Run for your lives...here comes global warming

[skrewt]

Or perhaps as I have said in previous posts there are other reasons for climate change.

http://aa.usno.navy.mil/faq/docs/seasons_orbit.html

[MikeJ]

Don't run, running causes excess heat. Heat rises. This additional heat in the upper atmosphere will activate the atoms up there causing them to build up excess heat which added to the body heat mentioned before will heat the planet. This will melt the icebergs at the poles which will stop the natural airconditioning of the planet which as we all know, when the a/c no longer works, tempers get heated and then the population will call in the a/c guys and we will all be extremely busy further adding to the heat load of the planet. It's called the snowball effect.

[player89]

Our earthly planet evolving into a star! That has to be the answer!

[refrigeration mafia]

You can laugh if you want to, but we are ALL gonna die.

[seatonheating]

Originally posted by skrewt
Or perhaps as I have said in previous posts there are other reasons for climate change.

http://aa.usno.navy.mil/faq/docs/seasons_orbit.html

The president doesn't take it seriously so you don't. How typical. It's been proven by science that we are causing the atmosphere to warm up. But wait, you don't look at science, your faith proves that.

[scrogdog]

It's been proven by science that we are causing the atmosphere to warm up.

No it hasn't. The only sure thing is that the Earth is warming. The cause is as yet undetermined by science. Now, that does not mean that a lot of scientists do not BELEIVE that c02 is a causal factor, but to say that it has been proven by science is simply not true by quite a stretch.

There is not a climate specialist on this planet that will tell you that we or anyone understands the Earth's climate system. It may even be a chaotic system... no one knows.

So... what are we modeling exactly?

In any case... it take something like 200 years for c02 to cycle out of the atmosphere. Even if we shut down c02 emissions entirely today, it would not affect what is about to happen. The best we could hope for is that we do not make it worse, but of course, the lack of telling science causes some to not want to collapse thier economies to deal with it.

[tonys]

so, what's the solution and actions going forward, s-dog?

from your extensive posts on this subject matter, it appears your support continued study in this area.
correct?

[scrogdog]

Absolutely I do, Tony.

But I think we should stop pussy-footing around with attempts to stop or somehow curtail warming. We should always seek to reduce emissions because there is a heck of a lot more than c02 happening at a smokestack or tailpipe.

Instead of investing in emergency reduction programs (showcase on Kyoto here - Kyoto's goals are extremly modest yet, at this time, it appears that only one or two signatories will achieve thier reduction goal), let's get to the heart of the matter and accept the inevitablilty of global warming.

We should be moving businesses and homes away from the coasts for starters. Measures like this do not give the dubious results of emission reduction, they address the issue directly. We need to prepare for what WILL happen. It will be a hell of a lot more expensive than emmission reduction, I can promise you that.

[tonys]

moving millions of people further in-land will be 'cheaper' than banning the purchase of useless 5.7L SUVs?

[scrogdog]

No, it will be more expensive. That's what I thought I said, sorry if I was not clear.

Think of it this way; let's say you own a home on the coast. How do we get you out of it? Of course, we do not wish you to sell this property, we want you to just give it up. No problem right? Just a house that's been in your family for many, many years and... you know... it only took 30 years of your life to pay for it. So, not only do we wish you to give up your house and get nothing for it, we ask that you move inland with your investment gone and no money to buy a new house. :)

The only way to get this done would be a government subsidy program rivaling the Marshall Plan in scope. You get a cash grant, give up your old house and get a new one. Businesses are even a tougher nut because you affect many families at once with any change, not just one.

[skrewt]

Originally posted by seatonheating

Originally posted by skrewt
Or perhaps as I have said in previous posts there are other reasons for climate change.

http://aa.usno.navy.mil/faq/docs/seasons_orbit.html

The president doesn't take it seriously so you don't. How typical. It's been proven by science that we are causing the atmosphere to warm up. But wait, you don't look at science, your faith proves that.

You "MAY" (and I stress the may) be able to provide an argument that the earth is indeed warming.
There is only conjecture that it is caused by human activity. Your "proof" is a group of scientists that get their message spread by agenda groups. There are a great many scientists that disagree with the global warming model. But that would be irrelevent to you because it doesn't give you the opportunity to punish american business and demonize american society.

[tonys]

s-dog...you're going off on a tangent with the house-on-the-ocean thing.


let's keep it simple and 'smart'.

how about:
1) ban the purchase of large engine autos (allow only for commercial use, and stop that 90 lb, 5'2" female driving her 5,000 lb SUV 50 miles to the Walmart to save 50cents on cheap hair spray...ughh)
2) burn less coal, replace the capacity (slowly) 1:1 with wind power & nuclear gen (or nu-cu-lar for our Bush-Bots out there)
3) improve the overall efficiency of every car sold (hybrid, alternate fuels, carbon fibre parts, etc. etc.)


Q.
how far would those 3 simple measures go towards reducing the rate of global warming (even if it is not 'primarily' the cause of human activity) AND advance American technology and the ecomony overall?

[coolwhip]

Even if this country were to stop useing fossil fuels and cut air pollution by 100%, you still have countries like china and russia that dump $hit in the atmosphere like theres no tomorrow.

[tonys]

...fix that as well.

(need REAL leadership, though - not the kind currently kissing Chinese-A$$ this morning)

[scrogdog]

Q.
how far would those 3 simple measures go towards reducing the rate of global warming (even if it is not 'primarily' the cause of human activity) AND advance American technology and the ecomony overall?

Well, it's not a bad idea, but it isn't going to do much to halt the specter of global warming. This issue has become far too political. While such a plan can only be viewed as environmentally responsible, it does nothing, not one thing, to address the RESULT of inevitable global warming.

Ice caps will melt, oceans will rise, storms will intensify and bio-systems will break down... probably in ways we can't even imagine at this time. Stepping down our c02 production might help a little. Again, though, the math and the numbers seem suspect to me. Let's say that an extreme activist organization like Greenpeace is correct in saying that humans produce about 4% of all of the c02 generated over the course of, say, a year. Even though water vapor is a less efficient greenhouse gas, molecule for molecule, than either methane or c02, it is still a fact that over 95% of all of the Earth's greenhouse gas is water vapor. The remaining 5% being made up of many other types of greenhouse gases of which c02 is only one.

I am at a loss to understand how a reduction in the miniscule fraction of 1% of all of the greenhouse gas manufactured by humans is a means to somehow abate the effects of global warming. I don't think I go out on too much of a limb here to say that human reduction of c02, while not a bad idea, is still going to be next to insignificant with regards to dealing with the problem of global warming.

Global warming is here. It will get worse. Given the lack of proper science telling us the cause... we are left with only logic. Logic tells me that we should be preparing for the inevitable and stop fingerpointing, politicizing and spinning our wheels.

[tonys]

I'm not certain as to the extimated percentage of added CO2, but are you qualified to say that 1% or 2% is 'insignificant'?
what's the biosphere tolerance here?

anyhow, the studies that I have reviewed indicate the rise in atmospheric CO2 is entirely caused by fossil fuel burning and deforestation, simple because measuremetns show that the gradient of carbon released from the oceans is approxiamtely zero (i.e. waters absorb as much as they release).

[scrogdog]

I only said the numbers "seem" to not work for me... a layman.

There is only so much carbon on the Earth. It is finite. It all depends on where it is and in what form. In the carbon cycle, how much C02 the ocean can absorb is a function of how much it already contains, and what the overall temperature of the ocean is. Even the staunchest of C02 scare mongers admit that it takes such a long time for excess c02 to filter back in to the Earth via the carbon cycle, that a total cessation of the production of C02 by humans would need about 200 years before balance is acheived.

There are other reasons besides global warming to be environmetally responsible. But let us temper our judgement instead of drawing battle lines over whose fault it is. My complaint is that we arrogantly want to put all of our eggs in a single basket. Well, guess what? Regardless of where humainty goes with the production of c02, the simple fact is that we need to deal with global warming on a more practical level.

It would not be amusing to find out 50 years from now, after weakening the world economy and the quality of life, that global warming was due to some odd sun cycle or something like that and not c02 which we just spent the last 50 years spinning our wheels over. If we attack the issue practically, then it's cause is irrelevant.

To me, OPEC is the reason to move away from fossil fuels, not global warming. To assume that we can do anything about global warming is the pinnicle of human arrogance in my opinion.

[Edited by scrogdog on 04-20-2006 at 11:52 AM]

[tonys]

I agree - especially about the OPEC stuff.

but, I strongly disagree with regards to
"weakening the world economy and the quality of life"

...I got to get back to the simple-boy-Jimmy-thread...he's at it again with that tired 'act'.

[refrigeration mafia]

Originally posted by tonys
moving millions of people further in-land will be 'cheaper' than banning the purchase of useless 5.7L SUVs?

They'll need those SUV's in order to haul their garage full of cheap crap made in china to thier new home 50 miles inland.

[refrigeration mafia]

Originally posted by tonys
1) ban the purchase of large engine autos (allow only for commercial use, and stop that 90 lb, 5'2" female driving her 5,000 lb SUV 50 miles to the Walmart to save 50cents on cheap hair spray...ughh)


Her husband probably only gives her so much for her allowance, so she has to make it stretch. She is so happy that she saved money.

Wife, "Look at how much money I saved you by lowering my standards honey and going to walmart. Oh and by the way I stopped at the gas station to fill up the SUV."

Husband, "Good job sweety." Thinking to himself, 'Wow I was so smart to put my wife on a budget, we're really geting ahead financially. Oh look the lease payment on the SUV is due again.'

[tonys]

...funny stuff.

[skrewt]

Let's all drive Hybrid cars......
Then I'll only pee in your wheaties a little bit.

If I could afford it, I would drive the biggest damn Hummer money could by and I'd run your little yugo driving ass over like you were a speed bump.

There is no greater joy in life than watching some little environmentalist twit poppin a vein over an SUV.

Pop Tony Pop.

[tonys]

environmentalist?

hmmm.

are you...anti-environment?
is the air and water that YOU consume important to YOU?
why do you distinguish priorities of people with priorities pertaining to the environment? it's all connected, it's the circle-of-life, dudette.


and, the twit thing was a bit much - coming from a community-college-boy.

[tonys]

"if I could afford it..."


funnier stuff!

[skrewt]

Originally posted by tonys
environmentalist?

hmmm.

are you...anti-environment?
is the air and water that YOU consume important to YOU?
why do you distinguish priorities of people with priorities pertaining to the environment? it's all connected, it's the circle-of-life, dudette.


and, the twit thing was a bit much - coming from a community-college-boy.


I think the environment would be better served by sewing democrat mouths shut. Hot air and all.
I am not anti-environment, I am anti-idiot.
Global warming is a complete wild ass guess based on computer models created by humans and tweaked to produce the results they were expecting in the first place.

A complete scientific, political and economic farse.

If you Global warming were somehow declared fixed tomorrow, there would be an immediate switch to some other "evironmental emergency". Dems need these issues in the headlines for the sole purpose of demonizing reps and extorting corporate profits.

[tonys]

o.k.

O.K.!

you win.

everyting is Good.
Carry-on.

[skrewt]

It's funny to me that people who will fight tooth and nail any evidence of biblical history will jump on a scientific fairy tale. So complete is their faith in the religion of science.

[tonys]

it funny how people who submit themselves to sky-daddy's
will object to physical observations, regression analysis, and organic chemistry.


...actually, there's no direct connection.

the religious fundamentalists are just plain nutty's.
I take it back, nuff said.

[skrewt]

Originally posted by tonys
"if I could afford it..."


funnier stuff!

No children, no joy in your life.
What a shame that a man can have so much room for hatred in his life and so little room for love.

Spending too much time smoking dope, burning incense and trying to convince himself he's better than other people because of superficial events in his life.
If a man were to walk through a puddle of you and all the democrat leadership put together, there wouldn't be enough depth to get his shoes wet.

The whole bunch of you are like children screaming "are we there yet?" from the backseat. Completely unproductive and pointless.

[tonys]

"if I could afford it..."

[scrogdog]

Global warming is a complete wild ass guess based on computer models created by humans and tweaked to produce the results they were expecting in the first place.

A complete scientific, political and economic farse.

Well... I agree that this issue is over politicized. The battle itself seems more important than the problem.

However, global warming is not a fantasy. It is a documented fact. The discussion among scientists is not over whether or not the phenomena exists, it is over what is causing it... and whether it is a natural event in totality or is it being helped along by human-generated C02.

Science does not yet give us the answers one way or the other. Now, one would be correct to say that a consesus is building among scientists regarding C02. Now to me, anytime scientists say they are reaching consensus, it only means one thing. Science is not yet giving them the answers. We know that is true because there is no such thing as consensus science. All science requires is one person who happens to be right and can demonstrate that he or she is via repeatable testing. If it is science, it isn't consensus. If it is consensus, it isn't science. Period.

In fact, consensus has been in opposition to properly performed science in the past (google Pellegra) - because no one liked what science was saying. :)

[scrogdog]

It's funny to me that people who will fight tooth and nail any evidence of biblical history will jump on a scientific fairy tale. So complete is their faith in the religion of science.

I find this very hard to understand, with all due respect.

First of all, people continually seem to ignore how science works and why we can "beleive" in it. The scientific method was formulated to limit the faults of humans.

Step one; all science begins with observation. Such as - an apple falls to the ground.

Now science tries to explain why. They hypothesize as to why an apple might fall to the ground. Then they conduct testing to see if what they predicted to occur does in fact occur during the test. If it does, then it becomes a theory instead of just hypothesis or speculation.

But even if we come up with a good explanation, it is never a "fact". It is our best explanation. :)

However, what DOES remain a fact is the initial observation - an apple falls to the ground. Einstien's "fairy tale" replaced Newton's, however, during the process, apples continued to fall to the ground.

Gravity is both fact and theory. Evolution is both fact and theory. Global warming is both fact and theory. All science starts with an observation or fact. If you consider the theory that explains it a fairy tale, I might agree... depending on the testing that was done to demonstrate a theory. There are whole heaps of bad science out there... bold claims made without testing being performed. Interestingly, creationist "scientists" fall in to this category I'm afraid. There is not one of them that I can think of that has actually ever PERFORMED science!

Global warming is no fairy tale, though scientists explanation of the event could be descibed as a "fairy tale" if you wish. I prefer to say that since we lack the proper technology to actually perform meaningful studies that scientists are forced to extrapolate using what we know. It is not proper science, but it's the best we have right now.

[Collin]

Originally posted by skrewt


If I could afford it, I would drive the biggest damn Hummer money could by and I'd run your little yugo driving ass over like you were a speed bump.


Well, I'm driving a one ton 4x4 dually diesel so I could drive over YOUR ass.:D

We had a nice couple over for dinner tonight, our kids are in 2nd grade together. He is a scientist specializing in the atmosphere and we had a great discussion regarding global warming.
In all honesty, it is far too technical for me to understand all the variables but in a nushell it comes down to who you trust.
I believe the highly educated and intelligent man I shared a meal and some wine with over some arrogant internet poster.....

Now if they could just come up with a 55 mpg hybrid that could carry my 4000 lb camper.:D

[skrewt]

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science
by Tom Bethell


Global Warming in a Politically Correct Climate
by Mihkel M. Mathiesen


The Satanic Gases
by Patrick J. Michaels, Patrick J. Michaels



An Army of Davids
by Glenn Reynolds


The Bottomless Well
by Peter W. Huber, Mark P. Mills


Eco-Imperialism
by Paul Driessen



Global Warming and Other Eco Myths
by Ronald Bailey, Competitive Enterprise Institute


Junk Science Judo
by Steven J. Milloy


Disinformation
by Richard Miniter



Just a few of the titles disputing the global warming myth

In case you'd like to rethink your stance that everyone agrees global warming is happening.

[MikeJ]

Subject: Climate Change


Climate change (II)

Greenland's less-icy mountains

Feb 16th 2006
From The Economist print edition

Evidence that sea levels will rise more rapidly than previously thought.

THE biggest unknown factor in making predictions of rising sea levels in
response to global warming is the role played by the massive ice sheets
that cover Antarctica and Greenland. If parts of these were to melt, the
sea level would rise far more rapidly than in the past (when much of the
rise has been because water expands as it warms). Until recently, it was
Thought that any melting going on in the ice caps was fairly gentle. But
four years ago a small Antarctic ice shelf suddenly disintegrated,
leading many people to think again. This week brings further pause for
thought, with alarming news from the other end of the world.

In the past, researchers have used data from planes that fly
criss-crossing paths over Greenland to assess the extent of its ice
sheets. It is a mammoth undertaking. The Greenland ice sheets cover 1.7m
square km-an area only a little smaller than Mexico-and the surface of
the ice rises to an altitude of 3km. Not surprisingly, the flights leave
some areas
unmonitored, and so computer models have been used to fill in the blanks
and to estimate the role played by these patches. The conclusion,
combining data and models, was that the Greenland ice sheet is relatively
stable in
the centre, but thinning slowly at the edges.

That conclusion, however, has been questioned by Eric Rignot of the
California Institute of Technology and Pannir Kanagaratnam of the
University of Kansas. They used satellite data concentrating on Greenland's
coastline to examine how fast the thinning is happening, and they have
found that the flow-speed of 12 glaciers, which together account for
about half the discharge of water from the ice sheet, is increasing-and
fast.

According to their calculations, published in this week's Science and to
be presented in more detail on February 18th at a meeting of the
American Association for the Advancement of Science, Science's publisher,
the
speed at which the glaciers flow has doubled to 12km a year. As a
result, the volume of ice falling into the sea from Greenland has also
doubled over the past decade.

That is worrying enough. But Dr Rignot and Dr Kanagaratnam also found
that the Greenland ice sheet experienced a greater area of surface melting
in
2002 and 2005 than at any previous time since records began in 1979.
Most of this has been in the south of the island, which is where the
accelerating glaciers lie. Water flowing from the surface could ease the
passage of
the glaciers into the sea. Taking both factors into account, the
contribution
made by the Greenland ice sheet to the rise in global sea levels has
increased from
0.23mm a year in 1996 to 0.57mm in 2005.

On top of this, since glacial ice contains no salt, the water formed
when it melts is fresh. Such an increased flow of fresh water from Greenland
could, according to the best available models of ocean circulation,
change the way that currents flow in the North Atlantic, to the
detriment of the Gulf Stream, the current that keeps north-west Europe
warmer than its latitude suggests it should be. In the context of a
report late last year that the Gulf Stream may, indeed, be weakening,
the news from Greenland is doubly disturbing.



Ya sure, best move those house inland. Raise insurance rates high enough so only idiots will build in low areas.

Stop large scale disaster relief thieves. Put them in jail, let them forfeit their property. Far too many 'thieves' during disaster efforts. Global flooding will be a huge insurance claim.

But the government won't act, and we will all pay.

[Edited by MikeJ on 04-21-2006 at 02:47 AM]

[scrogdog]

Skrewt, it might be useful to actually read the books you use as sources. I have read 4 of those books, and I read Milloy at junkscience.com regularly. As I said, these folks do not refute the FACT that global warming exists. However, they do dispute that global warming is caused by man.

So, thanks for supporting my point. :)

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=373d30ec-e01f-41b9-9ad6-df749b4f5c8d&rfp=dta&p=2

But don't just take my word for it... read some Milloy at his website using the link above. Here is a summation quote from the article;


In London in June, the HOLIVAR 2006 Open Science Meeting will examine natural climate variability and global warming. The conference program says "not everyone accepts that the observed warming of the last few decades is caused by increased concentrations of greenhouse gasses associated with human activity." Sponsored by the European Science Foundation, the HOLIVAR conference will look at non-human causes of climate variation over the last 11,500 years.

In New Mexico, the Second International Conference on Global Warming and the Next Ice Age takes place in July. Sponsored by the Centre for Space Science and Exploration, the conference will focus on "drivers and regulators of climate change and variability other than greenhouse gases."

It may be news to many Canadians, but the possible causes of global warming -- to whatever degree it might be happening -- range far beyond human carbon emissions. Changes in the behaviour of the sun, the role of aerosols and other natural factors may be as important, if not more important, than human behaviour.

The greater the uncertainty over the causes of climate variation -- from getting hotter to cooling down -- the more Canada needs to re-evaluate its climate policies and spending. The science needs to be openly reviewed. The letters from the Skeptic 60 and the Climate 90 prove that point.

Again, global warming is a FACT. What is not a fact is what is causing it. I'm not sure how it suits your agenda to suggest otherwise. I join you in saying the C02 theory is suspect and Kyoto a joke. So, what's your point?

[Edited by scrogdog on 04-21-2006 at 07:40 AM]

[bootlen]

Originally posted by scrogdog
Again. global warming is a FACT. What is not a fact is what is causing it.

[Edited by scrogdog on 04-21-2006 at 07:37 AM]

On this, we can agree. It may be just a cyclical thing. That is my personal belief. We haven't had the technology long enough to know. Fact is, we still don't have the technology to know what caused it, just as you say, scrog.

Same problem with the "hole in the ozone layer". We are nearly as smart as we claim to be. And I really get tired of the tree-huggers running around screaming "the sky is falling". This is a fact: there ain't a damn thing we can do about it. If we caused it, it's too late. If we didn't, we don't have the ability to do anything about it.

So all those libs need not get their panties in a wad, bowels in an uproar, and bladders in a downpour.

[tonys]

when did the environment become political?

hmmm.

[scrogdog]

Is this a trick question? lol

Ok, I'll take a shot at it.

Here is your answer: "When Greenpeace was created".

:)

[skrewt]

There is only one true fact.
The average temperature of the earth has changed less then .5 degress in 40 years.
ONLY computer models written by humans call this "global warming".
BTW, the models had to be revised several times to produce the result the "scientists" wanted.
Ever since the model predicted global warming scientists have been racing around trying to prove it.
We do not have enough information over long enough period of time to understand the ebb and flow of the earth's climate.
The phenomenon being recorded now could easily be a symptom of increased solar activity and may end next year.
Way to much gray area to make any reasonable judgement.

[scrogdog]

There is only one true fact.
The average temperature of the earth has changed less then .5 degress in 40 years.
ONLY computer models written by humans call this "global warming".

Actually, scientists call this global warming given that the mean temperature has risen. Certainly we would not call this “global cooling” or “global staying-the-same”. No, in my world, if the world is shown to be getting warmer, even by half a degree… we see fit to call it “global warming”.


BTW, the models had to be revised several times to produce the result the "scientists" wanted.
Ever since the model predicted global warming scientists have been racing around trying to prove it.

In a broad sense this is true. However, the computer models did not make the temperature measurements. They simply extrapolated what would happen if certain trends continued. The models are not good science I agree… but they do not make a case for global warming by themselves… temperature measurements did that. The models tried to predict the future.

Further adding to the “we don’t know” factor is that scientists cannot even agree on the proper measurement! For example, many scientists believe that it is mean surface temperatures that tell the story. Others think it is ocean temperature and still others believe it is temperatures in the lower atmosphere. Since none of these agree with the other, it is crucial to figure out which, if any, ARE meaningful.

Seems to me we agree for the most part… except whether or not to actually call warmer mean temperatures “global warming”. :)

Would it be better if I said it like this? Global warming is a fact, just like the last ice age is a fact. But just because we are getting warmer does not necessarily indicate a "problem" with the Earth. However, even if it is 100% a natural event, that does not mean that we will not have issues to deal with as a result of the warming. It could end next year, but on the other hand, if we are entering a "climatic age" it could go on for centuries.

Global warming could be the next evolutionary step for man as we adapt to the changing environment. :)

[Edited by scrogdog on 04-21-2006 at 11:23 AM]

[Collin]

Here are 90 distinguished scientists who disagree with Screwt.
http://www.cfcas.org/LettertoPM19apr06e.pdf

[MikeJ]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by skrewt
[B]There is only one true fact.
The average temperature of the earth has changed less then .5 degress in 40 years.
ONLY computer models written by humans call this "global warming".



And this very slight warming, .5 degrees over 40 yrs, (which I don't buy) has caused glaciers all over the world to be retreating. And, what about ocean temps?

I don't buy your fact.



More than 70 years later, a NASA scientist studying moisture and air patterns in the atmosphere believes he may have stumbled upon why the drought occurred in the first place.

Siegfried Schubert, a meteorologist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., wrote in a study that slight changes in the surface temperatures of two oceans created atmospheric conditions that caused the Dust Bowl from 1931 to 1939.

"The 1930s drought was the major climatic event in the nation's history," Schubert said. "Just beginning to understand what occurred is really critical to understanding future droughts and the links to global climate change issues we're experiencing today."

In the 1930s, tropical Pacific Ocean temperatures were cooler than normal and tropical Atlantic Ocean temperatures were warmer than normal, producing a weakened low level jet stream that sent it farther south, he said. The variation in sea surface temperatures were only a few tenths of a degree centigrade.


and:







N. Atlantic Ocean Temps Rise
(Page 1 of 2)

ST. JOHN'S, Newfoundland, July 8, 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(AP)


Quote

"I don't think there's a question about whether these changes are happening, but everyone's quite shocked at the speed at which these things are changing."
Bill Wareham
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


(AP) Ocean temperatures in the North Atlantic hit an all-time high last year, raising concerns about the effects of global warming on one of the most sensitive and productive ecosystems in the world.

Sea ice off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador was below normal for the tenth consecutive year and the water temperature outside St. John's Harbor was the highest on record in 2004, according to a report released Wednesday by the federal Fisheries Department.

The ocean surface off St. John's averaged one degree Celsius above normal, the highest in the 59 years the department has been compiling records.

And bottom temperatures were also one degree higher than normal, according the report.

"A one-degree temperature anomaly on the Grand Banks is pretty significant in the bottom areas, where temperatures only range a couple of degrees throughout the year," said Eugene Colbourne, an oceanographer with the Fisheries Department.

Water temperatures were above normal right across the North Atlantic last year, from Newfoundland to Greenland, Iceland and Norway.

The Newfoundland data is another wake-up call on climate change, say environmentalists.

[Edited by MikeJ on 04-21-2006 at 11:51 PM]

[MikeJ]

2006 Surface & Tropospheric Temperatures | 2005 Year In Review


2006 Surface & Tropospheric Temperatures
2006 Monthly Global Surface
Temperature Tracker 2006 Monthly Global Troposphere
Temperature Tracker
(Measured by Satellite for the layer
2-6 miles above the Earth's surface)
March 2006: 1.01°F above the 1880-2005 long-term mean. The 7th warmest March on record.

February 2006: 0.81°F above the 1880-2005 long-term mean. The 7th warmest February on record.

January 2006: 0.50°F above the 1880-2005 long-term mean. The 13th warmest January on record.

Source: National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) March 2006: 0.18°F above the 1979-2005 mean. The 10th warmest March on record.

February 2006: 0.23°F above the 1979-2005 mean. The 10th warmest February on record.

January 2006: 0.16°F above the 1979-2005 mean. The 11th warmest January on record.

Source: National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

2005 Year In Review
Second Warmest Year on Record
According to a year-end review of climate data by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the global average temperature for combined land and ocean surfaces in 2005 was the second-warmest on record. Unusual warmth throughout the world during 2005 continues a trend of rapidly rising temperatures that began in the mid-1970s. The warmest year on record was 1998, a year characterized by a strong El Niño event. In contrast, according to NOAA, El Niño had little influence on the global temperature in 2005.

Most land areas of the world were warmer than average in 2005. Temperatures in the high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere ranged from 5.4–9.0°F (3–5°C) above the 1961-1990 average. The United States had a warmer than average year, with 2005 ranking as the 13th warmest on record for the country.

[MikeJ]

Originally[QUOTE][i]tonys

hmmm.



Hot air and all.
I am not anti-environment, I am anti-idiot.

Global warming is a complete wild ass guess based on computer models created by humans and tweaked to produce the results they were expecting in the first place.

A complete scientific, political and economic farse.




So, based on the few links I posted, do you still think:

Global warming is a complete wild ass guess based on computer models created by humans and tweaked to produce the results they were expecting in the first place.


I think you don't think so well.

[troyorr]

All of the issues mentioned here will be addressed and resolved when I take over as Supreme Ruler of the planet. Until that time, don't concern yourselves. Right now, none of you are in any position to make or impact any change needed. On the day I assume control, I will ask for your input. Of course, as the final, ruling authority I will ignore your suggestions and do as I please anyway. Be careful how you respond to this post. I will be keeping a close eye here and monitoring this site. Don't respond negativley or you will make my "list" and be delt with harshly on my "DAY OF ASSENTION." Some of you have already made the "SHORT" list.

[skrewt]

"I don't think there's a question about whether these changes are happening, but everyone's quite shocked at the speed at which these things are changing."
Bill Wareham

Funny how Ted Danson was in front of congress a couple decades ago testifying on behalf of scientists that the world would be ravaged by global warming in 20 years.
Here we are 20 years later and nothing.....

Global warming is a function of average global temperatures.
Some places are markedly higher and others are considerably lower.

That doesn't prove "global" warming.
If you've ever tried to control the temperature in an office space (which by the way is a whole lot less dynamic) by using the average temperature you know just how bad an idea this is.
If you want to convince me of global warming, show me the data that supports the coldest temperature anywhere at anytime on the earth has a warming trend then balance that with areas that used to be warmer and are now showing a cooling trend.
If you use a thermostat that controls to a deadband (and they all do) then you can't say that during deadband times is a warming trend. It is simply a natural function of the system.

[RoBoTeq]

The fact that the very same scientific minds were crying about global "cooling" as late as the 1980s tells me to be a bit wary of any absolutes coming from science on this one.


Global warming or global cooling?
SWAMINOMICS/SWAMINATHAN S ANKLESARIA AIYAR

Almost as soon as the Kyoto Protocol on global warming came into effect on February 15, Kashmir suffered the highest snowfall in three decades with over 150 killed, and Mumbai recorded the lowest temperature in 40 years. Had temperatures been the highest for decades, newspapers would have declared this was proof of global warming. But whenever temperatures drop, the press keeps quiet.

Things were different in 1940-70, when there was global cooling. Every cold winter then was hailed as proof of a coming new Ice Age. But the moment cooling was replaced by warming, a new disaster in the opposite direction was proclaimed.

A recent Washington Post article gave this scientist's quote from 1972. "We simply cannot afford to gamble. We cannot risk inaction. The scientists who disagree are acting irresponsibly. The indications that our climate can soon change for the worse are too strong to be reasonably ignored." The warning was not about global warming (which was not happening): it was about global cooling!


[Edited by RoBoTeq on 04-22-2006 at 08:01 PM]

[hvacker]

To bad global warming has left science and stumbled into politics. Now nothing will get done as all they do is choose sides based on their agenda.

It's said war is too important to be left in the hands of Generals and maybe science is too important to be in the hands of politicians. But all things end up there anyway.

Maybe we could plant more trees instead of cutting them down. Our co2-oxy converters I think we could all agree their were a lot more trees 200 years ago, 100 years ago, 50 years ago.

This is one thread that I'd bet no one on site is an expert or qualfied to remark on anything other the trusty internet copy/paste some are so given to. All we know is what we read in the papers (I think I know who said that)
from OK I think,

SO.... Who do you trust??

To the guy that said there are scientists that don't belive GW is a fact, two things come to mind.

1 No matter what's wrong with me I can always find Dr Feelgood to give me another diagnosis.

2. 49% of everyone finished in the lower 50% of their class. HS, College, University, Doctorate, HVAC Techs included.

NOW.... Politics aside, what do you really belive? Who do you want to trust with decisions about GW issues?

Just curious... as way down here on the bottom rung of the ladder I can't do much except maybe plant a tree.

[James 3528]

Maybe we could plant more trees instead of cutting them down. Our co2-oxy converters I think we could all agree their were a lot more trees 200 years ago, 100 years ago, 50 years ago.






Go plant a tree, flower child. The facts is that there are more trees than there was 200 years ago. Maybe not the same trees but more. 200 years ago you did not have fire fighters that could launch an assault by ground and air on a forest fire. They just burned until they went out. You also didn't have companies planting trees by the billions. What you did have is millions of people cutting them down for fire wood which made every major city polluted and smutty along with fires that when started would burn down city blocks or the entire town and kill hundreds of people.

BTW. Most oxygen production taxes place where there are no trees. Over the area that covers most of the earth, the ocean.

[hvacker]

Originally posted by James 3528

Maybe we could plant more trees instead of cutting them down. Our co2-oxy converters I think we could all agree their were a lot more trees 200 years ago, 100 years ago, 50 years ago.






Go plant a tree, flower child. The facts is that there are more trees than there was 200 years ago. Maybe not the same trees but more. 200 years ago you did not have fire fighters that could launch an assault by ground and air on a forest fire. They just burned until they went out. You also didn't have companies planting trees by the billions. What you did have is millions of people cutting them down for fire wood which made every major city polluted and smutty along with fires that when started would burn down city blocks or the entire town and kill hundreds of people.

BTW. Most oxygen production taxes place where there are no trees. Over the area that covers most of the earth, the ocean.

I don't why you need to commit an ad baculum every time you respond to a post. It makes you appear ignorant and without a response that doesn't commit argumental fallacies over and over.

Your response begs the question.. It's not weather the ocean produces more oxy or if burning trees produce smoke, it was who do you trust science or politics.

If you do suffer from cognitive dissonance it's unfortunate as most nerotics won't be cured.

Try to stay on track and cut the diatribe so often associated with your remarks. Who knows others might take to calling you names.

[RoBoTeq]

Originally posted by hvacker

I don't why you need to commit an ad baculum every time you respond to a post. It makes you appear ignorant and without a response that doesn't commit argumental fallacies over and over.

Your response begs the question.. It's not weather the ocean produces more oxy or if burning trees produce smoke, it was who do you trust science or politics.

If you do suffer from cognitive dissonance it's unfortunate as most nerotics won't be cured.

Try to stay on track and cut the diatribe so often associated with your remarks. Who knows others might take to calling you names.

I'm not familiar with ad baculum, but I did like his brother in Quantem Leap. And I beg to differ with you; James does not just "appear" to be ignorant!

Did you know you used the wrong word for "whether"?

As for "Cognitive dissonance", I don't see how this would ever apply to James. James states what he believes and sticks by it no matter who proves him wrong. So don't you go claiming that James sufferes from Cognitive dissonance.

Those of us who know and appreciate James "have" called him names...many times.

OK, continue with the diatribes of ad hoc contradictions and morose edifying of pathelogical socialisms.

[geerair]

Originally posted by James 3528

The facts is that there are more trees than there was 200 years ago.james and Limbaugh:


















What a mess.







1800s- 850 million acres of forest land.


Today: 730 million acres of forest land.

[RoBoTeq]

Originally posted by geerair

Originally posted by James 3528

The facts is that there are more trees than there was 200 years ago.james and Limbaugh:

What a mess.

1800s- 850 million acres of forest land.

Today: 730 million acres of forest land.


Now this is an interesting twist on how to call someone an idiot. It appears that geer can't "see the trees for the forests."

Yes; there are less forests in the U.S. today. Yes; there are more trees in the U.S. today.

Most of the forests that were ravaged by early Americans have been revitalized, "and", tree farming has become a major industry to replenish wood and other tree products in the U.S.

[geerair]

Originally posted by RoBoTeq

Yes; there are less forests in the U.S. today. Yes; there are more trees in the U.S. today.Great logic. We have 120 million less acres of forest land yet you conjure up the assertion that we have more trees.



Most of the forests that were ravaged by early Americans have been revitalized, What forests were those that were ravaged and how would non-mechanized tree cutting compare to clear cutting entire forests with state of the art machinery?



"and", tree farming has become a major industry to replenish wood and other tree products in the U.S. Tree farming adds nothing to forest land. Robo as usual in his simpleminded way doesn't understand that in the ever increasing demand for wood products and land for different uses, acres of forest land are lost due to tree clearing for expansion of development and tree clearing for infrastructure. These remove thousands of acres of forest land each year which are not replanted and are not mitigated by tree farming elsewhere.

[Edited by geerair on 04-24-2006 at 11:46 PM]

[James 3528]

Notice Geer cherry pics part of the argument. Like he didn't want to touch the fact that there wasn't forest fire fighter 200 year ago, planting programs or most of the oxygen generation in the world happens over the ocean, doesn't matter if it is a fact. He has to try to discount scientific fact he is always fronting when it is a religious argument with a Limbaugh injection. And like Robo said, a army of $150,000 machines planting trees 10 feet apart year round. Acreage isn't the point, the trees are.

[James 3528]

Originally posted by geerair

Originally posted by RoBoTeq

Yes; there are less forests in the U.S. today. Yes; there are more trees in the U.S. today.Great logic. We have 120 million less acres of forest land yet you conjure up the assertion that we have more trees.



Most of the forests that were ravaged by early Americans have been revitalized, What forests were those that were ravaged and how would non-mechanized tree cutting compare to clear cutting entire forests with state of the art machinery?



"and", tree farming has become a major industry to replenish wood and other tree products in the U.S. Tree farming adds nothing to forest land. Robo as usual in his simpleminded way doesn't understand that in the ever increasing demand for wood products and land for different uses, acres of forest land are lost due to tree clearing for expansion of development and tree clearing for infrastructure. These remove thousands of acres of forest land each year which are not replanted and are not mitigated by tree farming elsewhere.

[Edited by geerair on 04-24-2006 at 11:46 PM]


Tree farming adds nothing to forest land.


LOL You don't know shet about forestry. Hell, you live in a state that doesn't have any. LMAO

[geerair]

Originally posted by James 3528
Notice Geer cherry pics part of the argument. Like he didn't want to touch the fact that there wasn't forest fire fighter 200 year ago, planting programs I wonder how he thinks this helps his argument?

Forest fire fighter programs? I wonder if james thinks a bucket brigade could have put out a raging forest fire?

Planting programs? Not needed. Since they were not clear cutting thousands of acres at a time, natural replenishment of the forests took care of restocking trees.



He has to try to discount scientific fact he is always fronting when it is a religious argument with a Limbaugh injection.Ummmm......that would be because you got that goofy non-fact from Limbaugh.



And like Robo said, a army of $150,000 machines planting trees 10 feet apart year round. Acreage isn't the point, the trees are. Laughable, now you are quoting a person less knowledgable than you and that is saying something.

[geerair]

Originally posted by James 3528

LOL You don't know shet about forestry. Hell, you live in a state that doesn't have any. LMAO Never been to East Texas or the Hill Country have you?

[mark beiser]

Global warming is a Canadian real estate conspiracy to make more of thier land habitable.

Nuke Canada and the problem goes away!

[James 3528]

No Geer, the fire were clear cutting. Duh


Planting programs? Not needed. Since they were not clear cutting thousands of acres at a time, natural replenishment of the forests took care of restocking trees.

Liberalism truly is a mental disorder.

BTW, how many trees gave up their lives for golf courses?

[geerair]

Originally posted by James 3528

Liberalism truly is a mental disorder.

BTW, how many trees gave up their lives for golf courses? Uh yeah, whatever you say Rush.

[chillbilly]

Originally posted by James 3528



BTW, how many trees gave up their lives for golf courses?





LOL! Touche'

[geerair]

Well, let's see. Golf courses on their own or by municipal regulations are planting trees in city parks and other green spaces to make up for trees lost in golf course construction.

Golf courses in traditionally treeless areas, desert, seashore, urban areas are planting not only trees but native vegetation, creating water reservoirs, and creating natural vegetation areas.


More and more courses are being designed to meet Audobon Society guidelines concerning establishment of wildlife habitat, presevation of natural areas and an increased emphasis on preservation of trees through incorporation of trees into hole design.


Golf courses are being built in formerly barren areas, rock quarries, municipal dumps, abandoned military bases, abandoned mining operations and other areas. These former eyesores have been transformed into green spaces with copious vegatation and aboreal plantings. Water features provide a sanctuary for aquatic animals as well as an attraction for water fowl are aesthically pleasing to the eye.


Touche' indeed.

[homeownerplus]

this whole thread is rediculous. Global warming is nothing but a political agenda for the left wing whaco libs. A number of indy scientists have proven with rock hard scientific proof that YOU (libs) are WRONG. But go ahead keep wasting billions of dollars and endless man hours trying to keep your agenda alive. And not to mention gas prices, I dont want to hear ANY of you libs complaining about gas prices. If your whack job leaders wouldnt keep voting against drilling for our own oil we would be paying less than $1.00 per gal of gas at the pump right now!!! And once again many indy scientists have already proved the newly developed drilling practices will not harm the environment. What else are you brainwashed about?

[James 3528]

Originally posted by geerair
Well, let's see. Golf courses on their own or by municipal regulations are planting trees in city parks and other green spaces to make up for trees lost in golf course construction.

Golf courses in traditionally treeless areas, desert, seashore, urban areas are planting not only trees but native vegetation, creating water reservoirs, and creating natural vegetation areas.


More and more courses are being designed to meet Audobon Society guidelines concerning establishment of wildlife habitat, presevation of natural areas and an increased emphasis on preservation of trees through incorporation of trees into hole design.


Golf courses are being built in formerly barren areas, rock quarries, municipal dumps, abandoned military bases, abandoned mining operations and other areas. These former eyesores have been transformed into green spaces with copious vegatation and aboreal plantings. Water features provide a sanctuary for aquatic animals as well as an attraction for water fowl are aesthically pleasing to the eye.


Touche' indeed.

Shut up Geer, You act like it is state and federal law across the board that Golf Courses replant trees and It isn't like it is with forestry companies. You're more full of shi+ than a dirty diaper. What Golf courses do is contribute to high nitrogen and other cheminal run off from the courses that pollute nearby bodies of water.

[geerair]

Originally posted by James 3528
Shut up Geer, You act like it is state and federal law across the board that Golf Courses replant trees and It isn't like it is with forestry companies. You're more full of shi+ than a dirty diaper. What Golf courses do is contribute to high nitrogen and other cheminal run off from the courses that pollute nearby bodies of water. [/B]Hell, the golf courses wouldn't even let riff-raff like you on the course. What you know about golf course construction and management would fit easily in the head of a tee.

[Edited by geerair on 04-25-2006 at 04:21 PM]

[scrogdog]

A number of indy scientists have proven with rock hard scientific proof that YOU (libs) are WRONG.

I am a fellow conservative well-versed on global warming issues, and you are the one that is wrong, I'm afraid. Nothing has been proven one way or the other as to what causes global warming.

But, feel free to show me wrong and post the studies you refer to. This should be good. :)

[geerair]

I would guess HO means those well known indy scientists Limbaugh and Hannity.

[homeownerplus]

here is a scientist for you.






ARTHUR B. ROBINSON, SALLIE L. BALIUNAS, WILLIE SOON, AND ZACHARY W. ROBINSON

Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, 2251 Dick George Rd., Cave Junction, Oregon 97523 info@oism.org

George C. Marshall Institute, 1730 K St., NW, Ste 905, Washington, DC 20006 info@marshall.org January 1998

ABSTRACT

A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th Century have produced no deleterious effects upon global weather, climate, or temperature. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth rates. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in minor greenhouse gases like CO2 are in error and do not conform to current experimental knowledge.
Summary

World leaders gathered in Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997 to consider a world treaty restricting emissions of ''greenhouse gases,'' chiefly carbon dioxide (CO2), that are thought to cause ''global warming'' severe increases in Earth's atmospheric and surface temperatures, with disastrous environmental consequences. Predictions of global warming are based on computer climate modeling, a branch of science still in its infancy. The empirical evidence actual measurements of Earth's temperature shows no man-made warming trend. Indeed, over the past two decades, when CO2 levels have been at their highest, global average temperatures have actually cooled slightly.

[homeownerplus]

There is no global warming. Period.

You can't find a real scientist anywhere in the world who can look you in the eye and, without hesitation, without clarification, without saying, kinda, mighta, sorta, if, and or but...say "yes, global warming is with us."

There is no evidence whatsoever to support such claims. Anyone who tells you that scientific research shows warming trends - be they teachers, news casters, Congressmen, Senators, Vice Presidents or Presidents - is wrong. There is no global warming.

Scientific research through U.S. Government satellite and balloon measurements shows that the temperature is actually cooling - very slightly - .037 degrees Celsius.

A little research into modern-day temperature trends bears this out. For example, in 1936 the Midwest of the United States experienced 49 consecutive days of temperatures over 90 degrees. There were another 49 consecutive days in 1955. But in 1992 there was only one day over 90 degrees and in 1997 only 5 days.

Because of modern science and improved equipment, this "cooling" trend has been most accurately documented over the past 18 years. Ironically, that's the same period of time the hysteria has grown over dire warnings of "warming."

Changes in global temperatures are natural. There is no proof that temperature is affected by anything that man has done.

In fact, recent severe weather has been directly attributed to a natural phenomenon that occurs every so often called El Nino. It causes ocean temperatures to rise as tropical trade winds actually reverse for a time.

The resulting temperature changes cause severe storms, flooding and even draught on every continent on earth.

It's completely natural. El Nino has been wreaking its havoc across the globe since long before man appeared.

How about the reports that the polar ice cap is melting?

Well, yes it is. In fact, it has been for about a million years or so. We are at the end of the ice age in which ice covered most of North American and Northern Europe.

There's at least one environmentalist, named Al Gore, who is panicking over the possibility that we may soon lose Glacier National Park in Montana because the ice is melting.

One hates to tell him that we've already lost the glacier that used to cover the whole country.

Perhaps he'll want to start working for new regulations from the Interior Department to begin immediately restoring this lost historical environmental treasure. Re-establishing a sheet of ice covering the entire continent would certainly serve to stop mining, timber cutting and urban sprawl.

The truth is, someday humans may be able to take tropical vacations at the North Pole - and it will be perfectly natural.

Yet our world is being flooded with the dire predictions of Global Warming.

We are being warned of killer heat waves, vast flooding and the spread of tropical diseases. Ocean levels are rising, they say. America's coast lines are doomed, they tell us. Hurricanes and tornadoes have already become more violent, we are warned. Floods and droughts have begun to ravage the nation, they cry.

Any change in temperatures, or an excessive storm or extended flooding is looked upon as a sure sign that environmental Armageddon is upon us. Diabolical environmentalists are using the natural El Nino phenomenon to whip people into a Global Warming hysteria.

TWO KINDS OF SCIENTISTS

We are assured by the White House that scientists everywhere are sounding these warmings and that we may only have one chance to stop it.

Well, as the debate rages, we find that there really are two kinds of "scientists."

There are those who look at facts and make their judgements based on what they know.

Their findings can be matched by any other scientist, using the same data and set of circumstances to reach the same conclusions. It's a age-old practice called peer reviewing. It's the only true science.

And then there are those who yearn for a certain outcome and set about creating the needed data to make it so. Usually you will find this group of scientists greatly dependent on grants supplied by those with a specific political agenda who demand desired outcomes for their money.

Let's just take NASA, for example - the most trusted name in American science.

A lot of NASA scientists have fallen into this trap. Environmental science has become the life-blood of the space program as the nation has lost interest in space travel. To keep the bucks coming, NASA has justified shuttle trips through the use of earth-directed environmental research. And the budgets keep coming.

At the same time, many of NASA's scientists come with a political agenda in great harmony with those who advocate the green agenda. And they're not above using their position to aid that agenda whenever the chance is available.

This was never more clearly demonstrated than in 1992 when a team of three NASA scientists were monitoring conditions over North America to determine if the Ozone layer was in danger.

Inconclusive data indicated that conditions might be right for ozone damage over North America, if certain things happened.

True scientists are a careful lot. They study, they wait and, many times they test again before drawing conclusions.

Not so, the green zealot. Of this three-member NASA team, two could not be sure of what they had found and wanted to do more research.

But one took the data and rushed to the microphones, with all of the drama of a Hollywood movie, announced in hushed tones that NASA had discovered an Ozone hole over North America.

Then Senator Al Gore rushed to the floor of the Senate with the news and drove a stampede to immediately ban freon - five years before Congress had intended - and without a suitable substitute. He then bullied President George Bush to sign the legislation by saying the Ozone hole was over Kennebunkport - Bush's vacation home.

Two months later NASA announced, on the back pages of the newspapers, that further research had shown that there was no such damage. But it was too late. Remember that when you have to buy a new air conditioner or refrigerator for no reason other than your freon has run out of the old one.

FLAWED COMPUTER MODELS

Then there are those computer models. Night after night Americans watch the local news as the weatherman predicts what kind of a day tomorrow will be. These meteorologists, using the most up-to-date equipment available, boldly give you the five-day forecast.

But it's well known that, even with all of their research and expensive equipment, it really is just a "best guess." There are just too many variables. If the wind picks up here it could blow in a storm, if the temperature drops here it could start to snow. The earth is a vast and wondrous place. Weather does what it wants.

Yet those who are promoting the global-warming theory have the audacity to tell you they can forecast changes in the global climate decades into the future.

The truth is computer models are able to include only two out of 14 components that make up the climate system. To include the third component would take a computer a thousand times faster than we now have. To go beyond the third component requires an increase in computer power that is so large only mathematicians can comprehend the numbers.

Moreover, even if the computer power existed, scientists do not understand all the factors and the relationships between them that determine the global climate.

So it's an outrage for Al Gore, Bill Clinton and the Sierra Club to tell you that Global Warming is a fact and that we Americans must now suffer dire changes in our lifestyle to stop it.

SCIENTISTS ARE NOT ON AL'S BAND WAGON

And so too is it an outrage for Al Gore to tell you that most true scientists now agree that global warming is a fact.

What he doesn't tell you is that almost 500 scientists from around the world signed the Heidleburg Appeal in 1992 just prior to the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, expressing their doubts and begging the delegates not to bind the world to any dire treaties based on global warming. Today that figure has grown to over 4000.

He also doesn't tell you that recently a Gallup Poll of eminent North American climatologists showed that 83 percent of them debunked the global warming theory.

And the deceit knows no bounds. The United Nations released a report at the end of 1996 saying Global Warming was a fact, yet before releasing the report two key paragraphs were deleted from the final draft.

Those two paragraphs, written by the scientists who did the actual scientific analysis said:

1. "none of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases."

2. "no study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to ...man-made causes."

Global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the people of the world - bar none.

THE CLIMATE CHANGE PROTOCOL

Those who have been fighting against the green agenda have been warning that modern-day environmentalism has nothing whatsoever to do with protecting the environment.

Rather it is a political movement led by those who seek to control the world economies, dictate development and redistribute the world's wealth.

They use the philosophical base of Karl Marx, the tactics of Adolph Hitler and the rhetoric of the Sierra Club.

The American people have been assaulted from all directions by rabid environmentalists.

School children have been told that recycling is a matter of life and death.

Businesses have been shut down. Valuable products like freon have been removed from the market. Chemicals and pesticides that helped to make this nation the safest and healthiest in the world are targeted for extinction.

Our entire nation is being restructured to fit the proper green mold. All of it for a lie about something that doesn't exist.

But the lie is about to grow to massive proportions --- and the game is about to get very serious indeed.

In December of this year Bill Clinton will travel to Kyoto, Japan to sign a legally-binding United Nations treaty called the Climate Change Protocol.

The sole argument for this treaty is that Global Warming is a fact and we must take severe action to stop it.

Right now the Clinton Administration is bombarding the airwaves with the sales pitch. Conferences are being held in cities across the country. Special reports, magazine articles and documentaries are all being used to pound home the message - global warming is here - we must stop it.

But the most offensive assault on the expression of free thought by the American people, as the Administration drives to sell you this snake oil, was committed by Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt. Babbitt said that anyone opposed to the fight to stop Global Warming was "unAmerican."

He accused those opposed to the Climate Change Treaty of engaging in a "conspiracy to hire pseudo scientists to deny the facts." So now, according to Babbitt, to disagree with the Clinton Administration is tantamount to treason.

In fact the Climate Change Protocol is a legally binding international treaty through which signing nations agree to cut back their energy emissions to 15 percent below 1990 levels. And the treaty says this goal is to be accomplished by as early as the year 2010.

That means that all of the energy growth since 1990 would be rolled back, plus 15 percent more in just twelve years.

Yes, there are negotiations, debates and arguments taking place over the exact terms of the treaty as we speak. Perhaps the final version won't be so severe.

But it doesn't matter. Such a massive disruption in the American economy, particularly since it has nothing to do with protecting the environment, will devastate this nation.

To meet such drastically-reduced energy standards will, in the short run, cost the United States over one million jobs. Some estimate it will cost over seven million jobs in 14 years. If the treaty sends the economy into a tailspin, as many predict, it will cost even more jobs.

It will cost the average family $1,000 to $4,000 dollars per year in increased energy costs. The cost of food will skyrocket.

It has been estimated that in order for the United States to meet such a goal the U.S. gross domestic product will be reduced by $200 billion - annually.

To force down energy use the Federal government will have to enforce a massive energy tax that will drive up the cost of heating your home by as much as 30 to 40 percent.

In all likelihood there will be a tax on gasoline - as high as 60 cents per gallon.

There will be consumption taxes and carbon taxes.

The purpose of these punitive costs is to drive up the cost of modern living in order to force you to drastically change your lifestyle. That is the diabolical plan behind this restructuring scheme.

Every single product that is produced with the use of energy will increase in price. Including items like aspirin, contact lenses and tooth paste.

Yet just recently Bill Clinton said that compliance with the treaty would not hurt the economy. He said he can "grow the economy and do right by the environment."

The truth is, to date, the Clinton administration has refused to release an economic impact analysis of the effects of the treaty.

But a leaked study by the Department of Energy's Argonne Laboratory finds that the treaty will cripple six U.S. industries including paper, steel, petroleum refining, chemical manufacturing, aluminum and cement. That about sums up the economy.

When Clinton is through complying with the treaty you may find yourself sitting in a dark house after lights have been ordered off early in the evening, unable to drive your car because of gas shortages, unable to walk to the shopping mall because stores will be ordered closed after dark, even if you have a job and money to spend.

GLOBAL RAID ON AMERICAN WEALTH

But perhaps you still are not convinced. Maybe you still cling to the idea that such drastic action is necessary - that our president and the UN delegates are really in a panic over global warming and are trying to find a solution.

Then ask yourselves why the treaty will only bind developed nations to its draconian emission levels.

You see, only developed industrial nations will be bound by the treaty.

Undeveloped Third-World nations will be free to produce whatever they want. These will include China, India, Brazil and Mexico. And guess what? 82% of the projected emissions growth in coming years is from these countries.

Now ask yourself, if the Climate Change Protocol is all about protecting the environment - then how come it doesn't cover everybody? The truth, of course, is that the treaty is really about redistribution of the wealth.

The wealth of the United States is and has always been the target. The new scheme to grab the loot is through environmental scare tactics.

If, today, you were to attend a UN session on the Climate Change Protocol you would find yourself in a discussion with excited delegates from Third-World countries. They would make comments to you like, "when the technology transfer takes place my country will begin producing this or that item."

Translation - when the United States is stupid enough to fall for this scheme, the third world will take up the slack and get rich.

And international corporations, who owe allegiance to no nation, will bolt America and move their factories, lock, stock and computer chip, to those Third-World countries where they will be free to carry on production.

But that means the same emissions will be coming out of the jungles of South America instead of Chicago.

So where is the protection of the environment? You see it's not about that - is it?

Still not convinced? One more thing. Hidden in the small print of the treaty is a provision that calls for the "harmonizing of patent laws."

Now, robbing a nation of its patent protection is an interesting tactic for protecting the environment, don't you think?

CAN IT BE STOPPED?

Bill Clinton, pushed by Al Gore and the massive green lobby, is determined to sign that treaty. The war has been engaged.

Industry is finally beginning to wake up to the terrifying threat of the green monster that it helped to create. For the past three decades industry has given into every outrageous green demand. And it has fueled the monster by filling green coffers with massive tax-deductible donations. Now industry finds itself trapped.

But more frightening is the fact that many prominent proponents of property rights and limited government still fail to see the danger in the treaty. Many say the Senate will never ratify such a treaty.

They point out that, in a vote of 95-0, the U.S. Senate rejected in a "non-binding" resolution the Climate Change Protocol. That overwhelming vote, they say, will stop Clinton in his tracks.

That resolution was presented by Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia. He, along with Congressman John Dingle of Michigan have led the opposition against the treaty. Republican leadership, so far, has been silent.

It is, of course, commendable that Senator Byrd and Congressman Dingle have taken the lead to do "something" to protect American interests. But both of them are established liberal Democrats, who have based their opposition solely on the fact that only industrial nations are tied to the treaty.

That's not fair, they say, and so they oppose the treaty - "as now written." Apparently they are taking the stand that if America must be enslaved, then it's only fair that the rest of the world share our misery.

Not once have they said the whole concept is wrong. Not once have they challenged the validity of the science that is based on the supposed fact of global warming.

Is this then the wall of defense that we are to hide behind? Are we now to entrust the very future of our Republic onto the shoulders of Senator Byrd and Congressman Dingle? That appears to be the current wisdom of our leaders on Capitol Hill.

Wary Americans, of course, know what will happen next. The story is all too familiar. Very soon Clinton will summon Byrd and Dingle to the White House and offer them a compromise. Then everyone will smile for the cameras and the Republicans, in the spirit of bipartisanship, will give away the store. In fact, that process has already begun.

So Bill Clinton is moving full-speed-ahead with his plan to travel to Kyoto, Japan this December to sign the Climate Change Protocol. When he does, and after the Senate has ratified it, the final blow will have been struck.

The United States of America will begin a long, agonizing decent - strangled by its own hand.

The question now is; can it be stopped? And more importantly, will we even try.$ e target. The new scheme to grab the loot is through environmental scare tactics.




© 2006 American Policy Center

[scrogdog]

Sorry. That's not a scientific study. That is an opinion.

Many people disagree with the C02 theory, myself included. But... disagreement and opinion are not "proof".

Again, I invite you to show me a study that shows anything definitive. Here's a hint for you... there isn't one that supports either side.

Science is science. It is not editorial opinion. What would be great science would be to show a study that performed testing that was then passed around and agreed upon by other scientists. Testing and peer review are the PRIME considerations in science. Without those things... you do not have science. Period.

Since we do not yet have the technology to perform the proper testing, I imagine that you'll be looking for quite some time. :)

[hvacker]

Originally posted by RoBoTeq

Originally posted by hvacker

I don't why you need to commit an ad baculum every time you respond to a post. It makes you appear ignorant and without a response that doesn't commit argumental fallacies over and over.

Your response begs the question.. It's not weather the ocean produces more oxy or if burning trees produce smoke, it was who do you trust science or politics.

If you do suffer from cognitive dissonance it's unfortunate as most nerotics won't be cured.

Try to stay on track and cut the diatribe so often associated with your remarks. Who knows others might take to calling you names.

I'm not familiar with ad baculum, but I did like his brother in Quantem Leap. And I beg to differ with you; James does not just "appear" to be ignorant!

Did you know you used the wrong word for "whether"?

As for "Cognitive dissonance", I don't see how this would ever apply to James. James states what he believes and sticks by it no matter who proves him wrong. So don't you go claiming that James sufferes from Cognitive dissonance.

Those of us who know and appreciate James "have" called him names...many times.

OK, continue with the diatribes of ad hoc contradictions and morose edifying of pathelogical socialisms.



If James is given an argument that contradicts what he thinks he already knows or is unable to process new information or is unable to accept new information this is Cognitive Dissonance...

What some might refer to as sticking to your guns is often cognitive dissonance.

I might have told this story before but anyway... when I was 12 to about 14 I fixed electric fencers at my Uncle's store. You know, the devices that keep livestock in the pasture or whatever. One day my Uncle explaned to me that there are two types of anamals fencers have to deal with.

Cows that when shocked, pull back and rethink their course.

And pigs that when shocked keep going in the same direction and take the fence down.

Those that suffer with Cognitive Dissonance are like the pigs. No ammount of new information will get them to change course.

Oh ya,
Weather... Same word different spelling. I'll try to help you also in the future as above all hvac guys should never be poor spellers.

Or was your post supposed to be funny? If it was I think it was.

[hvacker]

Originally posted by scrogdog
Sorry. That's not a scientific study. That is an opinion.

Many people disagree with the C02 theory, myself included. But... disagreement and opinion are not "proof".

Again, I invite you to show me a study that shows anything definitive. Here's a hint for you... there isn't one that supports either side.

Science is science. It is not editorial opinion. What would be great science would be to show a study that performed testing that was then passed around and agreed upon by other scientists. Testing and peer review are the PRIME considerations in science. Without those things... you do not have science. Period.

Since we do not yet have the technology to perform the proper testing, I imagine that you'll be looking for quite some time. :)


Exactly. All I've said is that pulling something off the internet is not Argument. When I said we are too far down the food chain to really know anything as we are being fed information that we can't verify.

If the arguments here were about HVAC stuff it would have some validity.

So.. once again who do you trust
Science
Politic

[James 3528]

Originally posted by geerair

Originally posted by James 3528
Shut up Geer, You act like it is state and federal law across the board that Golf Courses replant trees and It isn't like it is with forestry companies. You're more full of shi+ than a dirty diaper. What Golf courses do is contribute to high nitrogen and other cheminal run off from the courses that pollute nearby bodies of water. Hell, the golf courses wouldn't even let riff-raff like you on the course. What you know about golf course construction and management would fit easily in the head of a tee.

[Edited by geerair on 04-25-2006 at 04:21 PM] [/B]

I bet you I have more courses within a 20 mile radius that you do. 1/2 my residential customers have houses along the fairways. You couldn't afford 2 nights at Sea Islands Cloister or Lodge. LOL

[Collin]

Originally posted by homeownerplus
Snip

Blah blah blah.......

So Bill Clinton is moving full-speed-ahead with his plan to travel to Kyoto, Japan this December to sign the Climate Change Protocol. When he does, and after the Senate has ratified it, the final blow will have been struck.

The United States of America will begin a long, agonizing decent - strangled by its own hand.

The question now is; can it be stopped?

© 2006 American Policy Center


No, the real question is:
How long as Bill Clinton been out of power?
And why are you regurgitating such out of date misinformation?

[geerair]

Originally posted by James 3528
I bet you I have more courses within a 20 mile radius that you do.Count 'em up.


1/2 my residential customers have houses along the fairways.BFD. Go buy yourself a house along the fairway, then we'll talk.



You couldn't afford 2 nights at Sea Islands Cloister or Lodge. Why would I want to do that? I've already played Pebble Beach.

[bootlen]

Originally posted by James 3528

Originally posted by geerair

Originally posted by James 3528
Shut up Geer, You act like it is state and federal law across the board that Golf Courses replant trees and It isn't like it is with forestry companies. You're more full of shi+ than a dirty diaper. What Golf courses do is contribute to high nitrogen and other cheminal run off from the courses that pollute nearby bodies of water. Hell, the golf courses wouldn't even let riff-raff like you on the course. What you know about golf course construction and management would fit easily in the head of a tee.

[Edited by geerair on 04-25-2006 at 04:21 PM]

I bet you I have more courses within a 20 mile radius that you do. 1/2 my residential customers have houses along the fairways. You couldn't afford 2 nights at Sea Islands Cloister or Lodge. LOL [/B]

I don't think it matters. I doubt they allow animals without their owners.

[James 3528]

Originally posted by geerair

Originally posted by James 3528
I bet you I have more courses within a 20 mile radius that you do.
Count 'em up. Over 250, many designed by PGA professionals of which one appears on this list http://www.golfdigest.com/courses/americasgreatest/




1/2 my residential customers have houses along the fairways.
BFD. Go buy yourself a house along the fairway, then we'll talk.I have 3, don't care to live that close to a goof course. I hear enough about the non sense at breakfast.



You couldn't afford 2 nights at Sea Islands Cloister or Lodge. Why would I want to do that? I've already played Pebble Beach. [/B] Can get in at Augusta eh?

[geerair]

Originally posted by homeownerplus
here is a scientist for you.






ARTHUR B. ROBINSON, SALLIE L. BALIUNAS, WILLIE SOON, AND ZACHARY W. ROBINSON

Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, 2251 Dick George Rd., Cave Junction, Oregon 97523 info@oism.org

George C. Marshall Institute, 1730 K St., NW, Ste 905, Washington, DC 20006 info@marshall.org January 1998

ABSTRACT

A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th Century have produced no deleterious effects upon global weather, climate, or temperature. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth rates. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in minor greenhouse gases like CO2 are in error and do not conform to current experimental knowledge.
Summary

World leaders gathered in Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997 to consider a world treaty restricting emissions of ''greenhouse gases,'' chiefly carbon dioxide (CO2), that are thought to cause ''global warming'' severe increases in Earth's atmospheric and surface temperatures, with disastrous environmental consequences. Predictions of global warming are based on computer climate modeling, a branch of science still in its infancy. The empirical evidence actual measurements of Earth's temperature shows no man-made warming trend. Indeed, over the past two decades, when CO2 levels have been at their highest, global average temperatures have actually cooled slightly. None of your scientists are climatologists.

None of your scientists have published papers in climatology journals.

None of your scientists do reasearch in climatology.

None of your scientists are regarded as anything more than journalists in the field of climatology.

Funding for their non-peer reviewed, unpublished in any climatology journal paper was provided by Exxon-Mobil.

Exxon-Mobil provides funding to the George C. Marshall Institute

Exxon-Mobil provides funding for the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.

The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine is primarily concerned with biochemistry.


Your scientists are paid shills for the energy industry and their objectivity in this issue is to put it mildly suspect.

[geerair]

Originally posted by James 3528
Can get in at Augusta eh? Not quite in your 20 mile radius.

[geerair]

Originally posted by homeownerplus

© 2006 American Policy CenterAnother paid shill for Exxon. As scrog said this is an editorial not a scientific study.

Your sources are little better than wingnut rhetoric with precious little science to support it.

If you want to understand the climate ask climatetologists, not paid shills on eother side.

[geerair]

Originally posted by James 3528
Over 250 Within a 20 mile radius? Over 250?
Laughable.

[chillbilly]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by geerair

Why would I want to do that? I've already played Pebble Beach.




I'll bet you fit right in at Pebble Beach.
I hear they have some really nice courses in Venezuela.
You could even schedule an appointment with Chavez and Cindy Sheehan and discuss "Energy Policy" with them.
Then maybe do a photo op while playing golf with em'.

You should have taken some of that money you spent on Pebble Beach greens fees and used it to buy a clue.
LMAO

[homeownerplus]

The problem is climatologists have no proof in fact are dismising any existance of global warming. And the left wing whaco libs are still running with it like global warming is their heroin. They are basing a large finacial investment as well as a $hit ton of our tax dollars and gas money towards a "theory" that hasn't and won't be proven!! You don't need a scientist to explain that to you. Are you willing to piss away your money to a far feched theory which noone has or can prove exists other than just a weather trend this planet has experienced for millions of years.

[tonys]

...you seem fairly certain.

what about the 'nearly' exponential growth in human population and carbon usage over the past 150 years?


did any of that occur before other rapid-climate-change events, over the history of planet as per YOUR analysis?

[Edited by tonys on 04-26-2006 at 09:55 AM]

[scrogdog]

The problem is climatologists have no proof in fact are dismising any existance of global warming

Um, no. You are quite mistaken.

In any case, science doesn't "prove" things - science "explains" things.

Here where I think you are getting confused. Some climatologists say that the data is entirely consistent with there being no sort of problem at all! Do not confuse this with them saying that global warming is a fable, because that is simply not true. What they are saying is that while they acknowledge warming is occuring, it is most likely a natural event. That is quite a different thing than to say that warming is not occurring at all.

The only data that shows a cooling trend is NASA satellites measuring low atmosphere temperature. Mean SURFACE temperatures HAVE risen and so have mean ocean temperatures. Not even the climatologists know which of these indicators is most important, so it seems a little silly for the rest of us to speak from a position of assurance. The only sure thing is that mean surface and mean ocean temperatures are up. To deny this is to deny documented fact. Of course, we know that humans have this ability so I would not be surprised to continue to see it. :)

[Edited by scrogdog on 04-26-2006 at 09:52 AM]

[chillbilly]

So science doesn't prove things, they only give explanations?
How does R&D justify funding if they are merely relying on unproven theories?
If water temps are up, as you post, how can that claim be proven as fact without acknowledging that science provides more than just an explanation?
When you say "We know that this is happening or has happened".....Sure sounds like a conclusion to me.
What if scenarios include...If the water temps start a cooling trend and come down, what then?

In all this, there is no mechanism in a science lab that proves that global warming is being hastened by anything suggested on this thread. Period.

Oh, but don't take my word for it. I'm just a religious guy who can only read biblical passage.

[James 3528]

Originally posted by geerair

Originally posted by James 3528
Can get in at Augusta eh? Not quite in your 20 mile radius.



Hole dip shi+

36 more being put in right now

[scrogdog]

So science doesn't prove things, they only give explanations?

That is correct.


How does R&D justify funding if they are merely relying on unproven theories?

Sigh. I see I have failed in my explanations of what science is and how it works. A theory is not "proof" of anything. Theories are not formulated to prove something exists. Show me where in the Theory of Gravitation the talk of whether or not gravity exists. All science begins with observation. The observation itself is not a theory. A theory is an explantion of the hows and whys of the observation.

So, let me guess, you do not think that R&D in to the bio-engineering of food was a useful thing? If science is so wrong and bad... how is it that we avoided Paul Erlich's dire prediction that billions would starve world-wide in the 1980s? We have faith in science and R&D because we have a solid record of scientific achievement. Look at the Apollo program in the 1960s, they didn't exactly know everything at the start, nor do we now. And yet.... we made it to the moon when we could not before.


If water temps are up, as you post, how can that claim be proven as fact without acknowledging that science provides more than just an explanation?

Chill, what kind of sense does this make? Really, dude. This is one of the most "out there' statements I have ever read on these forums. Observations... the start of all science... are facts. Water temperatures can be measured with instruments, but in doing so you are NOT perfoming science. It is the first STEP of the scientific process, but it is not by itself science. You see, science and scientists do not care whether or not my thermometer indicates that the temperature of a lake or my backyard pool is 76 degrees. What they are curious about is WHY the water is 76 degrees. If a doctor sticks a thermometer in your mouth and it shows a temperatures of 91 degrees, does that mean he has a theory that you have a fever? lol - no, it means that he has OBSERVED that you have a fever.



When you say "We know that this is happening or has happened".....Sure sounds like a conclusion to me.
What if scenarios include...If the water temps start a cooling trend and come down, what then?

Again, this statement makes very little sense. We know the oceans are warmer because we have measured it. Some theorize that it is a problem, others say it isn't. If a cooling trend is later OBSERVED (not theorized) then it looks like the "no problem" people are correct. What is so hard to understand about that? But no matter who is right and who is wrong, our measuring instruments do show warming trends at this time. It really is that simple, my friend.


In all this, there is no mechanism in a science lab that proves that global warming is being hastened by anything suggested on this thread. Period.

In case it has escaped the notice of your fine scientific eye, I have never said otherwise. In fact, I lean towards the non-activist view that C02 is not a factor. Tell me Chill, because that is my belief, does that mean that I should ignore the readings of my thermometer, or the readings of the instruments that measure global temps? Hehehe, that would seem rather silly to me, though you may consider yourself an expert in fact denial if you so desire. :)

[Edited by scrogdog on 04-26-2006 at 12:42 PM]

[geerair]

Originally posted by James 3528
I bet you I have more courses within a 20 mile radius that you do.Golf courses, Dilbert. Not my fault you can't keep your metrics straight.



250 holes = 13 courses more or less.


Off the top of my head I can count 25 courses or 450 holes within my 20 mile radius.



Do the math.

[homeownerplus]

Scrog, I understand where you are coming from even though I disagree. But I don't understand how you can say science doesn't prove anything but yet the left wing whaco libs are using "science & scientists" to try to "prove" that global warming exists. The libs are shoving this global warming "theory" down our throats every day as if were "fact". I do agree that there is a grey area and do keep an open mind that things can or may change. But you can't tell me that YOU don't believe science doesn't prove anything when the libs (which I can only asume you are one)are using science to try to "prove" their (at best a) "theory" as fact to the American citizens.

In my OPINION why should we (American people) be funding (through our tax dollars) such a program when you claim it can't be proven. I will state again my opinion that global warming is nothing but a political agenda that the left wing whaco libs are using as a crutch for their party. And are using it as a scare tactic on the American people.

[tonys]

are you familiar with the number of countries that signed onto the Kyoto protocol?

are they a part of the democratic conspiracy that you refer to?

[geerair]

"I recognise the surface of the Earth is warmer and that an increase in greenhouse gases caused by humans is contributing to the problem."

George Bush speaking at the G8 Summit in Scotland July 7, 2005.

Is Dear Leader a Liberal Whacko?

[chillbilly]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by scrogdog


So, let me guess, you do not think that R&D in to the bio-engineering of food was a useful thing?
__________________________________________________ _______
Who asserted that science was a bad thing and not useful??
I'm just trying to point out that science does intend to prove things simply by trying to explain them and showing reasonable causation for the explanation.
An explanation is not fact. It is an explanation.


If a doctor sticks a thermometer in your mouth and it shows a temperatures of 91 degrees, does that mean he has a theory that you have a fever? lol - no, it means that he has OBSERVED that you have a fever.
__________________________________________________ _________
If a doctor thinks I have a fever after observing a body temp of 91 degrees, I would say he's an idiot! LOL!

[homeownerplus]

I never claimed conspiracy but if you really look at the big picture, alot of the world is socialist/liberal and of course they are going to share common views. It would be ignorant of anyone to asume otherwise. But its happen in the past more times than most people realize that most of the world can believe one thing is absolutely true when in fact it is the opposite. For instance when most of the world believed the world was flat, is it? NO. Like right now most of the world believes that global warming exists and that it is exponentialy increased due to human behavior. does it? NO. And knowing this, it should be criminal for a political party to blind the American people of the facts at hand rather than their "theory".

The libs rely on people like you to depend on the information you are givin by them. The libs thrive off of dependancy. They want people to rely on social security, they want people to rely on them for welfare, and worst of all they use this dependability to gain votes during elections. It is easy to be complacent and depend on a political party for money and security but it is really bad that they can manipulate people to depend on them to save you from burning up in the Earth's atmosphere when global warming reaches it's peak.

[chillbilly]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by tonys
[B]are you familiar with the number of countries that signed onto the Kyoto protocol?



I'm afraid you need more than just numbers to prove global warming assertions.
Montreal Protocol had a large number of countries signed on as well.
Was science ever able to determine that CFC's caused ozone depletion? No, I'm afraid they weren't.
They had to use ODP as a tactic to mandate guidelines for CFC emissions.

Just because you get all your buddies together and they perpetuate a myth, doesn't mean everyone has to believe it.
Another tony example laying in the boneyard.

[tonys]

"exponentialy"


do you even know how to derive natural LOG function?

[chillbilly]

Exponential functions

Take a > 0 and not equal to 1 . Then, the function defined by

f : R -> R : x -> ax

is called an exponential function with base a.




Wow! What a revelation. Can we move on to the topic again?

[tonys]

...no really...do you even have a clue?


muaaha hahaaaaaaa...aaaaaaaa

[chillbilly]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by tonys
[B]...no really...do you even have a clue?



A clue as to what you are thinking or trying to get across?
No, none at all. I'm certain you don't either.

[James 3528]

Originally posted by geerair
"I recognise the surface of the Earth is warmer and that an increase in greenhouse gases caused by humans is contributing to the problem."

George Bush speaking at the G8 Summit in Scotland July 7, 2005.

Is Dear Leader a Liberal Whacko?

Depends on the word "contributing" Humans give off heat. Looks like George knew that.

[hvacker]

Originally posted by homeownerplus
I never claimed conspiracy but if you really look at the big picture, alot of the world is socialist/liberal and of course they are going to share common views. It would be ignorant of anyone to asume otherwise. But its happen in the past more times than most people realize that most of the world can believe one thing is absolutely true when in fact it is the opposite. For instance when most of the world believed the world was flat, is it? NO. Like right now most of the world believes that global warming exists and that it is exponentialy increased due to human behavior. does it? NO. And knowing this, it should be criminal for a political party to blind the American people of the facts at hand rather than their "theory".

The libs rely on people like you to depend on the information you are givin by them. The libs thrive off of dependancy. They want people to rely on social security, they want people to rely on them for welfare, and worst of all they use this dependability to gain votes during elections. It is easy to be complacent and depend on a political party for money and security but it is really bad that they can manipulate people to depend on them to save you from burning up in the Earth's atmosphere when global warming reaches it's peak.


I wonder if there is a 12 step program for you???

[tonys]

Study says Earth's temp at 400-year high
By JOHN HEILPRIN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The Earth is the hottest it has been in at least 400 years, probably even longer. The National Academy of Sciences, reaching that conclusion in a broad review of scientific work requested by Congress, reported Thursday that the "recent warmth is unprecedented for at least the last 400 years and potentially the last several millennia."

A panel of top climate scientists told lawmakers that the Earth is heating up and that "human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming." Their 155-page report said average global surface temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere rose about 1 degree during the 20th century.

[James 3528]

LOL..that is priceless

[yelram]

Originally posted by tonys
Study says Earth's temp at 400-year high
By JOHN HEILPRIN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The Earth is the hottest it has been in at least 400 years, probably even longer. The National Academy of Sciences, reaching that conclusion in a broad review of scientific work requested by Congress, reported Thursday that the "recent warmth is unprecedented for at least the last 400 years and potentially the last several millennia."

A panel of top climate scientists told lawmakers that the Earth is heating up and that "human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming." Their 155-page report said average global surface temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere rose about 1 degree during the 20th century.


Wow this part of the forum sure has its share of morons. 400 years??? We hardly even have any information relating to temperature from that long ago. Thats 200 years before Lewis and Clark. There were animals and land that wasnt even discovered. How can you possibly compare the information we have now about the earths climate with non-existant information from 400 years ago? Are you seriously that much of a fool? The difference in information gathering alone is enough to account for a temperature difference of A FRACTION OF A DEGREE. You really must be a sucker.

Oh and how can it be an "average global surface temperature" and be in "the northern hemisphere". Are people really that stupid???

[geerair]

Originally posted by yelram
Wow this part of the forum sure has its share of morons. 400 years??? We hardly even have any information relating to temperature from that long ago. Thats 200 years before Lewis and Clark. There were animals and land that wasnt even discovered.The Native Americans would disagree.



How can you possibly compare the information we have now about the earths climate with non-existant information from 400 years ago? Are you seriously that much of a fool? The difference in information gathering alone is enough to account for a temperature difference of A FRACTION OF A DEGREE. You really must be a sucker. Tree rings, lake sediments coral cores, ice cores.





Oh and how can it be an "average global surface temperature" and be in "the northern hemisphere". Are people really that stupid??? Quite simple really. The earth is divided into grids. Temperature measurements are taken in each of these grids to produce monthly average temperatures. Because of the grid system, average global surface temperatures can be established for both the Northern and Southern hemispheres.

In this case, I assume the Northern hemisphere average global surface temperature was used because it is the hemisphere most relevent to the U.S.



I see that you have called others morons, fools, suckers and stupid.

This is highly amusing and ironic since the lack of understanding of this issue is entirely due to your own ignorance.

[isitfixedyet]

SCIENTIST OFFERING PROOF, AFTER EVIDENCED FINDINGS FROM STUDY, DONT MIND THE POLLUTION, OR THE DISASTERS, BUT I REALLY REALLY DO CARE ABOUT MY COUNTRY TIS OF THEE, lol
http://apnews.excite.com/article/20060623/D8IDQTS80.html

[James 3528]

Originally posted by isitfixedyet
SCIENTIST OFFERING PROOF, AFTER EVIDENCED FINDINGS FROM STUDY, DONT MIND THE POLLUTION, OR THE DISASTERS, BUT I REALLY REALLY DO CARE ABOUT MY COUNTRY TIS OF THEE, lol
http://apnews.excite.com/article/20060623/D8IDQTS80.html

Funny you put so much faith in people who are not sure if it will ran next week but will try to tell you how many hurricanes we will have this year as well as temperature patterns 2,000 years ago. I would think their margin of error would easily encompass what even temp change there was if any

[yelram]

Originally posted by geerair

Originally posted by yelram
Wow this part of the forum sure has its share of morons. 400 years??? We hardly even have any information relating to temperature from that long ago. Thats 200 years before Lewis and Clark. There were animals and land that wasnt even discovered.The Native Americans would disagree.



How can you possibly compare the information we have now about the earths climate with non-existant information from 400 years ago? Are you seriously that much of a fool? The difference in information gathering alone is enough to account for a temperature difference of A FRACTION OF A DEGREE. You really must be a sucker. Tree rings, lake sediments coral cores, ice cores.





Oh and how can it be an "average global surface temperature" and be in "the northern hemisphere". Are people really that stupid??? Quite simple really. The earth is divided into grids. Temperature measurements are taken in each of these grids to produce monthly average temperatures. Because of the grid system, average global surface temperatures can be established for both the Northern and Southern hemispheres.

In this case, I assume the Northern hemisphere average global surface temperature was used because it is the hemisphere most relevent to the U.S.



I see that you have called others morons, fools, suckers and stupid.

This is highly amusing and ironic since the lack of understanding of this issue is entirely due to your own ignorance.

So they use the average mean of tree rings and ice cores and compare that to meticulously detailed temperature maps from today. Yeah I bet their margin of error is very small. (/sarcasm) I cant believe you're in the HVAC field and you tend to think a .5 degree difference over 100 years is something to worry about. I'm still changing out mercury stats that are 3-7 degrees off. The difference in measuring techniques between now and 50 years ago could easily produce a differential of far more than a degree. And all this "averaging" really doesent make for a detailed account of whats going on. Oh and BTW the indians didnt exactly have temperature measuring devices. Plus they supposedly migrated here on an ICE BRIDGE. That was non existant FAR BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION. So I guess that somehow humans made that bridge melt(/more sarcasm). Please explain how there were ice ages that came and went before humans were even a dominant force. You say that I dont "understand" the issue. I have read tons and tons of information concerning global warming and 80% of it is blatant propaganda. They have an agenda that extends beyond "saving the planet", and they go out and bend the data to make it fit their "the end is near" philosophy. These are the same shmucks that told us an ice age was coming in the 80s. The same shmucks that cant predict the weather from one day to another, and you somehow believe their 400 YEAR MODEL using AVERAGES based on ICE CORES AND TREE RING SAMPLES is correct within a fraction of a degree. If you understood anything about the scientific method you would see the giant flaws in their methodology, but alas, you would rather be entirely politically motivated.

Oh and heres the definition of Global since you seem to think you can have an average global surface temperature for a hemisphere.

glob·al Audio pronunciation of "global" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (glbl)
adj.

1. Having the shape of a globe; spherical.
2. Of, relating to, or involving the entire earth; worldwide: global war; global monetary policies.

[scrogdog]

SCIENTIST OFFERING PROOF

Science does not prove things. It explains things.

If you think a news article about what scientists say is the same as looking at the actual study for yourself, you are completely nuts.

In any case, the alarmists fail to show cause. Using models and extrapolations is not how sceince should be performed. In fact, in another topic I just posted an article called "An Introduction to the Scientific Method" and in that article it says;


As stated earlier, the scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of the scientist's bias on the outcome of an experiment. That is, when testing an hypothesis or a theory, the scientist may have a preference for one outcome or another, and it is important that this preference not bias the results or their interpretation. The most fundamental error is to mistake the hypothesis for an explanation of a phenomenon, without performing experimental tests. Sometimes "common sense" and "logic" tempt us into believing that no test is needed. There are numerous examples of this, dating from the Greek philosophers to the present day.

And this is EXACTLY what they are doing. I mean... to a tee.

In the defense of science, we do not yet have the technology to show what needs to be shown. So, that's what scientists should be saying.

Further, IF carbon is the true problem, well, the carbon cycle will require over 200 years to stablize even if we ceased all industry on the Earth at once right now. The fact is, we need to attack global warming from a position of common sense. It is NOT going to be stopped by reducing emissions. PERIOD.

Unfortunately, that would be far more expensive, so we'd better be sure what we are talking about. :) It is the pinnicle of human arrogance to beleive that reducing emissions is going to "save the day". At best, it might keep from making things worse IF it is, in fact, a causal factor.

There are other reasons to reduce emissions. Global warming is far down on my list past "normal" pollution and the need to divorce ourselves from Arab crackpot governments.

[isitfixedyet]

Originally posted by scrogdog

SCIENTIST OFFERING PROOF

Science does not prove things. It explains things.(A) REALLY, WOW! THATS AMAZING!

If you think a news article about what scientists say is the same as looking at the actual study for yourself, you are completely nuts. OR BONKERS?

In any case, the alarmists THE ALARMISTS? LOL fail to show WHO YOU OR ME,? cause. Using models and extrapolations is not how sceince should be performed. WHO U THINK YOU ARE WITH YOUR ITT BITTY DEGREE TELLING THE BUSH REGIME SPONSERED SCIENTIST, HOW SCIENCE WHOULD BE PERFORMED? ARE U QUALIFIED TO MAKE SUCH A STATEMENT?In fact, in another topic I just posted I JUST POSTED WOOO DONT PAT URSELF TOO HARD ON THE BACK, an article called "An Introduction to the Scientific Method" and in that article it says;


As stated earlier, the scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of the scientist's bias on the outcome of an experiment. That is, when testing an hypothesis or a theory, the scientist may have a preference for one outcome or another, and it is important that this preference not bias the results or their interpretation. The most fundamental error is to mistake the hypothesis for an explanation of a phenomenon, NOW WHO SAYS THE EARTHS GETTING HOTTER WAS A PHENONMENOM RATHER THAN A HYPOTHESIS? YOU? WHAT DO YOU THINK ALL THESE TESTS WERE FOLLOW THE LINKS AND THE TEST RESULTS WERE THERE? without performing experimental tests. Sometimes "common sense" SOME TIMES COMMON SENSE ISNT SO COMMON, and "logic" AND SOME JUST CANT REASON TO HAVE ANY LOGIC., tempt us into believing that no test is needed. There are numerous examples of this, dating from the Greek philosophers to the present day. GREEKS NEED TO STOP EATING TOO MUCH SOUVALAKI, THEY START NAMING SCIENTIFIC REVELATIONS LIKE THUNDER HAS A NAME CALLED THOR AND IS A GOD, OR THE EARTH IS FLAT?

And this is EXACTLY what they are doing. I mean... to a tee.

In the defense of science, we do not yet have the technology to show what needs to be shown. So, that's what scientists should be saying. TRUE I DO AGREE, BUT THATS DOESNT MEAN EVERYTHING , BUT ALOT OF THIS IS BACKED AND SPONSORED BY POLITICALLY FILLED AGENDAS!

Further, NOW DONT CHANGE THE FACTS, THEY DIDNT JUST SAY CARBON ALONE IT HAD A WORD FOLLOWING IT U CONVIENANTLY LEFT OUT? IF carbon is the true problem, well, the carbon cycle will require over 200 years to stablize even if we ceased all industry on the Earth at once right now. The fact is, we need to attack global warming from a position of common sense. AND JUST WHAT WOULD THAT BE? ANY SOLUTIONS? YOU SHOUDL OFFER SOME REAL ANSWERS? AND STOP HUFFING PHOSGENE, I BET YOU TAKE PHOSGENE CARBON TESTS, LOL It is NOT going to be stopped by reducing emissions. PERIOD.

Unfortunately, that would be far more expensive, so we'd better be sure what we are talking about. :) It is the pinnicle , PINNACLE SCHMINACLE of human arrogance to beleive that reducing emissions is going to "save the day".SAVE UR ARSE IS MORE LIKE IT, HURRICANES ARE JUST THE BEGINNING! At best, it might keep from making things worse IF it is, in fact, a causal CAUSTIC CASUAL SCHMAUSUAL factor.

There are other reasons to reduce emissions. NAME SOME? Global warming is far down on my list LIKE HURRICANES ARENT AFFECTED BY GLOBAL WARMING?, THE ICE MELTING IN THE NORTH DOESNT AFFECT THE TEMPS EITHER? NOTHING CAN CHANGE DUE TO MORE WATER IN THE OCEAN, THE ICE MELTING, TREES CUTTING DOWN? past "normal" pollution and the need to divorce ourselves from Arab crackpot governments. SOUNDS LIKE YOU GOT OFF TRACK TALKING JUST TO BE TALKING
TELL YOURSELF THAT WHEN THERES MORE DISASTERS, CAUSED BY RELUCTANT ARROGANT MANKIND, FAILING TO LISTEN WHETHER ITS THEIR FUTURE OR COUNRTY THEY LIVE IN , WHY WOULD ANYONE WANT TO LIVE IN A PLACE WHERE THEY CUT ALL THE TREES DOWN, AND POLLUTE THE AIR, AND MELT THE NATURE THINGS THAT PROTECT THEIR BREATHING, SKIN, AND ATMOSHPERE THE BEAUTY OF NATURE, THOSE ARENT OF IMPORTANCE MOVE TO NEW YUCK CITY OR LOS ANGELES, OR LOST WAGES?
THIS IS ALL IN THE BIBLE.... AND IN NOSTRADAMUS PROPHESIES, AND THE SCIENTIST JUST HAVING A DIFFERENT WAY OF EXPLAINING THESE THINGS, DOESNT MEAN THAT THESE THINGS DONT EXIST OR MEAN THAT IF THEYRE UNEXPLAINABLE OR CANT BE PROVEN THEY MUST NOT EXIST OR BE BELIEVEABLE,
MAN DIDNT GET TO THE MOON, OR PUT SATTELITES IN THE WORLD OR AIRPLANES BECAUSE IT WAS UNBELIEVABLE OR UNEXPLAINABLE!
IM SURE U FIXED SOMETHING OR FOUND SOMETHING THAT WAS UNBELIEVABLE,
MAYBE IT WAS THE REFRIGERATION FAIRIES

[Edited by isitfixedyet on 06-23-2006 at 10:03 AM]

[scrogdog]

WHO U THINK YOU ARE WITH YOUR ITT BITTY DEGREE TELLING THE BUSH REGIME SPONSERED SCIENTIST, HOW SCIENCE WHOULD BE PERFORMED? ARE U QUALIFIED TO MAKE SUCH A STATEMENT?

No, I am not a professional scientist, that is true. Who am I? I am someone who payed attention in 7th grade. Scientific methodology does not need to be interpreted. It is spelled out plain as day in every science 101 text book that there is. Sounds like you could use a bit of a refresher course yourself… so here you go. Here is how science is done. Ready?

http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html

TRUE I DO AGREE, BUT THATS DOESNT MEAN EVERYTHING , BUT ALOT OF THIS IS BACKED AND SPONSORED BY POLITICALLY FILLED AGENDAS!

Um, right. That’s basically what my whole post implied. Obviously you can read, but not much more than that.


NOW DONT CHANGE THE FACTS, THEY DIDNT JUST SAY CARBON ALONE IT HAD A WORD FOLLOWING IT U CONVIENANTLY LEFT OUT?

I did not conveniently leave out anything. IF excess C02 is causing global warming, then how do you think we recover from that after emissions are reduced or go away? It’s called the carbon cycle, Einstien.


ANY SOLUTIONS? YOU SHOUDL OFFER SOME REAL ANSWERS?

I have many times. Just because you are a new person and have not read what I have said does not mean that I’ve said nothing. We need to start moving civilization away from the coasts for a start, or is that too impractical for you?


LIKE HURRICANES ARENT AFFECTED BY GLOBAL WARMING?,

What are you smoking again? Where did I make that claim? I never said that global warming did not exist. Again, you seem to have a problem with incoherently yelling stupid sh!t not to mention failing to understand the basic concepts of the English language.

[yelram]

Further, IF carbon is the true problem, well, the carbon cycle will require over 200 years to stablize even if we ceased all industry on the Earth at once right now. The fact is, we need to attack global warming from a position of common sense. It is NOT going to be stopped by reducing emissions. PERIOD.

Unfortunately, that would be far more expensive, so we'd better be sure what we are talking about. :) It is the pinnicle of human arrogance to beleive that reducing emissions is going to "save the day". At best, it might keep from making things worse IF it is, in fact, a causal factor.

There are other reasons to reduce emissions. Global warming is far down on my list past "normal" pollution and the need to divorce ourselves from Arab crackpot governments. [/B]

I agree with large portions of your response here. Heres a few ideas to help end our rampant energy consumption, and reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

1. Algae farms that use green algaes to produce sugar through photosysnthesis. The oxygen rich wastewater is then expelled into ecosystems.

2. Applying a photoreactive coating to all the roadways in the country, and burying power lines beside the road.

3. Using the left over telephone poles as places to mount windmills. This way any air turbulence caused by vehicles moving on the road moves the windmills and produces current.

[tonys]

...high school level physics.

[yelram]

What exactly is that supposed to mean?

[geerair]

Originally posted by yelram
So they use the average mean of tree rings and ice cores and compare that to meticulously detailed temperature maps from today. Yeah I bet their margin of error is very small. (/sarcasm) I cant believe you're in the HVAC field and you tend to think a .5 degree difference over 100 years is something to worry about. I'm still changing out mercury stats that are 3-7 degrees off. The difference in measuring techniques between now and 50 years ago could easily produce a differential of far more than a degree. And all this "averaging" really doesent make for a detailed account of whats going on. So now you have moved the goalposts. First there were no temperatures recorded, now you concede temperatures but don't like the methodology. The global warming trend is expressed in average temperatures. The trend is toward an increase in average temperatures. The degree of increase is not as important as the fact that temperatures are increasing and at a pace that is historically significant.

You are thinking absolutes when you should be thinking averages.






Oh and BTW the indians didnt exactly have temperature measuring devices.Didn't say they did. You implied there was nothing here but plants and animals. I merely point out that that Native americans were here also.



Plus they supposedly migrated here on an ICE BRIDGE. That was non existant FAR BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION. So I guess that somehow humans made that bridge melt(/more sarcasm). Please explain how there were ice ages that came and went before humans were even a dominant force.Go pick up a geology textbook. They will explain all.

BTW-The bridge didn't melt. It was a land bridge.



You say that I dont "understand" the issue. I have read tons and tons of information concerning global warming and 80% of it is blatant propaganda.Yes, from the sound of it you have read very little beyond oil company funded global warming deniers. What you need to read are scientific articles and papers rather than sensationalized popular magazine and internet articles.

Had you kept with scientifc articles in reputable journals, you would have discovered that the consensus of professional experts is that the average temperatures are rising and the pace of that rise is accelerating. The major factor in this acceleration and rise is man. You would have also found out that out of 700+ recent climatology papers published in professional peer-reviewed climatatology journals, not one disagrees with the finding of human caused global warming.

Hell, even oilman Bush admits the climate is getting warmer and man has a role in it.






They have an agenda that extends beyond "saving the planet", and they go out and bend the data to make it fit their "the end is near" philosophy.What would that agenda be?



These are the same shmucks that told us an ice age was coming in the 80s.Nope. The ice age thing was an exaggeration by the media as exemplified by Time magazine. No credible climatologist was predicting an ice age.



The same shmucks that cant predict the weather from one day to another, and you somehow believe their 400 YEAR MODEL using AVERAGES based on ICE CORES AND TREE RING SAMPLES is correct within a fraction of a degree. That would be meteorologists not climatologists.



If you understood anything about the scientific method you would see the giant flaws in their methodology, but alas, you would rather be entirely politically motivated.What giant flaws would those be?






Oh and heres the definition of Global since you seem to think you can have an average global surface temperature for a hemisphere.

glob·al Audio pronunciation of "global" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (glbl)
adj.

1. Having the shape of a globe; spherical.
2. Of, relating to, or involving the entire earth; worldwide: global war; global monetary policies.You are getting hung up on terminology. The grid system produces an average global temperature which in fact is global in scope. The data can also be broken down into Northern and Southern hemisphere sections. For the sake of editorial continuity it is called the Northern average global temperature. If you want, call it the Northern hemisphere average temperature. Same thing, different title.



[Edited by geerair on 06-23-2006 at 02:17 PM]

[bb]

The answer to global warming is to build more houses! :)

Since CO is released during the burning and/or decomposition of wood, keeping the wood in a preserved state would lower CO emissions.

Also, younger trees use up more CO than larger older trees.

So let's cut down the old trees, plant some new ones, build more houses to stimulate the economy and to give Hulio a job, drink less sodas and live happily ever after. :D

[yelram]

Geerair - Keep believing whatever you want. Its pretty evident its pure bull$hit, I really dont feel the need to prove it to you. I explained already the flaws in the methodology, and how different measuring methods over large periods of time are largely innaccurate, especially when you are AVERAGING. BTW please explain to me how the other global climate changes happened throughout the earths history without massive amounts of humans contributing to it, since you seem to think that could be the only possible cause.

[James 3528]

Originally posted by geerair
Tree rings, lake sediments coral cores, ice cores.[/quote]






Next line in the full article was...


They also examined indirect records such as paintings of glaciers in the Alps.

Dammit! Now that is the kind of Science I want my tax dollars spent on.

Bahahahah!

All this research that probably had them examining cow patties came up with a 1 degree rise. LMAO


Liberals....what a mess.

[bootlen]

Originally posted by yelram
Geerair - Keep believing whatever you want. Its pretty evident its pure bull$hit, I really dont feel the need to prove it to you. I explained already the flaws in the methodology, and how different measuring methods over large periods of time are largely innaccurate, especially when you are AVERAGING.

Yel, all the truth posting in the world does not slow geer from posting untruth. As a mater of fact, he seems to feed off of truth and post exactly the opposite. Kinda fun to watch. You know...like watching clowns at the circus.

[James 3528]

Originally posted by yelram

Originally posted by tonys
Study says Earth's temp at 400-year high
By JOHN HEILPRIN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The Earth is the hottest it has been in at least 400 years, probably even longer. The National Academy of Sciences, reaching that conclusion in a broad review of scientific work requested by Congress, reported Thursday that the "recent warmth is unprecedented for at least the last 400 years and potentially the last several millennia."

A panel of top climate scientists told lawmakers that the Earth is heating up and that "human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming." Their 155-page report said average global surface temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere rose about 1 degree during the 20th century.

Wow this part of the forum sure has its share of morons. 400 years??? We hardly even have any information relating to temperature from that long ago. Thats 200 years before Lewis and Clark. There were animals and land that wasnt even discovered. How can you possibly compare the information we have now about the earths climate with non-existant information from 400 years ago? Are you seriously that much of a fool? The difference in information gathering alone is enough to account for a temperature difference of A FRACTION OF A DEGREE. You really must be a sucker.

Oh and how can it be an "average global surface temperature" and be in "the northern hemisphere". Are people really that stupid???






You should have been around for the Benzine hysteria

[geerair]

Originally posted by yelram
Geerair - Keep believing whatever you want. Its pretty evident its pure bull$hit, I really dont feel the need to prove it to you.Yeah, religious fundies are like that as well.




I explained already the flaws in the methodology, and how different measuring methods over large periods of time are largely innaccurate, especially when you are AVERAGING.No made an assertion without any evidence. Do you really beleive that variations are not accounted for?






BTW please explain to me how the other global climate changes happened throughout the earths history without massive amounts of humans contributing to it, since you seem to think that could be the only possible cause. Who said that? All I say and all the climatologists say is that the average temperatures are rising and at an accelerated pace that is not repeat not due to natural causes.

Climatic cycles are natural. Rising temperatures at an accelerated pace are not.

Hell, not too long ago, I had a wait and see attitude about this issue. Now, the weight of evidence is so compelling that the conclusion is almost impossible to ignore.

You may call global warming bullsh$t but know this, your view is not the view of professionals who work at climatology everyday and stake their scientific reputations on their work.

Your view is the view of a tiny number of GW deniers who trot out their bad science on websites and popular magazines instead of peer-reviewed climatology journals.


You do also know that Bush who has access to the best scientific talent in the world has admitted that global warming is real and that man plays a role in it?

[Edited by geerair on 06-23-2006 at 04:13 PM]

[scrogdog]

Your view is the view of a tiny number of GW deniers who trot out their bad science on websites and popular magazines instead of peer-reviewed climatology journals.

I resemble that remark! ;)

So, tell me, do you beleive that the use of models is a proper substitute for testing? So what if I do not think so, but I stand in good company with the likes of Richard Feynman who called the use of models "a disease".

We know the properties of C02 in a lab. Seems to me they have taken that and run with it in a most improper way.

[Edited by scrogdog on 06-23-2006 at 04:16 PM]

[geerair]

Originally posted by James 3528

Next line in the full article was...


They also examined indirect records such as paintings of glaciers in the Alps.

Dammit! Now that is the kind of Science I want my tax dollars spent on.

Bahahahah!

All this research that probably had them examining cow patties came up with a 1 degree rise. LMAO


Liberals....what a mess.




[/B]Yes, that is one piece of the puzzle. Why would this be a problem?

[geerair]

Originally posted by bootlen
Yel, all the truth posting in the world does not slow geer from posting untruth. As a mater of fact, he seems to feed off of truth and post exactly the opposite. Kinda fun to watch. You know...like watching clowns at the circus. [/B]Perhaps you could point out these untruths? I will eagerly anticipate your specific examples. Go big or go home.

[James 3528]

One degree. You make a fool out of yourself over one degree.

What was their margin of error?

[geerair]

Originally posted by scrogdog
I resemble that remark! ;)

So, tell me, do you beleive that the use of models is a proper substitute for testing?I think you are confusing predictions with actual measurements which are tests.

I believe meticulous, properly done modelling which accounts for all know variables can be relied upon to make fairly accurate predictions. I think the trouble begins when the results of this modelling are released to the public and are invariably sensationalized by the media or misrepresented by folks holding opposing views.



So what if I do not think so, but I stand in good company with the likes of Richard Feynman who called the use of models "a disease".Feynman as brilliant as he was, was not a climatologist.



We know the properties of C02 in a lab. Seems to me they have taken that and run with it in a most improper way.I disagree as does scientific consensus.


Hey scrog, I'm not saying the world is going end in a ball of flames in 10 years and neither are the climatologists. There are however profound consequences to this.

[Edited by scrogdog on 06-23-2006 at 04:16 PM] [/B][/QUOTE]

[scrogdog]

Cargo Cult Science and Global Warming

If you don't read anything else of his, read his best-known essay, Cargo Cult Science, about the difficulty of doing science well, and the temptation to take shortcuts and engage in things that look like science, but that don't advance the body of scientific knowledge.


We have learned a lot from experience about how to handle some of the ways we fool ourselves. One example: Millikan measured the charge on an electron by an experiment with falling oil drops, and got an answer which we now know not to be quite right. It's a little bit off because he had the incorrect value for the viscosity of air. It's interesting to look at the history of measurements of the charge of an electron, after Millikan.

If you plot them as a function of time, you find that one is a little bit bigger than Millikan's, and the next one's a little bit bigger than that, and the next one's a little bit bigger than that, until finally they settle down to a number which is higher.

Why didn't they discover the new number was higher right away? It's a thing that scientists are ashamed of--this history--because it's apparent that people did things like this: When they got a number that was too high above Millikan's, they thought something must be wrong--and they would look for and find a reason why something might be wrong. When they got a number close to Millikan's value they didn't look so hard. And so they eliminated the numbers that were too far off, and did other things like that. We've learned those tricks nowadays, and now we don't have that kind of a disease.

I have to disagree with Feynman here. We still have the disease and always will. I think of Feynman's example of Millikan and the oil drop experiments whenever someone talks about computer models of global warming.

If you've ever programmed computers you can imagine the development of those models. You write a program to simulate the climate. You run it the first time and it shows that the Earth is a frozen ball of ice right now. "Oops. That's not right." Then you fiddle with it so it's warmer and run it again. This time it predicts the planet will get so hot the oceans boil away next week. "Oops. Now it's too hot." And so you tweak it until it gives you the answer you expect, the answer that conforms to your current set of prejudices and the current publishing environment. That's not science.

And if you think that sort of mistake-by-expectation can't be made with today's all-new state of the art modern space age computerized superscience, read this (by "this", he means Feynman's paper, not my link), which appears to invalidate the hockey stick model of global warming that's been part of the environmentalist catechism for years. The disease will always be with us.

http://www.lesjones.com/posts/001657.shtml

[geerair]

Originally posted by James 3528 [/i]
One degree. You make a fool out of yourself over one degree.

What was their margin of error? One degree is not the point. You would know this if you would pay attention Einstein.

[scrogdog]

Feynman as brilliant as he was, was not a climatologist.

Quite true. And as smart as these climatologists are, they are not programmers. I have made code in Fortran, Cobal, C++ and Visual Basic. And I am here to tell you that what I just posted above on how these models are developed is VERY accurate in my experience. :)

There is one concept about computers which should never be dismissed. It's called GIGO; Garbage In - Garbage Out. :)

[James 3528]

Originally posted by geerair

Originally posted by James 3528 [/i]
One degree. You make a fool out of yourself over one degree.

What was their margin of error? One degree is not the point. You would know this if you would pay attention Einstein.


There is no CMD's

Climates of Mass Destruction

There is less credible evidence than there were of WMD's which you have denied for 4 years.

Exposed another liberal fruit cake again with their agenda to cripple America. That is the friggen point.

[geerair]

Originally posted by scrogdog
Cargo Cult Science and Global Warming

If you don't read anything else of his, read his best-known essay, Cargo Cult Science, about the difficulty of doing science well, and the temptation to take shortcuts and engage in things that look like science, but that don't advance the body of scientific knowledge.


We have learned a lot from experience about how to handle some of the ways we fool ourselves. One example: Millikan measured the charge on an electron by an experiment with falling oil drops, and got an answer which we now know not to be quite right. It's a little bit off because he had the incorrect value for the viscosity of air. It's interesting to look at the history of measurements of the charge of an electron, after Millikan.

If you plot them as a function of time, you find that one is a little bit bigger than Millikan's, and the next one's a little bit bigger than that, and the next one's a little bit bigger than that, until finally they settle down to a number which is higher.

Why didn't they discover the new number was higher right away? It's a thing that scientists are ashamed of--this history--because it's apparent that people did things like this: When they got a number that was too high above Millikan's, they thought something must be wrong--and they would look for and find a reason why something might be wrong. When they got a number close to Millikan's value they didn't look so hard. And so they eliminated the numbers that were too far off, and did other things like that. We've learned those tricks nowadays, and now we don't have that kind of a disease.

I have to disagree with Feynman here. We still have the disease and always will. I think of Feynman's example of Millikan and the oil drop experiments whenever someone talks about computer models of global warming.

If you've ever programmed computers you can imagine the development of those models. You write a program to simulate the climate. You run it the first time and it shows that the Earth is a frozen ball of ice right now. "Oops. That's not right." Then you fiddle with it so it's warmer and run it again. This time it predicts the planet will get so hot the oceans boil away next week. "Oops. Now it's too hot." And so you tweak it until it gives you the answer you expect, the answer that conforms to your current set of prejudices and the current publishing environment. That's not science.

And if you think that sort of mistake-by-expectation can't be made with today's all-new state of the art modern space age computerized superscience, read this (by "this", he means Feynman's paper, not my link), which appears to invalidate the hockey stick model of global warming that's been part of the environmentalist catechism for years. The disease will always be with us.

http://www.lesjones.com/posts/001657.shtml Interesting but the hockey stick model has been shown to be valid recently.

[Edited by geerair on 06-23-2006 at 04:54 PM]

[geerair]

Originally posted by James 3528



There is no CMD's

Climates of Mass Destruction

There is less credible evidence than there were of WMD's which you have denied for 4 years.

Exposed another liberal fruit cake again with their agenda to cripple America. That is the friggen point. So your President, whom you voted for, is wrong when he admitted that global warming is real and man has a role in it?

[geerair]

Originally posted by scrogdog

Feynman as brilliant as he was, was not a climatologist.

Quite true. And as smart as these climatologists are, they are not programmers. I have made code in Fortran, Cobal, C++ and Visual Basic. And I am here to tell you that what I just posted above on how these models are developed is VERY accurate in my experience. :)

There is one concept about computers which should never be dismissed. It's called GIGO; Garbage In - Garbage Out. :) I agree that programming errors are a hazard of the trade but that would also apply to every field. That being said, that is why there is a peer-review process and beyond that a continual questioning of results and interpretations.

[scrogdog]

Interesting but the hockey stick model has been shown to be valid recently. The mistake was with the math of one critic.

http://www.junkscience.com/jan05/breaking_the_hockey_stick.html

The critics are far more than one, and the criticisms address the samples used, not the math. In fact, I plan on reading this new book soon.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0742549232/junksciencecom/102-1407603-0526568

[scrogdog]

and beyond that a continual questioning of results and interpretations.

That's exactly what I and others are doing. I admit that I might be in the minority at this time, but this one just does not smell right. :)

[geerair]

Originally posted by scrogdog
[B][quote]Interesting but the hockey stick model has been shown to be valid recently. The mistake was with the math of one critic.


http://www.junkscience.com/jan05/breaking_the_hockey_stick.html[


The critics are far more than one, and the criticisms address the samples used, not the math. yeah i edited out the math thing. Mind fart.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=121





http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0742549232/junksciencecom/102-1407603-0526568 Be sure to post a book report.

[Edited by geerair on 06-23-2006 at 05:20 PM]

[geerair]

Originally posted by scrogdog

That's exactly what I and others are doing. I admit that I might be in the minority at this time, but this one just does not smell right. :) [/B]No problem with continual questioning, that is what makes science robust.

Smell right? Well, it took a while for me to overcome my objections to GW but I gotta go with the evidence and it is compelling.

[scrogdog]

Fair enough. I'd like to get in to this a little bit more; the use of models that is. But I haven't the time right now.

Have a nice weekend all! :)

[James 3528]

Originally posted by geerair

Originally posted by James 3528



There is no CMD's

Climates of Mass Destruction

There is less credible evidence than there were of WMD's which you have denied for 4 years.

Exposed another liberal fruit cake again with their agenda to cripple America. That is the friggen point. So your President, whom you voted for, is wrong when he admitted that global warming is real and man has a role in it?


The classic geer dodge

[yelram]

Originally posted by geerair
[B][QUOTE] Originally posted by yelram
Geerair - Keep believing whatever you want. Its pretty evident its pure bull$hit, I really dont feel the need to prove it to you.Yeah, religious fundies are like that as well.

YOU ACT JUST LIKE A RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENATALIST IN THE CHURCH OF LIBERALISM.



I explained already the flaws in the methodology, and how different measuring methods over large periods of time are largely innaccurate, especially when you are AVERAGING.No made an assertion without any evidence. Do you really beleive that variations are not accounted for?


YOU CANT ACCOUNT FOR VARIATIONS IN TEMPERATURES YOU ARE GUESSING ABOUT.



BTW please explain to me how the other global climate changes happened throughout the earths history without massive amounts of humans contributing to it, since you seem to think that could be the only possible cause. Who said that? All I say and all the climatologists say is that the average temperatures are rising and at an accelerated pace that is not repeat not due to natural causes.

Climatic cycles are natural. Rising temperatures at an accelerated pace are not.

ACCELERATED PACE? ARE YOU INSANE?

Hell, not too long ago, I had a wait and see attitude about this issue. Now, the weight of evidence is so compelling that the conclusion is almost impossible to ignore.

IF THE EVIDENCE WAS IMPOSSIBLE TO IGNORE, ITD BE OBVIOUS TO US IN OUR EVERYDAY ACTIVITIES, AND IT JUST ISNT. HEY MAYBE GLOBAL WARMING IS CAUSED BY AIR CONDITIONING. THE MORE INSIDE SPACE YOU HAVE THAT IS COLD THE MORE HEAT HAS TO BE OUTSIDE. NOT TO MENTION TEMPERATURE VARIATIONS FROM CITY TO COUNTRY. IF 100 YEARS AGO TEMPERATURES WERE TAKEN, IT WAS LIKELY THAT THEY WERE TAKEN SOMEWHERE RURAL OR SUBURBAN, NOT METROPOLITAN. THERE ARE JUST SO MANY POSSIBLE ANGLES THAT WOULD CAUSE A VARIATION IN TEMPERATURE, 1 DEGREE IS NOTHING TO GET EXCITED ABOUT.

[geerair]

Originally posted by James 3528

The classic geer dodge [/B]The irony is priceless.

[James 3528]

That is another one. Someone should index them.

[geerair]

Originally posted by yelram

YOU ACT JUST LIKE A RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENATALIST IN THE CHURCH OF LIBERALISM.Except that I have ample evidence and the consensus of the experts.


On the other hand you have a small group of energy industry funded whores whose main weapon is mischaracterization of scientific studies. Classic fundy behavior.


Son, evidence has no political component.



YOU CANT ACCOUNT FOR VARIATIONS IN TEMPERATURES YOU ARE GUESSING ABOUT. I can't, but the experts can. Try reading an actual climatology paper rather than Exxon funded propaganda.



ACCELERATED PACE?Yes. It is all there in the literature.


ARE YOU INSANE?I must be because I often find myself arguing with people who find it necessary to use caps in order to cover up their lack of understanding of the issue.



IF THE EVIDENCE WAS IMPOSSIBLE TO IGNORE, ITD BE OBVIOUS TO US IN OUR EVERYDAY ACTIVITIES, AND IT JUST ISNT.Nobody said your hair was going to catch on fire.




HEY MAYBE GLOBAL WARMING IS CAUSED BY AIR CONDITIONING. THE MORE INSIDE SPACE YOU HAVE THAT IS COLD THE MORE HEAT HAS TO BE OUTSIDE.You might have something there. Do some research. Formulate a theory, submit a paper to a climatology journal. Who knows, you might just win a Nobel for your efforts.




NOT TO MENTION TEMPERATURE VARIATIONS FROM CITY TO COUNTRY. IF 100 YEARS AGO TEMPERATURES WERE TAKEN, IT WAS LIKELY THAT THEY WERE TAKEN SOMEWHERE RURAL OR SUBURBAN, NOT METROPOLITAN.Do you have any evidence to support this assertion or is it just speculation?





THERE ARE JUST SO MANY POSSIBLE ANGLES THAT WOULD CAUSE A VARIATION IN TEMPERATURE, 1 DEGREE IS NOTHING TO GET EXCITED ABOUT.You seem to be awfully worked up over that 1 degree.

[geerair]

Originally posted by James 3528
That is another one. Someone should index them. Still hasn't answered the question. There is an extensive index of dodged questions by james on file.

[yelram]

NOT TO MENTION TEMPERATURE VARIATIONS FROM CITY TO COUNTRY. IF 100 YEARS AGO TEMPERATURES WERE TAKEN, IT WAS LIKELY THAT THEY WERE TAKEN SOMEWHERE RURAL OR SUBURBAN, NOT METROPOLITAN.Do you have any evidence to support this assertion or is it just speculation?


http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/wxwise/heatisl.html

[geerair]

Originally posted by yelram

http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/wxwise/heatisl.html [/B]I found nothing your link to support your assertion that it was likely that temperatures were taken somewhere rural or suburban areas rather than metropolitian areas.

[chillbilly]

I just witnessed Al Gore basically reiterating that global warming data is beyond criticism due to the extensive amount of evidence and the collective 'peer review' that believes the evidence verifies man's influence on GW.
Funny how that 'peer review' thing works for climatologists but not for theologians, whose peer review is virtually unmatched in number.....

When pressed about Earth age by Olberman, ole' Al was not about to go there. Being the slick politician he is, he would never disavow God so he quoted scripture although his transparency did shine through. LOL!

That noted, we have the "hockey stick" graph and we have modern science telling us...
"We have tested, we are not sure, we think so and we have a bunch of people who think so....so, just go with it".
Hardly a concrete affirmation.

[geerair]

Originally posted by chillbilly
I just witnessed Al Gore basically reiterating that global warming data is beyond criticism due to the extensive amount of evidence and the collective 'peer review' that believes the evidence verifies man's influence on GW.Well, that about wraps it up. Both Bush and Gore accept that GW is real and man has played a role in it.



Funny how that 'peer review' thing works for climatologists but not for theologians, whose peer review is virtually unmatched in number.....I didn't know theologians were branching into science these days.



When pressed about Earth age by Olberman, ole' Al was not about to go there. Being the slick politician he is, he would never disavow God so he quoted scripture although his transparency did shine through. LOL!Kinda like Bush and his pandering of the fundies.



That noted, we have the "hockey stick" graph and we have modern science telling us...
"We have tested, we are not sure, we think so and we have a bunch of people who think so....so, just go with it More correctly, reconstructions have produced similar results.




Validity confirmed

[Edited by geerair on 06-23-2006 at 11:41 PM]

[isitfixedyet]

Originally posted by geerair

Originally posted by chillbilly
I just witnessed Al Gore basically reiterating that global warming data is beyond criticism due to the extensive amount of evidence and the collective 'peer review' that believes the evidence verifies man's influence on GW.Well, that about wraps it up. Both Bush and Gore accept that GW is real and man has played a role in it.



Funny how that 'peer review' thing works for climatologists but not for theologians, whose peer review is virtually unmatched in number.....I didn't know theologians were branching into science these days.



When pressed about Earth age by Olberman, ole' Al was not about to go there. Being the slick politician he is, he would never disavow God so he quoted scripture although his transparency did shine through. LOL!Kinda like Bush and his pandering of the fundies.



That noted, we have the "hockey stick" graph and we have modern science telling us...
"We have tested, we are not sure, we think so and we have a bunch of people who think so....so, just go with it More correctly, reconstructions have produced similar results.




Validity confirmed/BEACUSE U TOLD ME SO?


PROBLEM IS THIS SO CALLED GLOBAL BS IS COMING FROM THE BUSH ADMIN, BECAUSE HES HOPING HE DIDNT OFFEND GOD AND HIS COUNTRY FOR DOING THE EVIL THINGS HE HAS, HES HOPING THAT SCIENCE MIGHT GIVE HIM A LOGICAL WAY OUT FOR HIS GUILTY FEELINGS OF DICTATORSHIP AGAINST HIS COUNTRY AND HUMANITY OF BEING A MONSTER TO HUMANITY, LOL
its probably another ploy to hide the real issues of spending BILLIONS of YOUR hard earned tax paying dollars and your future childrens, on worthless wars
fueling his oil price raising agenda, and economical agenda.... evidenced by the economy in his term and the next two years minimum!
[Edited by geerair on 06-23-2006 at 11:41 PM]