PDA

View Full Version : Global Warming, would you feel cheated?


Calcountry
07-21-2007, 11:51 AM
We all know that mankind, especially the U.S., has done more irrevocable damage to the planet than is imaginable. Therefore, when the earth gets so hot, that life becomes unsustainable, would all you tax payers feel a little shortchanged by all the money wasted on vessels like the one in my avitar? I mean, we never actually would have got the opportunity to see them in action. No fireworks, zip, nada. Just a Polar melting, and seas rising until both Islam and Christian alike are dead. What a great cleansing.

Maybe we should help warm things up a bit, and launch a few of those nukes. Oh no? Then we should unilaterally disarm to decrease our carbon footprint. Poor plants, they will just have to go hungry for the lack of carbon in their diet.

BucEyedPea
07-21-2007, 12:05 PM
I don't feel cheated at all. Afterall, as the ice melts in northern Canada just think how much easier it will be to tap it's mineral rich reserves of oil and natural gas without drilling through all that Arctic ice. We already buy most of our oil from Canada anyway. That's one beneficial side effect of the mild, non-threatening gw we're getting. Not to mention less need for fuel to heat homes in the northern hemisphere.

Alrighy now! Other than that, more plants will grow with a longer growing season....which means we can feed more people, not to mention those seasonal summer fruits and veggies I love so much being in season longer. Yum! Raspberries, blueberries, blackberries and peaches. Yup! I think Martha Stewart may jump ship and come over to the warmer side eventually.

Did anyone see that meteorolgist on Fox finding the thermoneters planted by gw climatologists in, on, beside heat sinks across America which falsifies readings. My, my what these watermelons will resort to, to win an argument or advance an agenda.

Fishpicker
07-21-2007, 12:19 PM
Did anyone see that meteorolgist on Fox finding the thermoneters planted by gw climatologists in, on, beside heat sinks across America which falsifies readings. My, my what these watermelons will resort to, to win an argument or advance an agenda.

??? did they place them in areas that are like heat sinks? or did they use actual heat sinks?

Calcountry
07-21-2007, 12:27 PM
And that lispy witch on the Weather Channel with her "Forcast Earth" segment. I don't know which is more annoying, her smug little lisping act, or Al Gores "lunie up in Togas" tirades.

Stewie
07-21-2007, 02:51 PM
Good Lord! Are we still stuck on the global warming debate? That's so 1990s. The very small handful of people who REALLY study this stuff don't know if it's man-made. Global warming = GOOD: Global cooling = BAD!

Bowser
07-21-2007, 02:55 PM
Is this another bunny "Democrats are a bunch of pussies" thread?

Baby Lee
07-21-2007, 03:58 PM
The Global Warming issue is truly fascinating.
On one hand you have faith v. science in other arenas, where the 'Christian right' wants to govern human behavior on the basis of things believed, but not 'proven' by science.
The same 'sides' in that debate then switch sides and the environmentalists want to govern human behavior on the basis of things 'proven' to their satisfaction by science, while the ultimate truth of the conclusions are as unknowable as ever.

Taco John
07-21-2007, 04:37 PM
We all know that mankind, especially the U.S., has done more irrevocable damage to the planet than is imaginable. Therefore, when the earth gets so hot, that life becomes unsustainable, would all you tax payers feel a little shortchanged by all the money wasted on vessels like the one in my avitar? I mean, we never actually would have got the opportunity to see them in action. No fireworks, zip, nada. Just a Polar melting, and seas rising until both Islam and Christian alike are dead. What a great cleansing.

Maybe we should help warm things up a bit, and launch a few of those nukes. Oh no? Then we should unilaterally disarm to decrease our carbon footprint. Poor plants, they will just have to go hungry for the lack of carbon in their diet.



Drunk, high, or just bored?

BucEyedPea
07-21-2007, 04:50 PM
??? did they place them in areas that are like heat sinks? or did they use actual heat sinks?
They were on decks, concrete buildings, next to tennis courts and within concrete building complexes.

Calcountry
07-21-2007, 05:28 PM
Is this another bunny "Democrats are a bunch of pussies" thread?ROFL :thumb:

The correct answer is, IT'S JULY!

Global warming sells better in July.

It's an inconvenient truth. Just like Lemonaid, ice, and Coca Cola.

Oh yeah, and Beer.

tiptap
07-22-2007, 06:54 AM
The Global Warming issue is truly fascinating.
On one hand you have faith v. science in other arenas, where the 'Christian right' wants to govern human behavior on the basis of things believed, but not 'proven' by science.
The same 'sides' in that debate then switch sides and the environmentalists want to govern human behavior on the basis of things 'proven' to their satisfaction by science, while the ultimate truth of the conclusions are as unknowable as ever.

You and bunnytrdr both show little real knowledge of science. Then both of you pick among all the rhetoric out there that suits your support of the status quo. And certainly there is no economic incentive to keep the status quo as far as HOW we obtain energy for our modern life.

The evidence supports that the increase in Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere is from human burning of fossil fuels. (Carbon isotopes studies of CO 2). The amount of fossil fuel burned each year can be estimated to a very accurate degree. The amount of CO 2 is several times larger than the increase in the atmosphere (the earth having absorbed the difference).

No one disputes the CO 2 has a Greenhouse effect. And the work of the US Military in the 50's (related to radar absorption in the atmosphere) proved that increases in CO 2 were not saturated so that changes in concentration have an effect in the energy balance. And while water has a larger presence in the Greenhouse effect it is also a phase/heat pump changing constituent that is more temperature driven in its part of the equation of the Greenhouse effect. The CO 2 establishes a temperature independent (concentration dependent) baseline for energy balance so that as the concentration goes up so does the heat retained. That small increase anchors the atmosphere to be warmer which supports higher concentration of water vapor percolating through the atmosphere increasing BOTH GH effects as a gas and heat pump when phase changes take place (evaporation to rain with the corresponding delivery of heat into the atmosphere).

Temperature systems, whether they be thermometers or satellites, all point to higher temperatures throughout the atmosphere and in the oceans. The effects of higher temperatures are seen in shrinking glaciers and coral reefs and the increase in the northern stretch as well as higher altitudes of growing seasons, earlier and longer insect life cycles and so much more.

The explanation of the sun's part in this fails in all studies past 1985. No one disputes that it is the dominant part of the equation. But since 1985 the temperatures have been going up while the periodic solar output had been cycling down. One is left with explaning this (and it requires a thermodynamic explanation, not just 'its natural' one) leaves CO 2.

I have been waiting for a better explanation that fits all the findings not just a few.

Taco John
07-22-2007, 07:35 AM
Always trying to play like your in the middle when in actuality, you are so far left you Make Ted Kennedy seem conservative.


Does it make you liberal or conservative if you don't believe that Global Warming is caused by man? Does it make you liberal or conservative if you believe that we should still be searching for alternative fuel sources so that we are no longer funding countries that grow terrorists as their number two national export.

Whatever that makes me, I'm ok with it. I don't care whether that makes me a liberal or conservative. I'm not like Kotter, and come up with my viewpoints based on what the cool kids here will think about me.

I'm ok with who I am whether people like me or not.

Baby Lee
07-22-2007, 07:49 AM
You and bunnytrdr both show little real knowledge of science. Then both of you pick among all the rhetoric out there that suits your support of the status quo. And certainly there is no economic incentive to keep the status quo as far as HOW we obtain energy for our modern life.

The evidence supports that the increase in Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere is from human burning of fossil fuels. (Carbon isotopes studies of CO 2). The amount of fossil fuel burned each year can be estimated to a very accurate degree. The amount of CO 2 is several times larger than the increase in the atmosphere (the earth having absorbed the difference).

No one disputes the CO 2 has a Greenhouse effect. And the work of the US Military in the 50's (related to radar absorption in the atmosphere) proved that increases in CO 2 were not saturated so that changes in concentration have an effect in the energy balance. And while water has a larger presence in the Greenhouse effect it is also a phase/heat pump changing constituent that is more temperature driven in its part of the equation of the Greenhouse effect. The CO 2 establishes a temperature independent (concentration dependent) baseline for energy balance so that as the concentration goes up so does the heat retained. That small increase anchors the atmosphere to be warmer which supports higher concentration of water vapor percolating through the atmosphere increasing BOTH GH effects as a gas and heat pump when phase changes take place (evaporation to rain with the corresponding delivery of heat into the atmosphere).

Temperature systems, whether they be thermometers or satellites, all point to higher temperatures throughout the atmosphere and in the oceans. The effects of higher temperatures are seen in shrinking glaciers and coral reefs and the increase in the northern stretch as well as higher altitudes of growing seasons, earlier and longer insect life cycles and so much more.

The explanation of the sun's part in this fails in all studies past 1985. No one disputes that it is the dominant part of the equation. But since 1985 the temperatures have been going up while the periodic solar output had been cycling down. One is left with explaning this (and it requires a thermodynamic explanation, not just 'its natural' one) leaves CO 2.

I have been waiting for a better explanation that fits all the findings not just a few.
And you show little real knowledge of what I said. After that whole litany, you say you're waiting on a better explanation. It seems that you realize that you can't, in fact, know the full import of all the discrete data sets, and certainly don't metaphysically know now. Your faith in the scientific method, coupled with some 'rational synthesis' has led you to conclusions with which you are comfortable. Fine.

tiptap
07-22-2007, 07:55 AM
ROFL :thumb:

The correct answer is, IT'S JULY!

Global warming sells better in July.

It's an inconvenient truth. Just like Lemonaid, ice, and Coca Cola.

Oh yeah, and Beer.

Actutally for scientist it sells better in January. It is the lack of sustain cold weather that is more telling than high temperatures in the summer. You look at the record high temperatures in December of last year. You can point to the sustained cold in February but it was not enough to overcome the rest of the season's higher temperatures.

RP_McMurphy
07-22-2007, 08:26 AM
Global Warming is a industry to these folks. They make their living off trying to scare folks about the Global Warming boogie man. Next cold wave they will try to sell Global Cooling to us. They have lost all credibility to their cause with their hysterics.

tiptap
07-22-2007, 08:28 AM
And you show little real knowledge of what I said. After that whole litany, you say you're waiting on a better explanation. It seems that you realize that you can't, in fact, know the full import of all the discrete data sets, and certainly don't metaphysically know now. Your faith in the scientific method, coupled with some 'rational synthesis' has led you to conclusions with which you are comfortable. Fine.

A better explanation that refutes GW understanding. I am not really waiting for a better explanation for this. My statement was that there was no other understanding that encompasses all the findings. Those who deny GW offer no real explanation that fits the biological, environmental and physical evidence.

And no my scientific understanding hasn't led me to conclusions that I am comfortable with. Comfortable is an emotive argument. I don't like the fact that we are driving climate. I don't want to move to Nuclear plants for energy. I don't want stave the strength of western life style. I come to my understanding reluctantly.

But you have embodied my biggest concern. Science is just a game. It has no real standing. The physical is subordinate to . . something. This is your argument. You discount the rigor of understanding in science and believe words conjure on their own. Your thoughts are just as valid as any system based upon science. Yes I understand you think my understanding is contrived upon my own indiosyncracy. Here is the difference. Time and time again I give well reasoned explanation based upon scientific findings. And in return I get no discussion of the science. I get this clap trap about metaphysical/philosophical discussion of the limit of understanding both universal and existential.

I hold these truths to be self evident. The world is in evidence a physical world. Additionally I hold that the physical world is understandable in theory. We may not know it in detail, but the world is not capricious. That is about the limit of my beginning tenets. Temperature rise is a physical phenomenon and requires a physical explanation.

tiptap
07-22-2007, 08:37 AM
Global Warming is a industry to these folks. They make their living off trying to scare folks about the Global Warming boogie man. Next cold wave they will try to sell Global Cooling to us. They have lost all credibility to their cause with their hysterics.


Let's see the oil, coal and nat. gas industry has no economic representation. The GW people are making gobs of money in comparison.

Baby Lee
07-22-2007, 08:43 AM
A better explanation that refutes GW understanding. I am not really waiting for a better explanation for this. My statement was that there was no other understanding that encompasses all the findings. Those who deny GW offer no real explanation that fits the biological, environmental and physical evidence.

And no my scientific understanding hasn't led me to conclusions that I am comfortable with. Comfortable is an emotive argument. I don't like the fact that we are driving climate. I don't want to move to Nuclear plants for energy. I don't want stave the strength of western life style. I come to my understanding reluctantly.

But you have embodied my biggest concern. Science is just a game. It has no real standing. The physical is subordinate to . . something. This is your argument. You discount the rigor of understanding in science and believe words conjure on their own. Your thoughts are just as valid as any system based upon science. Yes I understand you think my understanding is contrived upon my own indiosyncracy. Here is the difference. Time and time again I give well reasoned explanation based upon scientific findings. And in return I get no discussion of the science. I get this clap trap about metaphysical/philosophical discussion of the limit of understanding both universal and existential.

I hold these truths to be self evident. The world is in evidence a physical world. Additionally I hold that the physical world is understandable in theory. We may not know it in detail, but the world is not capricious. That is about the limit of my beginning tenets. Temperature rise is a physical phenomenon and requires a physical explanation.
Yeah, Heisenberg burst a lot of bubbles in his day, too.

trndobrd
07-22-2007, 08:55 AM
Next cold wave they will try to sell Global Cooling to us. They have lost all credibility to their cause with their hysterics.


That was the '70s man.

Simplex3
07-22-2007, 08:59 AM
We should stop wasting s**t for the simple fact that it's stupid to waste stuff.

The GW crowd lost their credibility when they were co-opted by the anti-civilization crowd.

Felch83
07-22-2007, 02:59 PM
Sigh another dumb thread

Logical
07-22-2007, 04:45 PM
Does it make you liberal or conservative if you don't believe that Global Warming is caused by man? Does it make you liberal or conservative if you believe that we should still be searching for alternative fuel sources so that we are no longer funding countries that grow terrorists as their number two national export.

Whatever that makes me, I'm ok with it. I don't care whether that makes me a liberal or conservative. I'm not like Kotter, and come up with my viewpoints based on what the cool kids here will think about me.

I'm ok with who I am whether people like me or not.That makes at least two of us, though there are many others whose views vary with the subject. Pitt Gorilla is an obvious example as is go bo. Three cheers to all who speak up for their beliefs and are not held by a partisan or popular standard.

Baby Lee
07-22-2007, 06:45 PM
That makes at least two of us, though there are many others whose views vary with the subject. Pitt Gorilla is an obvious example as is go bo. Three cheers to all who speak up for their beliefs and are not held by a partisan or popular standard.
I have no problem with searching for alternative resources, or investing capital [even govt capital] in technologies that use resources more efficiently. I have a whole binder on what I guess you'd call 'green' solutions that I'll be looking into implementing if I build a house, LEDs, water reclamation, best tech on insulation, high tech properties to window panes, etc. But that's because I want to do those things.

The problem I have is that this problem is too pat a justification for a social engineering solution that some have been itching to implement for decades. They want you stressing about everything from your paper products to how many gallons you flush with, to how many kids you have, to whether you should change your oil more often to keep the engine running smoothly and save gas or less frequently to avoid contributing to some 'stale oil' crisis, paper, plastic, canvas bag, pesticide free canvas bag, hemp bag. And when we've been fretting about it enough, we'll be pliant to have the government mandate our best choices.

And it seems to me that the biggest cause of pollution people are advocating actual action on, are those causes occasioned by being poor. Poor folks drive older, less fuel efficient cars that burn oil and smoke. They burn horrible incandescent bulbs. They don't insulate their houses enough. They have too many kids. They eat eco-unfriendly foodstuffs, etc. etc.

Reasoned advocacy for better solutions, creating solutions to provide the poor with eco-friendly tech, making the choice to do whatever is within your power. All that I can applaud.

Telling everyone they need to change their lifestyle before you kill us. . . not so much.

tiptap
07-23-2007, 04:54 AM
Yeah, Heisenberg burst a lot of bubbles in his day, too.

Heisenberg's uncertainty only is seen at atomic levels and for individual events. When averages of as few as 100 atoms are in play then the predictions are quite certain and exacting (see dual slit experiments). The certainty of eigenfunctions for a population is what has made Quantum Mechanics one of the most exacting theories of science. Whatever doubt you may have wished to interject in this at some fundamental level really shows your lack of understanding of Quantum Mechanics and what can't be known to arbitrary certainty and what HAS to happen with even a small sampling WITH certainty even to measurements.

You may understand well the use of syntax and reason as a matter of law but science is not arbitrary in the meaning and use of uncertainty. It is well defined. This is what puts so many people off there game in science and math. Applying the concept at scale is essential. To miss how the process resolves at scales, up or down, is to show one's competency or lack thereof.

Now I would defer greatly to you on matter of law as it is practiced, based upon precedents and such. I do not doubt your wordsmith skills. But uncertainty or arbitrariness whether discussed from Heisenberg or Godel are very well defined and are not themselves uncertain or arbitrary in science or math.

Calcountry
07-23-2007, 11:41 AM
Drunk, high, or just bored?Clean and sober enough to know that if you can convince yourself that Bush blew up the towers, you are capable of convincing yourself of anything, including Global Warming.

Calcountry
07-23-2007, 11:46 AM
Actutally for scientist it sells better in January. It is the lack of sustain cold weather that is more telling than high temperatures in the summer. You look at the record high temperatures in December of last year. You can point to the sustained cold in February but it was not enough to overcome the rest of the season's higher temperatures.Actually, I did a little anecdotal study myself. I looked at a spreadsheet of all the all time highs recorded by day througout the whole year of my local area, and found that there were no clear trend. They were scattered throughout the decades, with not a single heatwave ever being responsible for consecutive all time highs. I realize, this is not scientific, but it demonstrates to me, that we have had killer friggen head in the 1950's before all this shit got started.

Calcountry
07-23-2007, 11:47 AM
Global Warming is a industry to these folks. They make their living off trying to scare folks about the Global Warming boogie man. Next cold wave they will try to sell Global Cooling to us. They have lost all credibility to their cause with their hysterics.They might want to consult with Clayton about some of the mind control tactics that the JW use to keep their people in line with it.

Calcountry
07-23-2007, 11:50 AM
We should stop wasting s**t for the simple fact that it's stupid to waste stuff.

The GW crowd lost their credibility when they were co-opted by the anti-civilization crowd.Best post here. I drive an Accord because it costs me less and performs at a high level. Not because I think I am somehow making more than an fly on a pile of dog shit difference to the removal of dog shit.

Baby Lee
07-23-2007, 12:04 PM
Heisenberg's uncertainty only is seen at atomic levels and for individual events. When averages of as few as 100 atoms are in play then the predictions are quite certain and exacting (see dual slit experiments). The certainty of eigenfunctions for a population is what has made Quantum Mechanics one of the most exacting theories of science. Whatever doubt you may have wished to interject in this at some fundamental level really shows your lack of understanding of Quantum Mechanics and what can't be known to arbitrary certainty and what HAS to happen with even a small sampling WITH certainty even to measurements.

You may understand well the use of syntax and reason as a matter of law but science is not arbitrary in the meaning and use of uncertainty. It is well defined. This is what puts so many people off there game in science and math. Applying the concept at scale is essential. To miss how the process resolves at scales, up or down, is to show one's competency or lack thereof.

Now I would defer greatly to you on matter of law as it is practiced, based upon precedents and such. I do not doubt your wordsmith skills. But uncertainty or arbitrariness whether discussed from Heisenberg or Godel are very well defined and are not themselves uncertain or arbitrary in science or math.
The concept at scale is equally capable of misstating the data as it is of resolving. As data points are extrapolated to conclusions of further and further remove, the need for the data to be dead accurate increases.
I'm not inclined to catalog the various and sundry procedural pinchpoints being unearthed. But for one example, I'll cite the recent discovery that the GPS system may be off, mismeasuring the earth's circumference even so little as 3 inches, and they anticipate having to recalculate all their data.

Cochise
07-23-2007, 12:22 PM
The GW crowd lost their credibility when they were co-opted by the anti-civilization crowd.

Truth. Much like the poverty crisis, or the homeless crisis, or the health care 'crisis', or the corporate corruption crisis, or whatever other dire emergency crisis exists this election cycle that only big government can save us from.

Environmentalism ought to be something that is non-political and accessible to everyone, not just another scare vehicle to advance socialism.

tiptap
07-23-2007, 03:18 PM
Actually, I did a little anecdotal study myself. I looked at a spreadsheet of all the all time highs recorded by day througout the whole year of my local area, and found that there were no clear trend. They were scattered throughout the decades, with not a single heatwave ever being responsible for consecutive all time highs. I realize, this is not scientific, but it demonstrates to me, that we have had killer friggen head in the 1950's before all this shit got started.


Go back and correlate the daily lows with the highs. That is take the difference between the daily high and the daily low.

tiptap
07-23-2007, 09:39 PM
The concept at scale is equally capable of misstating the data as it is of resolving. As data points are extrapolated to conclusions of further and further remove, the need for the data to be dead accurate increases.
I'm not inclined to catalog the various and sundry procedural pinchpoints being unearthed. But for one example, I'll cite the recent discovery that the GPS system may be off, mismeasuring the earth's circumference even so little as 3 inches, and they anticipate having to recalculate all their data.


Except averages are not extrapolations. And the predictions of theory that correlate with findings, are not extrapolations. You read scale and say extrapolation. Scale change does not necessarily mean extrapolation.

As far as the GPS system, might you offer the actual article? There is a group of astrophysicists that recently offered evidence of a slightly different circumference of the earth based on radio data from different sites from pulsars or something. And different systems and location will give different circumferences since the world is oblate spheroid and at fine level has topological features (mountains). The limit on most GPS is the time piece. Unless you got an Atomic Clock, I doubt 3 inches is going to make a difference. And of course you average many readings and the norm reading will come to dominate your finding without that atomic clock. Just like in temperature averaging.

StcChief
07-24-2007, 10:21 AM
No doubt the earth is changing. How could it not with all the CO2 being pumped into atomsphere.

China,India developed over last 50 years US output may have become cleaner because of env.laws. on factories but increased because more cars/trucks/SUVs on road.

Forest clearing in Amazon etc.

Is it a 100 year blip? Who knows to early to tell.

If everyone did their part to conserve/recycle daily
Glass/Plastic/Aluminum cans/foil/ steel cans.
Watch and plan trips in car/truck.

Conserve water.

It could make a difference it all starts with each person.

ct
07-24-2007, 02:26 PM
Does it make you liberal or conservative if you don't believe that Global Warming is caused by man? Does it make you liberal or conservative if you believe that we should still be searching for alternative fuel sources so that we are no longer funding countries that grow terrorists as their number two national export.

Whatever that makes me, I'm ok with it. I don't care whether that makes me a liberal or conservative. I'm not like Kotter, and come up with my viewpoints based on what the cool kids here will think about me.

I'm ok with who I am whether people like me or not.

That makes at least two of us, though there are many others whose views vary with the subject. Pitt Gorilla is an obvious example as is go bo. Three cheers to all who speak up for their beliefs and are not held by a partisan or popular standard.

It doesn't take scientific studies to reason that smoking is bad for your lungs, and will eventually kill you. Likewise, it doesn't take a scientific study to reason that burning FF and spewing smoke into our earth's lungs, the atmosphere, is a bad thing and eventually will cause some damage. Will it kill us before we can correct our behaviors? I honestly don't think so. But there will be damage.

I too am all in favor of finding, funding, and/or developing clean energy sources, and whatever economic costs it takes to fully transition there in a couple decades (because I don't think we can do it quickly, even if we had the solution today). Cutting off the revenue of terrorists is a helluva nice bonus.

ct
07-24-2007, 02:32 PM
I have no problem with searching for alternative resources, or investing capital [even govt capital] in technologies that use resources more efficiently. I have a whole binder on what I guess you'd call 'green' solutions that I'll be looking into implementing if I build a house, LEDs, water reclamation, best tech on insulation, high tech properties to window panes, etc. But that's because I want to do those things.

The problem I have is that this problem is too pat a justification for a social engineering solution that some have been itching to implement for decades. They want you stressing about everything from your paper products to how many gallons you flush with, to how many kids you have, to whether you should change your oil more often to keep the engine running smoothly and save gas or less frequently to avoid contributing to some 'stale oil' crisis, paper, plastic, canvas bag, pesticide free canvas bag, hemp bag. And when we've been fretting about it enough, we'll be pliant to have the government mandate our best choices.

And it seems to me that the biggest cause of pollution people are advocating actual action on, are those causes occasioned by being poor. Poor folks drive older, less fuel efficient cars that burn oil and smoke. They burn horrible incandescent bulbs. They don't insulate their houses enough. They have too many kids. They eat eco-unfriendly foodstuffs, etc. etc.

Reasoned advocacy for better solutions, creating solutions to provide the poor with eco-friendly tech, making the choice to do whatever is within your power. All that I can applaud.

Telling everyone they need to change their lifestyle before you kill us. . . not so much.

Geez, get over it! You don't need the constant message, cause you already get it. The problem is too many freaking people don't get it and specifically need this type of message before they will listen.

You ever try to reason with a teenager? Bottom line Lee, sometimes shock and awe is the only message that gets through. If you don't need to hear it, good for you, but quit bitching about it.

Fishpicker
07-24-2007, 02:33 PM
Actually having an enviroment that is rich in CO2 is good as long as there is sufficient vegetation to convert CO2 into Oxygen. So long as there are trees to breathe, a CO2 rich environment will also be an Oxygen rich enviroment.

Calcountry
07-25-2007, 04:13 PM
Truth. Much like the poverty crisis, or the homeless crisis, or the health care 'crisis', or the corporate corruption crisis, or whatever other dire emergency crisis exists this election cycle that only big government can save us from.

Environmentalism ought to be something that is non-political and accessible to everyone, not just another scare vehicle to advance socialism.So what if we can't do anything about it, and the heat scorchings that are toasting some 500 people in Europe today, persists, and eventually the heat arcs like lightning bolts and scoops thousands at a time in sever heat storms.

Have you all made peace with it?

Life is as fragile as the edge that keeps an ice skater going.

Baby Lee
07-26-2007, 04:35 PM
No Fruit for YOU!! (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0707/No_tangerines_for_you.html)

Taco John
07-26-2007, 10:24 PM
Clean and sober enough to know that if you can convince yourself that Bush blew up the towers, you are capable of convincing yourself of anything, including Global Warming.



I don't have to be convinced of Global Warming. The science on that isn't very sketchy. The globe is warming. Unlike yourself, in this issue, and the other one you referenced, I'm willing to examine the evidence and consider the possibilities. It's not a religious position for me, where I'm forced to believe one thing with undying faith or be considered a puss. I don't care what people think of me for examining evidence.

But like I was saying, the science on Global Warming isn't very sketchy. Temperatures are rising. The cause is what is at question. Personally, I believe that the evidence points largely at the sun. What's your take on the evidence? Oh that's right... Your take is that the evidence simply doesn't exist, and that you'd have to be stupid to even acknowledge that it does.

StcChief
07-27-2007, 11:26 AM
Personally, I believe that the evidence points largely at the SUN.

Since it's our only source of heat. That's a profound statement.
:rolleyes:

alanm
07-27-2007, 12:32 PM
Actutally for scientist it sells better in January. It is the lack of sustain cold weather that is more telling than high temperatures in the summer. You look at the record high temperatures in December of last year. You can point to the sustained cold in February but it was not enough to overcome the rest of the season's higher temperatures.
How do you explain the record cold temps in S. America this summer? Actually it's winter now for them. :)

Calcountry
07-27-2007, 12:39 PM
I don't have to be convinced of Global Warming. The science on that isn't very sketchy. The globe is warming. Unlike yourself, in this issue, and the other one you referenced, I'm willing to examine the evidence and consider the possibilities. It's not a religious position for me, where I'm forced to believe one thing with undying faith or be considered a puss. I don't care what people think of me for examining evidence.

But like I was saying, the science on Global Warming isn't very sketchy. Temperatures are rising. The cause is what is at question. Personally, I believe that the evidence points largely at the sun. What's your take on the evidence? Oh that's right... Your take is that the evidence simply doesn't exist, and that you'd have to be stupid to even acknowledge that it does.Actually, this is my take on the subject. I am honored that such an erudite and pragmatic man as yourself is curious about my opinion. So here is my best effort, I know that I am a mere trogladite intellectually compared to you so forgive me if my post isn't cogent and comes off as verbose.


The earth revolves on its axis arround the Sun in three dimensional space with the sun also moving within the Universe. Therefore, this July 27, 2007, we the earth, are in a different 3 dimensional space than we were last year at this time. There are any number of factors that could have a far greater effect to the degree that the earth is warming that are far more plausible than for an indiginous species interacting within the closed environmental habitat could affect it.

That is my take.

Oh yeah, and isn't God, an awesome God? I mean, if he would have parked this little blue beauty 100 KM closer to the Sun, or if he wanted to flare the Sun tomorrow, we wouldn't have a chance in hell. It would be pretty Hot now wouldn't it. Doesn't the Bible say something about a lake of fire somewhere?

Our Father, who art in heaven, Give us THIS DAY, our DAILY Bread.

Consider the Lillies, Soloman in all his Splender wasn't clothed as good as these, yet, who by worrying, can add a single hour to his life.

Taco John
07-27-2007, 12:40 PM
Since it's our only source of heat. That's a profound statement.
:rolleyes:


Who said anything about being profound? All the planets are heating up. That points to a hotter sun, not carbon emissions.

Taco John
07-27-2007, 12:42 PM
Actually, this is my take on the subject. I am honored that such an erudite and pragmatic man as yourself is curious about my opinion. So here is my best effort, I know that I am a mere trogladite intellectually compared to you so forgive me if my post isn't cogent and comes off as verbose.



Oh I see... You're going to call me names, and misconstrue my position, and then act coy and completely moronic when you learn my take mirrors your own. That said, you were trying to be coy, but what you ended up being was accurate.

Calcountry
07-27-2007, 12:45 PM
Who said anything about being profound? All the planets are heating up. That points to a hotter sun, not carbon emissions.Apparently, we are closer on this issue than at first glance.

Calcountry
07-27-2007, 01:06 PM
Oh I see... You're going to call me names, and misconstrue my position, and then act coy and completely moronic when you learn my take mirrors your own. That said, you were trying to be coy, but what you ended up being was accurate.I apologize for generalizing without actually researching your position.

You just have a writing style that is so authoritative that it sometimes just gets my fight up.

I'm funny like that, with people who display arrogance. Even Bush has pissed my a few times with his Dubai ports crap and the immigration Bill.

Calcountry
07-27-2007, 01:19 PM
Who said anything about being profound? All the planets are heating up. That points to a hotter sun, not carbon emissions.Sometimes, when I am having fun, I don't read the posts fully either. Had I done that, I would have realized this a lot sooner.

Where I differ from you, is that I am not entirely certain that there is anything substantial, other than a normal cycle going on right now.

There is plenty of real estate available in North Dakota if it gets too warm. :hmmm: Maybe that is why Ted Turner has all that land up in, wherever the heck it is, Wyoming?

tiptap
07-27-2007, 02:03 PM
How do you explain the record cold temps in S. America this summer? Actually it's winter now for them. :)

http://www.accuweather.com/news-blogs.asp?partner=accuweather&blog=globalperspective

http://newsbusters.org/node/13234

Here are two reports on the cold weather of S. America. One is from a right leaning blog. You will note they offer up that La Nina weather is often quite cold and that they additionally wish to correlate this with sunspots cycles of 11 years with both low sunspot and lower temperatures correlate with lower temperatures. The fail to mention how this trend diverged after 1985. That there is a sinusoidal component to the rising temperatures echoing solar activity. The base temperature around which the cyclical input has risen to temperatures averaging 1and half higher world wide.

The first reference notes that the higher temperatures in N. Hemisphere easily over shadow the lower temperatures in the S. Hemisphere. Regional temperature fluctuations don't disappear in world average rise. Additionally we have all the heat sink being used to change ice into water as glaciers recede. What would help the case for me would be that in addition to cold weather in S. America that there was a net gain in the glacial fields throughout the region for the year as well.

So the local cold is influenced by La Nina and the overall global temperature is record high averaging both hemispheres.

tiptap
07-27-2007, 02:09 PM
Who said anything about being profound? All the planets are heating up. That points to a hotter sun, not carbon emissions.

This is not true. Only Pluto and Mars are getting hotter. Mars is accounted for by albedo. I haven't heard of any explanations for Pluto. Find me the data for hotter temperatures on the airless moons and I will be more persuaded.

Calcountry
07-27-2007, 05:04 PM
This is not true. Only Pluto and Mars are getting hotter. Mars is accounted for by albedo. I haven't heard of any explanations for Pluto. Find me the data for hotter temperatures on the airless moons and I will be more persuaded.The Butcher forgot to pick up one of the lambs feet when he slaughtered my lambs. It looks like your avatar.

tiptap
07-27-2007, 07:09 PM
The Butcher forgot to pick up one of the lambs feet when he slaughtered my lambs. It looks like your avatar.


You must be French, it is a horse hoof your drooling over.

StcChief
07-28-2007, 11:19 AM
This is not true. Only Pluto and Mars are getting hotter. Mars is accounted for by albedo. I haven't heard of any explanations for Pluto. Find me the data for hotter temperatures on the airless moons and I will be more persuaded.
Pluto is heading up? BFD. Anybody been there lately. I thought it had been declassified as a planet.

Plant trees here, do your part to conserve/recycle.