Clusterheadaches.com Message Board
        (http://www.clusterheadaches.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi)
      

        New Message Board Archives >> 2007 General Board Posts >> GLOBAL WARMING
        
(Message started by: lonedog on May 24th, 2007, 6:36pm)
Title: GLOBAL WARMING
Post by lonedog on May 24th, 2007, 6:36pm
HI:
Would some of you Happy Americans please send Al Gore and some of his Global Warming buddies up here. We got 8" of snow last nite and the temp. is just above freezing and I need help shoveling snow. If this is Global Warming I would hate to see it get cold.................Vern
Title: Re: GLOBAL WARMING
Post by john_d on May 24th, 2007, 6:42pm

Al's found a new cause...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=JnJCsSS73KU
Title: Re: GLOBAL WARMING
Post by BMoneeTheMoneeMan on May 24th, 2007, 6:45pm
I hear ya.
There is a mountain near me that has snow on it all year and people ski.  

You are in the Northern Rockies and you got snow?!?!  

Wow, Al Gore IS full of shit, huh?
Title: Re: GLOBAL WARMING
Post by Jonny on May 24th, 2007, 7:27pm

on 05/24/07 at 18:45:45, BMoneeTheMoneeMan wrote:
Wow, Al Gore IS full of shit, huh?


Yes, he is!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Io-Tb7vTamY
Title: Re: GLOBAL WARMING
Post by Paul98 on May 24th, 2007, 7:34pm
Global warming.........Al Gore invented it [smiley=laugh.gif] [smiley=laugh.gif] [smiley=laugh.gif]

-P.
Title: Re: GLOBAL WARMING
Post by Linda_Howell on May 24th, 2007, 7:40pm


  What was Al Gores electricity bill again for all of his houses?   His word means nothing to me.  :(

    I have one of those mountains that have snow on it all year long also Brian.  Care to go skiing? Snowboarding?  

Happy Americans, huh?
Title: Re: GLOBAL WARMING
Post by midwestbeth on May 25th, 2007, 10:17am
Everytime I hear about Al Gore and Global Warming I picture Chicken Little in my head running all over telling everyone the sky is falling  ::).

Beth
Title: Re: GLOBAL WARMING
Post by MikkaB on May 25th, 2007, 10:18am
OK here's the thing about Global Warming - if it's not real (and I don't buy that for a minute) what's the harm in reducing carbon emissions?

However if it is real, and people don't change their behaviors, we're doomed.  The planet is not doomed, mind you.  Life will go on, some way somehow.  Just not life as we know it.


Why risk it?
Title: Re: GLOBAL WARMING
Post by fubar on May 25th, 2007, 2:00pm
That's a fine argument there, Mike.

Only it's not as binary as that.

Are you saying that we should all embrace chicken little because even if he's wrong, only good comes from the actions we take?

Al Gore (mr. carbon BigFootprint himself) keeps referring to this as a failure of the 'administration'.  Who is he talking about?  Chinese administrators?  Russia?

How can we have *ANY* measurable effect on the carbon footprint of this world when China brings a new coal-fired plant online about every 3 day when America hasn't built even one refinery in over 30 years (that's about 11000 days)

I think it's nonsense.  Nobody who disagrees with Al is saying that reducing energy consumption is a bad thing.  Making America weak by imposing nonsensical laws is just stupid.  If Al got his way, we would be part of the Kyoto treaty.
Title: Re: GLOBAL WARMING
Post by Paul98 on May 25th, 2007, 2:23pm

on 05/25/07 at 10:18:52, MikkaB wrote:
OK here's the thing about Global Warming - if it's not real (and I don't buy that for a minute) what's the harm in reducing carbon emissions?

However if it is real, and people don't change their behaviors, we're doomed.  The planet is not doomed, mind you.  Life will go on, some way somehow.  Just not life as we know it.


Why risk it?


Doomed?  Change is the engine that drives adaptation.  Adaptation is what ALL life on earth has thrived on.

Take your gloom and doom scenario and go back 12,000 years.  Lots of global warming going on then!  In fact so much warming went on that the ice sheets that covered much of North America are gone!  Didn't hurt life on earth to much from what I can see.  In fact it thrived.  Things change and life adapts.  End of story.

Conservation of energy and resources if fine but remember that knee jerk reactionism is sometimes worse in the long run.  Case in point...MBTE that was shoved down the publics throat by the politicians in the name of the environment....funny how THEY are responsible for polluting huge tracts of ground water with their knee jerk legislation.

-P.
Title: Re: GLOBAL WARMING
Post by MikkaB on May 25th, 2007, 3:27pm
well I don't think it's knee-jerk reactionism.  And adaptation happens over many generations.  Climate change is happening faster than it has in the past.

I don't think it's a chicken little scenario, either.  

As far as your China argument, we can only be responsible for ourselves.  

What "nonsensical" laws do you mean?  And how will that make America weak?

It's Mikka, btw, not Mike.  or Dianna, which is my real name.
Title: Re: GLOBAL WARMING
Post by Maffumatt on May 25th, 2007, 5:26pm
funny that they are finding human artifacts where glaciers just retreated, esp since the ice was suppose to be there for hundreds of thousands of years. I believe in good stewardship of our resources, but the global warming frenzy is just media sensationalism. Bad science, and a way for you to change the way you live, even though those who preach it don't follow their own advice. They are better than you. Do as I say, not as I do.
Title: Re: GLOBAL WARMING
Post by Brewcrew on May 25th, 2007, 5:36pm
Global warming, as put forth by the fringe wacko left (for whom Algore is nothing short of God on Earth) is 100% politics. Those who refuse to see it have been sucked in by it and cannot admit they've been sucked in.
Title: Re: GLOBAL WARMING
Post by Kevin_M on May 25th, 2007, 5:41pm


As long as you can save your posts and thoughts on the subject and very, very proudly hand them to your great-great grandchildren so they can see the rationale for justification to debunk it all, without a return look of disbelieving embarassment from them, that will be a telling tale.
Title: Re: GLOBAL WARMING
Post by Jonny on May 25th, 2007, 6:09pm

on 05/25/07 at 17:26:05, Maffumatt wrote:
even though those who preach it don't follow their own advice.  


Yeah, Als electric bill in his mansion is something like $1500 a month, mine is about $80 a month and I have a three bedroom house.

Theres already talk of taxing SUV drivers more than car owners.....Al dont mind, hes a fucking millionare!

Unfucking real what some peolpe will be sucked into!!!!!
Title: Re: GLOBAL WARMING
Post by Paul98 on May 25th, 2007, 6:39pm

on 05/25/07 at 15:27:50, MikkaB wrote:
well I don't think it's knee-jerk reactionism.  And adaptation happens over many generations.  Climate change is happening faster than it has in the past.

I don't think it's a chicken little scenario, either.  

As far as your China argument, we can only be responsible for ourselves.  

What "nonsensical" laws do you mean?  And how will that make America weak?

It's Mikka, btw, not Mike.  or Dianna, which is my real name.


Past decade?  Perhaps.  Past 150 years?  Perhaps.  Past 10,000 years...doubtful.   Past 500,000 years?   Do you have a refrence from a refereed publication to augment your statement?

-P.
Title: Re: GLOBAL WARMING
Post by Charlie on May 25th, 2007, 7:05pm
I'll wait for more from Steven Hawking.

Charlie
Title: Re: GLOBAL WARMING
Post by fubar on May 25th, 2007, 7:47pm
Sorry Dianna, I didn't mean to get your name wrong.

Nonsensical laws... how about laws that force higher production costs on the US manufacturers because ofsome boogyman?

Sometimes I think the liberals (oh God, I said liberal) just want to 'level the playing field' so that we don't offend the world with our success.  God forbid.
Title: Re: GLOBAL WARMING
Post by Kevin_M on May 25th, 2007, 8:00pm

on 05/25/07 at 19:05:22, Charlie wrote:
I'll wait for more from Steven Hawking.


The figuring of mass into gamma radiation through the use of black holes for recycling didn't make the list of Earth Day 1974 innovations.   ;)
Title: Re: GLOBAL WARMING
Post by Charlie on May 25th, 2007, 8:29pm
Uhhhhh.... OK  http://www.netsync.net/users/charlies/gifs/beanie.gif

Charlie
Title: Re: GLOBAL WARMING
Post by stevegeebe on May 25th, 2007, 10:40pm
Oh!...Okay. let's title a thread about potential consequences of human activity in an unprecented time of over-population and energy depletion of the Planet and the inability of said Planet to support that unfortunate circumstance beyond the next several of generations.  And, furthermore, lets attach Al Gore to it.

Easy pick'ins Peeps.

Should what "independent thinkers" are saying by simple scientific observations is true, than things are indeed in flux. The Greenland Ice, North Polar reigon and the Anartic ice shelf are depositing large amounts of fresh water into the Worlds oceans. That's a fact. Observation is simple Science.

One possible result of this fact is that the Worlds natural Global ocean current will be affected. Ironically, one of the possible manafestations of this disruption (of the Gulf Stream), due to enormous amounts of fresh water discharge into the Atlantic, may have radical impact to the climate Europe. It is predicted that Europe could slowly plung into an Ice Age. Interesting. Global warming ..indeed.

Don't discount the uncomfortable observations by many others by attaching an easy target to a potentially serious event. If Mr. Gore turns out to be the biggest blowhard canary in the cage, than so be it.

Now..everybody...stop farting.

Change is the one and only constant.

Steve G
Title: Re: GLOBAL WARMING
Post by lonedog on May 25th, 2007, 11:32pm
HEY YOU AMERICANS:

All I wanted was some help getting rid of my snow, I didn't mean to start a continent wide debate, besides the sun came out, the snow left and it's +18 (Woops that's 65 to you non- metrics). Maybe it was GLOBAL WARMING.............Vern
Title: Re: GLOBAL WARMING
Post by Charlie on May 26th, 2007, 12:52am
Those in denial are George Bush and his lamebrained friends from places like Kansas and other red states populated with politicos, that would like us to believe that Fred Flintstone's riding dinosaurs is history.

That about says it all for me.

Charlie
Title: Re: GLOBAL WARMING
Post by john_d on May 26th, 2007, 9:06am

on 05/25/07 at 23:32:07, lonedog wrote:
HEY YOU AMERICANS:

All I wanted was some help getting rid of my snow, I didn't mean to start a continent wide debate, besides the sun came out, the snow left and it's +18 (Woops that's 65 to you non- metrics). Maybe it was GLOBAL WARMING.............Vern


HEY YOU CANADIAN:  people talk about whatever the f they want, don't start a thread if you don't want spontaneous replys
Title: Re: GLOBAL WARMING
Post by Margi on May 26th, 2007, 9:29am
whoa there, John - don't pick on Vern.  He lives about an hour and a half northwest of me and, believe it or not, getting snow in May ISN't the norm in Canada.  I know all y'all think we're pretty much igloo bound wearing sealskin boots most of the year but...when we get ripped off for our summer - we have every right to bitch about it.  Vern's probably trying to get his branding done this time of the year too and these freak snowstorms really mess things up for our ranchers.  

Vern, I hear ya man.  This was a sucky week here!  7000 trees down here in Calgary from that white crap the other day!  I saw a tree fall on a minivan and all the windows popped out.  I've got my annuals all in too and, luckily, only lost a couple.  Gorgeous day today - we're supposed to hit 20° today (that's about 72° in the old system).  Mike's building us a beautiful new cedar deck right now and this weather really slowed him up this week.  He's screwing the boards on today though!
Title: Re: GLOBAL WARMING
Post by lonedog on May 26th, 2007, 2:05pm
Thanks Margi:

Just sort of meant it as a joke but I guess some people didn't see it that way.

By the way. you wouldn't happening to be planning a camp trip out west like you did a couple of years ago when some of the CHers met. If you are I would love to come............Vern
Title: Re: GLOBAL WARMING
Post by Jonny on May 26th, 2007, 2:10pm

on 05/26/07 at 14:06:25, lonedog wrote:
DIDN'T THINK THE FIRST ONE WENT.....SORRY...VERN


Try hitting the remove button in the top right corner of the post!  ::)
Title: Re: GLOBAL WARMING
Post by john_d on May 26th, 2007, 4:33pm
sorry, HEY YOU AMERICANS is too often accompanied by pointing fingers, I guess I am too ready to put my foot in the ass of the next person who blames America for their problems.  FYI caps is usually for yelling.


on 05/26/07 at 14:05:12, lonedog wrote:
Thanks Margi:

Just sort of meant it as a joke but I guess some people didn't see it that way.

By the way. you wouldn't happening to be planning a camp trip out west like you did a couple of years ago when some of the CHers met. If you are I would love to come............Vern
Title: Re: GLOBAL WARMING
Post by Opus on May 28th, 2007, 12:27pm
Check out  The Great global warming swindle (http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/) for some rebuttals of the global warming camp. I know that a some of the show is not based of facts but they do make some good points.

Paul
Title: Re: GLOBAL WARMING
Post by Charlie on May 28th, 2007, 8:41pm

Quote:
I know that a some of the show is not based of facts but they do make some good points


You're not kidding. He's largely reviled in Britain by those who know better and has a history of using old or very iffy data.

The idea that you might be able to do something...no matter how insignificant, ain't a bad thing though and it can be fun for yuppie boomers. A lot of money is being made on this too. It's too costly for me.

Only in America are we asked to rely on George Bush's stellar science denier appointees and of course the energy lobby for reassurance that things are just fine and not to worry.  

It's sorta like my neighbor who acturally believes some article he read that the reason gas is now so expensive is because the oil companies have to spend so much money on "mixing." for us ungrateful consumers.

Charlie
Title: Re: GLOBAL WARMING
Post by Maffumatt on May 28th, 2007, 10:13pm
funny how liberals have George Bush behind everything. Well everything but illegal immigration, one of the things he really oughta have his ass hung out to dry for.
Title: Re: GLOBAL WARMING
Post by Charlie on May 28th, 2007, 10:33pm
The reason liberals pick on Bush is because he went out of his way to replace education, science, medicine and reasearch appointees with incompetents....many to appease religious voters. It's like nothing in my lifetime.

JFK had the New Frontier,  W.'s presidency rushes backward, stifling possibilities, confusing church with state, blowing off the world, replacing science with religion, It's faith-based intelligence and dangerous as hell.

Charlie
Title: Re: GLOBAL WARMING
Post by Brewcrew on May 28th, 2007, 10:39pm

on 05/28/07 at 22:33:12, Charlie wrote:
The reason liberals pick on Bush is because he went out of his way to replace education, science, medicine and reasearch appointees with incompetents....many to appease religious voters. It's like nothing in my lifetime.

You mean like Bill Clinton single-handedly replacing the entire federal judiciary?

C'mon, Charlie. That happened in your lifetime.
Title: Re: GLOBAL WARMING
Post by Kevin_M on May 28th, 2007, 11:10pm

on 05/28/07 at 20:41:32, Charlie wrote:
You're not kidding. He's largely reviled in Britain by those who know better and has a history of using old or very iffy data.


British Scientists Move to Block "Swindle" DVD
Scientists Move to block 'Swindle' DVD

· Climate scientists say film misleads public
· Wag TV producers reject 'contemptible gag attempt'

The Guardian (U.K.), April 25, 2007

Dozens of climate scientists are trying to block the DVD release of a controversial Channel 4 programme that claimed global warming is nothing to do with human greenhouse gas emissions.
...
Sir John Houghton, former head of the Met Office, and Bob May, former president of the Royal Society, are among 37 experts who have called for the DVD to be heavily edited or removed from sale. The film, the Great Global Warming Swindle, was first shown on March 8, and was criticised by scientists as distorted and misleading.
...
In an open letter to Martin Durkin, head of Wag TV, the independent production company that made the film, the scientists say: "We believe that the misrepresentation of facts and views, both of which occur in your programme, are so serious that repeat broadcasts of the programme, without amendment, are not in the public interest ... In fact, so serious and fundamental are the misrepresentations that the distribution of the DVD of the programme without their removal amounts to nothing more than an exercise in misleading the public."
...

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


on 05/28/07 at 20:41:32, Charlie wrote:
Only in America are we asked to rely on George Bush's stellar science denier appointees and of course the energy lobby for reassurance that things are just fine and not to worry.


Harlan Watson ExxonMobil's Choice to Represent the U.S.
Climate Official's Work Is Questioned

The Washington Post, Dec. 5, 2005
...

Environmentalists are unhappy with the job the lead U.S. climate negotiator, Harlan Watson, has been doing in the ongoing Montreal talks on how to combat global warming.
...
A Feb. 6, 2001, fax sent to the White House by oil giant Exxon Mobil proposed involving Watson more closely in international climate negotiations.

----------


Cooney Moves from White House to ExxonMobil
Ex-Bush Aide Who Edited Climate Reports to Join ExxonMobil

The New York Times, Andrew C. Revkin, June 15, 2005

...
Philip A. Cooney, the White House staff member who repeatedly revised government scientific reports on global warming, will go to work for ExxonMobil in the fall, the oil company said today.
...
Mr. Cooney resigned on Friday as chief of staff to President Bush's environmental policy council, two days after documents obtained by The New York Times showed that he had edited the reports in ways that cast doubt on the link between greenhouse-gas emissions and rising temperatures.
...
A former lawyer and lobbyist with the American Petroleum Institute, the main lobbying group for the oil industry, Mr. Cooney has no scientific training.

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

Administration Taps Lee Raymond to Chart US Energy Future
Bush Administration Appointment of Exxon's Lee Raymond Draws Public Protest

www.Exxpose Exxon.com, Oct. 25, 2006


Lee Raymond, chair of the National Petroleum Council, is to provide the administration with policy recommendations for the long-term direction of the nation's energy policy. As chair, Mr. Raymond was granted the power to handpick the study's leadership.
...
The study is to provide the administration with policy options that assess, "the potential contribution of conservation, efficiency, alternative energy sources, and technology advances."
...
Title: Re: GLOBAL WARMING
Post by Charlie on May 29th, 2007, 1:18am

Quote:
You mean like Bill Clinton single-handedly replacing the entire federal judiciary?


Same old thing. Bush is perfect...... It's Clinton's fault again. Bush waited until these men refused to play politics and wouldn't admit it.  What Clinton did, and in the open, is nothing new. Lying about it and defending incompetents like Gonzo is.

Charlie
Title: Re: GLOBAL WARMING
Post by Brewcrew on May 29th, 2007, 7:07am

on 05/29/07 at 01:18:40, Charlie wrote:
Same old thing. Bush is perfect...... It's Clinton's fault again.

That's bullshit and you know it. I was merely pointing out that your claim that Bush's replacing certain key people with his own is not anywhere near as unprecendented as you would like us to believe.
Title: Re: GLOBAL WARMING
Post by MikkaB on May 29th, 2007, 11:27am

on 05/25/07 at 19:47:10, fubar wrote:
Sorry Dianna, I didn't mean to get your name wrong.

Nonsensical laws... how about laws that force higher production costs on the US manufacturers because ofsome boogyman?

Sometimes I think the liberals (oh God, I said liberal) just want to 'level the playing field' so that we don't offend the world with our success.  God forbid.


When US Corporate CEOs make around 400% more than the average worker, I have a hard time buying the "higher production costs" argument.  Yes, I realize that I am overgeneralizing.  But I disagree with your statement about liberals.  I'm as liberal as they come, but I'm not concerned about offending the world with our so-called success (which really depends on your definition of success; if it's money, maybe, but if it's happiness, Americans are more unhappy than people in most other industrialized countries http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2007/03/reversal_of_fortune.html).  Global warming, climate change, whatever you want to call it, is not a boogyman.  A majority of scientists agree that it is a real issue, and the rest of the developed world is taking it seriously.  Why isn't the US?  Probably because Big Oil is in charge in the US.

Sorry about your snow, lonedog.
Title: Re: GLOBAL WARMING
Post by seasonalboomer on May 29th, 2007, 12:06pm

on 05/29/07 at 11:27:01, MikkaB wrote:
..... maybe, but if it's happiness, Americans are more unhappy than people in most other industrialized countries http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2007/03/reversal_of_fortune.html).  



No one asked me. I'm pretty darn happy, and I'm American.
Don't believe everything you read in Mother Jones......

Scott


;;D
Title: Re: GLOBAL WARMING
Post by Paul98 on May 29th, 2007, 12:21pm

on 05/29/07 at 11:27:01, MikkaB wrote:
When US Corporate CEOs make around 400% more than the average worker, I have a hard time buying the "higher production costs" argument.  Yes, I realize that I am overgeneralizing.  But I disagree with your statement about liberals.  I'm as liberal as they come, but I'm not concerned about offending the world with our so-called success (which really depends on your definition of success; if it's money, maybe, but if it's happiness, Americans are more unhappy than people in most other industrialized countries http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2007/03/reversal_of_fortune.html).  Global warming, climate change, whatever you want to call it, is not a boogyman.  A majority of scientists agree that it is a real issue, and the rest of the developed world is taking it seriously.  Why isn't the US?  Probably because Big Oil is in charge in the US.

Sorry about your snow, lonedog.


Dianna, to what extent do you feel the US should change its ways to lessen the global warming emergency?  Should the people of the US stop having children?  How bout forbidding any ground transportation.  Heating our dwellings is a real big energy user so lets burn dung for heating and cooking.  Where do you draw the line as to what to cut?

Your statement of "a majority of scientists agree that it is a real issue” is a false statement.  The media has done a fine job of fomenting climate change and they have selectively chosen pseudo science as their temple of worship.  Meteorologists are not scientists.  Geologists and paleontologists are scientists.  If you read the science articles from these scientists you get a much better picture of climate change and one much different than what is pimped in the news.  

I’m still waiting for the references to refereed publications I asked about in my earlier post. :)

-P.
Title: Re: GLOBAL WARMING
Post by Brewcrew on May 29th, 2007, 12:21pm

on 05/29/07 at 11:27:01, MikkaB wrote:
A majority of scientists agree that it is a real issue, and the rest of the developed world is taking it seriously.

It might be a real issue, but being caused by man? You don't have a majority of anybody behind that arrogant notion.

If it's real (most agree that it is), but not caused by man, what is the real point of "doing something about it?"

I'll tell you what it is - it's politics, scare tactics, and arrogance. "The globe might be heating up a little bit, but there's no concensus that it is caused by man, and we need to do something about it."

What is it that the Algore's of the world propose we do about it? And why? Can nobody on the left admit that we might just be in the upturn of a geologic cycle?

I'm just waiting for that point in the future that the Chicken Littles say is the point of no return (something like 10 or 15 years from now). I really want to hear what they have to say then.
Title: Re: GLOBAL WARMING
Post by MikkaB on May 29th, 2007, 12:35pm
I've seen plenty of info in plenty of publications but I don't have time (I screw around enough at work  ;)) to look it all up right  now.  

No one who is in the anti-global warming camp would believe it anyway, so why bother?

I guess time will tell who is right.
Title: Re: GLOBAL WARMING
Post by Redd on May 29th, 2007, 12:38pm

on 05/29/07 at 12:21:10, Brewcrew wrote:
I'm just waiting for that point in the future that the Chicken Littles say is the point of no return (something like 10 or 15 years from now). I really want to hear what they have to say then.


If the Myan Calendar is correct we only have until December of 2012 anyway.  Global warming is a non-issue.  ;)
Title: Re: GLOBAL WARMING
Post by BarbaraD on May 29th, 2007, 12:53pm
Well, I for one am convinced that the Globe is actually getting hotter - at least in Texas.

Fact is -- when I was a kid Texas was hot, but we didn't have to have a/c (think we had an attic fan) - we left the windows open and when morning came the kids hit the outside and stayed out all day. By the end of summer we were as dark as some of these "guest workers" coming in today. No one had heat strokes much, cars didn't need a/c or nothin'. Never heard of sunscreen.

then it started heatin' up and we HAD to get a/c in our houses, come in during the really hot part of the day, wear hats when we went out in the sun, turn our cars on before we got in them.

Today we can't even sit on the porch till the sun goes down cause it's just too blame hot out there.

So I guess maybe the scientists are right about something after all.....

Hugs BD
Title: Re: GLOBAL WARMING
Post by Paul98 on May 29th, 2007, 12:54pm

on 05/29/07 at 12:35:29, MikkaB wrote:
I've seen plenty of info in plenty of publications but I don't have time (I screw around enough at work  ;)) to look it all up right  now.  

No one who is in the anti-global warming camp would believe it anyway, so why bother?

I guess time will tell who is right.


Dianna, with all due respect, if you are going to spew the mantra then back it up!  

I suggest you research the Maunder Minimum and it's relation in time with respect to earth's temperature.

BTW/ saying no one will listen so why bother; is probably the lamest excuse for not putting forth the effort to back up a statement.  It is lefty speak for "I have no supporting evidence for what blows out my back side."

-P.
Title: Re: GLOBAL WARMING
Post by seasonalboomer on May 29th, 2007, 1:06pm
Does no one want to debate whether I am actually, truly happy or not?
This afternoon I am participating only in myopic issues only. If it's not about me, then i'm not interested, and then only to the extent that any other topic can be made to seem as though it is about me, in which case it would be much clearer to say something like, "Scott, was it warm at your house this weekend?" To which I'll probably say something like, "yes, it was nice and warm, couldn't have been better." Or maybe, Scott, what do you think of CO2 emissions? Then I'll probably say something like, "I haven't really seen any around my house, and I was outside in the beautiful warm sunshine all weekend. In fact I even got sunburned. But I'll let you know if I see any bad CO2 emissions."

Does everyone understand. It is about me me me me.

Scott - another happy American

Does anyone else like Sam Adams Summer Ale? I do! (Your reply would be under the guidelines I have set up, "Yes we like it just like you do, Scott".

;;D
Title: Re: GLOBAL WARMING
Post by Brewcrew on May 29th, 2007, 1:31pm

on 05/29/07 at 12:35:29, MikkaB wrote:
I've seen plenty of info in plenty of publications but I don't have time (I screw around enough at work  ;)) to look it all up right  now.  

No one who is in the anti-global warming camp would believe it anyway, so why bother?

I guess time will tell who is right.

You didn't read what I wrote.

I said that many agree that the overall temp of the globe is actually rising slightly.

What they disagree on is the cause (man or Ma Nature).
Title: Re: GLOBAL WARMING
Post by Brewcrew on May 29th, 2007, 1:32pm

on 05/29/07 at 13:06:28, seasonalboomer wrote:
Does no one want to debate whether I am actually, truly happy or not?
This afternoon I am participating only in myopic issues only. If it's not about me, then i'm not interested, and then only to the extent that any other topic can be made to seem as though it is about me, in which case it would be much clearer to say something like, "Scott, was it warm at your house this weekend?" To which I'll probably say something like, "yes, it was nice and warm, couldn't have been better." Or maybe, Scott, what do you think of CO2 emissions? Then I'll probably say something like, "I haven't really seen any around my house, and I was outside in the beautiful warm sunshine all weekend. In fact I even got sunburned. But I'll let you know if I see any bad CO2 emissions."

Does everyone understand. It is about me me me me.

Scott - another happy American

Does anyone else like Sam Adams Summer Ale? I do! (Your reply would be under the guidelines I have set up, "Yes we like it just like you do, Scott".

;;D

I don't want to engage in a debate about this at all, bro. You have convinced me. ;;D
Title: Re: GLOBAL WARMING
Post by Kevin_M on May 29th, 2007, 1:51pm
http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070205/full/445578a.html

The debate is no longer about whether we can believe the numbers, but what we should do about them.




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

The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies.

Review is an essential part of the IPCC process. Since the IPCC is an intergovernmental body, review of IPCC documents should involve both peer review by experts and review by governments.[5]

The stated aims of the IPCC are to assess scientific information relevant to:

* human-induced climate change,

* the impacts of human-induced climate change,

* options for adaptation and mitigation.






Quote:
Most of (>50% of) the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (confidence level >90%) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations.
Title: Re: GLOBAL WARMING
Post by Brewcrew on May 29th, 2007, 2:35pm

on 05/29/07 at 13:51:53, Kevin_M wrote:
IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies.

They should be, but they're not. Just another branch of the complicit media. This is their cover statement.
Title: Re: GLOBAL WARMING
Post by Kevin_M on May 29th, 2007, 2:42pm

on 05/29/07 at 14:35:29, Brewcrew wrote:
Just another branch of the complicit media.



The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established in 1988 by two United Nations organizations, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), to evaluate the risk of climate change brought on by humans, based mainly on peer reviewed and published scientific/technical literature.[1] The Panel is only open to members of the WMO and UNEP.



[1] ^ The IPCC does not carry out research nor does it monitor climate related data or other relevant parameters. It bases its assessment mainly on peer reviewed and published scientific/technical literature

(mainly the different studies of about 1200 scientists worldwide)
Title: Re: GLOBAL WARMING
Post by Brewcrew on May 29th, 2007, 3:04pm

on 05/29/07 at 14:42:56, Kevin_M wrote:
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established in 1988 by two United Nations organizations, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)

That's all anyone needs to know.
Title: Re: GLOBAL WARMING
Post by Kevin_M on May 29th, 2007, 3:11pm


I think Scott is doing ok too but should think about sunscreen.     ;)
Title: Re: GLOBAL WARMING
Post by Redd on May 29th, 2007, 3:21pm

on 05/29/07 at 14:42:56, Kevin_M wrote:
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established in 1988 by two United Nations organizations, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), to evaluate the risk of climate change brought on by humans, based mainly on peer reviewed and published scientific/technical literature.[1] The Panel is only open to members of the WMO and UNEP.



[1] ^ The IPCC does not carry out research nor does it monitor climate related data or other relevant parameters. It bases its assessment mainly on peer reviewed and published scientific/technical literature

(mainly the different studies of about 1200 scientists worldwide)



Firstly, this already shows bias.

Secondly, if they do not conduct research, how can any of the peer written suppositions and theorys be confirmed?

Thirdly, "mainly" ?  Without doing research to confirm the suppositions, what other criteria do they have to base any opinion on?  

"It sounds good to me."  ...isn't gonna cut it.
Title: Re: GLOBAL WARMING
Post by Kevin_M on May 29th, 2007, 3:34pm

Quote:
The IPCC does not carry out research nor does it monitor climate related data or other relevant parameters.



I would think peer review of the studies would make them substantially fit to be objective data and being distanced from the data gathering would make them less biased toward compiled observations, which is what they would be examining.  Just my opinion though.




Quote:
Firstly, this already shows bias.


Many aspects are taken into consideration as causes, it appears man has more of an effect than all of them combined, >50%, to >90% confidence level in the observation of human created greenhouse gases, or something like that.


Quote:
The probability that this is caused by natural climatic processes alone is less than 5%.


Title: Re: GLOBAL WARMING
Post by Paul98 on May 29th, 2007, 4:15pm
About the IPCC  

"The Panel is only open to members of the WMO and UNEP"

That says a mouth full.

-P.
Title: Re: GLOBAL WARMING
Post by Kevin_M on May 29th, 2007, 5:16pm
I am not sure which countries should be kicked out and what countries should be put in their stead that would make it more accurate.




Quote:
people from over 130 countries contributed to the IPCC 4AR over the previous 6 years. These people included:

2500+ scientific expert reviewers
850+ Contributing authors
450+ lead authors.
Of these, the contributors to the Working Group 1 report (including the summary for policy makers) included [10]

600 authors from 40 countries
Over 620 expert reviewers
A large number of government reviewers
Representatives from 113 governments.





on 05/29/07 at 16:15:01, Paul98 wrote:
"The Panel is only open to members of the WMO and UNEP"


It is open to all members of the UN and WMO.

http://www.ipcc.ch/about/about.htm
Title: Re: GLOBAL WARMING
Post by Charlie on May 29th, 2007, 10:02pm

Quote:
That's bullshit and you know it. I was merely pointing out that your claim that Bush's replacing certain key people with his own is not anywhere near as unprecendented as you would like us to believe.


Not to overdo this but Clinton didn't go out of his way to hire such stunning academics for the justice system as the 150 graduates of Pat Robertson's law school that Bush is so happy with. Goodling is one.

Anyway: The global warming story is one of those things that pop up in every generation. Some people just don't like anything they need help understanding or that gets in the way of a very narrow view of the world or profits. The latter is our specialty.  

Someone must have twisted the arm of occupier of the White House to admit that it probably is true. Knock me over with a feather.

It doesn't matter really but green stuff is fun on many levels no matter the guilt. The environment is cool with gen x and y even more than with us boomers. It's a bit like the belated acceptance of sexual orientation as a given by our kids. They do some stuff better.

Charlie
Title: Re: GLOBAL WARMING
Post by Brewcrew on May 29th, 2007, 10:49pm
Sorry, Charlie, but given the news of Helen's health, I just don't feel much like arguing about this anymore. Maybe later. I don't know. I'm sure you understand.
Title: Re: GLOBAL WARMING
Post by Charlie on May 30th, 2007, 1:36am
Me too. I wrote it previous to learning of it.

Charlie
Title: Re: GLOBAL WARMING
Post by MikkaB on May 30th, 2007, 10:49am

on 05/29/07 at 12:54:46, Paul98 wrote:
Dianna, with all due respect, if you are going to spew the mantra then back it up!  

I suggest you research the Maunder Minimum and it's relation in time with respect to earth's temperature.

BTW/ saying no one will listen so why bother; is probably the lamest excuse for not putting forth the effort to back up a statement.  It is lefty speak for "I have no supporting evidence for what blows out my back side."

-P.


Did I lie?  You all seem to be saying that since the IPCC was established by the UN, that's reason enough to discount its findings.

How about NASA?  is that good enough?

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/GlobalWarming/


I just don't see the point in arguing back and forth.  I see it my way, you see it your way.  No matter what evidence I present, someone who doesn't agree will find some reason, no matter how asinine, to discount it.


OK I'm done with this thread now.  I seem to turn into a giant not a very nice person when I argue politics and that is not who I am at all.  
Title: Re: GLOBAL WARMING
Post by seasonalboomer on May 30th, 2007, 11:11am
I'm happy and nice. And not arguing at all.

8)

Scott


Clusterheadaches.com Message Board » Powered by YaBB 1 Gold - SP 1.3.1!
YaBB © 2000-2003. All Rights Reserved.