn't have been so glib. The "Now that global warming has been refuted by Mother Earth herself" canard itself was refuted around 90 posts ago.

[boxcar]

Of course not.


Of course not. I also don't think the Mets will win the pennant this year, but that has nothing to do with this discussion.

Then why are so quick to believe their propaganda? Politicians, today, rank lower on the veracity scale than do used car salesmen. In fact, it's really insulting to this latter group to even put them in the same class!


I don't know what your imaginary "greenie" scientists say, but, based on what you've said about them I wouldn't trust 'em. I do know that nearly every real scientist says that the data show we had better make some changes and buy a hard hat.
If you've got a credible source that says something different I'd love to see it.

Okay...

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/Ice_Age.html

http://www.winningreen.com/site/epage/59549_621.htm

But this is one is my favorites:

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0130-11.htm

How Global Warming May Cause the Next Ice Age...
by Thom Hartmann:

Of course...the operative hedge word here is "may". But if this guy's theory is on the mark, then did global warming cause all the previous ice ages? Aren't we once again talking cycles?

Another interesting thing about this article is that it was written back in '04 before the phrase "climate change" was coined.

Boxcar

[bigmack]

"Even a warming in just the middle range of scientific projections would have devastating impacts on many sectors of the economy.......
Capt. Clown failed to footnote his excerpt which was from the Environmental Defense Fund. The same EDF that filed a lawsuit to stop the Army Corps of Engineers plans to construct floodgates to close off water from Lake Pontchartrain during storms saying the gates could threaten some fish species. Sure enough, hcap was the first in line to blame Bush & others for the devastation of Katrina.

Same as it ever was in the fanciful world of hcap & his comrades.

Cut & paste graphs & charts to bolster decrepit positions. Point fingers of blame, 'the sky is falling' environmentally. Blame game is firmly intact in Clowntown.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/63.jpg

[Floyd]

Okay...

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/Ice_Age.html
You're aware that this is a Lyndon LaRouche publication, right?
This article is full of unsubstantiated claims and offers no sources, but let's try to take them one by one.

"The Nisqually Glacier has been growing since 1931."Aside from the fact that one data point doesn't tell us anything about global climate, this statement is false. (http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Volcanoes/Rainier/Glaciers/description_rainier_glaciers.html)
"Nisqually Glacier advanced and retreated three times between 1965 and 1992. The most recent period of retreat occurred between 1985 and 1991 during which time the glacier thinned by 52 feet in the region immediately west of Glacier Vista."

Then we come to this statement:
"• Since 1980, there has been an advance of more than 55% of the 625 mountain glaciers under observation by the World Glacier Monitoring group in Zurich. (From 1926 to 1960, some 70-95% of these glaciers were in retreat.)"

Which is also not only false, but completely fabricated. (http://www.mindfully.org/Air/2005/Bellamy-Junk-Science10may05.htm)

This paragraph from the linked article says it all:
"It is hard to convey just how selective you have to be to dismiss the evidence for climate change. You must climb over a mountain of evidence to pick up a crumb: a crumb which then disintegrates in the palm of your hand. You must ignore an entire canon of science, the statements of the world's most eminent scientific institutions, and thousands of papers published in the foremost scientific journals."

• A comparison of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s 1965 and 1990 Plant Hardiness Zone Maps, shows a southward change of one zone, or 10°F, between 1965 and 1990.
Hey! We have a winner! It's an actual true statement! It has no bearing on the climate change question, but it's true. The 2006 hardiness zone map (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NADF_2006_changes_map_cropped.png), on the other hand, shows an average northward change of half a zone.

• Careful measurements of the oxygen isotope ratios in German oaks, which are rigorously calibrated to temperature data, show a 1°C temperature decline from 1350 to 1800 (the lowpoint of the Little Ice Age). Temperature thereafter increased by 1°C from 1800 to 1930, and has been declining since then.
I can't find any source for this one, it may be true, or they may have made it up like the first one, or they may be cherry picking like the second. Again, one alleged data point in a sea of data which directly contradicts what they claim.

• From weather stations in the Alps, and in the Nordic countries, we find the temperature decline since 1930 is also 1°C.

No citation, but Wrong again (http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/)

Of course...the operative hedge word here is "may". But if this guy's theory is on the mark, then did global warming cause all the previous ice ages? Aren't we once again talking cycles?

Another interesting thing about this article is that it was written back in '04 before the phrase "climate change" was coined.

Boxcar

You know, I could go on and on, but what it boils down to is ideology. You have beliefs and those beliefs won't be altered by any amount of information I present to you. You won't even read the information I've presented, since I've already pointed you to information that refutes your beliefs. No amount of reason will surmount your superstition.

[Greyfox]

You know, I could go on and on, but what it boils down to is ideology. You have beliefs and those beliefs won't be altered by any amount of information I present to you. .

Good point Floyd. That's why we all don't bet on the same horse every race.
Depending upon one's perspectives decisions are made and beliefs are maintained.
Do you have anything to add re: wobble and planet tilt?
There are many who believe that variations in polar tilt contributed to the ice ages and subsequent warming cycles.

[Tom]

Weebles wobble but they don't fall down.
So I guess the earth is safe.:cool:

What cost to Africa? We are pretty much sentencing them to the stone age.
Why the pass for China, the world biggest polluter? What cost to us for the stupid new light bulbs that will - bottom line - do far greater harm to the Earth than our current ones?

Why do we allow Nancy to spew carbon and benefit no one but herself, and ditto Gores and his bozo the clown sized carbon foot print?

Wake up.......this is snake oil and you guys are doing to much consuming.

[hcap]

Capt. Clown failed to footnote his excerpt which was from the Environmental Defense Fund. The same EDF that filed a lawsuit to stop the Army Corps of Engineers plans to construct floodgates to close off water from Lake Pontchartrain during storms saying the gates could threaten some fish species. Sure enough, hcap was the first in line to blame Bush & others for the devastation of Katrina.

Same as it ever was in the fanciful world of hcap & his comrades.

Cut & paste graphs & charts to bolster decrepit positions. Point fingers of blame, 'the sky is falling' environmentally. Blame game is firmly intact in Clowntown.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/63.jpg
.................................................. .................................................. ...

My position on George W Churchill, on the war, Katrina, or other environmental disasters this administration slept it's way thru' is another point and I believe valid, but has nothing to do with humans affecting climate change. BTW, if you think the EDF is the party guilty for the Katrina disaster you are more delusional than I can imagine

Georgie on the way out, finally admitted that Al Gore was right all along. Maybe the evidence overwhelmed him? Politically speaking the repugs are playing catch up. McCain to his credit, made GW a campaign promise. You should get up to speed as well.

Speaking of Cutting & pasting, your poorly edited clown picture is if I'm not mistaken-Ronald McDonald-your alter ego. Naming yourself after a junk food hamburger is probably an accurate indication of your mental limitations. But I have to say, painting a peace sign on Ronnie is sort of hopeful, and I will do my best not to insult you too much in this post :lol:

Other than the passage I quoted, there are dozens of other sources that say the same. There is a strong consensus on humanity altering the climate, and pretty clear indications of what to expect left unattended. As I mentioned previously the Pentagon is seriously concerned. This is not an issue of a few eccentric "Greenies" exaggerating. You guys denying it are the "eccentrics"

From Wiki.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming

"The effects of global warming on the environment and human life are numerous and varied.

Scenarios studied by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predict that global warming will continue and get worse much faster than was expected even in their last report. The IPCC reports attribute many specific natural phenomena to human causes. The expected long range effects of recent climate change may already be observed. Rising sea levels, glacier retreat, Arctic shrinkage, and altered patterns of agriculture are cited as direct consequences of human activities. Predictions for secondary and regional effects include extreme weather events, an expansion of tropical diseases, changes in the timing of seasonal patterns in ecosystems, and drastic economic impact"

Overview

Climate changes characterized as global warming are leading to large-scale irreversible effects at continental and global scales. The likelihood and magnitude of the effects are observed and predicted to be increasing and accelerating."

....................................

Cutting & pasting time.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/ab/Trends_in_natural_disasters.jpg/645px-Trends_in_natural_disasters.jpg

[Marshall Bennett]

One amazing fact about Katrina , more than 200,000 claims were filed for damaged or flooded vehicles , vehicles that could have been used for evacuation . Hundreds of school buses met a simular fate , few or none were used for evacuation purposes . Local government completely blew it , plain and simple . Bush's response to the disaster wasn't the ultimate cause of the human disaster part of this storm . You Hcap , as well as so many other narrow minded liberals , have your head up your butt on this one !!

[bigmack]

.
Speaking of Cutting & pasting, your poorly edited clown picture is if I'm not mistaken-
Your ignorance is impenetrable. IF you're not mistaken? Again, you're sadly mistaken. It ain't RonnyMcD. Nice try though ChuckyCheese.

Do you honestly believe you're going highbrow by showing a chart of 'all' disasters? Your little chart is about as good science as Professor Footenfeeter from Bozo.

Pose the intellectual you long to be. Be the dolt you naturally are.

Stopping the construction of floodgates had no effect on the consequences of Katrina? Fantasyland is preserved.

Alarmist science is right up your alley.

http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/weekly%20world%20news.JPG

[HUSKER55]

Don't forget the fiasco with the mobil homes and FEMA after Katrina.

Katrina did nothing but prove once again that man has a lot to learn. Any person who lives at sea level and depends on a levy above him for protection during a hurricane truely has one more problem than he thought he had and there is a good chance he doesn't even know it.

[Boris]

Why should we relate an increased frequency in natural disasters to Global Warming? Many other things have been invented in the same time as the spike in graph. Why not the SUV, or internet?

The only way to stop Global Warming is to increase taxes. As soon as it is successfully taxed, liberals will stop talking about it.

[rastajenk]

Somebody cites a LaRouchie site, someone else cites Wiki...round and round it goes. Just like religion.

This line gets trotted out every winter, so here goes: Please please PLEASE gimme some of that ol' Global Warming right about now. It's F****** freezing right now! Minus Seven, according to the toolbar at the bottom of my screen at this moment. Where's that Greenhouse effect when you need it?

[jognlope]

How come all the coal-burning fireplaces in the early part of this century aren't more to blame? Anyway, there ain't no sunshine when it's gone (global warming). -18 here this morning.

[boxcar]

You're aware that this is a Lyndon LaRouche publication, right?
This article is full of unsubstantiated claims and offers no sources, but let's try to take them one by one.

"The Nisqually Glacier has been growing since 1931."Aside from the fact that one data point doesn't tell us anything about global climate, this statement is false. (http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Volcanoes/Rainier/Glaciers/description_rainier_glaciers.html)
"Nisqually Glacier advanced and retreated three times between 1965 and 1992. The most recent period of retreat occurred between 1985 and 1991 during which time the glacier thinned by 52 feet in the region immediately west of Glacier Vista."

Then we come to this statement:
"• Since 1980, there has been an advance of more than 55% of the 625 mountain glaciers under observation by the World Glacier Monitoring group in Zurich. (From 1926 to 1960, some 70-95% of these glaciers were in retreat.)"

Which is also not only false, but completely fabricated. (http://www.mindfully.org/Air/2005/Bellamy-Junk-Science10may05.htm)

This paragraph from the linked article says it all:
"It is hard to convey just how selective you have to be to dismiss the evidence for climate change. You must climb over a mountain of evidence to pick up a crumb: a crumb which then disintegrates in the palm of your hand. You must ignore an entire canon of science, the statements of the world's most eminent scientific institutions, and thousands of papers published in the foremost scientific journals."

• A comparison of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s 1965 and 1990 Plant Hardiness Zone Maps, shows a southward change of one zone, or 10°F, between 1965 and 1990.
Hey! We have a winner! It's an actual true statement! It has no bearing on the climate change question, but it's true. The 2006 hardiness zone map (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NADF_2006_changes_map_cropped.png), on the other hand, shows an average northward change of half a zone.

• Careful measurements of the oxygen isotope ratios in German oaks, which are rigorously calibrated to temperature data, show a 1°C temperature decline from 1350 to 1800 (the lowpoint of the Little Ice Age). Temperature thereafter increased by 1°C from 1800 to 1930, and has been declining since then.
I can't find any source for this one, it may be true, or they may have made it up like the first one, or they may be cherry picking like the second. Again, one alleged data point in a sea of data which directly contradicts what they claim.

• From weather stations in the Alps, and in the Nordic countries, we find the temperature decline since 1930 is also 1°C.

No citation, but Wrong again (http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/)



You know, I could go on and on, but what it boils down to is ideology. You have beliefs and those beliefs won't be altered by any amount of information I present to you. You won't even read the information I've presented, since I've already pointed you to information that refutes your beliefs. No amount of reason will surmount your superstition.

No! What it boils down is the unmitigated, unprecedented arrogance of Leftists who would have us believe that the earth and its eco system is so fragile and man's evil technological ways are so evil and so powerful that we're' going to destroy the planet. You and your ilk are all a bunch of greenies, but you don't know it or won't admit it. You live in this La La Land wherein you believe that Man has it in his power to restore the earth to its "pristine" glory days before Man ever darkened the face of it. This is really the bottom line. If you had your druthers, we'd all be living in caves -- burning no fossil fuels. But at the same time, the environmentalist whackos can't tell us to what temperature we must restore our world. They can't tell us what the ideal temperature is -- to what it should be. But they sure can tell us what it shouldn't be, can't they!? :bang: :bang:

Go your way, my friend. Continue to preach the "gospel" of eco-fundamentalism to the naive and gullible. You've been so hopelessly brainwahsed with junk science that is politically-driven that you make a brick look smart.

Boxcar

[bigmack]

Why should we relate an increased frequency in natural disasters to Global Warming? Many other things have been invented in the same time as the spike in graph. Why not the SUV, or internet?

The only way to stop Global Warming is to increase taxes. As soon as it is successfully taxed, liberals will stop talking about it.
Boom chacalaca! I like the way you roll Boris.

[Floyd]

No! What it boils down is the unmitigated, unprecedented arrogance of Leftists who would have us believe that the earth and its eco system is so fragile and man's evil technological ways are so evil and so powerful that we're' going to destroy the planet.

No, actually a number of scientists are alarmed that the data show that, as the result of dumping unprecedented amounts of co2 into our atmosphere, we're changing the climate. The planet will continue, it just might not be able to support us in the manner to which we've become accustomed. Arrogance would be continually ignoring the facts and endangering our progeny in favor of an ideology that emphasizes short term profits.

You and your ilk are all a bunch of greenies, but you don't know it or won't admit it. You live in this La La Land wherein you believe that Man has it in his power to restore the earth to its "pristine" glory days before Man ever darkened the face of it. This is really the bottom line. If you had your druthers, we'd all be living in caves -- burning no fossil fuels. But at the same time, the environmentalist whackos can't tell us to what temperature we must restore our world. They can't tell us what the ideal temperature is -- to what it should be. But they sure can tell us what it shouldn't be, can't they!?

That's quite the straw man you've erected there. Delightful, really. Nice work on the arm part. I mean that.
But you fail to address the issues. These "greenies" of which you speak? I've come to the inescapable conclusion that they exist only in your head. Have you had your meds adjusted lately? This paranoia you exhibit can't be the hallmark of a sound mind. Nobody is advocating that we all live in caves. Nobody is really claiming that we can return the Earth to its pristine prelapsarian state. Science understands the temperature range that can support human life, and I've provided links which explain that. You're hallucinating. Get help.

Go your way, my friend. Continue to preach the "gospel" of eco-fundamentalism to the naive and gullible. You've been so hopelessly brainwahsed with junk science that is politically-driven that you make a brick look smart.

Again with the psychotic ramblings. Eco-fundamentalism? Politically-driven junk science? Really? I've presented sound science, peer reviewed, fully falsifiable, which supports the hypotheses. You've linked to ideologically driven fringe groups and groups supported by the energy industry.
It's readily apparent who is gullible here, Boxcar.

[delayjf]

Again with the psychotic ramblings. Eco-fundamentalism? Politically-driven junk science? Really? I've presented sound science, peer reviewed, fully falsifiable, which supports the hypotheses

The problem is the evidense presented is refuted by other Scientist just as qualified those who favor the Global Warming theory. Add to that the fact that some data seems to have been misrpresented and has had to be modified (i.e Nasa avg US temp calculations), plus the fact that these same scientist were predicting a coming Ice age thirty years ago. Lately, with all the talk in recent years about the deminishing polar ice caps - there now is a report out within the past few months that the Artic Ice cap has regrown to 1979 levels - not to mention the record cold temps around the world.

More and more people are starting to see that the jury is still out on the Global Warming Theory.

[Floyd]

The problem is the evidense presented is refuted by other Scientist just as qualified those who favor the Global Warming theory.

Well, actually, no. There is a consensus amongst qualified scientists, as we have shown. The links presented up-thread have also shown that the folks who "refute" anthropogenic climate change are speaking outside of their area of expertise. Additionally, they seem to be beholden to big energy, judging by their funding sources.



Add to that the fact that some data seems to have been misrpresented and has had to be modified (i.e Nasa avg US temp calculations), plus the fact that these same scientist were predicting a coming Ice age thirty years ago. Lately, with all the talk in recent years about the deminishing polar ice caps - there now is a report out within the past few months that the Artic Ice cap has regrown to 1979 levels - not to mention the record cold temps around the world. [ /QUOTE]

Again, I have presented facts up-thread that have shown that the polar ice cap growth to 1979 levels is an anomaly. You may choose to ignore those facts if you wish, just don't state a refuted assertion as fact in this thread. That's being either disingenuous or willfully ignorant. And, as I have pointed out upthread, climate is not weather. Just because we've had record temperatures in Frostbite Falls doesn't mean the global mean temperature isn't increasing.

[QUOTE=delayjf]More and more people are starting to see that the jury is still out on the Global Warming Theory.

Again, I would have to disagree. Even the Bush Administration has been forced to admit, in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence, that "most of the recent global warming (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37232-2004Aug26.html) is very likely due to human generated increases in greenhouse gas concentrations, Emissions of carbon dioxide from fossil fuel use and from the effects of land use change are the primary sources of this increase."
You and others who join the multi-billion dollar energy companies in denying the overwhelming evidence are in the minority, albeit an increasingly intractable and vocal one. You are on the wrong side of history, and are doing a disservice to generations to come. Is that the legacy you wish to bequeath?

[boxcar]

No, actually a number of scientists are alarmed that the data show that, as the result of dumping unprecedented amounts of co2 into our atmosphere, we're changing the climate. The planet will continue, it just might not be able to support us in the manner to which we've become accustomed. Arrogance would be continually ignoring the facts and endangering our progeny in favor of an ideology that emphasizes short term profits.

Hah, Bravo! Spoken like a true anti-capitalist. Be careful: YOUR ideology and agenda is showing.

That's quite the straw man you've erected there. Delightful, really. Nice work on the arm part. I mean that.
But you fail to address the issues. These "greenies" of which you speak? I've come to the inescapable conclusion that they exist only in your head. Have you had your meds adjusted lately? This paranoia you exhibit can't be the hallmark of a sound mind. Nobody is advocating that we all live in caves. Nobody is really claiming that we can return the Earth to its pristine prelapsarian state. Science understands the temperature range that can support human life, and I've provided links which explain that. You're hallucinating. Get help.

:lol: :lol: :lol: This is precious. You're a funny guy. I'm the one paranoid, yet it's you greenies, a/k/a Mother Earth worshipers, tree huggers, etc. who are running around like a bunch of freaked out Chicken Littles essentially telling everyone the sky is falling, i.e. the world as we know it will not be able to sustain human life very much longer. But you're not paranoid, are you? :rolleyes:

And since "science" understands the "temperature range" that can support human life, and since human life is still being supported in its current range, then why fix something that ain't broken? You know what happens when you do that, right?

And if "science" truly understands the "temperature range", which according to you and 'Cap is quite narrow, then why hasn't Science Almighty revealed to us, in all its infinite knowledge and wisdom, just precisely what the ideal range is? Where do we need to be, temperature-wise within this narrow range?

Boxcar

[Floyd]

Hah, Bravo! Spoken like a true anti-capitalist. Be careful: YOUR ideology and agenda is showing.
Yup. That statement is about as anti-capitalist as Warren Buffet.


This is precious. You're a funny guy. I'm the one paranoid, yet it's you greenies, a/k/a Mother Earth worshipers, tree huggers, etc. who are running around like a bunch of freaked out Chicken Littles essentially telling everyone the sky is falling, i.e. the world as we know it will not be able to sustain human life very much longer. But you're not paranoid, are you?
It's not paranoia when something is really happening.

And since "science" understands the "temperature range" that can support human life, and since human life is still being supported in its current range, then why fix something that ain't broken? You know what happens when you do that, right?

And if "science" truly understands the "temperature range", which according to you and 'Cap is quite narrow, then why hasn't Science Almighty revealed to us, in all its infinite knowledge and wisdom, just precisely what the ideal range is? Where do we need to be, temperature-wise within this narrow range?

Boxcar
You're repeating yourself. We've already discussed this, remember? You said the same thing a couple days ago, I posted some links addressing that topic, hcap posted some links, I asked you to refute them, you couldn't. Remember? Does any of this seem familiar at all? Even a little bit? Have you mentioned these symptoms to your doctor? Because it seems like dementia to me. The "liberals" are out to get you, the mythical "greenies" are conspiring to make you live in a cave, you feel insulted every time you see a foreign language. I sense a pattern. I know, I know, you don't believe in "science," but they really are making great strides in treating these things. They've done studies, come up with medications. You know, done "sciencey" things. It's really quite promising. There's hope for people like you,you don't have to live in fear. But, hey, if the poultices and leeches make you feel better, that's O.K. Just know that you seem to be repeating yourself. A lot.

[boxcar]

Yup. That statement is about as anti-capitalist as Warren Buffet.



It's not paranoia when something is really happening.


You're repeating yourself. We've already discussed this, remember? You said the same thing a couple days ago, I posted some links addressing that topic, hcap posted some links, I asked you to refute them, you couldn't. Remember? Does any of this seem familiar at all? Even a little bit? Have you mentioned these symptoms to your doctor? Because it seems like dementia to me. The "liberals" are out to get you, the mythical "greenies" are conspiring to make you live in a cave, you feel insulted every time you see a foreign language. I sense a pattern. I know, I know, you don't believe in "science," but they really are making great strides in treating these things. They've done studies, come up with medications. You know, done "sciencey" things. It's really quite promising. There's hope for people like you,you don't have to live in fear. But, hey, if the poultices and leeches make you feel better, that's O.K. Just know that you seem to be repeating yourself. A lot.

Well, you know you're right to point. I am paranoid over you pathetic greenie tree huggers who want to send civilization back to the stone age, who think it's perfectly okay to tax working people to the hilt in the name of "saving the planet", who are so naive that they don't have the first clue that the universal, fundamental flaw in the human condition is man's untrustworthiness which is why they're so easily conned by science-so called, and who are so conceited and arrogant that they think that puny man has the power to alter the course of natural forces and natural cycles. Yeah...come to think of it, you Chicken Little types are THE biggest menace to society and to all civilization because all you know how to do is prey upon people's fears and lay false guilt trips upon us. Fear mongering is your specialty and only true hope for the socialization of the world because it's all you've got.

Boxcar
P.S. And for your info, when people are as wealthy as Buffet -- who never have to worry about falling out of the lap of luxury -- they can afford to be anything and to say anything they want and not concern themselves with being unduly burdened with the "baggage" of responsibility.

PPS. And you know what really amazes me is that if you're a horse player, why are you so eager to follow the consensus picks -- the consensus of science? Consensus junkies are losers -- born and self-made alike. The only true winners in life are people who can think for themselves and who refuse to be led by the nose by blind guides.

[Boris]

Here is a collection of of NY Times articles (headline only here, a little more at the link below) showing a concern about climate change for the last 150 years. Seems the earth is like a swingset -up and down and back and forth. The sad thing today is that almost everyone would agree that we should take prudent steps to preserve and protect our planet and the human race. Turning global warming into the political football that it now is just turns people off. It's like watching a bad ventriloquist.

Headline on top - Date of the article underneath.

CLIMATOLOGY
January 5, 1855, Wednesday

THIS CLIMATE OF OURS; WHY THESE OPEN WINTERS AND TEMPERATE SUMMERS? THE GEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE OF THE ALTERNATE PREVALENCE OF A SEMITROPICAL ATMOSPHERE.
January 2, 1870, Wednesday

IS CLIMATE CHANGING?--
March 25, 1888, Wednesday

IS OUR CLIMATE CHANGING?
February 3, 1889, Wednesday

THIS CLIMATE OF OURS; WHY THESE OPEN WINTERS AND TEMPERATE SUMMERS? THE GEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE OF THE ALTERNATE PREVALENCE OF A SEMITROPICAL ATMOSPHERE.
June 23, 1890, Wednesday

FACT AND FANCY ABOUT CLIMATE; Prof. Ward in His New Book Discusses Various Popular Notions Regarding the Weather.
May 30, 1908, Saturday

Nation Is Held on Verge of Climate Shift; Experts See Old-Fashioned Winters Back
December 16, 1934, Sunday

Warming Arctic Climate Melting Glaciers Faster, Raising Ocean Level, Scientist Says
May 30, 1947, Friday

Is Climate Changing?; Habits of Mammals and Birds Suggest World Is Warmer
October 15, 1950, Sunday

How Industry May Change Climate
May 24, 1953, Sunday

Greenland's Moderating Climate Turns Hunters Into Fishermen; Economy Once Based on Sea Mammals Now Depends On Cod Sold for Cash
August 29, 1954, Sunday

CLIMATE WARMING IN THE ANTARCTIC; 5-Degree Rise Over the Last Half Century Is Recorded at Little America ICE IS FOUND THICKER Director of U. S. Program Says Sheet Drops 10,000 Feet in Many Areas
May 31, 1958, Saturday

SCIENCE IN REVIEW; Warmer Climate on the Earth May Be Due To More Carbon Dioxide in the Air
October 28, 1956, Sunday

CLUE TO WEATHER FOUND IN GLACIER;
December 25, 1956, Tuesday

Frozen Key To Our Climate; The world's ice masses may be ushering in a fifth Ice Age. Frozen Key To Our Climate
December 7, 1958, Sunday

A WARMER EARTH EVIDENT AT POLES; Arctic Findings in Particular Support Theory of Rising Global Temperatures
February 15, 1959, Sunday

SCIENTISTS AGREE WORLD IS COLDER; But Climate Experts Meeting Here Fail to Agree on Reasons for Change
January 30, 1961, Monday

EARTH'S WEATHER GROWING COLDER; U.S. Among the Exceptions, Rome Symposium Hears
October 8, 1961, Sunday

Weathermen Try to Explain the Why of Spring That Never Was in 1967
May 31, 1967, Wednesday

Scientist Hints Earthquake Link To Wobbles in Spinning of Earth; Heirtzler of
November 29, 1968, Friday

Expert Says Arctic Ocean Will Soon Be an Open Sea; Catastrophic Shifts in Climate Feared if Change Occurs Other Specialists See No Thinning of Polar Ice Cap
February 20, 1969, Thursday

U.S. and Soviet Press Studies of a Colder Arctic; U.S. and Soviet Press Arctic Studies
July 18, 1970, Saturday

Climate Experts Assay Ice Age Clues
January 27, 1972, Thursday

Record of a Little Ice Age Is Discovered
February 5, 1972, Saturday

Scientist Fears Equable Climate Around World Could Be Ending
October 31, 1972, Tuesday

FORECAST FOR; FORECASTING: CLOUDY In the long term, climate is cooling off-or is it warming up? As for tomorrow's weather, even the world's biggest computer can't sayfor sure what it will be. Forecasting ' A really accurate three-day weather forecast would result in savings of $86-million a year just for growersof wheat in the state of Wisconsin.'
December 29, 1974, Sunday

CLIMATE CHANGES CALLED OMINOUS; Scientists Warn Predictions Must Be Made Precise to Avoid Catastrophe
January 19, 1975, Sunday

Scientists Ask Why World Climate Is Changing; Major Cooling May Be Ahead; Scientists Ponder Why World's Climate Is Changing; a Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable
May 21, 1975, Wednesday

WARMING TREND SEEN IN CLIMATE; Two Articles Counter View That Cold Period Is Due
August 14, 1975, Thursday

Experts Fear Great Peril If SST Fumes Cool Earth
December 21, 1975, Sunday

2 Climate Experts Decry Predictions of Disasters; Drought in
February 22, 1976, Sunday

International Team of Specialists Finds No End in Sight to 30-Year Cooling Trend in Northern Hemisphere
January 5, 1978, Thursday

Climate Specialists, in Poll, Foresee No Catastrophic Weather Changes in Rest of Century; Warning About Carbon Dioxide
February 18, 1978, Saturday

Scientists at World Parley Doubt Climate Variations Are Ominous; Forgetting the Past Major Shifts in Past
February 16, 1979, Friday

A Vast 'Interdisciplinary Effort' To Predict Climate Trend Urged; Neutralization Needed
February 24, 1979, Saturday

Scientists Reviving Speculation on Climate and Slipping Antarctic Ice; Theory of Linked Events Evidence in Bones Volcanic Dust Theory In Less Than a Century
March 9, 1980, Sunday


http://newsbusters.org/node/11640

[Tom]

Extra, extra. Read all about it. :eek:

[Pace Cap'n]

Yep, sure enough, when I want definitive answers I turn to science.

Like astronomy. Pluto is a planet. No, it's not, yes it is. no it's not. OK, not.

The scientists told us bronze tools did not exist prior to the 3rd century BC. Look, we found an iceman and he's got some broze tools. And this dude is old. Like 5000 yrs. Oh, well, only off by 33%. No sweat.

Back to space--we've accounted for all the matter in the universe. Well, all except for about 90% of it. Hey, I know, let's just call it (this is great) "Dark Matter".

Sure got to hand it to those scientists.

[Greyfox]

Sure got to hand it to those scientists.

You wouldn't have been able to post that comment were it not for science.;)

[Tom]

Like astronomy. Pluto is a planet. No, it's not, yes it is. no it's not. OK, not.


It is a Planette! :lol:

And Global warming turns out to be weather! :bang:

[Floyd]

And you know what really amazes me is that if you're a horse player, why are you so eager to follow the consensus picks -- the consensus of science? Consensus junkies are losers -- born and self-made alike. The only true winners in life are people who can think for themselves and who refuse to be led by the nose by blind guides.

Because I'm not a gambler. Let me ask you, why would you bet your whole bankroll, plus your house, your car, and your kids' college funds on such a long shot? Look at the tote board, there's a whole lot of action on this horse to win. It's a bridge jumper race. When I invest in a bridge jumper I dutch very carefully, but I put the bulk of my bankroll on the favorite. I don't have to tell you that, you know the percentages.

(Speaking of dutching, here's one way the Dutch (http://newshopper.sulekha.com/newsitem/iansnews/2008/07/let-the-sea-rise-say-the-dutch.htm) are dealing with this)

Thanks for reminding me why I'm on this board. And thanks for your persistence. I was ranting about this thread to my GF last night, she said "You're obviously enjoying it, otherwise why would you keep going back?"
I hate it when she's right.

[Tom]

Global warming is real!
I know it is true now.

Thursday, it was 2 degrees.
Friday, it was 3 degrees.
Today, it is 18 degrees.

At this rate, we are toast by "Law and Order." :eek:

[dutchboy]

Minus 24 Friday am in Minneapolis.
Plus 13 this morning in Minneapolis.
Forecast for Monday is plus 34 in Minneapolis.

Thanks Mr Gore

[PaceAdvantage]

Plus 6 in the NY Metro area last night....thank Al....:lol:

[dutchboy]

Further proof of global warming?

[PaceAdvantage]

If NY-metro had previously been a desert, then maybe....

[hcap]

Plus 6 in the NY Metro area last night....thank Al....:lol:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2009/01/17/last_year_was_8th_warmest_on_record/

WASHINGTON - Last year was the eighth warmest year on record, according to the National Climatic Data Center.

The world's temperature in 2008 tied that of 2001, according to the center, a division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

The ranking means that the 10 warmest years on record have occurred since 1997. Record keeping began in 1880.

Scientists around the world have raised concerns about global warming caused by the greenhouse effect, in which emissions, largely generated by human activity, trap solar radiation.

The climate center noted that since 1880, the annual combined global land and ocean surface temperature has increased at a rate of 0.09 degree per decade and the rate has increased over the past 30 years.

[Boris]

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2009/01/17/last_year_was_8th_warmest_on_record/

WASHINGTON - Last year was the eighth warmest year on record, according to the National Climatic Data Center.

The world's temperature in 2008 tied that of 2001, according to the center, a division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

The ranking means that the 10 warmest years on record have occurred since 1997. Record keeping began in 1880.

Scientists around the world have raised concerns about global warming caused by the greenhouse effect, in which emissions, largely generated by human activity, trap solar radiation.

The climate center noted that since 1880, the annual combined global land and ocean surface temperature has increased at a rate of 0.09 degree per decade and the rate has increased over the past 30 years.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/08/23/how-not-to-measure-temperature-part-69/

From the site:

Sure there will be those that argue that these sorts of nuances in thermometer exposure “don’t matter” or can be adjusted for. But as we’ve seen time and again the adjustments, such as those done by NASA GISS use a broad brush, and don’t take these sorts of microsite exposure issues into account on any level.

To get an idea of the potential problems involved, here is a paper that goes into minute details about exposure biases in the Australian BoM surface station network

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/6021/paper.html

Clearly, Santa Ana is warming. But how much does the record reflect all of the various problems highlighted above and how much of it is the true climate signal?. The answer is by no means certain.




And take a look see here: http://www.surfacestations.org/

Climate Reference Network Rating Guide - adopted from NCDC Climate Reference Network Handbook, 2002, specifications for siting (section 2.2.1) of NOAA's new Climate Reference Network:

Class 1 - Flat and horizontal ground surrounded by a clear surface with a slope below 1/3 (<19deg). Grass/low vegetation ground cover <10 centimeters high. Sensors located at least 100 meters from artificial heating or reflecting surfaces, such as buildings, concrete surfaces, and parking lots. Far from large bodies of water, except if it is representative of the area, and then located at least 100 meters away. No shading when the sun elevation >3 degrees.

Class 2 - Same as Class 1 with the following differences. Surrounding Vegetation <25 centimeters. No artificial heating sources within 30m. No shading for a sun elevation >5deg.

Class 3 (error 1C) - Same as Class 2, except no artificial heating sources within 10 meters.

Class 4 (error >= 2C) - Artificial heating sources <10 meters.

Class 5 (error >= 5C) - Temperature sensor located next to/above an artificial heating source, such a building, roof top, parking lot, or concrete surface."

[boxcar]

Because I'm not a gambler. Let me ask you, why would you bet your whole bankroll, plus your house, your car, and your kids' college funds on such a long shot? Look at the tote board, there's a whole lot of action on this horse to win. It's a bridge jumper race. When I invest in a bridge jumper I dutch very carefully, but I put the bulk of my bankroll on the favorite. I don't have to tell you that, you know the percentages.

(Speaking of dutching, here's one way the Dutch (http://newshopper.sulekha.com/newsitem/iansnews/2008/07/let-the-sea-rise-say-the-dutch.htm) are dealing with this)

Thanks for reminding me why I'm on this board. And thanks for your persistence. I was ranting about this thread to my GF last night, she said "You're obviously enjoying it, otherwise why would you keep going back?"
I hate it when she's right.

Why am I not surprised that we'd approach turf speculation very differently? I would never and have never in my life engaged in "bridge jumping" activity. How I always earned my keep at the track was going against the consensus -- against public opinion -- against the conventional wisdom. For this reason, I always avoided favorites as though they were the Bubonic Plague. My game was looking for vulnerable or even better yet -- false favorites to bet against. There is no percentage is betting with the sheeple.
Plus I never bet the farm on one long shot because there's no such thing as a "dead crab" in a race.

Plus what you fail to understand is that I'm not betting on a long shot per se on this issue, as much as I am betting against the known and well proven and well established human condition. I know that Man is a deceiver and is self-deceived. And this,sir, is a bet on a sure thing!

Boxcar
P.S. The world is full of sky-falling Chicken Littles who have yet proven themselves to be right. ;)

[hcap]

And take a look

http://www.surfacestations.org/

Climate Reference Network Rating Guide - adopted from NCDC Climate Reference Network Handbook, 2002, specifications for siting (section 2.2.1) of NOAA's new Climate Reference Network:

Class 1 - Flat and horizontal ground surrounded by a clear surface with a slope below 1/3 (<19deg). Grass/low vegetation ground cover <10 centimeters high. Sensors located at least 100 meters from artificial heating or reflecting surfaces, such as buildings, concrete surfaces, and parking lots. Far from large bodies of water, except if it is representative of the area, and then located at least 100 meters away. No shading when the sun elevation >3 degrees.

Class 2 - Same as Class 1 with the following differences. Surrounding Vegetation <25 centimeters. No artificial heating sources within 30m. No shading for a sun elevation >5deg.

Class 3 (error 1C) - Same as Class 2, except no artificial heating sources within 10 meters.

Class 4 (error >= 2C) - Artificial heating sources <10 meters.

Class 5 (error >= 5C) - Temperature sensor located next to/above an artificial heating source, such a building, roof top, parking lot, or concrete surface."So which is it?

1)-Is it that GW is NOT happening because basic temperature measurements are faulty because sensors are improperly located,

2)-Or is it humans are causing the rise in temps due to CO2 emissions?

I believe you gentlemen were admitting global temperatures were in fact rising, but humans were not responsible. Instead natural causes, ie: solar cyles are responsible.

I would think that the failure of sensors would be readily evident to the worlds scientific community. Are you contending that this one fact was overlooked? And basic scientific rules were ignored?

One of the checks of scientific investigation is being reviewed by your peers.
I would give more weight to the importance of sensor inaccuracies-how many percentage-wise are faulty globally-if other than having a website they published their data in the journals and the data analyzed by other researchers. According to Wiki they have not. Whereas the consensus FOR GW is based on scientific review.

From Wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy#Existence_of_a_scientif ic_consensus

Urban heat island

...Skeptics contend that stations located in more populated areas could show warming due to increased heat generated by cities, rather than a global temperature rise[citation needed]. The IPCC Third Assessment Report acknowledges that the urban heat island is an important local effect, but cites analysis of historical data indicating that the effect of the urban heat island on the global temperature trend is no more than 0.05 °C (0.09 °F) degrees through 1990.[109] More recently, Peterson (2003) found no difference between the warming observed in urban and rural areas.[110]

Stephen McIntyre analyzed Peterson's raw data and found "actual cities have a very substantial trend of over 2 °C per century relative to the rural network—and this assumes that there are no problems with rural network—something that is obviously not true since there are undoubtedly microsite and other problems."[111] McIntyre has not published his results in a peer-reviewed journal.

Parker (2006) found that there was no difference in warming between calm and windy nights. Since the urban heat island effect is strongest for calm nights and is weak or absent on windy nights, this was taken as evidence that global temperature trends are not significantly contaminated by urban effects.[112] Pielke and Matsui published a paper disagreeing with Parker's conclusions.[113]

Surface station siting and adjustments

More recently, Roger A. Pielke and Stephen McIntyre have criticized the US instrumental temperature record and adjustments to it, and Pielke and others have criticized the poor quality siting of a number of weather stations in the United States.[114][115] In response, Anthony Watts began a volunteer effort to photographically document the siting quality of these stations.[116] Based on the work of Watts, Stephen McIntyre has completed a reconstruction of U.S. temp history using only those weather stations identified so far as meeting the requirements to be CRN level 1 (excellent) or level 2 (good) stations. The higher quality stations indicate the warmest years in the U.S. were 1934 and 1921, followed by 1998 and 2006.[117] McIntyre has made all of his methods, data and code available for others to reproduce his findings. McIntyre's analysis has not been published in the peer-reviewed literature.

[Tom]

1. The earth is not warming.
2. If it is, we are not causing it.
3. If we are, there is nothing we can do about it.
4. If there is, we can't afford to do it.
5. If we can, we still have better thinks to do with our money.
6. If we don't, then ok, let it go to 80-85 then we'll talk.

hcap, why can't you you more to point and concise, like me? :cool::D

[hcap]

Usually I don't suspend the higher brain functions before I post.
To babble very very concisely is not as important as you think. :lol:

The point I was making above is that the sensor problem that allegedly dismisses GW is not being peer reviewed as all the pro GW papers are.

So the facts seem to go against your first 5 points.

[lsbets]

Global Warming is Not a Crisis

But global warming is not, in fact, a crisis. Here’s how we know this:

* Since 2007, more than 31,072 American scientists, including 9,021 with Ph.Ds, have signed the a petition which says, in part, "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate.”

* A 2003 international survey of climate scientists (with 530 responding) found only 9.4 percent “strongly agreed” and 25.3 percent “agreed” with the statement “climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes.” Some 10.2 percent “strongly disagreed.”

* A 2006 survey of scientists in the U.S. found 41 percent disagreed that the planet’s recent warmth “can be, in large part, attributed to human activity,” and 71 percent disagreed that recent hurricane activity is significantly attributable to human activity.

* A recent review of 1,117 abstracts of scientific journal articles on “global climate change” found only 13 (1 percent) explicitly endorse the “consensus view” while 34 reject or cast doubt on the view that human activity has been the main driver of warming over the past 50 years.

The mainstream of the scientific community, in other words, does not believe global warming is a crisis.

http://www.heartland.org/events/NewYork09/background.html

It is an out and out lie to say that no credible folks question the "consensus" view of GW. IMO opinion, GW is the greatest fraud perpetrated on mankind in my lifetime, opening the way to greater government control over the masses through efforts to "save the planet". It is a religion to the fanatics, who do not tolerate dissenting opinion, and won't even admit that there are very credible people who take the opposing view.

[Boris]

So which is it?


It is nothing to develop policy over. It's an industry.

[boxcar]

Global Warming is Not a Crisis

But global warming is not, in fact, a crisis. Here’s how we know this:

Now, you've done it, LS: You've confused the eco-fundies with the truth. The Chicken Littles are going to have to manufacture a new crisis with which to scare everyone.

Boxcar

[Greyfox]

Usually I don't suspend the higher brain functions before I post.
To babble very very concisely is not as important as you think. :lol:
.
I don't agree with you, but I admire your fighting attitude - "Giver Hcap!"

[hcap]

Global Warming is Not a Crisis

But global warming is not, in fact, a crisis. Here’s how we know this:

* Since 2007, more than 31,072 American scientists, including 9,021 with Ph.Ds, have signed the a petition which says, in part, "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate.”

* A 2003 international survey of climate scientists (with 530 responding) found only 9.4 percent “strongly agreed” and 25.3 percent “agreed” with the statement “climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes.” Some 10.2 percent “strongly disagreed.”

* A 2006 survey of scientists in the U.S. found 41 percent disagreed that the planet’s recent warmth “can be, in large part, attributed to human activity,” and 71 percent disagreed that recent hurricane activity is significantly attributable to human activity.

* A recent review of 1,117 abstracts of scientific journal articles on “global climate change” found only 13 (1 percent) explicitly endorse the “consensus view” while 34 reject or cast doubt on the view that human activity has been the main driver of warming over the past 50 years.

The mainstream of the scientific community, in other words, does not believe global warming is a crisis.

http://www.heartland.org/events/NewYork09/background.html

It is an out and out lie to say that no credible folks question the "consensus" view of GW. IMO opinion, GW is the greatest fraud perpetrated on mankind in my lifetime, opening the way to greater government control over the masses through efforts to "save the planet". It is a religion to the fanatics, who do not tolerate dissenting opinion, and won't even admit that there are very credible people who take the opposing view.

.................................................. .........................................

When I have more time, I will go thru each erroneous point taken from the "The Heartland Institute". Meanwhile.....

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute

Exxon Funding

Greenpeace's ExxonSecrets website lists Heartland as having received $791,500 (unadjusted for inflation) from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2006.[27]

Contributions include:

* $30,000 in 1998;
* $115,000 in 2000;
* $90,000 in 2001;
* $15,000 in 2002;
* $85,000 for General Operating Support and $7,500 for their 19th Anniversary Benefit Dinner in 2003;
* 85,000 for General Operating Support and $15,000 for Climate Change Efforts in 2004; and
* $109,000 in 2005; and
* $230,000 in 2006.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=The_2008_International_Conference_ on_Climate_Change

"The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change was a conference held at the Marriott New York Marquis Times Square Hotel in New York between March 2-4 . The conference was organised and "sponsored" by the Heartland Institute, a U.S. think tanks that in preceding years received substantial funding from Exxon for its work downplaying the significance of global warming.

.....Conference for Skeptics

The conference was described by Washington Post reporter, Juliet Eilperin, as "a sort of global warming doppelganger conference, where everything was reversed." At the event, skeptics unveiled their response to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) report, edited by corporate-funded skeptic Fred Singer, argued that "recent climate change stems from natural causes." Eilperin notes that "while the IPCC enlisted several hundred scientists from more than 100 countries to work over five years to produce its series of reports, the NIPCC document is the work of 23 authors from 15 nations, some of them not scientists."[1]

[hcap]

Your ignorance is impenetrable. IF you're not mistaken? Again, you're sadly mistaken. It ain't RonnyMcD. Nice try though ChuckyCheese.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/63.jpg

If it ain't Ronny, you seem to have a thing for clowns that sure look like him!
Then again maybe it is something you can't help.

Being clown obsessed is something you should check out soon.
Search "Coulrophobia"

[Tom]

So taking contributions is a bad thing and implies quid pro quo?

So then what about Obama being the largest recipient of contributions from the failed housing industry? What should we imply from that?

[lsbets]

Careful Tom, now you've gone from questioning the Church of Global Warming to attacking the messiah. Hcap might issue a fatwa against you.

[Tom]

"Bring 'em on!"
----George W Bush

[delayjf]

I posted this before as an example of the errors that have been discovered in the Avg temperature calculations - at NASA no less.


http://www.geotimes.org/aug07/article.html?id=WebExtra081607_2.html

[boxcar]

So taking contributions is a bad thing and implies quid pro quo?

So then what about Obama being the largest recipient of contributions from the failed housing industry? What should we imply from that?

Or, 'cap, for that matter, what about scientists receiving grants from environmentalists or environmentalist sympathizers who have political agendas?
No quid pro quo there, right? No, you-scrub-my-back and I'll-scrub-yours, eh? :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[hcap]

So taking contributions is a bad thing and implies quid pro quo?
Careful Tom, now you've gone from questioning the Church of Global Warming to attacking the messiah. Hcap might issue a fatwa against you.
Or, 'cap, for that matter, what about scientists receiving grants from environmentalists or environmentalist sympathizers who have political agendas?
OK guys find me the donors of the 95 % of the climatologists who support the consensus for GW.

Try

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.ph...tland_Institute

Or other industrial or political watchdogs that are independent and trustworthy.

[hcap]

Just a reminder.
These are the pro GW groups.

* 1.1 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007
* 1.2 InterAcademy Council
* 1.3 Joint science academies' statement 2008
* 1.4 Joint science academies’ statement 2007
* 1.5 Joint science academies’ statement 2005
* 1.6 Joint science academies’ statement 2001
* 1.7 International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
* 1.8 European Academy of Sciences and Arts
* 1.9 Network of African Science Academies
* 1.10 Royal Society of New Zealand
* 1.11 National Research Council (US)
* 1.12 European Science Foundation
* 1.13 American Association for the Advancement of Science
* 1.14 Federation of American Scientists
* 1.15 World Meteorological Organization
* 1.16 American Meteorological Society
* 1.17 Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
* 1.18 Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
* 1.19 Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
* 1.20 Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
* 1.21 International Union for Quaternary Research
* 1.22 American Quaternary Association
* 1.23 Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London
* 1.24 International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
* 1.25 International Union of Geological Sciences
* 1.26 European Geosciences Union
* 1.27 Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences
* 1.28 Geological Society of America
* 1.29 American Geophysical Union
* 1.30 American Astronomical Society
* 1.31 American Institute of Physics
* 1.32 American Physical Society
* 1.33 American Chemical Society
* 1.34 American Society for Microbiology
* 1.35 Institute of Biology (UK)
* 1.36 World Federation of Public Health Associations
* 1.37 American Public Health Association
* 1.38 American Medical Association
* 1.39 American College of Preventive Medicine
* 1.40 American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
* 1.41 Wildlife Society
* 1.42 Australian Coral Reef Society
* 1.43 Water Environment Federation
* 1.44 Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management
* 1.45 American Statistical Association
* 1.46 Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)
* 1.47 Federal Climate Change Science Program (US)

[Tom]

Hey Poll Boy.....public opinion is turning on you........

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/issues2/articles/44_say_global_warming_due_to_planetary_trends_not_ people



Al Gore’s side may be coming to power in Washington, but they appear to be losing the battle on the idea that humans are to blame for global warming. Forty-four percent (44%) of U.S. voters now say long-term planetary trends are the cause of global warming, compared to 41% who blame it on human activity.

[hcap]

So the majority of non scientists-the Public-is wrong. Although 44 to 41 is not a huge diff.

Let me remind you Tom of some of your other profound sounding other oldies but goodies golden gem insights..

1)-The only poll that counts is on election day.(Tune in tomorrow morning)

2)-Obama couldn't win without teleprompters. A lousy orator.(Tune in tomorrow morning)

3)-31,215 posts and counting. Mostly babble. (Tune in tomorrow morning)



Just like the initial gung-ho support for the Iraq war was wrong. Eventually the Public came around against the war.(Tune in tomorrow morning)

Initially the Public loved Sarah Palin (Tune in tomorrow morning)

BTW, here are the results of another poll

http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2009/01/19/Scientists_say_global_warming_real/UPI-73711232403834/

Scientists say global warming real
Published: Jan. 19, 2009 at 5:23 PM

CHICAGO, Jan. 19 (UPI) -- A wide range of Earth scientists say humans contribute significantly to global warming, suggests a poll conducted by the University of Illinois at Chicago.

The poll should dispel doubts by some that a consensus about global warming exists among scientists, said Peter Doran, a University of Illinois professor who conducted the poll with students last year.

The 3,146 Earth scientists interviewed around the world overwhelmingly agreed that global temperatures have risen in the last 200-plus years and human activity is a significant factor, Doran said in a statement released Monday.

The scientists, chosen from the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments, were asked two questions via e-mail: if mean global temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and if human activity has been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.

About 90 percent of those polled agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second question, Doran said.

[hcap]

Oh yeah.
The latest approval ratings Poll boy

George W Bush 22%
Dick Cheney 13%
Barack Obama 83%.

Tune in you know when :lol:

[Tom]

I just post it for your benefit, since your have such a weak mind is cannot formulate its own opinions and you have always had to rely on the opinions of others. And I like the nice grade school twist you threw in about Bush, Cheney....consistency is always appreciated.

[hcap]

We were arguing the SCIENTIFIC consensus for GW.
Among scientists.

YOU threw in a PUBLIC poll. Consistency is lacking in your babble, not my logical comments. Since you brought up Polls, I thought I would remind you to tune in-you know when :lol: :bang: :cool:

[Tom]

Of course I will be listening....taking notes, so I can remind every time he goes against what he says today. We all know today is just a dog and pony show and nothing he says will have any ties to reality. This is going to be a fun 4 years, or however long he lasts. :p

[hcap]

Of course I will be listening....taking notes, so I can remind every time he goes against what he says today. We all know today is just a dog and pony show and nothing he says will have any ties to reality. This is going to be a fun 4 years, or however long he lasts. :pJust like the village idiot you supported that took us into a unjust, unwarranted unnecessary war?

BTW, you high-fivers are complaining on and on about the cost of the inauguration. About a few hours of the cost of the Iraqi War

BTW2, President Gore is right about GW, and would not have taken us into Iraq.
So the peace sign is right as well

[The Judge]

about gobal warming http://www.triplepundit.com/pages/eskimos-sue-23.php
If I wanted to know if it was raining in San Francisco the best way is to ask someone living there if its raining. Well those living in the north are suing because its too hot. Even if they lose the suit they (our Nothern citizens )are letting us know something is wrong.

[Tom]

So I guess I'll have to sue next time a blizzards comes down out of Canada.
What a crock and what bunch of numb-skulls. You believe in evolution? Theses nut jobs area de-evolving.

[hcap]

about gobal warming http://www.triplepundit.com/pages/eskimos-sue-23.php
If I wanted to know if it was raining in San Francisco the best way is to ask someone living there if its raining. Well those living in the north are suing because its too hot. Even if they lose the suit they (our Nothern citizens )are letting us know something is wrong.
From your article.....

"The US Army Corps of Engineers has officially confirmed that their town is exposed to risks which are due to climate change. The US Army asserted in an official report that the village will have to be relocated to maintain safety standards and that the relocation will amount to costs of $95 million."

"The Union of Concerned Scientists is particularly hot on the tracks of ExxonMobil, accusing the company literally of mimicking cigarette manufacturer tactics in covertly establishing front groups. This way, the company pays writers to exploit scientific uncertainties. According to other reports too, ExxonMobil funneled around $16 million to think tanks mandates of manipulating the public on global warming just so the companies can continue to pollute and contribute to global warming."

I guess Evil Al Gore bribed or brainwashed both
US Army Corps of Engineers and
The Union of Concerned Scientists?

Ok guys show us the funding supplied to both of these groups.
I guess Greenpeace is just as powerful as ExxonMobil :lol: :bang: :cool: :jump:

[hcap]

So I guess I'll have to sue next time a blizzards comes down out of Canada.
What a crock and what bunch of numb-skulls. You believe in evolution? Theses nut jobs area de-evolving.
Hey Perry Mason. You have no case. They do.
Go enlist US Army Corps of Engineers and The Union of Concerned Scientists and then sue.

BTW, considering how many calories a day you probably ingest, your GW foot print disqualifies you from claiming damages. :lol:

BTW2 may I speak to Rocky?

[delayjf]

Just like the village idiot you supported that took us into a unjust, unwarranted unnecessary war?
Are you referring to the president of the United States who has a perfect record defending this country from terrorism. Perhaps the war would not have been necessary had the previous administration done it's job in defending this nation.

BTW, you high-fivers are complaining on and on about the cost of the inauguration. About a few hours of the cost of the Iraqi War.
Nice comparison - defending this nation vs a big party - but then again knowing liberals why am I surprized

BTW2, President Gore is right about GW, and would not have taken us into Iraq.
He MAYBE right about the trend of GW - he's just wrong about it's cause and what can be done about it and if it's even necessary.

Riddle me this - who has made more money??
Al Gore off his GW businesses / investments etc.
OR
Dick Cheney off of his Haliburton Stock??

[Boris]

http://www.compeaus.com/_frozen/frozen_what.html

[Tom]

BTW2 may I speak to Rocky?

Get within 50 feet of me and I will introduce you to him.
He might even bring his brothers along. :cool:

[delayjf]

"The US Army Corps of Engineers has officially confirmed that their town is exposed to risks which are due to climate change. The US Army asserted in an official report that the village will have to be relocated to maintain safety standards and that the relocation will amount to costs of $95 million."

I'd be curious to read the official report. While I'm sure the ACE is concerned that the town is exposed to risk, I'm dubious that they attributed the cause to GW. Somethings telling me the bias of the writer added that little tidbit. And as far as the Union of Concerned Scientist - they're concerned alright, about receiving their grants and how much money they are going to make with their Green investments.

[hcap]

Get within 50 feet of me and I will introduce you to him.
He might even bring his brothers along. :cool:

Not surprising. A whole zoo. Petting zoo? Pet your Rocks?



Yo' Rock. How's Adriane?

[hcap]

Quote:
Just like the village idiot you supported that took us into a unjust, unwarranted unnecessary war?Are you referring to the president of the United States who has a perfect record defending this country from terrorism. Perhaps the war would not have been necessary had the previous administration done it's job in defending this nation.
.................................................. ..............

Yes that village idiot

[Tom]

Babbling again......take your meds.

[hcap]

Evidently, another village idiot

[Sailwolf]

http://fe14.story.media.mud.yahoo.com/news/us/story/ap/20090116/ap_on_re_us/sci_warm_year



2008 8th warmest year on record

[PaceAdvantage]

The 600 private jets used to shuttle the rich and famous to Obama's inaugural is proof positive that Obama and his supporters don't really believe that an increase in the average temperature of the Earth is caused in large part by human behavior.

You can't argue this any other way. There's no way caring, sincere supporters of BHO would do such a horrible thing like take 600 private jets across the sky of Mother Earth if they truly believed doing such a thing was harmful to our children's children.

Six HUNDRED private jets...lol

http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/01/liberals-take-private-jets-to-inauguration-of-global-warming-president/

You liberals just blew what little credibility you had left on this silly subject.

Now, back on your knees...full worship of BHO has begun.

[Tom]

hcap...read this and get some rest.......

[dutchboy]

This will be the only the 4th January since weather records have been kept that it has not reached 32 degrees in Minneapolis, MN.

Further proof that global warming is a myth.

[Floyd]

This will be the only the 4th January since weather records have been kept that it has not reached 32 degrees in Minneapolis, MN.

Further proof that global warming is a myth.

Weather is not climate.

[rastajenk]

Except when it's convenient, as in more and stronger hurricanes, droughts, heat waves, etc.

[Floyd]

Except when it's convenient, as in more and stronger hurricanes, droughts, heat waves, etc.
...or when your life is ruled by superstition and ideology instead of science.

[Pace Cap'n]

Is science infallible?

[Lefty]

floyd, according to some scientists, not all, greenhouse gas emissions are supposed to contribute to global warming? We're experiencing the coldest weather in a very long time, if not in history. So how can greenhouse emissions be leading to warming?
BTW, didn't scientists once believe the sun revolved around the Earth?
Global warming is a ruse to control us. It's political, not scientific.

[Floyd]

floyd, according to some scientists, not all, greenhouse gas emissions are supposed to contribute to global warming? We're experiencing the coldest weather in a very long time, if not in history. So how can greenhouse emissions be leading to warming?


I'll repeat: Weather is not climate. Saying the cold winter in Minnesota this year refutes global climate change is like saying because the #10 horse won in the 1st race at Mountaineer tonight, the #10 horse will win in every race. Just read the links upthread outlining the overwhelming evidence of drastic global temperature increases. The evidence is overwhelming.

BTW, didn't scientists once believe the sun revolved around the Earth?
Global warming is a ruse to control us. It's political, not scientific.

Actually, it was the scientists who believed that the Earth revolved around the Sun. The church, much like the energy companies of today, attempted to discredit and silence Galileo in order to control the populace. In the absence of any scientific evidence contradicting the overwhelming data supporting global climate change, denial is a ruse to control us. You have made my point for me.
I've said the same thing at least fifteen different ways in this thread. Nobody reads my links, nobody offers any new information, everybody spews the same tired and discredited talking points without addressing the facts, and everybody in this little insular echo chamber claims that they aren't driven by ideology and superstition while they ignore actual science. I'm glad you guys are throwing your money into the mutuel pools. Betting on green silks this week, are ya?

[hcap]

floyd, according to some scientists, not all, greenhouse gas emissions are supposed to contribute to global warming? We're experiencing the coldest weather in a very long time, if not in history. So how can greenhouse emissions be leading to warming?
BTW, didn't scientists once believe the sun revolved around the Earth?
Global warming is a ruse to control us. It's political, not scientific.Lefty, If you're playing Russian Roulette and on your first turn you happen not to die, what do you do? Keep playing?
Or say "see you guys are exaggerating the danger of bullets"

Focusing on a single anecdotal data point is not a good way to do science.

BTW a 30" snowstorm in your locality ≠Ice age
( Unless you live in Palm Beach Florida )

[Lefty]

If it's cold when they tell me it is supposed to be hot and when they say we're in one of the coldest periods in history and ol floyd says weather is not climate, then ol lefty has to say, "say what?"

[HUSKER55]

Since the carbon imprint and global warming is a major concern then why doesn't the government cancel the grants and the bailout money and create jobs to lessen the effects.

If there was ever a time to make your point then the time is now and the situation is ripe.

So where are the leaders of global warming at? Is Al Gore pitching his plan to BO?

Just a thought.

Thanks for the info.

husker55

[Lefty]

If global warming is such a big concern why didn't Obama make a fuss about 600 jets showing up at his swearing in?
It's a scam, boys, that's what it is. As your money is taken and your freedoms erode, all in the name of Green, maybe you'll wake up. Some of you, maybe not.

[rastajenk]

Not unlike televangelism. Except no one makes you watch the 700 Club. Greenies will force you to make drastic changes, whether you have the faith or not. Just to accumulate power.

[dutchboy]

http://www.igsb.uiowa.edu/browse/glacflds/glacflds.htm

I wonder how the experts that say the current group of humans are ruining the world can explain this article.

[Greyfox]

http://www.igsb.uiowa.edu/browse/glacflds/glacflds.htm

I wonder how the experts that say the current group of humans are ruining the world can explain this article.

Excellent article dutchboy.
The earth has gone through a series of global warming and cooling cycles.
Of course there weren't industries and cars around to blame then, so our modern day "Global Warmers" never get involved in explaining why those marked changes took place. The fact is though that they did occur.
Another interesting article on those cycles is at
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/03_1.shtml

[Floyd]

Excellent article dutchboy.
The earth has gone through a series of global warming and cooling cycles.
Of course there weren't industries and cars around to blame then, so our modern day "Global Warmers" never get involved in explaining why those marked changes took place. The fact is though that they did occur.
Another interesting article on those cycles is at
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/03_1.shtml

Did you read the information on that site, Greyfox? I'd recommend you do. You would have come upon this little gem:
"...the addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere must produce warming, (http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/08_2.shtml) a fact derived from our basic knowledge of physics. It is not some obscure hypothesis, but a physical principle that if you add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, this will increase the "greenhouse effect" and generate global warming in the lower atmosphere. The real debate then is about the amount of uncertainty on the magnitude that will result from this human-made warming (that is, the size of the "error bars" on the data), not the fact of global warming itself. In other words, we know that our addition of CO2 will cause global temperatures to go up; the question is how bad this warming will be and what its consequences will be."
(Emphasis theirs!)
That's it. I'm convinced you guys are just being willfully obtuse. You can't possibly be that stupid.

[Tom]

That's just what we think about you guys.
WE find it hard to take your arguments seriously when you all refuse to call out your fearless leaders for failing to walk the talk. Maybe you would have some credibility if you called out Pelosi, Gore, Obama, for their huge carbon foot prints. If it is as serious as they and you all claim it to be, we would like to see you guys take the lead by example, not by telling us how WE have to adjust. Starts at the top, and so far, your top guys are frauds. Every one of them. Bush put them all to shame with his footprint.

[Greyfox]

It is not some obscure hypothesis, but a physical principle that if you add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, this will increase the "greenhouse effect" and generate global warming in the lower atmosphere.
*************
That's it. I'm convinced you guys are just being willfully obtuse. You can't possibly be that stupid.

1. Sorry for living Floyd. Every breath I take I exhale Carbon Dioxide. I suspect that you do as well. If you're really serious about stopping CO2 emissions.....

2. Referring to me as obtuse and stupid may be accurate but is a weak form of argument. It doesn't respond to the original question as to how do you account for the previous cycles of warming and cooling on the planet?

3. Note to Tom: Is this guy an incarnate of Zilly maybe?

[Floyd]

1. Sorry for living Floyd. Every breath I take I exhale Carbon Dioxide....

No apology necessary, I'm sure you serve some useful purpose somewhere.

2. Referring to me as obtuse and stupid may be accurate but is a weak form of argument. It doesn't respond to the original question as to how do you account for the previous cycles of warming and cooling on the planet?

Actually, that question has been addressed innumerable times in this thread, most recently in the link that you yourself provided. This circular tag team approach to argumentation, coupled with your refusal to actually read the things you yourself so helpfully link to, does nothing to disabuse me of the notion that you're being willfully obtuse.

3. Note to Tom: Is this guy an incarnate of Zilly maybe?

No idea who Zilly is, but he has my sympathy.

[delayjf]

More science disputing Gore's global warming theory.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Evans-CO2DoesNotCauseGW.pdf

[Greyfox]

More science disputing Gore's global warming theory.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Evans-CO2DoesNotCauseGW.pdf

Interesting article. It says that temperature increases caused CO2 increases, not the other way around. Any comments Floyd?:lol:

[DeanT]

Wow, more people adding themselves to the list. This one, the supervisor of one of Al Gore's big supporters.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/27/james-hansens-former-nasa-supervisor-declares-himself-a-skeptic-says-hansen-embarrassed-nasa-was-never-muzzled/
I appreciate the opportunity to add my name to those who disagree that global warming is man-made,” Theon wrote to the Minority Office at the Environment and Public Works Committee on January 15, 2009. “I was, in effect, Hansen's supervisor because I had to justify his funding, allocate his resources, and evaluate his results. I did not have the authority to give him his annual performance evaluation,”

My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit,” Theon explained. “Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results.

Manipulating model results to get funding depending on where the political wind is blowing? Nah, say it aint so!

[Floyd]

Interesting article. It says that temperature increases caused CO2 increases, not the other way around. Any comments Floyd?

Dr. David Evans? The so-called "Rocket Scientist" (http://www.desmogblog.com/who-is-rocket-scientist-david-evans) who's really an electrical engineer? Really? There's no "science" there. None.

That "article" was debunked here. (http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2323407.htm)
"Temperature increases from ice ages to interglacial periods occur before increases in carbon dioxide, so carbon dioxide increases don't cause warming." "This is another false conclusion. Temperature increases from ice ages to interglacial warm periods over the last half million years are initiated by variations in the Earth's orbit around the Sun, leading to changes in the amount of sunlight in summer at high latitudes.

These temperature increases are followed by increases in atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, as the warmer ocean waters lose some dissolved carbon dioxide. However, the warmth of interglacial periods is only possible with the warming influence of the carbon dioxide increases, which amplifies the initial warming."

Really, you guys. You're embarrassing yourselves. Give it up. You've presented no credible evidence to support your claims. No peer reviewed studies, no independent data, nothing. All you can come up with are political arguments. If you want to say "I'm enjoying my lifestyle just as it is, and have no problem saddling future generations with the consequences of my actions" then be honest and just say it, don't shoot the messenger.

[Tom]

Interesting article. It says that temperature increases caused CO2 increases, not the other way around. Any comments Floyd?:lol:

Yes....

[Bubba X]

Yes....
Speaking of Al Gore, he's appearing in the Senate today. I hope you set your DVR.

[Greyfox]

Really, you guys. You're embarrassing yourselves. Give it up. You've presented no credible evidence to support your claims. No peer reviewed studies, no independent data, nothing. .

The fact is that I know the climate is changing. It always has been, always will be. The fact is that for every peer reviewed study you want to throw at us, we can point to peer reviewed studies that dispute your conclusions.
I have an open mind about this. I think that Al Gore's findings were premature. More and more peer reviewed studies are coming out each month
saying that Gore and Chicken Little are of the same ilk.
For me the Jury is still out.

Peer reviewed study refuting your position:

"This significant new study adds to a growing body of peer-reviewed literature and other scientific analyses challenging former Vice President Al Gore and the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen’s March 2008 presentation of data from the Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office found the Earth has had “no statistically significant warming since 1995.”


http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=a17defa8-802a-23ad-4912-8ab7138a7c3f

and
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/11/a-note-from-richard-lindzen-on-statistically-significant-warming/

and
“This whole climate change issue is rapidly disintegrating. From now onwards climate alarmists will be on the retreat. […] All indications are that we are now on the threshold of global cooling associated with the second and less active solar cycle.” – May 2, 2008 - By Professor Dr. Will J.R. Alexander, Emeritus of the Department of Civil and Biosystems Engineering at the University of Pretoria in South Africa

[rastajenk]

"By Professor Dr. Will J.R. Alexander, Emeritus of the Department of Civil and Biosystems Engineering at the University of Pretoria in South Africa"

He must be a stooge of the energy cartels!

(at least that's what some would say.....)

[dvlander]

I won't ever claim to be a scientist but I have read quite a bit of material that supports both sides. I think it is a subject that needs more inquiry and debate. However, if you are one who is open-minded about this subject, the pro-climate change crowd considers you a denier. It's the Al Gore "the debate is over" mentality.

Floyd says climate is not weather so the extreme cold winters this year are not part of the discussion. But Gore says that global warming caused Hurricane Katrina and all it's damage. Isn't that weather? We haven't had near as many hurricanes since that Summer of Katrina but that is not discussed because it doesn't fit the alarmist agenda.

Gore and company tells us we need to reduce our carbon footprint by walking, riding bikes etc. before it's too late. All the while, Gore flies around on a private jet as well as the other 600 left-leaning Obama supporters that flew to Washington for the inauguration.

Floyd clearly has forgotten more about science than I will ever know. But I simply have difficulty believing in the climate change, global warming hype as long as their side displays such ongoing blatant hypocrisy. Between all the scientific facts being thrown back and forth, I haven't seen one comment that addresses or justifies this.

Dale

[toetoe]

In thrall to the World Wildlife Fund [cough, cough ... FRAUDS!!), the mayor of Henderson and Las Vegas's own mayor, former Mob mouthpiece Oscar "Despite My Past I'm A" Goodman have agreed to turn off all the lights for an hour sometime this spring. Can Nobel Prizes be far off ?

Goodman: "To show our belief in sustainability of energy ... we must control the climate [!!!!] ..., we are happy to participate." [Paraphrase.]

Brings tears to me eyes, and NOT of joy. :eek: .

Sustain-afriggin-bility ?!? I gotcher sustainable items right here. They're transfomational, too, which might please Mr. Buzzword Bandier, Dustin Hoffman. These items ? Why, fetuses, of course. Oh, gee, what was I thinking ? You can't tell a woman what to do with her womb --- just her car, her fireplace, her water faucet, her children's education and her speech. :faint: