 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Toyota / Toyota Cars / January 2009{OT} Once again, the Global Warming k00ks sound the alarm
in the middle of an almost nation-wide snow/ice storm. I didn't get any parts because the airport in TN was iced in, and even if I did we got 6 inches of snow in three hours. Yup...their timing is marvelous. > in the middle of an almost nation-wide snow/ice storm. > > I didn't get any parts because the airport in TN was iced in, and even > if I did we got 6 inches of snow in three hours. > > Yup...their timing is marvelous. Gore Delivers 'Inconvenient Truth' Lecture to Senate Committee Former Vice President Asks Congress to Move Quickly to Stem Climate Change By Juliet Eilperin Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, January 28, 2009; 5:00 PM Former vice president Al Gore urged lawmakers today to adopt a binding carbon cap and push for a new international climate pact by the end of this year in order to avert catastrophic global warming. This Story * Gore Delivers 'Inconvenient Truth' Lecture to Senate Committee * Special Report: Al Gore's Policy Push * Special Report: Green Policy, Science and Living Appearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Gore delivered a short slide show that amounted to an update of his Oscar-winning documentary "An Inconvenient Truth," lecturing some of his former colleagues that even if the world halted greenhouse gas emissions now, it could experience a temperature rise of between 2.5 to 7.5 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100. "This would bring a screeching halt to human civilization and threaten life everywhere on Earth, and this is by the end of this century," Gore said. OH WOE IS US!!!!! Please. In related news... DALLAS — Frozen northern Texas started thawing out Wednesday, a day after ice-related traffic accidents boosted the death toll from the cold snap to at least six people. LITTLE ROCK, Ark. - Well over a million people shivered in ice-bound homes across the country Wednesday, waiting for warmer weather and for utility crews to restring power lines brought down by a storm that killed 23 as it took a snowy, icy journey from the Southern Plains to the East Coast. But with temperatures plunging, utility officials warned that it could be mid-February before electricity is restored to some of the hardest-hit places. The worst of the power failures were in Kentucky, Arkansas and Ohio. Winter weather wreaks havoc across nation Wednesday, January 28, 2009 • At least 19 deaths have been blamed on the weather since Monday: five in Texas, five in Missouri, three in Arkansas, three in Virginia, two in Oklahoma and one in Indiana. • At least 165,000 homes and businesses in Arkansas were without power Tuesday. Kentucky officials reported more than 80,000 customers with no electricity. About 25,000 customers were blacked out in Oklahoma, and more than 42,000 outages were reported in Missouri. • Hundreds of schools, colleges and universities called off classes Tuesday in eight states. • Ice had built up 3 inches thick in parts of Arkansas and Oklahoma. • As the storm threatened to barrel into New England, utility companies and road crews in several states prepared for the worst. In New Hampshire, where up to 15 inches of snow was forecast, the Legislature canceled today's sessions. And from three weeks ago: Snow Blankets Las Vegas Valley (Dec. 30) -- A sight not often seen in Las Vegas -- snow! The snow started falling at about midnight and continued through the night blanketing most of the city. In some areas, the snow stuck around past noon. It certainly was a winter wonderland as kids of all ages enjoyed the rare event. As much as three inches of snow fell in the early morning hours leaving a white blanket over much of the western and northwestern sections of the valley. The Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area about 20 miles west of town is closed due to slippery roads. For the first time in several years, residents woke up to an unusual sight. There was snow on cars, roads and trees. The wild winter weather startled many people in the Valley because cleaning snow from cars and making snowmen is not something most of us are used to doing here. "I think it's unbelievable. It's never did this here before," one resident commented with delight. "We're building snowmen and were doing snowball fights. And I'm throwing snowballs at my mom," exclaimed a kid on holiday break. LOL! You go, Al!!! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! >> in the middle of an almost nation-wide snow/ice storm. >> [quoted text clipped - 96 lines] > > LOL! You go, Al!!! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Only LIEbrawls/DEMONrats/idiots/intellectual midgets believe in "global warming". Climate CYCLES have been occurring for hundreds of millions of years. If anything, we are cycling towards another ICE AGE. > in the middle of an almost nation-wide snow/ice storm. > > I didn't get any parts because the airport in TN was iced in, and even if > I did we got 6 inches of snow in three hours. > > Yup...their timing is marvelous. It's funny how idiots always cite _local_ weather to disprove _global_ warming. > Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > _global_ > warming. Despite the claims of some, not everyone agrees that man made global warming is a concern. The science is debatable, the supporting data at best inconclusive, and the projections of doom irresponsible. It is well know that Al Gore's beloved song and dance included erroneous information. It is also obvious that Al Gore is a hypocrit of monumental proportions. The global warming fanatics say we must act now to prevent disaster. I am more concerned that their desired actions will be far more destructive than any man made changes in the environment. Ed On Jan 29, 3:27 pm, "C. E. White" <cewhi...@removemindspring.com> wrote: > >> in the middle of an almost nation-wide snow/ice storm. > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Ed Climate Change. Did you see the very high winds in Spain last week, 60+ mph? Snow in Dubai? There are daily anomalies daily reported. Of course people need to read a European newspaper on a daily basis. http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1214876 > On Jan 29, 3:27 pm, "C. E. White" <cewhi...@removemindspring.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1214876 And this means? As long as I can remember there have been disasters caused by weather. One reasons diasters seem more common/worse now is that there are more people, more building, and more media than in the past. Ed Ed NASA has recorded the average earths temperature since 1979 using satellites. Their records show the temperature HAS gone up. A startling one degree Celsius over thirty years, but has not risen over the last twelve years, horrors! The true earth scientists, the paleo-scientists and paleo-climatologists say we are at the apex of the latest inter-glacial period, that started in the sixteenth century, and it will begin to trend down. >> Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Ed > NASA has recorded the average earths temperature since 1979 using > satellites. Their records show the temperature HAS gone up. A startling [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > we are at the apex of the latest inter-glacial period, that started in the > sixteenth century, and it will begin to trend down. You mean to say earth has climate cycles??? Heaven forbid and my God how can that be, Al gore said it was different and said it was "man made global warming". After all, al gore got a nobel prize so he MUST be RIGHT. I noticed during his little speech to the congressional committee he did not mention man-made global warming, instead it was climate change, LOL. What a bunch of turkeys these liberals are. To them it's all about money. > >> Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B wrote: > >> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > > > Ed  Signature"It's deja vu all over again" Yogi Berra > In article <7sadnZ1yXrPNhh_UnZ2dnUVZ_hqdn...@ptd.net>, > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > What a bunch of turkeys these liberals are. To them it's all about > money. The funny thing is that everything that will be done to decrease the US's dependence of fossil fuels will also increase our competitiveness. A large part of our national deficit is for buying foreign oil. However, it's not about the money. It's about having a nice planet for our kids and grandkids. Jeff > > >>> in the middle of an almost nation-wide snow/ice storm. > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > "It's deja vu all over again" > Yogi Berra Is that you chicken little? >> I noticed during his little speech to the congressional committee he did >> not mention man-made global warming, instead it was climate change, LOL. [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] >> "It's deja vu all over again" >> Yogi Berra "Climate Change" rather than "Global Warming" is the new catch phrase since real scientist have shown it is natural change that has gone on forever, not man that is causing the climate to change and the theorist know that. >> NASA has recorded the average earths temperature since 1979 using >> satellites. Their records show the temperature HAS gone up. A [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] >> > >> > Ed > "Climate Change" rather than "Global Warming" is the new catch phrase since > real scientist have shown it is natural change that has gone on forever, not > man that is causing the climate to change and the theorist know that. Except that man is causing the greenhouse gases to go up in concentration. So, there are natural cycles, but we are perturbing those cycles. And "climate change is the new catch phrase, because President Bush's administration did not want to call it "global warming" because "global warming" is too alarming. Jeff >> "Climate Change" rather than "Global Warming" is the new catch phrase since >> real scientist have shown it is natural change that has gone on forever, not [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > concentration. So, there are natural cycles, but we are perturbing > those cycles. Throughout Geologic history there have been increases in greenhouse gasses as evidenced by ice core samples whose graphs has mysteriously disappeared from the IPCC's web site in the past few months. As a matter of fact, we are currently nowhere near the level of greenhouse gasses recorded long before man was around. > And "climate change is the new catch phrase, because President Bush's > administration did not want to call it "global warming" because > "global warming" is too alarming. > > Jeff The BBC does not do anything according to Bush, and they began calling it 'Climate Change' over a year ago. >> "Climate Change" rather than "Global Warming" is the new catch phrase since >> real scientist have shown it is natural change that has gone on forever, not [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Jeff I think the way to solve the problem is to bring back the showers of Germany. All that believe in global warming caused by man....take a shower.... SignatureScott in Florida >>> "Climate Change" rather than "Global Warming" is the new catch phrase >>> since [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > All that believe in global warming caused by man....take a shower.... Can we throw Doug into one? Sir Charles the Curmudgeon. >>>> "Climate Change" rather than "Global Warming" is the new catch phrase >>>> since [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > >Sir Charles the Curmudgeon. He throws himself in one every day, here..... SignatureScott in Florida In article <00ff9803-385a-4f43-9d8a-3ae178efb77e@l33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>, > > "Climate Change" rather than "Global Warming" is the new catch phrase since > > real scientist have shown it is natural change that has gone on forever, not [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Jeff Jeff, earths climate has been changing for aeons. Why in hell would earth want to stop changing now?? Oh, I forgot, al gore said it must or we'll all die. Signature"It's deja vu all over again" Yogi Berra You keep saying that but that does not make it a fact. Have you found a source that can explain HOW a GAS the comprises less than 1% of our atmosphere can effect the temperature on the earth up or down? I have done some DEEP searches but been unable to find that information. I even spoke to one of the Climatologist at Penn State and ask him if he knew where I could find that information. He chuckled and said you will not. On Jan 29, 6:27 pm, "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote: > "Climate Change" rather than "Global Warming" is the new catch phrase > since > real scientist have shown it is natural change that has gone on forever, > not > man that is causing the climate to change and the theorist know that. Except that man is causing the greenhouse gases to go up in concentration. So, there are natural cycles, but we are perturbing those cycles. And "climate change is the new catch phrase, because President Bush's administration did not want to call it "global warming" because "global warming" is too alarming. Jeff > And "climate change is the new catch phrase, because President Bush's > administration did not want to call it "global warming" because > "global warming" is too alarming. > You keep saying that but that does not make it a fact. It's not just that he says it; it's what the GW Bush administration did, and they did it because to dominate the politics you have to dominate the vocabulary, and "global warming" wasn't the Republicans' terminology. > Have you found a source that can explain HOW a GAS the comprises > less than 1% of our atmosphere can effect the temperature on the > earth up or down? > > I have done some DEEP searches but been unable to find that information. Then you must have been drunk or trained by the Phoenix city library system because even a casual Google search brings non-political stuff from NOAA, NASA, the EPA, RealClimate.org, and Wikipedia (the references are usually serious). Anybody who did DEEP searches on global warming could have stated the concentration of atmospheric CO2 a lot more accurately than "less than 1%", especially when the actual amount is 20x to 30x less. Maybe you should ask yourself how a much, much lower concentration of Bitrex, 1-2 ppm, can spoil the taste of all that scotch and wine you've denied ever drinking in your life. > I even spoke to one of the Climatologist at Penn State and ask him if he > knew where I could find that information. He chuckled and said you will > not. Not if he took you seriously (did he wear a badge and carry a Tazer, like most people you meet?)or if he was a real climatologist familiar with global warming models, as opposed to a pretentious Climatologist with no name. Such scientists have been studying the effects of all sorts of gases in the atmosphere, especially CO2, and water, for well over a half-century now. And if CO2 can't cause global warming, then why is a global warming potential (GWP) number assigned to it, as one is to each other common gas (some GWPs are over 10,000x that of CO2)? BTW, two molecular biologists, Peter Duesberg and Kerry Mullis, say HIV doesn't cause AIDS, so it must not, right? If you do a bit of research, you'll find that these aren't mediocore scientists or mere crackpots because Duesberg discovered the first oncogene and would have received the Nobel Prize for that if he hadn't criticized its importance, and Mullis received a Nobel for inventing PCR DNA amplification (remember him from the OJ Simpson murder trial?). I mention these scientists in a thread about global warming to show that it's easy to cherry pick experts who share your opinion, but that doesn't necessarily make you right. It's easy to cherry pick experts who share your opinion, but that doesn't necessarily make YOU right. I'll say it again, have you found a source that can explain HOW a GAS that comprises less than 1% of our atmosphere can effect the temperature on the earth up or down? You might want to search your sources for an explanation as to why the world did not heat up and come to an end during the 160,000,000 years the dinosaurs roamed the earth. The historic record of paleo-climatologists shows the rate of CO2 in the atmosphere was much greater. That higher CO2 level resulted in the much greater plant life, that caused the O2 level to be much greater, as well. How can that be if one chooses to believe the lower CO2 level today is causing "Global Warming" and/or "Climate Change?" >> And "climate change is the new catch phrase, because President Bush's >> administration did not want to call it "global warming" because >> "global warming" is too alarming. > >> You keep saying that but that does not make it a fact. >> Have you found a source that can explain HOW a GAS the comprises >> less than 1% of our atmosphere can effect the temperature on the >> earth up or down? >> >> I have done some DEEP searches but been unable to find that information. <drivel sniped> > BTW, two molecular biologists, Peter Duesberg and Kerry Mullis, say > HIV doesn't cause AIDS, so it must not, right? If you do a bit of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > it's easy to cherry pick experts who share your opinion, but that > doesn't necessarily make you right. > You keep saying that but that does not make it a fact. Have you found a > source that can explain HOW a GAS the comprises less than 1% of our > atmosphere can effect the temperature on the earth up or down? I have done > some DEEP searches but been unable to find that information. http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm And this explains the greenhouse effect, with many references at the bottom: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect > I even spoke to one of the Climatologist at Penn State and ask him if he > knew where I could find that information. He chuckled and said you will > not. Perhaps he meant that you're too stupid to understand any resource. Jeff > On Jan 29, 6:27 pm, "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Jeff No wonder you are so confused! How does that following quote FROM YOUR SOURCE show HOW a GAS that comprises less than 1% of our atmosphere can effect the temperature on the earth up or down? "These scientists were interested chiefly in the POSSIBILITY that a lower level of carbon dioxide gas MIGHT explain the ice ages of the distant past." Do yourself a favor, do some research that will enlighten you of how the earths temperature IS effected by continental drift, the movement of tectonic plates, changes in the sun, and the intensity and number of sun spots, that have been scientifically PROVEN, by historical records of true earth scientist, not merely conjecture. Climate change should not be a political debate, and we should not be spending billions on conjecture today, any more than we would have had we listened to those who wanted us to, when they told us most scientists were "sure" the earth was COOLING, forty years ago. On Jan 30, 11:56 am, "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote: > You keep saying that but that does not make it a fact. Have you found a > source that can explain HOW a GAS the comprises less than 1% of our > atmosphere can effect the temperature on the earth up or down? I have done > some DEEP searches but been unable to find that information. http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm And this explains the greenhouse effect, with many references at the bottom: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect > I even spoke to one of the Climatologist at Penn State and ask him if he > knew where I could find that information. He chuckled and said you will > not. Perhaps he meant that you're too stupid to understand any resource. Jeff > "Jeff" <jeff....@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Jeff > No wonder you are so confused! I am not confused at all. > How does that following quote FROM YOUR > SOURCE show HOW a GAS that comprises less than 1% of our atmosphere can > effect the temperature on the earth up or down? Water is a gas that greatly affects Earth's temperature. Just look how clouds block the sun during the day and keep the air warmer during the night. > "These scientists were interested chiefly in the POSSIBILITY that a lower > level of carbon dioxide gas MIGHT explain the ice ages of the distant past." Key word: "were." > Do yourself a favor, do some research that will enlighten you of how the > earths temperature IS effected by continental drift, the movement of > tectonic plates, changes in the sun, and the intensity and number of sun > spots, that have been scientifically PROVEN, by historical records of true > earth scientist, not merely conjecture. Yet, the evidence that the earth is getting warmer is overwhelming. And, there is more evidence that the oceans are getting warmer (raising the sea level) and becoming more acidic from dissolved CO2. This is affecting wildlife, like corals. > Climate change should not be a political debate, and we should not be > spending billions on conjecture today, any more than we would have had we > listened to those who wanted us to, when they told us most scientists were > "sure" the earth was COOLING, forty years ago. Please provide evidence that either *MOST* scientists thought that the earth was cooling or that scientists were sure that the earth was cooling. Jeff > On Jan 30, 11:56 am, "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > > Jeff On Jan 31, 11:27 am, "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote: > No wonder you are so confused! I am not confused at all. > How does that following quote FROM YOUR > SOURCE show HOW a GAS that comprises less than 1% of our atmosphere can > effect the temperature on the earth up or down? Water is a gas that greatly affects Earth's temperature. Just look how clouds block the sun during the day and keep the air warmer during the night. <JS> But Jeff, water in the atmosphere is measured as relative humidity. When there is enough of it to affect the conditions you note, it measures greater than 50%. This means that more than half of the atmosphere at that point in time is water. I think your comparison of water in the air and CO2 is flawed. Carbon dioxide is spewed into the atmosphere by cows in the pasture passing time by passing gas, every time you exhale carbon dioxide comes out of you, volcanoes belch carbon dioxide by the hundreds (thousands) of tons per minute. We have hundreds of wild fires, every year just in California. Add the fires in the other states, then the other countries, and the CO2 from these fires exceeds that from automobiles by a very wide margin. With all of this carbon dioxide being thrown into the atmosphere every minute of the day, and the percentage is still in the single digits, then the question still arises, how is human activity measured as a significant cause of this "problem"? We may be going through CO2 induced climate change, but how does science go about separating all of the naturally occurring CO2 from the CO2 that comes from your tail pipe -- the one in your car, not the one you sit on? Point of Order Climatologists are looking at climate change lately as part of a natural cycle. They are now looking at human activity to see if we exacerbate the natural changes one way or the other -- CO2 emissions as part of this. This is a new postion taken by science that has been talked about just in the past two weeks or so. Surely there will be more to follow ... </JS> > "These scientists were interested chiefly in the POSSIBILITY that a lower > level of carbon dioxide gas MIGHT explain the ice ages of the distant > past." Key word: "were." > Do yourself a favor, do some research that will enlighten you of how the > earths temperature IS effected by continental drift, the movement of > tectonic plates, changes in the sun, and the intensity and number of sun > spots, that have been scientifically PROVEN, by historical records of true > earth scientist, not merely conjecture. Yet, the evidence that the earth is getting warmer is overwhelming. And, there is more evidence that the oceans are getting warmer (raising the sea level) and becoming more acidic from dissolved CO2. This is affecting wildlife, like corals. > Climate change should not be a political debate, and we should not be > spending billions on conjecture today, any more than we would have had we > listened to those who wanted us to, when they told us most scientists were > "sure" the earth was COOLING, forty years ago. Please provide evidence that either *MOST* scientists thought that the earth was cooling or that scientists were sure that the earth was cooling. Jeff > "Jeff" <jeff....@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > > Jeff > Climate change should not be a political debate, and we should not be > spending billions on conjecture today, any more than we would have had we > listened to those who wanted us to, when they told us most scientists were > "sure" the earth was COOLING, forty years ago. Please provide evidence that either *MOST* scientists thought that the earth was cooling or that scientists were sure that the earth was cooling. Jeff <JS> In my lifetime, humanity has gone from facing sure demise due to the looming Ice Age caused by the destruction of the rain forest -- which logically should cause an increase in CO2 and therefore no Ice Age -- to Global Warming. Science has swung from one extreme to the other, Ice Age to Global Warming, with both rooted in pretty much the same cause, too much CO2. Ironically, we went from paper to plastic (bags to carry our groceries home) because of the trees it takes to make paper bags. Now, plastic bags are the scurge of humanity when just ~25 years ago they were the savior. Climate Groupies set about to ween us from paper bags, now they want to ween us from plastic bags. We can't use paper because it takes trees, we can't use plastic because it lasts too long. </JS> > I even spoke to one of the Climatologist at Penn State and ask him if he > knew where I could find that information. He chuckled and said you will > not. My job takes me to some of the best colleges in the US. The teachers and researchers are split, but most of them I talk to say we're in the middle of a cycle, and don't expect it to get too much warmer. As one told me, if you're looking for a warmer climate, Florida's going to be your best bet. > NASA has recorded the average earths temperature since 1979 using > satellites. Their records show the temperature HAS gone up. A startling [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > > Ed Really? Take a look at this from NASA: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/ THe data clearly show that the Earth's temperature is going up. Jeff >> NASA has recorded the average earths temperature since 1979 using >> satellites. Their records show the temperature HAS gone up. A startling [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > Jeff I think I'd probably take another look at the graphs, because they show in the past few years temperatures are starting downwards... > The true earth scientists, the paleo-scientists and paleo-climatologists say > we are at the apex of the latest inter-glacial period, that started in the > sixteenth century, and it will begin to trend down. Gee, I never heard that anywhere before... But then, I haven't cracked a Geology book for 25 years, so WTF do I know? On Jan 29, 3:27 pm, "C. E. White" <cewhi...@removemindspring.com> wrote: > >> in the middle of an almost nation-wide snow/ice storm. > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Ed Yet, the vast majority of climate scientists do believe that global warming is real, based on the evidence. And, the evidenceis overwhelming and growing daily. Jeff > On Jan 29, 3:27 pm, "C. E. White" <cewhi...@removemindspring.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > Jeff The latest science is that global warming is an alarmist term. It seems that science is embracing the idea that climate change is normal and cyclical, and they are now setting about to study whether or not human influence plays a role in exaserbating the normal cycle(s). Climatologists are taking a less alarmist view of global warming in light of the fact that the climate has not been warming since about 1998. I just read this in the past week or ten days. Stay tuned for more information (that is sure to come). >> Yet, the vast majority of climate scientists do believe that global >> warming is real, based on the evidence. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > The latest science is that global warming is an alarmist term. It seems that > science is embracing the idea that climate change is normal and cyclical, Wow! Who would have imagined?!?! I for one would have NEVER thought that perhaps 'Climate Change' is cyclical. I didn't even write a paper about it when I was a Sophomore in College. Here's one: http://www.prisonplanet.com/global-cooling-alaskan-glaciers-grow-for-first-time- in-250-years.html Plus, Alaska's glaciers have actually grown. So have the ones on Mt. Shasta in CA and elsewhere. http://www.iceagenow.com/List_of_Expanding_Glaciers.htm Hell, even the Weather Channel one recent Saturday said it was raining and it even showed on their radar, but it was clear as a bell and sunny outside. So much for computer models "in real time." Al Gore has lost it mentally. Someone bait him with a pizza and put him in a cell for his own safety. B~ > Here's one: > http://www.prisonplanet.com/global-cooling-alaskan-glaciers-grow-for-first-tim [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > B~ Big Al is over his head and he knows it. Then again, what the heck, he's made is stash of money and i figure he'll quietly and gradually disappear. Signature"It's deja vu all over again" Yogi Berra > Here's one: > http://www.prisonplanet.com/global-cooling-alaskan-glaciers-grow-for-first-time- in-250-years.html How does the ice in one small area of the planet say anything about _global_ warming or cooling? > Al Gore has lost it mentally. Someone bait him with a pizza and put him in > a cell for his own safety. That's a credible judgment from you, a person who doesn't know the difference between local and global climate. >> Here's one: >> http://www.prisonplanet.com/global-cooling-alaskan-glaciers-grow-for-first-time- in-250-years.html [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > That's a credible judgment from you, a person who doesn't know the > difference between local and global climate. HUH?!?! Read that last sentence in your post and get back to me on it, OK? If the GLOBAL trend it for temps to go up, how does one area get cooler? It's either Global Warming, or it's not. Notice it got changed to Climate Change. Wonder why? (and don't say because Bush says so, because the BBC started using the term before he did...) > Here's one: > http://www.prisonplanet.com/global-cooling-alaskan-glaciers-grow-for-first-time- in-250-years.html [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > B~ You're banging your head against an empty, hollow wall, B~. Al Gore has told them what to think, and they can't depart from it, no matter what evidence, data, charts or graphs you point them to. >> Here's one: >> http://www.prisonplanet.com/global-cooling-alaskan-glaciers-grow-for-first-time- in-250-years.html [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Al Gore has told them what to think, and they can't depart from it, no > matter what evidence, data, charts or graphs you point them to. That's what happens when your followers are lemmings, like Joe, Joe, Gary, Art, Cathy, etc. Sir Charles the Curmudgeon > The latest science is that global warming is an alarmist term. Cite, without cherry picking. > It seems that science is embracing the idea that climate change > is normal and cyclical, One reason why man-caused global warming wasn't confirmed until about a generation ago was the cyclical nature of climate and solar output. Or do you honestly believed that all those scientists were ignoring all the blatantly obvious evidence, just as anti-evolutionists like to say that biologists have been ignoring thermodynamics? > and they are now setting about to study whether or not human influence plays > a role in exaserbating the normal cycle(s). They've been doing that a long, long time. >> The latest science is that global warming is an alarmist term. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > all the blatantly obvious evidence, just as anti-evolutionists like to > say that biologists have been ignoring thermodynamics? Wow! And little old Man is going to defy the Universe and make such a drastic change that cooling cycles will be ignored? Don't bet your Parka or your Long Johns on it... >> and they are now setting about to study whether or not human influence plays >> a role in exaserbating the normal cycle(s). > > They've been doing that a long, long time. 30 years as compared with 650,000 years worth of ice core samples that show otherwise. That may be your opinion but REAL earth scientist demand repeatable facts, not just evidence to support the consensus of a theory, to determine a scientific fact. What we hear today from the theorist is far from fact. By the way even the theorist do not use the term "Global Warming" anymore, because they know the Sothern hemisphere is cooling, they now refer to it as "Climate Change." > On Jan 29, 3:27 pm, "C. E. White" <cewhi...@removemindspring.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Jeff > On Jan 29, 3:27 pm, "C. E. White" <cewhi...@removemindspring.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > Yet, the vast majority of climate scientists do believe that global > warming is real, based on the evidence. There is more and more 'evidence' emerging that the climate has been cooling since 1997 or 98. > And, the evidenceis overwhelming and growing daily. You're right! The polar ice cap is growing again! > Jeff >> On Jan 29, 3:27 pm, "C. E. White" <cewhi...@removemindspring.com> >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > >> Jeff And Jeffy wonders why I have him on the ploink list. Another global warming/Algore lemming. Sir Charles the Curmudgeon >Yet, the vast majority of climate scientists do believe that global >warming is real, based on the evidence. cite time Jeffie..... SignatureScott in Florida >> Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Ed Not only that, but they are so far indebted to it they can't back out now and say, OOOOPS, we were wrong. You know, if they said, "Hey, we might have been wrong about Global Warming, but we still need to make an effort to clean the environment", I could handle that. But their egos won't let them admit they may have blown the whistle for no good reason, so they keep up the charade even though more evidence is emerging the worst has passed. > > It's funny how idiots always cite _local_ weather to disprove > > _global_ warming. > > Despite the claims of some, not everyone agrees that man made global > warming is a concern. Just as not everybody agreed that the cold fusion discovery of Pons & Fleischman was bogus. > The science is debatable, About as debatable as the flat Earth and round Earth theories are. > the supporting data at best inconclusive, That would astonish the scientific community. Really, because as the years go by, the evidence has been accumulating more for the pessimists than for the optimists. > and the projections of doom irresponsible. What's wrong with them, and why have the pessimistic ones been confirmed more than the optimistic ones? > It is well known that Al Gore's beloved song and dance included > erroneous information. It was very close to agreeing with the real experts. OTOH nobody should base his opinion of global warming on any politician's, whether that politician is on the left or right, or on any scientist working as a lobbyist. > It is also obvious that Al Gore is a hypocrite of monumental proportions. Sure, but so is almost anyone living on more than $1 a day. > The global warming fanatics say we must act now to prevent disaster. I > am more concerned that their desired actions will be far more > destructive than any man made changes in the environment. We don't want try silly things, like reduce CO2 emissions by ripping apart hydrocarbons and then putting them back together, or passing vehicle fuel economy standards full of loopholes. OTOH we shouldn't let China and India get away with whatever they want. It's a good thing that we can reduce global warming by introducing aerosols and fine particles into the stratosphere or even ionosphere to block or reflect sunlight, and it's probably safer than adding iron to the oceans, which could set off unexpected chain reactions that may be unstoppable. >> > It's funny how idiots always cite _local_ weather to disprove >> > _global_ warming. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > About as debatable as the flat Earth and round Earth theories are. Wanna bet? There is just as much evidence disproving GW as there is supporting it. Guess which gets the press coverage? What is even more amazing is the idiot that point to consensus as science to support their global warming theory. LOL > Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > It's funny how idiots always cite _local_ weather to disprove _global_ > warming. > What is even more amazing is the idiot that point to consensus as science to > support their global warming theory. LOL The consensus that global warming is real does not make it so. However, the facts are such that the data are overwhelming that global warming is real. Jeff > >> in the middle of an almost nation-wide snow/ice storm. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > It's funny how idiots always cite _local_ weather to disprove _global_ > > warming. >> What is even more amazing is the idiot that point to consensus as science to >> support their global warming theory. LOL [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Jeff A lot of is has been proved tainted. >> >> in the middle of an almost nation-wide snow/ice storm. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> > It's funny how idiots always cite _local_ weather to disprove _global_ >> > warming. > What is even more amazing is the idiot that point to consensus as science to > support their global warming theory. LOL Or worse, a politician who's painted himself so far in a corner he can't back out now for fear of being exposed as the fool he is. >> Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> It's funny how idiots always cite _local_ weather to disprove _global_ >> warming. >> What is even more amazing is the idiot that point to consensus as science to >> support their global warming theory. LOL > > Or worse, a politician who's painted himself so far in a corner he can't > back out now for fear of being exposed as the fool he is. Global warming alarmist? Fool? Welcome to redundancy. >>> What is even more amazing is the idiot that point to consensus as science to >>> support their global warming theory. LOL [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Welcome to redundancy. LOL! >> in the middle of an almost nation-wide snow/ice storm. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > It's funny how idiots always cite _local_ weather to disprove _global_ > warming. You're wrong, it's not funny. It's sad. >>> in the middle of an almost nation-wide snow/ice storm. >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > You're wrong, it's not funny. It's sad. Yes. It's really sad he didn't check the links and see the weather reports were from Texas, Arkansas and other places that are usually warm this time of year. And if either of you had followed the links you would have seen warnings for 2/3 of the country and 3/4 of Canada. But I don't expect a lot more of people who take Al Gore at face value. Not when it is snowing in New Orleans and in Las Vegas ;) >>> Hachiroku ???? wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > But I don't expect a lot more of people who take Al Gore at face value. >> in the middle of an almost nation-wide snow/ice storm. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > It's funny how idiots always cite _local_ weather to disprove _global_ > warming. Yes, isn't it? But I cited weather reports from all over the country, from Texas to Arkansas and beyond. In other words, 2/3 of the country was suffering from an icy blizzard. Didn't really look before running your yap, did you? NOTE: There were also reports for 3/4 of Canada. So the 'local weather' covered almost 1/2 half of the continent. Here! Have some more AlGore kool-aid! > in the middle of an almost nation-wide snow/ice storm. > > I didn't get any parts because the airport in TN was iced in, and even if > I did we got 6 inches of snow in three hours. > > Yup...their timing is marvelous. http://www.insurancebroadcasting.com/012909p10.jpg >> in the middle of an almost nation-wide snow/ice storm. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > http://www.insurancebroadcasting.com/012909p10.jpg Are you trying to get a bl.wj.b from a doggie? Sicko. > in the middle of an almost nation-wide snow/ice storm. > > I didn't get any parts because the airport in TN was iced in, and even if > I did we got 6 inches of snow in three hours. > > Yup...their timing is marvelous. Don't know what you're bitching about, mom will accept the package when ever it arrives. How is mom..? That woman is a saint.. >> in the middle of an almost nation-wide snow/ice storm. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Don't know what you're bitching about, mom will accept the package > when ever it arrives. How is mom..? That woman is a saint.. Why does this concern you so? > >> in the middle of an almost nation-wide snow/ice storm. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Why does this concern you so? Apparently global warming makes people hostile. Why are some repulicans so adamant about this issue. It shows how childish some people can be. But I guess when you live with your mom, you tend to have a 'child'ish bent. Al Gore is a democrat and he says there's global warming. So, some republicans have to attack him because the guy who was running against him wanted to make it a nonissue to win the election. Now all republicans everywhere seem to feel as if they have to continue to carry this burden to justify what they did to win that election. It doesn't make sense. You don't have to recite line by line the talking points of a party just because you're a member of that party, unless of course, you can't think for yourself..? Signed, A Republican... > It doesn't make sense. You don't have to recite line by line the > talking points of a party just because you're a member of that party, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > A Republican... I don't believe you're a Republican, because apparently you can think for yourself. It goes beyond Al Gore though. The reasons that so many Republicans started up with the junk science to try to cast doubt on global warming had nothing at all to do with what they actually believe. It all has to do with the policies they promote, and the companies that own them. Obviously a congressman or senator from Michigan is going to support the auto industries demands (however short-sighted they may be. Ditto for politicians in hock to the oil companies. It's no surprise that Bush/Cheney signed up with the junk science crowd. OMG, it's 25 degrees above normal this week in the Bay Area. That must mean that global warming is worse than we thought! > > It doesn't make sense. You don't have to recite line by line the > > talking points of a party just because you're a member of that party, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I don't believe you're a Republican, because apparently you can think > for yourself. There are many Republicans who can think for themselves. And many Democrats who cannot. A lot of people who voted in November did not know what the policies of McCain and Obama were. > It goes beyond Al Gore though. The reasons that so many Republicans > started up with the junk science to try to cast doubt on global warming > had nothing at all to do with what they actually believe. It all has to > do with the policies they promote, and the companies that own them. It also has to do with a way of thinking that what's good for GM or big business is good for America. > Obviously a congressman or senator from Michigan is going to support the > auto industries demands (however short-sighted they may be. Ditto for > politicians in hock to the oil companies. It's no surprise that > Bush/Cheney signed up with the junk science crowd. Although they did give lip service to climate change. However, they did little to deal with it. > OMG, it's 25 degrees above normal this week in the Bay Area. That must > mean that global warming is worse than we thought! And great weather for soccer and other outdoor sports! Jeff >> It doesn't make sense. You don't have to recite line by line the >> talking points of a party just because you're a member of that party, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I don't believe you're a Republican, because apparently you can think > for yourself. He hasn't proven it to me. You haven't either. Of course, Democrats (especially Liberal ones) have to bleat in unison with their leaders or they are shunned by the flock. The people who really do think for themselves are called haters, dissidents and stupid. Call me stupid...at least I'm not a sheeple. Ba-a-a-a-a-a-a-d SMS. Grow a brain. > It goes beyond Al Gore though. The reasons that so many Republicans > started up with the junk science to try to cast doubt on global warming > had nothing at all to do with what they actually believe. It all has to > do with the policies they promote, and the companies that own them. Bullshit. Nobody ownes me. I think for myself. Do some research for YOURSELF before coming after me. I've read the pros and the cons and looked at the data for myself, and more and more of it points to 'Global Warming' being Sheep sh.t. > Obviously a congressman or senator from Michigan is going to support the > auto industries demands (however short-sighted they may be. Ditto for [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > OMG, it's 25 degrees above normal this week in the Bay Area. That must > mean that global warming is worse than we thought! And it's been 10-15 degrees colder here than previous winters for almost 6 weeks now. On Jan 29, 11:06 pm, Hachiroku ???? <Tru...@e86.GTS> wrote: > On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 17:45:11 -0800, in2dadark wrote: > > On Jan 28, 11:53 pm, Hachiroku ???? <Tru...@e86.GTS> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Why does this concern you so? Apparently global warming makes people hostile. Why are some repulicans so adamant about this issue. It shows how childish some people can be. But I guess when you live with your mom, you tend to have a 'child'ish bent. Al Gore is a democrat and he says there's global warming. So, some republicans have to attack him because the guy who was running against him wanted to make it a nonissue to win the election. Now all republicans everywhere seem to feel as if they have to continue to carry this burden to justify what they did to win that election. It doesn't make sense. You don't have to recite line by line the talking points of a party just because you're a member of that party, unless of course, you can't think for yourself..? Signed, A Republican... A liberal is someone who has read Marx and Lenin. A conservative is someone who understands Marx and Lenin. Sir Charles the Curmudgeon On Jan 30, 4:03 pm, "CharlesTheCurmudgeon" > A liberal is someone who has read Marx and Lenin. > > A conservative is someone who understands Marx and Lenin. > > Sir Charles the Curmudgeon A moron is someone who makes an inappropriate argument... >> >> in the middle of an almost nation-wide snow/ice storm. >> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > A Republican... I certainly can think for myself. My 'attack' on Al Gore has nothing to do with who I listen to, what party I'm affiliated with (I'm not, BTW, I am an Independant...) or anything else except the one *fact* in all this that Al Gore is a Dumbass.. I took Geology two years in High School and three years in College. The only reason I didn't major in it is because I am not a Math whiz and excelled in other subjects. Geological history shows that there have been numerous warming and cooling periods throughout the existance of the Earth, with an Ice Age occurring every 10-15,000 years. The only thing is, there isn't much evidence to show how warm the Interglacial Periods were. We can tell how cold it got during the ice ages, but it's just a best guess. We CAN tell approximately how long ice ages have lasted, and they last longer than interglacial periods. It's funny, but a chart that was on the IPCC's web site supporting the above paragraph disappeared from the web site after people started using it to show just that. The last ice age was...drumroll please....just about 10,000 years ago. The data gleaned from ice core samples shows a number of things, the most interesting being that there is always a period of 'global warming' before an Ice Age, and that greenhouse gasses always increase prior to an ice age. The other interesting thing the ice core samples brought out was that it appears that the rise in temperature *precedes* the rise in greenhouse gasses. No wonder the IPCC removed it from their web site within a couple of months of when they posted it. It almost totally negates everything they're warning us about. The evidence 30 years ago was so overwhelming that I wrote a paper for my first college class in Geology about the cycles in climate and about how the temperate zones change through the ages. The teacher wrote on the paper that it was interesting, and although there was proof to show the Sahara was at one time like Europe, there wasn't enough data to substantiate some of the theories I presented. Well, the data is coming around, and it seems it was more than an educated guess on my part. Unfortunately, that's more than be said about a certain politician who ran with the ball...before catching it. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.