Global Warming (cont.) Let's cut through the crap.

POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Thursday, April 5, 2007 19:53
VIEWED: 7982
PAGE 1 of 1

CHRISISALL

Monday, January 22, 2007 8:37 PM

1) IS the sea level rising?
2) IS the mean temperature of the planet increasing?
3) ARE the polar caps being reduced in size/mass?

There, three simple questions, can we come to an agreement on just these three questions?
I mean, doesn't a yes to any one of these alarm you?

And has anyone besides Citizen actually read this?
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1995348,00.html

The sky, Boss, the sky! Chrisisall

PENGUIN

Monday, January 22, 2007 8:39 PM

Yes, they do!

King of the Mythical Land that is Iowa

STORYMARK

Monday, January 22, 2007 9:02 PM

My take is: Even if Global Warming is not man-made (I think it is, but for the sake of argument), I see no downside to trying to scale back our consumption.

One, no matter what the oil companies, and their cheerleaders say, we will eventually run out of petroleum. Seems like it's a good time to start looking at alternatives. We're living in the 21st century now, lets start looking at the future.

Two, pollution is bad(M'Kay). I don't like breathing dirty air, and don't know any who does. Cutting down on emmissions will only help in that regard.

Three: What if GW is man-made? There is evidence both ways, but when our choices are: best case scenario - nothing big changes and we trudge on, or worst case scenario - we, as a species, die out; it seems that the best course of action would be to hedge our bets. It'd really suck if we waited untill it was too late before we had definitive proof.

The only downside I can see if that it hurts the bottom lines of big corporations - to which I say: So What? Thay've been bilking the American people for decades, and in the case of the oil industry, have made an art form of it lately. Let their CEO's take a pay cut - they'll still be making more in an average day than most Americans in a year, so screw-'em.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

CHRISISALL

Monday, January 22, 2007 9:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Thay've been bilking the American people for decades, and in the case of the oil industry, have made an art form of it lately. Let their CEO's take a pay cut - they'll still be making more in an average day than most Americans in a year, so screw-'em.

Storymark, just takin' a shot here: You like the economics of the Star Trek 'Verse, don't ya?

I know I do Chrisisall

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Monday, January 22, 2007 9:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Storymark:
The only downside I can see if that it hurts the bottom lines of big corporations - to which I say: So What? Thay've been bilking the American people for decades, and in the case of the oil industry, have made an art form of it lately. Let their CEO's take a pay cut - they'll still be making more in an average day than most Americans in a year, so screw-'em.

The CEO's will take a pay cut so as not to pass on the financial burden to the consumer, not likely. If you start to tax big corporations over environmental concerns it will be you and I who will ultimately foot the bill.

Perhaps another down side will be loss of individual freedom. If global warming is 'man-made' than people should stop making 'man'. How happy would you be if the Government started telling you if and when you could procreate?

Posting to stir stuff up.

CAUSAL

Monday, January 22, 2007 9:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Quote:

Originally posted by Storymark:
The only downside I can see if that it hurts the bottom lines of big corporations - to which I say: So What? Thay've been bilking the American people for decades, and in the case of the oil industry, have made an art form of it lately. Let their CEO's take a pay cut - they'll still be making more in an average day than most Americans in a year, so screw-'em.

The CEO's will take a pay cut so as not to pass on the financial burden to the consumer, not likely. If you start to tax big corporations over environmental concerns it will be you and I who will ultimately foot the bill.

The trouble, of course, is that mosst people have an exceedingly difficult time seeing past their own lifetime, let alone, three to four generations ahead.

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

Vote Firefly! http://www.richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

CAUSAL

Monday, January 22, 2007 9:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
1) IS the sea level rising?
2) IS the mean temperature of the planet increasing?
3) ARE the polar caps being reduced in size/mass?

There, three simple questions, can we come to an agreement on just these three questions?
I mean, doesn't a yes to any one of these alarm you?

And has anyone besides Citizen actually read this?
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1995348,00.html

Don't suppose you know of any books that present the case in a dispassionate way? I'm not interested in any I-told-you-so-Bush-is-the-devil sort of thing, but that's all I seem to be able to find.

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

Vote Firefly! http://www.richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

STORYMARK

Monday, January 22, 2007 9:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Thay've been bilking the American people for decades, and in the case of the oil industry, have made an art form of it lately. Let their CEO's take a pay cut - they'll still be making more in an average day than most Americans in a year, so screw-'em.

Storymark, just takin' a shot here: You like the economics of the Star Trek 'Verse, don't ya?

I know I do Chrisisall

Only in a "I know it'll never happen" way.

I have no problem with capitalism, I just have no sympathy for the hardships of mega-corporations. Like the Home Depot CEO who go, what over $210 million as his severance package - and that was for doing a bad job?

And yeah, I know taxing those corporations will trickle down to the rest (about the only trickle-down theory that works), but does that mean we should just let them do as they will, unchecked? That'll only embolden them to screw us harder with less lube.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

WRATCHIT

Monday, January 22, 2007 9:47 PM

Its all a bunch of crap! LOL!

I just watched 'The Day After Tomorrow'.

__________________________________________________
Were there monkeys? Some terrifying space monkeys maybe got loose?
www.bikerplanet.net

CHRISISALL

Monday, January 22, 2007 10:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:

Don't suppose you know of any books that present the case in a dispassionate way?

Books? I don't know, but there's this:
http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/ResourceCenterPu
blicationsSeaLevelRiseIndex.html
and more if you just google 'sea levels'.
Most seem not to be alarmist Bush-hating sites.

Reasonable Chrisisall

AURAPTOR

Monday, January 22, 2007 11:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
1) IS the sea level rising?
2) IS the mean temperature of the planet increasing?
3) ARE the polar caps being reduced in size/mass?

There, three simple questions, can we come to an agreement on just these three questions?
I mean, doesn't a yes to any one of these alarm you?

I'm not concerned if what we are witnessing is a normal, natural cycle that occurs on this planet. Also, oversimplification of this issue does less, not more, to increase our understanding.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

STORYMARK

Tuesday, January 23, 2007 12:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

I'm not concerned if what we are witnessing is a normal, natural cycle that occurs on this planet.

I note that you included an "if" in there.

What if it's not part of a natural cycle?

I know you don't think it is, but what if you are wrong?

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

AURAPTOR

Tuesday, January 23, 2007 2:31 AM

Quote:
I know you don't think it is, but what if you are wrong?

Then that will be an interesting day.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

ANTHONYT

Tuesday, January 23, 2007 2:49 AM

Hi all,

STORYMARK comes the closest to my position. Regardless of Global Warming, there are very good and provable reasons to change fuels and reduce toxins.

It's not important that ANYONE believe in Global Warming, as the steps that Global Warming advocates are suggesting are able to be implemented for good reasons that have nothing to do with Global Warming.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

SEVENPERCENT

Tuesday, January 23, 2007 4:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Then that will be an interesting day.

Then February 2nd, aside from being groundhog day, might just be an interesting day for you.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070123/ap_on_re_us/warming_climate_report

This segment, written by more than 600 scientists and reviewed by another 600 experts and edited by bureaucrats from 154 countries, includes "a significantly expanded discussion of observation on the climate...the early draft adds: "An increasing body of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on other aspects of climate including sea ice, heat waves and other extremes, circulation, storm tracks and precipitation."

------------------------------------------
"A revolution without dancing is no revolution at all." - V

Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.

STORYMARK

Tuesday, January 23, 2007 5:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
I know you don't think it is, but what if you are wrong?

Then that will be an interesting day.

Shoulda seen that coming...

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

FLATTOP

Tuesday, January 23, 2007 12:49 PM

I see there being no reason not to develop alternative fuels.
Nuclear power plants - Sure there's a potential terrorist threat, and the spent fuel has to get stored somewhere (just a thought... why not bust up the rods mix 'em with dirt, and put 'em back where they came from? Hadda dig that go-se out of the ground somewhere), but it's not nearly as big a problem as coal fired plants.

Wind - I drove past a couple'a wind farms. Very pretty in a 'Dutch Windmill' kind'a way. Course it's not always windy...

Solar - Might get cloudy. What with changing weather patterns and all.

Alternate fuel vehicles - Perhaps mandate that all new vehicles MUST NOT use any petroleum. That way all the folk who buy/lease new vehicles every few years will be on the leading edge of emissions reduction. What to do with the dead batteries? (see nuclear fuel disposal above)
I ran some numbers (got a spreadsheet that'll calculate it for you if you're interested). Punched in fuel cost per gallon, miles per year, and miles per gallon and figured that my 2000 F150 @ 8,000 MPY, 18MPG costs about $1,333.00/year to fuel @ $3.00/Gallon. I own it, so no monthly payments. @5.00/Gallon, it's $2,000/year.
Why is this important? Because it shows that no matter how fuel inefficient my truck is, I'm better off keeping it in repair for say $100/month than I would be buying a brand new alternative fuel vehicle. As alternative fuel vehicles become more and more prevalent, the realative supply of fuel will increase, and the cost of fuel will go down, further discouraging my changing out my vehicle, and getting consumers to pressure the government to allow the manufacture of gasoline engines. Until a break point is reached. If the price of fuel is fixed at say double the cost of alternate fuel/Gal (difference between cost of fuel and double cost of alternative fuel is made up with taxes). Fuel consumption initially goes down, cost of fuel goes down/tax goes up. Eventually not enough fuel will be sold to sustain manufacture, and price will rise/tax go down. Once combined cost of manufacture/minimum tax exceeds (double alternative cost)/Gal, let the price continue to rise on it's own, thus increasing cost pressure to buy a newer (alternative fuel mandatory) vehicle.
Of course, this will only work if EVERY VEHICLE is REQUIRED to use ONLY alternative fuels. Americans like their vehicles to be big. If there is a loophole for commercial trucks, and all of the other vehicles are tiny econo-boxes, Americans will buy commercial vehicles. That's why mini-vans became popular folks! The station wagon (most popular family car around until it suddenly disappeared) died when cars were required to meet CAFE fuel efficiency standards. Suddenly the mini-van appears and is hugely popular. Mini-vans are built on truck frames, not car frames, and are thus exempt from fuel efficiency standards (and a bunch of safety standards as well!)
Sorry for the hijack/rant.

----------
Vote for Firefly http://www.richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

Sign up NOW! http://fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=11&t=25704
More Information: http://76thbattalion.homestead.com/index.html

HERO

Tuesday, January 23, 2007 2:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
1) IS the sea level rising?

Yes. I visited the ocean last year and stayed several hours. When I arrived the ocean was about 30 feet away but it kept getting closer and closer. I got scared and left but I assume its still rising. Saw it with my own eyes.

Quote:

2) IS the mean temperature of the planet increasing?

Yes. I think that we can all agree that by July its going to be really hot.

Quote:

3) ARE the polar caps being reduced in size/mass?

Naturally. I don't know much about ice, but I do know polar bears and the poor bears have no place to live which is why there are more polar bears alive today then there ever were in the past. And all because of their shrinking habitat.

You forgot the obvious question number 4: Is the sky falling? Of course it is...look at all the chickens...

H

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, January 23, 2007 3:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

I'm not concerned if what we are witnessing is a normal, natural cycle that occurs on this planet. Also, oversimplification of this issue does less, not more, to increase our understanding.

Our understanding should be that it IS happening, and the debate should be how to deal with it, but it seems some refuse to believe anything of any signifigance is happening at all, and that's why the simplification; I wanted to see who rejects the scientific data (as well as the observations any normal person can make)to say "There is no global warming phenomina happening". Once that sillyness is put aside, we can ask ourselves how to approach this (like: don't but a house right[/] on the water?).
If we STOPPED adding ANYTHING to the greenhouse gasses, that would only slow down what's happening (and maybe not even very much, IMO). We need to plan for a day when Venice is an interesting spot to scuba dive to see an underwater city, and further on when the cooling takes place we need to have energy sources to draw upon, seeing as fossil fuels will have been played out.

Did I make any sense?Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, January 23, 2007 3:10 PM

Hero, that was actually funny!
(Doesn't add much to the discussion, but then when has that ever been a priority for me, right?)

Hot hot hot Chrisisall

HERO

Tuesday, January 23, 2007 3:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Hero, that was actually funny!
(Doesn't add much to the discussion, but then when has that ever been a priority for me, right?)

What can we really add to this discussion?

Conservatives: No its not!
Liberals: Yes it is!
Moderates: Could be...
ALGore: Cars, bad.
Big Oil: Cars, good.
Big Ass: Hi, I'm Hillary Clinton and I'm running for President.

H

RUE

Tuesday, January 23, 2007 5:43 PM

1) IS the sea level rising?
Yes, the sea level is rising. But this doesn't answer two questions - 1) is it due to global warming? and 2) is global warming due to man?

2) IS the mean temperature of the planet increasing?
Yes, undoubtedly. More is some places, less in others, but going up, on average. More important, mean ocean temperature is rising.

3) ARE the polar caps being reduced in size/mass?
Again, yes. Both have experienced notable reduction in area and thickness.

-----------------

What you will get though are arguments such as:

1) yes the sea level is rising but not due to global warming

2) yes the earth is warming but it's just part of a natural cycle

3) yes global ice is disappearing (not just from the polar caps) but it's not due to warming

-----------------
However, IN ADDITION, global CO2 is the highest it's been in the last 250Million years. And CO2 is unambiguously a greenhouse gas (one which absorbs radiation as heat rather than allowing it to be re-radiated back into space.) This puts the earth on a new and geologically unpredictable course. But rather than use Occam's razor the come to the simplest explanation for these phenomena they prefer to posit all sorts of exceptions and coincidences as to why these things might just be happening all at the same time.

AURAPTOR

Tuesday, January 23, 2007 11:13 PM

Quote:
Our understanding should be that it IS happening, and the debate should be how to deal with it, but it seems some refuse to believe anything of any signifigance is happening at all, and that's why the simplification; I wanted to see who rejects the scientific data (as well as the observations any normal person can make)to say "There is no global warming phenomina happening". Once that sillyness is put aside, we can ask ourselves how to approach this (like: don't but a house right on the water?).
If we STOPPED adding ANYTHING to the greenhouse gasses, that would only slow down what's happening (and maybe not even very much, IMO). We need to plan for a day when Venice is an interesting spot to scuba dive to see an underwater city, and further on when the cooling takes place we need to have energy sources to draw upon, seeing as fossil fuels will have been played out.

Did I make any sense?Chrisisall

Sorry, but you presume that our understanding SHOULD be that man made global warming is happening. Why ? Based on what? This all reminds me of how our ancestors, living in caves,must have viewed a solar eclipse. " Why...we've never seen this sort of thing before! Something MUST be done! And quickly! "

The Earth is far older and far more resilient than most humans can comprehend. Prove me wrong in 30-40 yrs, and then I'll revisit the issue. But you'd better come up with far more than has been presented so far. A LOT MORE.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

KHYRON

Tuesday, January 23, 2007 11:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Prove me wrong in 30-40 yrs, and then I'll be convinced.

But we won't be around in 30-40 years! Didn't you hear!? The sky is falling!!

Seriously though:

Quote:
Why ? Based on what?

Scientific evidence.

The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

CITIZEN

Wednesday, January 24, 2007 12:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
I know you don't think it is, but what if you are wrong?

Then that will be an interesting day.

Shoulda seen that coming...

Just like any other?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, January 24, 2007 3:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Prove me wrong in 30-40 yrs, and then I'll be convinced.

But we won't be around in 30-40 years! Didn't you hear!? The sky is falling!!

Seriously though:

Quote:
Why ? Based on what?

Scientific evidence.

The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

Sorry, but I hate to pull the 'Master of the Obvious' number on ya here, but the "scientific evidence" is what is in question. Not only the methodologies being used, but the length of time, or lack there of , this whole issue has been studied.

Point of fact, many scientist, non bought and paid for by evil BIG OIL, dispute the whole hysteria of man induced global warming.

It's much like the embryonic stem cell issue. Most folks only hear 'stem cells' and figure it's all the same issue. It's not. EMBRYONIC stem cell research , while not banned here in the US, is proving to be near worthless at finding any cures or treatments. Last I heard, the grand total of successful treatments from ESC = 0, while those from other sources, adult stem cells, chord blood, etc.... are > 100. And yet the mainstream media are able to con the masses out in the world that Bush is against 'stem cell' research. Which is 100% false.

And while that's for another thread, the basic con game by the willing accomplices in the media is the same. Only give folks a small amount of info so they feel they know what they're talking about, when in reality the wool is being pulled their eyes . That way, when any one with a dissenting opinion comes along ( like me ), then the dumb masses will wail and gnash their teeth at the infidel. All because they think they know, when in fact...... they really don't.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

RUE

Wednesday, January 24, 2007 3:29 AM

Rap,

"many scientist, non bought and paid for by evil BIG OIL"

In your other thread you had two links to http://www.worldclimatereport.com, a self-avowed anti-global warming blog. It's content is uncredited editorials. It's staff consists of:
Chief Editor: Patrick J. Michaels
Contributing Editor: Robert C. Balling, Jr.
Contributing Editor: Robert E. Davis
Administrator: Paul C. Knappenberger.

A cursory look at their credentials, the places they work for and their funding shows them all to be conservatives receiving money from big oil. Four is not a number I'd call 'many', and they also fail on the 'big oil' criterion.

ANTHONYT

Wednesday, January 24, 2007 6:23 AM

It seems that soon we will all have more material to debate.

A report is soon to be released, backed by numerous countries and a plethora of researchers.

It will be an interesting read.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, January 24, 2007 6:45 AM

Sorry rue, but merely accepting money from Big Oil , as you claim, does not make them guilty. OF course the energy companies are going to respond to a global kabal intent on destroying them. How else are they supppose to respond when attacked by a global communist movement posing as an enviromentlally aware gruop?

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

ANTHONYT

Wednesday, January 24, 2007 8:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Sorry rue, but merely accepting money from Big Oil , as you claim, does not make them guilty. OF course the energy companies are going to respond to a global kabal intent on destroying them. How else are they supppose to respond when attacked by a global communist movement posing as an enviromentlally aware gruop?

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

Raptor,

That is a very valid argument. Or it would be if anyone else had made it. Unfortunately, you set the premise further up in the thread that your sources were not paid by 'Big Oil.' Now you are saying that they are and it doesn't matter. And maybe it doesn't. But you said that thing before, and now it's hurting credibility.

For my own part, I believe that most research is funded by people with a vested interest in the outcome of said research.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, January 24, 2007 4:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Sorry rue, but merely accepting money from Big Oil , as you claim, does not make them guilty. OF course the energy companies are going to respond to a global kabal intent on destroying them. How else are they supppose to respond when attacked by a global communist movement posing as an enviromentlally aware gruop?

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

Raptor,

That is a very valid argument. Or it would be if anyone else had made it. Unfortunately, you set the premise further up in the thread that your sources were not paid by 'Big Oil.' Now you are saying that they are and it doesn't matter. And maybe it doesn't. But you said that thing before, and now it's hurting credibility.

For my own part, I believe that most research is funded by people with a vested interest in the outcome of said research.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

Anthony, 2 quick comments. 1st, ONE of my sources wasn't supported by big oil. That's relevant because it shows how even those working FOR the global warming side still are capable of fudging the numbers, intentionally or not, and arriving at false conclusions. This is by no means a cut n dry debate. 2nd, You said that YOU BELIEVE most research is funded by people with a vested interest in the outcome of said research. So, where does that leave us ? What about when research is done to debunk a position which a scientist initially disagrees with, but after having done the research, finds the opposite conclusion of that he intended to find ? A prime example is Bjorn Lomborg.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

FREMDFIRMA

Wednesday, January 24, 2007 5:53 PM

So, has anyone here even yet asked some high-end meteorologists about it ?

Interesting answers you will get.

On this issue I feel there is simply not enough data that is unpartisan for me to contribute intelligently to the discussion, not that it seems to stop anyone else...

But based on my convos with a certain meteorologist who told me it'd be a good idea to move north before "the big one" wiped out NOLA and the gulfcoast seaboard (almong with the fact that texas is a nasty state full of hostile smallminded folk) I would tend to think they might know something useful relative to the issue.

Just a guess, mind you, as this particular brand of science is so far out of my knowledge base I can't mentally connect on it and thus am unable to contribute to the debate usefully beyond that suggestion.

I do not know, I couldn't tell ya.
And that's about as honest an answer as you'll get from anyone.

-Frem

RUE

Wednesday, January 24, 2007 6:33 PM

The high end meteorologists who get to play with the high end supercomputers are busy trying to figure out how much global warming and where. They've gotten past the 'if' stage.

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, January 24, 2007 9:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
The high end meteorologists who get to play with the high end supercomputers are busy trying to figure out how much global warming and where. They've gotten past the 'if' stage.

The 'high end' ones ? Can ya name any ? Other than The Weather Channel's "climate expert", Heidi Cullen. Sure, she may be cute and all, but I'm not sure the thugs at TWC and their McCarthyism tactics " DO you now or have you ever denied global warming is real or that it wasn't caused by mankind? " to be overly helpful in this discussion. I'll take the side of James Spann, thank you very much.

" "The Weather Channel" wants to take away AMS certification from those of us who believe the recent "global warming" is a natural process. So much for "tolerance", huh," - James Spann.

Gee, I've not seen this sort of 'open spirit' to dialogue since the HRCC locked up Galileo for his views on planetary alignment.

Amazing.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

CITIZEN

Wednesday, January 24, 2007 10:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
The high end meteorologists who get to play with the high end supercomputers are busy trying to figure out how much global warming and where. They've gotten past the 'if' stage.

The developed scientific world has come to the correct conclusion, maybe the backward theocratic states will join us in enlightment, some day

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

AURAPTOR

Thursday, January 25, 2007 2:22 AM

Quote:
The developed scientific world has come to the correct conclusion, maybe the backward theocratic states will join us in enlightment, some day

Then explain why it is that the so called developed scientific world has resorted to using 15th century theocratic methods of intimidation?

What next, guided tours of The Weather Channel's basement ?

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

6IXSTRINGJACK

Thursday, January 25, 2007 4:54 AM

I'll concede that there very well might be a warming problem here. I think you should watch Waterworld and study it so you'll know what to do when the icecaps do melt. Personally, I'm really looking forward to drinking my own pee after filtering it. Anybody else wonder why he chose to drink his own filtered pee when there was pretty much water every damn place you looked that he could have filtered instead?

Please... just don't tell me that my cigarette smoking is causing global warming. I'll stop smoking when you stop driving a car.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

ANTHONYT

Thursday, January 25, 2007 5:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Sorry rue, but merely accepting money from Big Oil , as you claim, does not make them guilty. OF course the energy companies are going to respond to a global kabal intent on destroying them. How else are they supppose to respond when attacked by a global communist movement posing as an enviromentlally aware gruop?

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

Raptor,

That is a very valid argument. Or it would be if anyone else had made it. Unfortunately, you set the premise further up in the thread that your sources were not paid by 'Big Oil.' Now you are saying that they are and it doesn't matter. And maybe it doesn't. But you said that thing before, and now it's hurting credibility.

For my own part, I believe that most research is funded by people with a vested interest in the outcome of said research.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

Anthony, 2 quick comments. 1st, ONE of my sources wasn't supported by big oil. That's relevant because it shows how even those working FOR the global warming side still are capable of fudging the numbers, intentionally or not, and arriving at false conclusions. This is by no means a cut n dry debate. 2nd, You said that YOU BELIEVE most research is funded by people with a vested interest in the outcome of said research. So, where does that leave us ? What about when research is done to debunk a position which a scientist initially disagrees with, but after having done the research, finds the opposite conclusion of that he intended to find ? A prime example is Bjorn Lomborg.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

I LOVE it when a scientist finds something he didn't intend to find. It spurs my belief that scientists can sometimes be open-minded people.

I recall a segment of a movie with Robin Williams. He was playing a psychiatrist who would eventually (temporarily) wake a lot of unresponsive patients from their age-old slumber.

At the beginning of the movie, he had just come off of a long-term project to extract a particular chemical from snails or slugs or something of the sort. He told this to a prospective employer, who replied, "But you can't do that! It won't work."

To which Robin Williams replied, "I know. I proved it."

That part always cracks me up. What was the name of that movie? Awakenings? I think so.

Anyhow, the fact that most scientists are not independantly wealthy means that they secure funding from somewhere else. 'Somewhere else' might be an altruistic wealthy individual with interests in pure science. But probably not.

Almost everyone who funds science has their own motive for doing so. Therefore, the source of funding is of only secondary concern to the scientific research itself. It is the research that should be carefully scrutinized, not the source.

Unfortunately, most of us aren't scientists, and don't feel qualified to scrutinize the science. So we scrutinize the source. Incorrectly so.

But anyway, Rap, the key is to not say "My sources aren't funded by Big Oil" and then have it found out that Big Oil did fund some of your sources. That makes you look bad.

Rather, the key is to say, "Everyone is funded by someone. Look at the science. Talk to me about the science."

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

6IXSTRINGJACK

Thursday, January 25, 2007 5:34 AM

Yep... that movie was called Awakenings. Good flick. I remember it making my mom cry when they all gave their paychecks to keep funding the medicine for the patients.

I put it right there with "Leaving Las Vegas" and "Angela's Ashes". Not sure which movie is sadder. If you ever want to temporarily relieve your "woe-is-me" syndrome for a few days, I recommend renting (or downloading) any one of those and giving them a quick watch.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

SOUPCATCHER

Thursday, January 25, 2007 9:04 AM

I prefer to think of it in terms of engineering mechanics. This rock we call home has gone through numerous cycles of global warming and cooling. Kind of like the elastic region on a stress-strain curve where deformation is reversible. But then you throw man into the mix and we're adding stress to the system and moving things into the plastic region. In other words, our actions are amplifying existing trends and pushing them from reversible to irreversible. Mankind isn't responsible for global warming. Mankind is responsible for making global warming off 'da hook.

Although I'm open to the possibility that I'm just looking for a great American challenge. We used to be the country of "can do." Well, this is about as big a "can it be done?" problem as we've come across. So, rather than wasting our efforts trying to create our own version of the USSR domino theory in the Middle East, let's roll up our shirt sleeves and figure out what to do about lowering our global warming amplification.

RUE

Thursday, January 25, 2007 7:28 PM

Rap,

This is so beneath you ....

Quote:
"The 'high end' ones ? Can ya name any ? Other than The Weather Channel's "climate expert", Heidi Cullen. Sure, she may be cute and all, but I'm not sure the thugs at TWC and their McCarthyism tactics " DO you now or have you ever denied global warming is real or that it wasn't caused by mankind? " to be overly helpful in this discussion. I'll take the side of James Spann, thank you very much.

" "The Weather Channel" wants to take away AMS certification from those of us who believe the recent "global warming" is a natural process. So much for "tolerance", huh," - James Spann.

Gee, I've not seen this sort of 'open spirit' to dialogue since the HRCC locked up Galileo for his views on planetary alignment.

Amazing.

AURAPTOR

Friday, January 26, 2007 4:21 AM

Quote:
Anthony wrote :
But anyway, Rap, the key is to not say "My sources aren't funded by Big Oil" and then have it found out that Big Oil did fund some of your sources. That makes you look bad.

No, you're missing the point. I INTENTIONALLY added in an expert that, while considered to be in agreement w/ global warming, he STILL points out errors and false conclusions of others who are trying to paint their evidence as 'proof' for global warming. He's pointing out the BAD SCIENCE which is promoted here. As for the other sources, I never claimed they were 'bought by big oil'. That was rue's claim, though rue gave ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE other than, " I looked into it, and I concluded blah blah blah... " . I have yet to find out that some of my sources are funded by any energy company.

Now, take a step back , breathe deep, and think for a moment. If there's no definitive answer yet to any of these questions, and you're claiming that such answers HAVE been verified,when in fact they have NOT, who looks bad here ?

Quote:
Thursday, January 25, 2007 09:28
Rap,

This is so beneath you ....

Sometimes absurdity is used to show the absurd. But I can't help but notice that you found NOTHING more to say about it. Does taking away accreditations or holding Nuremberg like trials for those who don't agree on global warming not sound at least a LITTLE bit like what Galileo faced in his day ?

I think the analogy is apt, if not for the eventual conclusion that Galileo was right, then at least for the treatment which he endured.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

RUE

Friday, January 26, 2007 6:29 AM

"But I can't help but notice that you found NOTHING more to say about it." Not sure if you work a job or not. I do. I'm often away for a few days at a time, post once or twice then have to leave again. Life calls, and so on.

CITIZEN

Friday, January 26, 2007 11:34 AM

Rue.

Please don't feed the Trolls.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

AURAPTOR

Friday, January 26, 2007 2:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"But I can't help but notice that you found NOTHING more to say about it." Not sure if you work a job or not. I do. I'm often away for a few days at a time, post once or twice then have to leave again. Life calls, and so on.

You took the time , twice now, to reply to the post, and both times, you said nothing. I don't see how you can blame your job, the real world , or the great Kazoo for your inability to reply. I didn't say " it took you long enough to reply ", but more specific , you didn't address the issue I brought up.

citizen ,
When I want your opinion...., nope, I'll never want your opinion.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

CITIZEN

Friday, January 26, 2007 2:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
When I want your opinion...., nope, I'll never want your opinion.

Yes yes, we've already established you have no interest in anyone's opinion but your own, on numerous occasions.

Oh shit, now I'm doing it!

Citizen

Please. Don't. Feed. The. TROLLS!

Right, yeah sorry about that Citizen, won't happen again.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

RUE

Friday, January 26, 2007 2:48 PM

Rap,

I was thinking you weren't a troll, but now I'm changing my mind.

The first time I replied, very briefly, was due to the site being flakey, I was at work and I had better things to do that wait, and wait, and wait for pages to load, which only happened once every 6 or 7 tries.. This most recent time, it was like 10:30PM and I had to make sure the kiddle took her meds and went to bed. And now it's 06:30AM, I've been up since 04:30 hacking my lungs out and in an hour will have to take the kiddle to school before I get on with the rest of my oh so luxuriously free day. Not.

And I'm not sure exactly what you want me to reply to. You wanted me to defend Gore's movie. Since I'd have to check out which part you were talking about and since sea levels have never been my issue, I declined. You wanted me to address a letter written by a researcher. I did that. I said, and it was 100% up front, that I didn't know what his point was. He seemed to be making some very technical comments about another letter which wasn't available. I researched YOUR post, looking to see where he worked (bona fide) and went back over the last 5 years or so of his publications to see if he, as a global climate researcher, had reached a conclusion different from the mainstream. In that foray I couldn't find any indication one way or the other.

But in the grown-up world discussion doesn't generally happen like that. You say "my source says this". The other person says "I'm not sure what the point was." Then YOU say, "oh see, I have a recent editorial written by this guy, and this is what he thinks ...."

You OTOH seem to think that just b/c you find a link you're absolved of actually discussing the topic. " See! I have a link too !! :sicks thumbs in ears and wiggles finger: I'm a grown up ! I have a link ! TA DA !!!"

When you want to discuss the topic and you come with something to say, I'll be happy to join in. But I'm not going to spend any more time researching your position for you.

SHINYED

Friday, January 26, 2007 6:11 PM

As they march in unison to the sea of koolaid, the global warming lemmings seem to have an answer for everything...every base is covered. If it's very hot in the country...well it's global warming; if it's very cold in the country....well it's global warming. If there's a lot of storms & hurricanes...well it's global warming; if there aren't a lot of hurricanes...well it's global warming. Sounds alot like my wife, my bank, and my insurance company...they're never wrong & can change the rules whenever they want to advance their agenda.

CITIZEN

Friday, January 26, 2007 6:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by ShinyEd:
As they march in unison to the sea of koolaid, the global warming lemmings seem to have an answer for everything...every base is covered. If it's very hot in the country...well it's global warming; if it's very cold in the country....well it's global warming. If there's a lot of storms & hurricanes...well it's global warming; if there aren't a lot of hurricanes...well it's global warming. Sounds alot like my wife, my bank, and my insurance company...they're never wrong & can change the rules whenever they want to advance their agenda.

At last eh Rue, a scientific responce.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

SHINYED

Friday, January 26, 2007 8:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
At last eh Rue, a scientific responce.

Ok..you want science?...Let's see...last year the GENIUS SCIENTISTS at the National Hurricane Center predicted ( with their scientific evidence and flawless methodologies ) that the US would be hit with 19+ hurricanes for 2006...we didn't get any.... not one.

Global warming is pseudo-science perpetrated by people with financial and /or political agendas...getting grant money, keeping grant money, writing books, making movies....all just a bunch of bunk that's lapped up by Henny-Penny doomsday fearmongers and worrywarts.

CITIZEN

Friday, January 26, 2007 8:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by ShinyEd:
Ok..you want science?...Let's see...last year the GENIUS SCIENTISTS at the National Hurricane Center predicted ( with their scientific evidence and flawless methodologies ) that the US would be hit with 19+ hurricanes for 2006...we didn't get any.... not one.

Yeah meterology is so easy as well, idiots. I bet you could of done better with that stunning intellect you continue to show.

Quote:
Global warming is pseudo-science perpetrated by people with financial and /or political agendas...getting grant money, keeping grant money, writing books, making movies....all just a bunch of bunk that's lapped up by Henny-Penny doomsday fearmongers and worrywarts.

Always amusing to see someone start painting things as 'pseudo-science' when they don't understand what real science is and base what they believe is real science on nothing more than politics and a deep desire to convince themselves that polluting the environment really doesn't matter. Funny how the great scientific nation of the USoA is the only place where global warming is a political issue, the place where the politicians believe doing anything about it will hurt the bottom line of those entities that pay for their election campaigns.

If it isn't real science it'll be real easy for you to refute it with the 'real scientists' who have no loyalties or allegiances to those that pay their grants (like you know in the vast majority of cases the Oil companies). It's going to be interesting, though somewhat distressing, to watch the once world technological leader collapse into little more than a science hating Christian theocratic state. Though we've seen the science hating part of that, so I guess the developed world hasn't got long to wait.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

SHINYED

Friday, January 26, 2007 8:54 PM

Ya know what's realy funny?...that you're a pompous smart-assed little puke....now that's not only hysterical, but also a proven scientific fact!

SHINYED

Friday, January 26, 2007 8:54 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Friday, January 26, 2007 8:56 PM

Actually I think it's gonna go the other way, sooner or later the liberals are going to get fed-up sick and tired of these maroons and throw in with us Anarchists, whereupon we'll have a good ole fashioned purge involving lots of rope and handy lightposts.

And shortly thereafter the slowdown in global warming will indicate all the hot air being blown by rightwingnut trolls and politicians as a significant contributory factor.

All them righty-whitey types who're all waitin for the day of the rope, I say we give it to em, just not how they expect it to go.

-Frem

AURAPTOR

Friday, January 26, 2007 9:20 PM

Quote:
When you want to discuss the topic and you come with something to say, I'll be happy to join in. But I'm not going to spend any more time researching your position for you.

That's how I started this discussion, but you simply didn't care to respond to what I had posted. You said all I ever posted was MY OPINION, to which I replied with posting examples of legit sites that back up my views. Yes, real world events ( thankfully ) pull us away from these boards, but for you to take the time to reply and casually dismiss anythin I post out of hand, with no explanation..... that's where 'petty' comes to mind.

I never said anything about Gore's movie, so no...no need to defend that.

Per the blog which I posted, it was from a global warming proponent who was still criticizing the methods and findings of ANOTHER g.w. proponent. His PONIT, was that steps must be taken to make sure that good, solid science is brought to the table. Sorry you had such trouble with it, I thought it self explanitory.

And here I thought this thread was suppose to 'cut through the crap' . :shrug:

P.S. , if you're going to carry over a discussion from another thread, even if it's on the same subject, PLEASE point that minor detail out. I think that is partially where our wire got crossed. I failed to notice your last post on the other g.w. thread.
Thanks.

P.P.S. - Here's a link to the Revkin story which you said you could not find. "The basics connecting the global warming dots "
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/DeepModem%20Mom/2597
The reply I posted, by Roger Pielke Sr. The basic critcism by Pielke Sr. is that Revkin oversimplifies his conclusions. Hope this helps.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

CITIZEN

Friday, January 26, 2007 10:06 PM

CITIZEN

Friday, January 26, 2007 10:12 PM

CITIZEN

Friday, January 26, 2007 10:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by ShinyEd:
Ya know what's realy funny?...that you're a pompous smart-assed little puke....now that's not only hysterical, but also a proven scientific fact!

Better that than being a foul mouthed brain dead little Troll

. What's the matter, can't prove your case, that 'scientifically proven' fact upset you does it? Ahh, poor baby, try not too kick the floor too hard while you have that tantrum.

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
And shortly thereafter the slowdown in global warming will indicate all the hot air being blown by rightwingnut trolls and politicians as a significant contributory factor.

LOL!

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

AURAPTOR

Friday, January 26, 2007 10:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

All them righty-whitey types who're all waitin for the day of the rope, I say we give it to em, just not how they expect it to go.

-Frem

Don't know what 'day of the rope' you're referrin', but if you think you can give it to us, by all means, give it a go.

I'm thinkin you won't like what end of the rope you end up on.

p.s. Hey citizen...triple post much ?

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

CITIZEN

Friday, January 26, 2007 10:26 PM

Hey Frem

You're getting threatened by a Troll, bet you're quaking, do you need some protection

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

CHRISISALL

Friday, January 26, 2007 10:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

p.s. Hey citizen...triple post much ?

It was so funny I asked him to repeat it.
What is your problem? The system hiccuped...if it does it while you post should we make fun of you?
Can't stay on a losing pattern and have to divert?

Shouldn't you be watching Buffy anyway Chrisisall

FREMDFIRMA

Saturday, January 27, 2007 2:34 AM

*snicker*

Actually i'm having a very funny mental image of the boys on cass and the rightywhiteys having a rope-pull tug of war over the broken sewer main on cass.

That'd be fun.

I drive a cab in detroit almost every day, it's not like some 101st keyboarder scares me, no.

That sewer main does tho, reminds me of that movie with that supersize gator down there, I keep hoping it doesn't turn into a sinkhole and swallow my cab, so far, so good.

Thump-Bump!

-F

AURAPTOR

Saturday, January 27, 2007 10:23 AM

citizen troll - If you could read post in sequential order, it wasn't I who threatened anyone 1st. I merely replied w/ a question and a clarification.

chris - citizen troll is constantly tacking on little quips and comments when I'm discussing with others. Turn about is fair play. And besides, no Buffy 'till Monday, at the earliest.

Glad we're staying on topic.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

CITIZEN

Saturday, January 27, 2007 10:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
It was so funny I asked him to repeat it.
What is your problem? The system hiccuped...if it does it while you post should we make fun of you?
Can't stay on a losing pattern and have to divert?

Chris, Don't feed the trolls

.

Besides, as pathetic an attempt that was it really is one of his best, maybe one day he'll be able to get sarcasm and irony.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Saturday, January 27, 2007 11:23 AM

Am I a troll?

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

CITIZEN

Saturday, January 27, 2007 11:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Am I a troll?

No, Trolls are posters that do nothing but attempt to derail debate in to spiralling flame wars. Not someone who merely gets caught up in them, someone who actually seeks to create them so people don't talk about subjects they don't want talked about.

That's AURaptor to a T. But it's not you.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

AURAPTOR

Monday, January 29, 2007 3:58 AM

citizen troll : In your dreams, you wish you were 1/ 10th the human being I am.

Keep wishing, pal.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

ANTHONYT

Monday, January 29, 2007 7:55 AM

It's rather irritating that any time there is a disagreement on these boards, everyone calls everyone else a troll.

Disagree? Well then, you're probably a troll.

Disagree vehemently? You're definitely a troll.

And now instead of discussing the topic, we can argue about how trollish we all are.

Whee.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

AURAPTOR

Monday, January 29, 2007 2:34 PM

I know. citizen started it. I sure wish he'd stop. It's annoying.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

CITIZEN

Monday, January 29, 2007 4:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
It's rather irritating that any time there is a disagreement on these boards, everyone calls everyone else a troll.

Disagree? Well then, you're probably a troll.

Disagree vehemently? You're definitely a troll.

And now instead of discussing the topic, we can argue about how trollish we all are.

Whee.

No Anthony. I disagree with you a lot (like here for instance) and I don't call you a Troll. Anyone who chooses to immediately throw out insults in all circumstances is a troll (that is AURaptor). Anyone who uses pathetic childish insults is a troll. Anyone who consistently uses moronic childish sentiments (he started it nayh nayh nayh, I know you are but what am I, see above

) is a troll. I label posters trolls when they significantly and consistently attempt to derail any useful discussion, and really, honestly, is that not AURaptor? He literally is incapable of replying too anyone here who he disagrees with without calling them an 'ass' or an 'idiot'. Sure we all throw mud, but that's ALL he does, questioning it is like questioning whether Kaneman is a troll. So I've had enough of trying to talk to him as if he is a person, he's a troll and that's all there is too it.

And AT, please stop feeding him, then maybe he'll go away and we can have a grown up conversation

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

RUE

Wednesday, January 31, 2007 12:33 AM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070130/ap_on_go_co/congress_climate; _ylt=Am9QotYXqQs79xUc8C3Du06s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--

"At the House hearing, two private advocacy groups produced a survey of 279 government climate scientists showing that many of them say they have been subjected to political pressure aimed at downplaying the climate threat. Their complaints ranged from a challenge to using the phrase "global warming" to raising uncertainty on issues on which most scientists basically agree, to keeping scientists from talking to the media."

ERIC

Wednesday, January 31, 2007 1:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070130/ap_on_go_co/congress_climate; _ylt=Am9QotYXqQs79xUc8C3Du06s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--

"At the House hearing, two private advocacy groups produced a survey of 279 government climate scientists showing that many of them say they have been subjected to political pressure aimed at downplaying the climate threat. Their complaints ranged from a challenge to using the phrase "global warming" to raising uncertainty on issues on which most scientists basically agree, to keeping scientists from talking to the media."

Well, they obviously ALL have an agenda.

The most telling sentence in that article is

Quote:
"In the past the White House has said it has only sought to inject balance into reports on climate change."

You do not "balance" facts with lies. That's ridiculous. If I wrote a paper that presented a bunch of evidence for one thing, then in my conclusions section said the exact opposite in the interests of making it "fair and balanced," shall we say, I'd never get published ever again.

VETERAN

Wednesday, January 31, 2007 1:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Eric:
.....You do not "balance" facts with lies. .....

Man that is classic. I think you've nailed the neocon thought process.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, January 31, 2007 1:47 AM

Absolutely.

RE: Troll
Auraptor- I have a post waiting for you. It's in your very own "going mad" thread. Let me know when you feel like having a real discussion, 'kay? Thanks.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

RUE

Monday, February 5, 2007 12:47 AM

RE: who are these upper-level scientists playing on upper-level supercomputers -

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/01/070111184302.htm

Supercomputer To Advance Studies Of Abrupt Climate Change
Zhengyu Liu

The centerpiece of the UW-Madison-led experiments will be the first continuous computer simulation of the past 21,000 years of global climate change. This period in the earth's history included the last major glacial retreat and a significant increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), the "greenhouse gas" most associated with global warming.

CHRISISALL

Monday, February 5, 2007 12:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

And now instead of discussing the topic, we can argue about how trollish we all are.

I blame my troll-self.

Trollisall

AURAPTOR

Monday, February 5, 2007 12:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Absolutely.

RE: Troll
Auraptor- I have a post waiting for you. It's in your very own "going mad" thread. Let me know when you feel like having a real discussion, 'kay? Thanks.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

Funny you refer me as a troll BEFORE you ask me if I want to have a 'real' discussion.

Yeah, that's the mark of sincere, mature folk.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

RUE

Monday, February 5, 2007 4:52 PM

Rap,

You've got to be kidding. Right? Just 'cause SignyM was trying to parse out which part of which post was in response to what and who, you do a complete well, troll?

How about discussing the topic? Is that too much to ask?

CITIZEN

Monday, February 5, 2007 6:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
How about discussing the topic? Is that too much to ask?

Uhm, let me think...

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

KHYRON

Monday, February 5, 2007 6:40 PM

There was a topic?

The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

RUE

Monday, February 5, 2007 6:53 PM

HA HA HA HA

Global Warming (cont.) Let's cut through the crap.

Tho there is a certain amount of cross-posting going on. Some ppl jump from thread to thread and then other ppl go around from thread to thread after them saying 'yoo hooo' are you here? will you meet me over there?

I mean, look at me. I've been asking Anti 'if god made the universe, who made god' for a while. And that in a thread that started out as 'patriotism'. Things do hop around a bit.

YINYANG

Tuesday, February 6, 2007 1:04 AM

KANEMAN

Tuesday, February 6, 2007 10:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by ShinyEd:
As they march in unison to the sea of koolaid, the global warming lemmings seem to have an answer for everything...every base is covered. If it's very hot in the country...well it's global warming; if it's very cold in the country....well it's global warming. If there's a lot of storms & hurricanes...well it's global warming; if there aren't a lot of hurricanes...well it's global warming. Sounds alot like my wife, my bank, and my insurance company...they're never wrong & can change the rules whenever they want to advance their agenda.

I am kaneman and I approve this message........

CANTTAKESKY

Tuesday, February 6, 2007 10:45 PM

Quote:
2) IS the mean temperature of the planet increasing?

This is a more complicated question than a "yes" or "no."

Science isn't about ONLY a few facts that support our position. It is about facts in context of an endless list of other facts, both already observed and ones still being gathered. It is about teasing out and ruling out alternative explanations until we find a model that best predicts the future. And even then, that model is subject to change when still more facts are discovered.

Glacial recession needs to be put in context of other facts such as glacial growth and recession globally throughout earth's history. Ice shelves breaking needs to be put in context of other facts such as ice shelf growth and breakage globally throughout earth's history. Ocean levels rising needs to be put in context of ocean levels rising and receding globally throughout earth's history. You get the picture.

Anyone who has studied science and statistics knows that numbers are malleable. You can have data to support any position you choose. That is why information on methodology, context, and confounders are essential in interpreting data.

The IPCC does not reveal methodologies or confounders, which is essential in any scientific paper. It presents data in such a way as to force the reader to ASSUME that all data presented is generalizable and representative fact, with no qualifiers in their interpretation.

I want to make it clear that this critique is in no way dismissing the data reported by the IPCC, nor impugning the integrity of the scientists involved. I am saying the data they presented rests on unspoken assumptions, is incomplete, needs to be placed in context of confounders (possible alternative explanations), and interpreted cautiously.

*******end disclaimer************

ASSUMING that the data reported by IPCC is accurate, representative, and generalizable, this is what we know about global temperatures.

All quotations taken from this Executive Summary authored by the IPCC.
http://grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/WG1_TAR-FRONT.PDF

1. "The global average surface temperature has increased by 0.6 plus/minus 0.2 degrees C since the late 19th century."

2. From 1860 to 1910 (50 years), there were ups and downs, but there was no significant net increase in average global surface temperature.
From 1910 to 1945 (35 years), there was a dramatic warming, with the average global surface temperature rising about 0.45 degrees C.
From 1945 to 1975 (30 years), there was a slight cooling, with the avg. temp declining about 0.2 degrees C.
From 1975 to 2000 (25 years) there was a dramatic warming, with the avg. temp rising about 0.45 degress C.

3. "...the largest increases in temperature have occurred over the mid-and high latitudes of the continents in the Northern Hemisphere."
"Year-round cooling is evident in the north-western North Atlantic and central Pacific Oceans, but the North Atlantic cooling trend has recently reversed."

A series of graphs show the following:
---From 1910 to 1945 (35 years), there was a mild to dramatic warming in average global surface temperatures, except for the following areas where there was no data: Greenland/Arctic, northern part of South America, most of Africa, most of western China and Mongolia, most of northern Russia, most of the Pacific, South Atlantic, Indian Ocean, and Antarctica.
---From 1946 to 1975 (30 years), there was mild to moderate cooling in North America, North Atlantic, North Pacific, part of Central Pacific, subsaharan central Africa, most of China, and northwestern Russia.. No data from
Greenland/Arctic, Brazil, Antarctica.
---From 1976 to 2000 (25 years) there was mild to dramatic warming globally, especially in the northern hemisphere, parts of southern Africa and northern Australia. There was slight cooling in central Pacific, South Atlantic, and
South Indian Oceans. No data from eastern Brazil, central Africa, Greenland/Arctic, and Antarctica.

4. "New analyses indicate that the glob

RUE

Friday, March 2, 2007 4:31 AM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070301/sc_afp/usweather_070301184410;_yl
t=AsqC2pS_mmiVqvHEvAojJ0LMWM0F
"WASHINGTON (AFP) - A massive late winter storm swept across the United States Thursday, dumping snow on the north and spinning tornadoes to the south, killing at least one person."

?????

I thought tornadoes were late-summer events. Anyone care to chime in on this?

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, March 2, 2007 8:53 AM

Yeah, they are a late-summer event. And early summer and late fall and early fall and winter etc. They tend to happen all year round, but late spring/early summer (March, April and May), not late summer, tends to bring the most tornadoes. So this recent event isn’t particularly unusual.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

RUE

Friday, March 2, 2007 4:30 PM

I looked it up. They do occur in all seasons. Where I come from late summer is peak season.

I think it would be interesting to see of the peak season shifts at all, since people have already compiled historical data.

http://weather.about.com/od/tornadoe1/ss/tornadointro_3.htm

CANTTAKESKY

Sunday, March 18, 2007 3:22 AM

Just found this video:

The Great Global Warming Swindle (British TV, Channel 4, 1 hr 14 min)

http://video.google.com:80/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

--------------
Nullius in verba. (Take nobody's word.)

THUNDAR

Sunday, March 18, 2007 8:55 AM

THAT video makes more sense than all the other crap. It also explains why Venus and Mars are also showing a near identical temperature increase.

But face it, even if mankind were responsible and everyone in the US stopped driving, using electricity and reverted to the stone-age tomorrow, it would not change a damned thing.

GEEZER

Sunday, March 18, 2007 12:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Just found this video:

The Great Global Warming Swindle (British TV, Channel 4, 1 hr 14 min)

http://video.google.com:80/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

--------------
Nullius in verba. (Take nobody's word.)

Here's a link to the Channel 4 site about the program.

http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swin
dle/index.html

Looks like I got some wathcing and reading to do.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

KHYRON

Sunday, March 18, 2007 1:06 PM

Excellent video, CTS, thanks for linking it.

The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

OLDENGLANDDRY

Monday, March 19, 2007 7:39 AM

Bump

OLDENGLANDDRY

Monday, March 19, 2007 5:24 PM

Anti PN bump

KANEMAN

Tuesday, April 3, 2007 8:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Just found this video:

The Great Global Warming Swindle (British TV, Channel 4, 1 hr 14 min)

http://video.google.com:80/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

--------------
Nullius in verba. (Take nobody's word.)

Well, I was wondering why after this link was up, there was an end to posts from the believers in GW. What an amazing video. This one link bitch slapped all the posts and data you guys were touting. Man, I knew it was BS before I watched this. Another good one can be seen on youtube....search: Junk science global warming myths from the Internet skeptic....

KHYRON

Tuesday, April 3, 2007 8:45 PM

Reminds me of another thread that deserves to be resurrected, I'll do that now.

"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."

KHYRON

Thursday, April 5, 2007 7:53 PM

Bump for Rue.

I think she was looking for some links she posted in this thread.

"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."