More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent (Global warming merged)

[Bewolf]

There:

http://kreuzdepot.com/pics/diverses/globalwarming.jpg


We told you all along.

[Digital_Trucker]

Who was it that said global warming was a bad thing?:D

[Diopos]

Nope... It only proves that our grandgrandgrand-mothers were very modest and our daughters are very...popular?:hmm:

[Bewolf]

I prefer the term "progressive" :arrgh!:

[Raptor1]

Does this thing has a regular schedule in which it comes up, or does it just pop at random intervals?

[Bewolf]

Does this thing has a regular schedule in which it comes up, or does it just pop at random intervals?

You mean other threads making fun of topics done to death?
Dunno. Requires basic humor to recognize these, I suppose ;)

[TDK1044]

The picture also sums up sales trends in the US auto industry. :D

[Raptor1]

Does this thing has a regular schedule in which it comes up, or does it just pop at random intervals?
You mean other threads making fun of topics done to death?
Dunno. Requires basic humor to recognize these, I suppose ;)
No, I meant that picture (I saw it quite a few times on this forum, I think, I know I did at least once)

[August]

Yeah that has to be one of the most posted pictures in the forum but that's ok because it is still funny...

[Sailor Steve]

Agreed: it is quite the oldie, but still quite the goodie!

[SUBMAN1]

I wonder how the UN and Al Gore are going to respond to this one? Their own are even giving them the finger this time! Paying attention Skybird? Still beleive what the UN tells you? Still believe what the NOAA and NASA is spoon feeding you? Hahahaha!

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6

-S

POZNAN, Poland - The UN global warming conference currently underway in Poland is about to face a serious challenge from over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe who are criticizing the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore. Set for release this week, a newly updated U.S. Senate Minority Report features the dissenting voices of over 650 international scientists, many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN. The report has added about 250 scientists (and growing) in 2008 to the over 400 scientists who spoke (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport)out in 2007 (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport). The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=595F6F41-802A-23AD-4BC4-B364B623ADA3) (52) who authored the media hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.....

[SUBMAN1]

I forgot to mention - this is from our own Government this time. I'm quite curious how you are going to discredit them, but I'll be watching.... :D

-S

[Stealth Hunter]

We know that:


• Average temperatures have climbed 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit around the world since 1880, much of this in recent decades. NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies has confirmed this.

• The rate of warming is increasing. The 20th century's last two decades were the hottest in 400 years and possibly the warmest for several millennia, as shown by climatology scientists. The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports that 11 of the past 12 years are among the dozen warmest since 1850. This statistic was likewise confirmed by NASA.

• Average temperatures in Alaska, western Canada, and eastern Russia have risen at twice the global average, according to the multinational Arctic Climate Impact Assessment report compiled between 2000 and 2004. Once again, NASA investigated and confirmed this.

• Arctic ice is disappearing at an alarming rate, and the region may have its first completely ice-free summer by the year 2040 or even earlier. To add to this, polar bears and other native species are already suffering from the sea-ice loss.

• Glaciers and mountain snows are rapidly melting. For instance, Montana's glacier park now has only 27 glaciers, compared to the 150 that existed in 1910. In the Northern Hemisphere, thaws a week earlier than usual and freezes end a week later than usual.

• Coral reefs suffered the worst bleaching since 1998 (when they're destroyed by stress from temperature change), with some areas seeing bleach rates of 70%. Scientists expect these sorts of events to increase in frequency and intensity in the next 50 years as sea temperatures rise causing the currents to change.

• An upsurge in the amount of extreme weather events (such as heat waves and tropical storms) has come with the climate changes.



We also know that:



• Industrialization, deforestation, and pollution have greatly increased atmospheric concentrations of water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, all of which are greenhouse gases.

• Humans are putting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere faster than plants and ocean algae can absorb it.

• These gases persist in the atmosphere for years, so that even if such emissions were reduced or completely eliminated today, it would still not cause global warming to immediately cease.

• Scientists have proven that natural cycles in Earth's orbit can alter the planet's exposure to sunlight, which may explain part of the current trend.


We're not entirely to blame, but we are accelerating the process. We do need to pay more attention to what we dump into the world, because if we don't, we're in trouble. Global warming is not some elaborate hoax conjured up by the scientists so they can obtain more money, but it's certainly not our fault alone as some claim. That's the simple fact of it.

Paying attention Skybird? Still beleive what the UN tells you? Still believe what the NOAA and NASA is spoon feeding you? Hahahaha!

That's kind of ironic, given that you believe the "facts" some of these websites "spoonfeed" you...

[SandyCaesar]

I agree with Stealth Hunter.

While natural trends may have something to do with all this, is it really inconceivable that humans haven't been worsening the situation? I'll agree that we humans probably aren't the sole cause, but I disagree with the assertion that we have nothing to do with it.

Besides, considering the environmental damage that we are already pumping out, doesn't it make sense to reduce it, even if it turns out that global warming is overestimated?

[PeriscopeDepth]

I wouldn't start trembling with excitement just yet buddy...

this is from our own Government this time. :D

-S
Not entirely true, to put it charitably. It's from Jim Inhofe's press blog, the minority leader of the Senate's Environment and Public Works. As the blog release says:
"Set for release this week, a newly updated U.S. Senate Minority Report."

Note the US Senate Minority Report part. This report is the view of just one side of the aisle on the E&PW committee.

From Mr. Inhofe's Wikipedia entry
He is among the most vocal critics of global warming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming) in Congress.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Inhofe#cite_note-0) Inhofe often cites the Bible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible) as the source for his positions on various political issues.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Inhofe#cite_note-1)
Saying that this report represents the official US government's view on the issue is blatantly false.

PD

[August]

We're not entirely to blame, but we are accelerating the process. We do need to pay more attention to what we dump into the world, because if we don't, we're in trouble.

If you're right then we're in trouble anyways. Whatever limits we impose, whatever taxes we increase, whatever green legislation we enact, it will all be negated by an ever growing world human population.

[subchaser12]

Two things about this topic. First global warming is real. Second I want it to NOT be real, I want the right wing to get their way and kill this idea. That sounds bizarre so let me explain.

If global warming gains ground and the government gets involved we will be screwed. They will just use it as an excuse to make up absurd laws and tax the hell out of us. Case in point, my whole foods got rid of plastic bags. I mean come on, that was never the issue. Burning fossile fuel was beat out by the all time environmental hazzard of all, meat farms.

So look at that example. They still have their meat section, but no plastic bags. That's silly. The only think that will happen in the global warming fight is more taxes and BS laws and regulations.

[August]

The only think that will happen in the global warming fight is more taxes and BS laws and regulations.

For once we agree on something! :up:

[Hylander_1314]

Yeah, but all it will take to cool things down again is another Tambora size eruption like in 1815, and another Krakatoa and things will chill down. A real big cool down would happen if the caldera under Yellowstone goes off. Even young generations of today would probably never see a tan if that one goes up. And from what the studies have shown, the super volcano goes off about 600,000 years, and the last time it went up was around 640,000 years ago. The eruption was so fowerful that it caused the surrounding mountain range to collapse into the caldera.

Here's a hypothetical film about it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDB4fJm-6L8

Or if say 3 volcanos have major eruptions over a ten to twenty year period, it will cool things down again to the equivilant of the little iceage again most likely. So between starvation and disease, the population will take a big hit most likely from it, as anywhere 1/3 to 2/3 of the world's population could be lost to such a disaster today.

[subchaser12]

The only think that will happen in the global warming fight is more taxes and BS laws and regulations.

For once we agree on something! :up:

Left or right, everyone has to agree we don't want the government to come "fix" something.

Just look at the protected species laws. The quickest way to get an animal extinct is to label it endangered. If the government gets behind global warming full speed this will be a real commercial.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCTSCAQzY9k

[Thomen]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCTSCAQzY9k
SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING
CAUTION: Frequent use will cause skin cancer
Well, which is the lesser of two weevils in this case..

[FIREWALL]

We'll be dead from one thing or another before " Global Warming " do's us in.

Media Hype Blowhards are what's killing this planet and the egg sucking hand wringers that believe thier B.S.

[Bewolf]

Ah rgr, haven't seen it yet, my mistake.

[SUBMAN1]

We're not entirely to blame, but we are accelerating the process. We do need to pay more attention to what we dump into the world, because if we don't, we're in trouble.
If you're right then we're in trouble anyways. Whatever limits we impose, whatever taxes we increase, whatever green legislation we enact, it will all be negated by an ever growing world human population.
August is right in that regard.

As for SH - You are wrong. We had a mini ice age that we have been climbing out of since the 1700's Hello? Did you not bother to check that? Duh! No wonder not only we have had a warming period for 400 years, but since the 1800's. We are getting back to where the Earth's average has been for the last 3000 years and we are still not there.

Arctic ice - Has been for most of Earths existence only a winter phenomena, not a summer. Only 5% of the time in the last 3000 years has there been ice at the North pole during summer. Polar bears have dealt with this since the beginning of their time.

How about your Greenhouse gases? The ones supposedly that are warming up Earth? Not only does this make plant life grow, and in turn, animal life flourish, but it has no measurable effect on the environment. Why? The highest concentration is CO2 after Water vapor. The reason you can't measure its effect is that it is at a ratio of 27 to 1. That is right! 27 to 1! The only way greenhouse gas might affect the climate is if it came to a ratio of about 10 to 1, and you would have to have many volcanoes going off all day every day for years to accomplish that. Bah! But you never checked this.

Our glaciers? Our largest ones even grew last year worldwide! This hasn't ever been recorded in human history! Think you are getting global warming? Try global cooling!

I'll tell you what Global Warming is:

Short on facts, long on faith

That is about the jist of it. Al Gore I see has done an excellent job spoon feeding the population because they seem to accept what they are told, and don't bother to research the facts.

-S

PS. Correction to the above - 5% of the years in the last 10,000 years has only had permanent sea ice in the Arctic. Usually it melts in the summer.

[SUBMAN1]

Short on facts, long on faith

Sounds a lot like your epitaph :DMaybe you forgot to read the facts I see. But I guess you've always been partial to pure faith.

-S

[Frame57]

Well for the proponants of evolution one would have to consider that if we can from primates and continue to evolve into an almost hairless creature that requires clothing to survive, planetary warming must be condusive to our evolutionary genes. According to mendel adaptabilty to environmental conditions is a driving force in evolution. So then the warming trend of our planet must be natural from eons ago in order to have the current human condition.

[Stealth Hunter]

As for SH - You are wrong.

Got my facts from National Geographic, not a political website that does jack in the science world.

We had a mini ice age that we have been climbing out of since the 1700's Hello? Did you not bother to check that? Duh! No wonder not only we have had a warming period for 400 years, but since the 1800's. We are getting back to where the Earth's average has been for the last 3000 years and we are still not there.

Wrong. The planet recovered from the effects of the Medieval ice age by 1830. A FULL recovery. The temperatures are not raising to where their average sat at 400 years ago...

Arctic ice - Has been for most of Earths existence only a winter phenomena, not a summer. Only 5% of the time in the last 3000 years has there been ice at the North pole during summer.

Careful you don't step in the bullsh** guys!

Seriously, have you ever read the diarys of explorers who went to the North Pole as early as the 1700s? Ice has existed during summers before, mon ami. Lots of it. It takes a ridiculous amount of time for it to form and then break off. It's not like huge chunks break off during the summer, leaving 5% behind, and then suddenly come back every winter...

Where did you get that statistic, anyway?

Polar bears have dealt with this since the beginning of their time.

Eh, no. The reason being what I forementioned: the ice caps do not melt away every summer and suddenly return every winter. They never have, and they never will. Yeah, pieces have broken off before. That's nothing new. What is new is the rate at which the ice is breaking off. That, and the changing temperatures.

How about your Greenhouse gases? The ones supposedly that are warming up Earth? Not only does this make plant life grow, and in turn, animal life flourish, but it has no measurable effect on the environment. Why? The highest concentration is CO2 after Water vapor. The reason you can't measure its effect is that it is at a ratio of 27 to 1. That is right! 27 to 1! The only way greenhouse gas might affect the climate is if it came to a ratio of about 10 to 1, and you would have to have many volcanoes going off all day every day for years to accomplish that.

The flux of carbon between the atmosphere and the land and the oceans is dominated by natural processes, like photosynthesis in plants. While these natural processes can absorb some of the net 6 billion metric tons of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions produced each year, 4.1 billion metric tons are added to the atmosphere annually. This imbalance between greenhouse gas emissions and absorption results in the continuing increase in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases... and this is why too much greenhouse gas is bad. It warms the planet. You don't want us to become like Venus, do you?

Bah! But you never checked this.

Clearly you haven't been to NASA's HQ in Washington, D.C. They have tours and show you around the labs where they do this research and compile data. Seriously, take one some time instead of buying into these crackpot conspiracy theories.

Our glaciers? Our largest ones even grew last year worldwide! This hasn't ever been recorded in human history! Think you are getting global warming? Try global cooling!

Global cooling my ass. Any idiot who has been to a science institute that features a climatology lab could figure out that temperatures are rising. You really think NASA's Goddard Institute is lying to the world? That this is all some kind of elaborate hoax created by evil scientists to enslave humanity and get money?

You are not a fond person of science that contradicts your beliefs, are you?

I'll tell you what Global Warming is:

Short on facts, long on faith

That is about the jist of it. Al Gore I see has done an excellent job spoon feeding the population because they seem to accept what they are told, and don't bother to research the facts.

*sigh*

I guess those damn scientists are just out to destroy the world, aren't they?:roll:

PS. Correction to the above - 5% of the years in the last 10,000 years has only had permanent sea ice in the Arctic. Usually it melts in the summer.


Arctic ice does not suddenly melt and then suddenly reappear every summer/winter.

[Sailor Steve]

Oh, no mistake! It hasn't been posted in awhile, so 1) That absolves you for not having seen it before, and 2) It puts it back up for others who haven't seen it.

Those of us who've been around too long just like to complain.

"I SAW THAT JUST TWO YEARS AGO! WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU?"
:rotfl:

[longam]

I can't wait until 2015 :p

[Sailor Steve]

By then I'll be to old to do anything but enjoy the view. I'm already too old for much else.:cry:

For my dad's 80th birthday last year, I got him a card that showed a picture of three babes in bikinis on the front, with the caption "Look at this picture and tell me what you see." Inside it said "If you said 'three girls blocking my view of the beach', you're too old!"

[SUBMAN1]

Global warming is much better for mankind than global cooling. You just added more proof to that fact as a side effect.

Too bad you are going to get those long johns in the future since you will be getting your cooling.

-S

[Wolfehunter]

:rotfl:Thats good. Nice global warming effects. lol

[bradclark1]

Global warming is much better for mankind than global cooling. You just added more proof to that fact as a side effect.

Too bad you are going to get those long johns in the future since you will be getting your cooling.

-S
Oh goody! We can pick up where we dropped off or should I say when I dropped off.

[SteamWake]

I can't wait until 2015 :p

Its already up there cant you see it?

Of course you cant cause its nothing :p

[nikimcbee]

wow a week with snow in the Northwest! WTH. I'm in heaven! hardly anybody has shown up at work, If this keeps up much longer, I'll be runnin' Portland.

Chain's, we do need no stinkin' chains. (washington co. declaired you couldn't drive out unless you had chains or 4 wheel drive.):rotfl:

I'll guess you'll be driving your eletric car in the seattle rush hour now.

thanks algore!

[AVGWarhawk]

16 degrees in Maryland today. I learned something just the other day. Global warming was explained as not what weather is doing but the overall climate of the entire planet. If that makes sense. Made sense to me anyway:doh:

[nikimcbee]

It snowed all day saturday, freezing rain yesterday:x , more snow today. I can put my winter driving skills to use. It's been like this for a week and a half.

[bradclark1]

Oh look! Two bored people.:roll:

[AVGWarhawk]

Oh look! Two bored people.:roll:
Your post would lead me to believe you are bored as well. But what do I know:rotfl: It is Christmas week. Dead as a door nail at work. Bored? You betcha'

[nikimcbee]

Oh look! Two bored people.:roll:
Your post would lead me to believe you are bored as well. But what do I know:rotfl: It is Christmas week. Dead as a door nail at work. Bored? You betcha'

Whaaa? speak for yourselves! I'm busy.

I'll just add,all you need to do is say the word "snow" and they cancel school in portland. School has been cancelled all last week.

Now time to work.

[AVGWarhawk]

Personally, I wish is was balls to wall. Makes the day fly:up:

[Frame57]

Nick, if you are bored, go to the Red Hook brewery. If memeory serves me right, they have one in Portland that has a resteraunt there too. Great place to be bored...:D

[OneToughHerring]

Always wanted to visit the Pacific Northwest, and why not Alaska too, good hunting and fishing around those parts. And just plain nice nature.

I'm sure Canada is very nice too, and quite similar.

[Frame57]

Always wanted to visit the Pacific Northwest, and why not Alaska too, good hunting and fishing around those parts. And just plain nice nature.

I'm sure Canada is very nice too, and quite similar.Yep, it is awesome all the way from the Mendocino up to the Yukon. But if you are a hunter, then I recommend Alaska because the hunting regulation there are more relaxed than in the lower 48.

[Digital_Trucker]

Always wanted to visit the Pacific Northwest, and why not Alaska too, good hunting and fishing around those parts. And just plain nice nature.

I'm sure Canada is very nice too, and quite similar.
I've been fortunate enough to have visited all those places (although Alaska was not by choice) and they are all great natural places. You should try for all of them.

[SUBMAN1]

Its looking pretty bad. I've got snow banks in front of my house. Staying home today. Doing work via VPN.

-S

[nikimcbee]

Its looking pretty bad. I've got snow banks in front of my house. Staying home today. Doing work via VPN.

-S
Bastard! Work from home.:roll:

[SUBMAN1]

Its looking pretty bad. I've got snow banks in front of my house. Staying home today. Doing work via VPN.

-S Bastard! Work from home.:roll:Trying to make this a normal thing to work from home! Telecommuting! :D I'd like to do it one or two days a week.

-S

[nikimcbee]

Its looking pretty bad. I've got snow banks in front of my house. Staying home today. Doing work via VPN.

-S Bastard! Work from home.:roll:Trying to make this a normal thing to work from home! Telecommuting! :D I'd like to do it one or two days a week.

-S

okay, you're snowed in... it's christmas time...idle time...
this all adds up to kids in your future.

one of the by-products of cabin fever.:o


You laugh, but....
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/226/story/58209.html


can you say :daddy!

[SUBMAN1]

okay, you're snowed in... it's christmas time...idle time...
this all adds up to kids in your future.

one of the by-products of cabin fever.:o


You laugh, but....
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/226/story/58209.html


can you say :daddy!Kind of hard when the wife decides to fire up the LR and head out!

I don't worry about her getting stuck in that thing though since it has a locking differential. With a locking differential, all 4 tires spin at the exact same rate regardless if a wheel loses tracking or not.

Any other 4 x 4 right now I'd worry about. Most manufacturers have given up on locking differentials. They now tell you its 'electronic' and you are supposed to eat that up and go 'oh neat!'. Problem is, its just a cheap and much less effective way over a locking differential. When a wheel slips now, the computer puts the break on with that wheel only to transfer the power to the other wheels. Basically, a cheating method and one that not only wears out your breaks, but one that is not perfect in making you head straight down the road when you step on it in sub-optimal conditions, especially in snow.

Toyota still makes a locking diff for their FJ jeep, but sadly, it is only for the rear, and you have to ask for it because its only as an option. I am not aware of any American companies still offering one, but I'd assume an H2 or H3 hummer might have one, and definitely the H1 Hummer has one.

-S

[AVGWarhawk]

At Subman, the new systems use the brakes, yes, but the computer also reduces engine output as well to prevent spin. It is a good system really...specifically for people who really can not handle the snow and driving in it. Just remember, when you do get going, you are no better then any old car or truck on the road.

[Task Force]

Yea its cold down here, it was in the 20s last night. Its cold enough that im wearing a jacket in are house. (and I can see my breath).

[OneToughHerring]

Yea its cold down here, it was in the 20s last night. Its cold enough that im wearing a jacket in are house. (and I can see my breath).

You sure you got your heating system set up? Or maybe you just live in a typical house in merry ol' England? :)

[Task Force]

Non typical house in the mid atlanic region of the us. With a father is a "do it yourself" kind of guy.:lol:

[sunvalleyslim]

Well it never rains in Southern California.......but we.re over an inch above normal for this time of year. Usually rains here in Jan. and Feb. I think you guys in Washington get it before us and hog it all...........:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

[August]

Well it never rains in Southern California.......

"Seems I've often heard that kind of talk before"

[SUBMAN1]

At Subman, the new systems use the brakes, yes, but the computer also reduces engine output as well to prevent spin. It is a good system really...specifically for people who really can not handle the snow and driving in it. Just remember, when you do get going, you are no better then any old car or truck on the road.
You're talking about TCS. Not even the same. Besides, for TCS to work, it must break loose for it to be detected - already an undesirable condition in snow. TCS is even best turned off in ice and snow conditions for these reasons, so I'd have to disagree with you there.

The expensive version is ESP which is 10 x better, though you won't find that except in luxury sedans, at least not yet. The US gov got a hold of the idea and made ESP mandatory starting in 2010 or 2012 (I forget). They estimate ESP will save 10K lives per year in the US since it works so well.

I have ESP in my SAAB and it is coupled to a G sensor that can determine if the car is out of control, such as in a slide, and it will automatically bring the car back into control automagically.

-S

[baggygreen]

Well, for the entire month of december we've had very little warm days.. the ACT is a place where the summer is hot and the winter is cold. But at the moment, the summer is cold, too.

Thursday is to be our first day of 30c.

I'll be thinking of you poor bastards when im sitting out on the verandah with a bucket of fiancee-shelled king prawns (the best kind:lol: ), a beer in hand, and a couple of snags and steaks on the barbie:p

[Task Force]

Well, for the entire month of december we've had very little warm days.. the ACT is a place where the summer is hot and the winter is cold. But at the moment, the summer is cold, too.

Thursday is to be our first day of 30c.

I'll be thinking of you poor bastards when im sitting out on the verandah with a bucket of fiancee-shelled king prawns (the best kind:lol: ), a beer in hand, and a couple of snags and steaks on the barbie:p
Lucky,:nope: I wish I could have one of those steaks.:lol: And your in Australia (from what I understand), you get those warm temperatures.

[baggygreen]

we get to -5, -6c in winter in canberra, then maybe a weeks worth of 40+ in summer.

as for steaks, we've got roo steaks this year :D :sunny:

[Task Force]

So its warm down there in Australia?:-?

[Hylander_1314]

Shoot, you guys should have tried a rearload 20 cubic yard trash truck with a full load, and GVW of 64,000 lbs in the mountains in winter snows. Those can give you some real pucker moments, chains or no chains. And with a vehicle that's top heavy to boot, it can get interesting real quick. They make great lead sleds.

I remember using the winch one day to help pull this couple out of the ditch, and their plate was from one of the warmer climate states, and the husband was just completely puzzled why his tire chains didn't work in the snow and thought he was ripped off and that the chains were about useless. Until I pointed out to him that his car was frontwheel drive and the chains were on the rear wheels.

[SUBMAN1]

I remember using the winch one day to help pull this couple out of the ditch, and their plate was from one of the warmer climate states, and the husband was just completely puzzled why his tire chains didn't work in the snow and thought he was ripped off and that the chains were about useless. Until I pointed out to him that his car was frontwheel drive and the chains were on the rear wheels. Someone pointed out that exact same thing to a couple on the way to work today! :-? Takes all kinds I guess!

-S

[AVGWarhawk]

At Subman, the new systems use the brakes, yes, but the computer also reduces engine output as well to prevent spin. It is a good system really...specifically for people who really can not handle the snow and driving in it. Just remember, when you do get going, you are no better then any old car or truck on the road.
You're talking about TCS. Not even the same. Besides, for TCS to work, it must break loose for it to be detected - already an undesirable condition in snow. TCS is even best turned off in ice and snow conditions for these reasons, so I'd have to disagree with you there.

The expensive version is ESP which is 10 x better, though you won't find that except in luxury sedans, at least not yet. The US gov got a hold of the idea and made ESP mandatory starting in 2010 or 2012 (I forget). They estimate ESP will save 10K lives per year in the US since it works so well.

I have ESP in my SAAB and it is coupled to a G sensor that can determine if the car is out of control, such as in a slide, and it will automatically bring the car back into control automagically.

-S

My wife truck has RSC. It detects when the truck is getting squirrely. It works well. Her system also reduces engine output when the system is manually activiated at will. No slip when in the mode. My Lincoln has ETC, electronic traction control, this works well also. Once traction is lost and wheel spin detected, the timing is retarted and fuel reduced to the engine. Car does not get stuck. But look at my post again, these systems are for folks who do not know how to handle a vehicle in snowy/wet conditions. The vehicle does it for you instead of the driver having to pay attention to driving and not the cell phone. However, locking hubs and all wheels turn at the same speed is great for off road. I agree with that because I have used it before. 1978 Ford Bronco...what a beast.

[Hylander_1314]

So true, so true............... I actually like driving in the snow and icy conditions. It makes you a better driver if you approach the task objectively. Just don't try do everything fast. One of the biggest things is to try not to set yourself up where you have to start out on an incline from a dead stop. Learn how to alter your normal route to accomodate the conditions, and leave enough time to get where you need to.

About 4 years ago we had a snowstorm right after New Years, and then the temp dropped to loike -10 for a few days, and I remember it took me 3 hours to go 8 miles to a customer's shop, as the roads were just sheer ice. No pavement, and no matter how much C-DOT and the City of Denver plowed and sanded, it was just downright a skating rink on the roads. People didn't go over 10mph on roads where the speedlimit was 40. So I started out at 08:00 and got to the shop around 11:00. When I was done, I just put the rest of the calls off until a couple days later as it was stupid to even go out in that mess.

[Hylander_1314]

My wife truck has RSC. It detects when the truck is getting squirrely. It works well. Her system also reduces engine output when the system is manually activiated at will. No slip when in the mode. My Lincoln has ETC, electronic traction control, this works well also. Once traction is lost and wheel spin detected, the timing is retarted and fuel reduced to the engine. Car does not get stuck. But look at my post again, these systems are for folks who do not know how to handle a vehicle in snowy/wet conditions. The vehicle does it for you instead of the driver having to pay attention to driving and not the cell phone. However, locking hubs and all wheels turn at the same speed is great for off road. I agree with that because I have used it before. 1978 Ford Bronco...what a beast.

Limited slip is interesting isn't it? My 68 Torino GT Fatback had 4:11 posi gears in the pumpkin, and was a blast in the snow. I could actually light up the big 305/15s on the backend.

Those old Bronco's were cool. I had my Mom's 79 XLT Ranger version with the 4speed, I think it was a Warner T19? In 4 Low, it could climb a hill like an old Willys Jeep. It was great for hunting season too. You could pack out a butchered bull elk in that thing. Best engine in it was the 351 Cleveland V-8. That thing could pull some weight.

[1480]

Living where I do all of my life, the key to driving in the snow is, what my step dad calls, (truck driver for 30 years) 'milking' the gas and the brakes. Nice and easy applications of even foot pressure to either pedal is the way to go...

Two days less in purgatory for me :)

@ Baggygreen: what are 'snags' mate?

[baggygreen]

snags are sausages. I thought that was a universal one, i spose not!

We're pretty lucky here. Snows very rarely and even then, never heavily, and never for long - but if we want to go to the snowfields, they're only an hour's drive.

Same with the ocean - a one hours drive east, which is less time than it takes to get to the beach from some parts of sydney - but we're rust free :)

[1480]

Thanks mate:up: We call them ssssssssssaw-sissssss-gizzzzzzz, where I'm from. They are either 'talian, broughts (I know I'm spelling this sh!t wrong but doing it for regional humor) pO lish.... No wonder my cardiologist just see's dollar signs over my head! :know:

[Christopher Snow]

We're not entirely to blame, but we are accelerating the process. We do need to pay more attention to what we dump into the world, because if we don't, we're in trouble.
If you're right then we're in trouble anyways. Whatever limits we impose, whatever taxes we increase, whatever green legislation we enact, it will all be negated by an ever growing world human population.
I wouldn't worry overmuch about the European contribution to overpopulation: last I read, their own contribution to the global numbers was expected to decline by 25% or so by 2050 (The EU is currently 4% of world population, but it's moving quickly down to 3%...).

The point being: The Europeans are becoming less relevant with each passing day (so don't afford their "opinions" too much importance).

Pay more attention to Asia, and specifically, to the opinions coming from China.

The Chinese have a "birth gender" problem. Too many males being born in China (and not enough females).

This might well leave them (a few years on) with a LARGE predominence of "unfufilled males."

WWIII anyone? There will be a HUGE Chinese army just waiting (and quite willing too) to unleash itself on neighboring countries...).

Ghengis Khan...or even Kublai Khan could only hope to measure up to the size of THIS force.

WWIII for sure, unless the West decides to cave in.


CS

[Aramike]

Personally, I don't buy into global warming. I think the concept is fundamentally flawed through a lack of data. The Earth's mean temperature would change drastically just by changing the locations of the averages calculated.

There is a reason why the new chic term is "climate change" instead of "global warming".

That being said, I do believe that humanity has had an environmental impact. For one, to deny it is silly ... just look at an example such as the Hoover Dam. The small-scale environmental change caused by the work of just a few thousand is undeniable. Now multiply that by millions who all exploit their enivornment for their own gain (something I don't neccessarily disagree with), and it's not surprising the humanity has left an imprint.

In any case, so what?

Saying that climate change is a bad thing is based off of a scientific assumption. That assumption is that the Earth was in its best form prior to the change humanity has caused. That seems to be kind of a long shot considering that 99.9% of species that has ever populated this planet are now extinct.

If we are going to ask ourselves who are we to perpetuate climate change, shouldn't we also ask who are we to decide what climate is best for nature?

[joegrundman]

CS, you have more you need to get off your chest, i see.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Obviously this is all a bunch of lies and propaganda sponsored by the corporate fat-cats that run everything. They want the earth to be ruined for our children, because they don't have children. They're too evil to have children. They are God-loving, science-hating fools who are much dumber than us liberals but too dumb to realize it and somehow have managed to dominate the economic and therefore, political worlds.

Rather than actually do something about this state of affairs, we should only vote in significant numbers for presidential elections. The president makes the laws, and if he's a democrat, he always delivers. Just look at what Clinton did under a Republican Congress. It's amazing. Then Bush recently managed to destroy the economy despite the benevolent efforts of the Democratic congress. We can't let fools like him manage our federal legislation.

Universal healthcare and social programs are the way! There are rich people to pay for them, and we don't care if their incentive to become rich is destroyed by tax legislation. They owe it to us. They're also the ones who are destroying the environment by not allowing us cheap access to electric cars and renewable energy. It's a conspiracy! They'd rather hold all of us down by using inefficient oil and coal and nuclear energy that, by simple logic, will make them less rich because they don't want to allow us access to the limitless and virtually free energy provided by the sun and the wind.

We know that we are right, because the media tells us so and it is sponsored by the corporations that we hate, but we watch more TV than our conservative counterparts. If only everyone was as smart as us, we could all be victims of people who have even a basic understanding of economics and politics.

Our genius is being suppressed by selfish people with no proper liberal morals who have somehow become successful. What we need are leaders that can make laws that make things better. Yay Obama! We hope that you wil mak many good laws.


We want what is best for the environment. We want what is best for the people, and somehow, we are the only ones smart enough to realize it. That's why so many of us are university students. We know what is best for everyone, but we can't be bothered to vote, becasue we're too busy telling other people what to think.

Man is causing global warming. We know this because there is a globe and it's warm and people are here. Even if we're wrong, we're right because if you're wrong it will lead to the utter destruction of the planet. That's much smarter than saying that if you're bad you will go to hell. Our apocalypse has science in it. Beat that, church-goers :p

[Tchocky]

I learned something just the other day. Global warming was explained as not what weather is doing but the overall climate of the entire planet. If that makes sense. Made sense to me anyway:doh:
Well, yes. That's where the "global" bit comes into play.
Weather != climate.

Quite warm for this time of year in Ireland, though. No chance of a white Christmas.

[nikimcbee]

I learned something just the other day. Global warming was explained as not what weather is doing but the overall climate of the entire planet. If that makes sense. Made sense to me anyway:doh:
Well, yes. That's where the "global" bit comes into play.
Weather != climate.

Quite warm for this time of year in Ireland, though. No chance of a white Christmas.

Great we'll send you ours.

[AVGWarhawk]

My wife truck has RSC. It detects when the truck is getting squirrely. It works well. Her system also reduces engine output when the system is manually activiated at will. No slip when in the mode. My Lincoln has ETC, electronic traction control, this works well also. Once traction is lost and wheel spin detected, the timing is retarted and fuel reduced to the engine. Car does not get stuck. But look at my post again, these systems are for folks who do not know how to handle a vehicle in snowy/wet conditions. The vehicle does it for you instead of the driver having to pay attention to driving and not the cell phone. However, locking hubs and all wheels turn at the same speed is great for off road. I agree with that because I have used it before. 1978 Ford Bronco...what a beast.
Limited slip is interesting isn't it? My 68 Torino GT Fatback had 4:11 posi gears in the pumpkin, and was a blast in the snow. I could actually light up the big 305/15s on the backend.

Those old Bronco's were cool. I had my Mom's 79 XLT Ranger version with the 4speed, I think it was a Warner T19? In 4 Low, it could climb a hill like an old Willys Jeep. It was great for hunting season too. You could pack out a butchered bull elk in that thing. Best engine in it was the 351 Cleveland V-8. That thing could pull some weight.

I had posi traction on my 80 Lincoln. Yep, fun in the snow. Never got stuck with it.

[nikimcbee]

Weather update. This place (portland, or) is the most unprepared place ever. They don't plow the roads here (only main highways) now the roads have horrendus ruts dug in the packed snow. this weather is supposed to last for another week.:roll: all of us from the Midwest, laugh at this region, because they are so unprepared. They won't salt the roads because of the enviromental impact:rotfl: :up: .

This place needs MN weather for 2 weeks. 3 feet of snow and 5 degrees outside.

[Digital_Trucker]

Weather update. This place (portland, or) is the most unprepared place ever. They don't plow the roads here (only main highways) now the roads have horrendus ruts dug in the packed snow. this weather is supposed to last for another week.:roll: all of us from the Midwest, laugh at this region, because they are so unprepared. They won't salt the roads because of the enviromental impact:rotfl: :up: .

This place needs MN weather for 2 weeks. 3 feet of snow and 5 degrees outside.

As I heard the governor of Arkansas say on the radio once while spending the night in my truck on I-40 because of ice and snow and wrecks "God put it on the road, he'll clear it off" (or a reasonable facsimile thereof).

[SUBMAN1]

I learned something just the other day. Global warming was explained as not what weather is doing but the overall climate of the entire planet. If that makes sense. Made sense to me anyway:doh: Well, yes. That's where the "global" bit comes into play.
Weather != climate.

Quite warm for this time of year in Ireland, though. No chance of a white Christmas.
Great we'll send you ours.I agree!

And what is surprising - The global average is in steep decline. You thought China had a bad winter last year? It was nothing as compared to this year. They are reporting worst winter so far in 57 years, and its expected to get worse!

-S

[SUBMAN1]

More fuel for the fire!

-S

Scientist fired by Al Gore was told, "science will not intrude on public policy".

http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/9913_happer_william.gif
Dr. William Happer (Source: Princeton University)

Noted energy expert and Princeton physicist Dr. Will Happer has sharply criticized global warming alarmism. Happer, author of over 200 scientific papers and a past director of energy research at the Department of Energy, called fears over global warming "mistaken".

"I have spent a long research career studying physics that is closely related to the greenhouse effect", said Happer. "Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science."

Dr. Happer views climate change as a predominately natural process. "The earth's climate is changing now, as it always has. There is no evidence that the changes differ in any qualitative way from those of the past."

In 1991, Happer was appointed director of energy research for the US Department of Energy. In 1993, he testified before Congress that the scientific data didn't support widespread fears about the dangers of the ozone hole and global warming, remarks that caused then-Vice President Al Gore to fire him. "I was told that science was not going to intrude on public policy", he said. "I did not need the job that badly".

Happer's latest remarks were made yesterday, as he asked to be included in a Senate Environment and Public Works report of scientists disputing global warming alarmism. Happer joins 650 other scientists on the list, many of whom have been interviewed previously by DailyTech.

"Computer models used to generate frightening scenarios from increasing levels of carbon dioxide have scant credibility," Happer concluded.

In response to Happer's remarks, Senator James Inhofe, ranking minority member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, said, "The endless claims of a consensus on man-made global warming grow less and less credible every day".
http://www.dailytech.com/Princeton+Physicist+Calls+Global+Warming+Science+M istaken/article13773.htm

[AVGWarhawk]

Don't believe the hype! Also, buy Gore's book because he needs to keep up the electric bill on his sprawling mansion. :up:

[August]

Don't believe the hype! Also, buy Gore's book because he needs to keep up the electric bill on his sprawling mansion. :up:

I would but i had to spend the money on this months huge global warming heating bill.

[sunvalleyslim]

Thanks Subman,
As most of us sit here freezing our butts off it's hard to believe there is such a thing as global warming. If it's not proven scientifically then it's pure BS............

[Gorduz]

Global warming is based on some simple facts:

If you place more CO_2 in the atmosphere it WILL get hotter, no doubt about it. How much hotter? Not that hard a calcualtion either but still it is a question how much energy will go to melting glaciers, how much to heat sea-water and how much to heat the air at sea level (global temperature). This is a hard question and scientists predict somewhere between 2 and 6 degrees increase in global temperature within 2100.

The next question is the really hard one, which most enlightened climate skeptics criticise, what the effect of increasing the temperature? Well the turth is (no matter what Al Gore says) that no one knows. What feedback mechanisms exists? are they positive or negaitve? These things are hard to tell without doing an experiment, which is hard since we only have one earth.

The actions against global warming will depend on the damage it will cause. If you belive (which some models predict) that it will almost be an apocolypse, then ofcourse stopping it as quickly as possible no matter the costs is the only alternative. If you belive that humans can adapt a cost-benefit analyzis must be done for every measure taken. Will using millions of dollars to reduce emmisions really be worth it, or is it cheaper to build dams/irrigation facilities?

THAT is the question that is being asked by "renegade" scientists. And that is a valid question as the answer right now comes from computer models with only minor or no experimental data to support them.

[Frame57]

More CO2 will also cause more plant life to grow....Eh who cares anyway...

[Aramike]

Like I said in another thread, the whole idea of so-called "climate change" makes the absurd assumption that the Earth is perfect the way it is.

Paper or plastic? Hell, I say both. Then start both bags on fire just for kicks.

[Rockstar]

Global warming is based on some simple facts:

The actions against global warming will depend on the damage it will cause. If you belive (which some models predict) that it will almost be an apocolypse, then ofcourse stopping it as quickly as possible no matter the costs is the only alternative. If you belive that humans can adapt a cost-benefit analyzis must be done for every measure taken. Will using millions of dollars to reduce emmisions really be worth it, or is it cheaper to build dams/irrigation facilities?

Ummmm haven't you heard the other 'experts' simple facts they said it's too late already nothing can be done about it. Ten years is all we have now. Ten years to get oil too even if we start drilling now. Aww heck, ten years for prices to go down, ten years before the sun super novas, ten years before Im 56. Experts say ten years, ten years, ten years for everything. 'Experts' have spoken and said your world is supposedly over a gazillion to the tenth power years old. They told me global warming is irreverseable and going to end the world in ten years based on 120 years of hard data?

Give up on it already live life to the fullest, it's short enough already without having to lose ten more years of it sweating over this crap.

The day a politician tells me a fact is the day I win a million dollars.

[Digital_Trucker]

The day a politician tells me a fact is the day I win a million dollars.

And probably about 5 minutes before the utter and complete destruction of the galaxy.:rotfl:

[Stealth Hunter]

We know that:


• Average temperatures have climbed 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit around the world since 1880, much of this in recent decades. NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies has confirmed this.

• The rate of warming is increasing. The 20th century's last two decades were the hottest in 400 years and possibly the warmest for several millennia, as shown by climatology scientists. The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports that 11 of the past 12 years are among the dozen warmest since 1850. This statistic was likewise confirmed by NASA.

• Average temperatures in Alaska, western Canada, and eastern Russia have risen at twice the global average, according to the multinational Arctic Climate Impact Assessment report compiled between 2000 and 2004. Once again, NASA investigated and confirmed this.

• Arctic ice is disappearing at an alarming rate, and the region may have its first completely ice-free summer by the year 2040 or even earlier. To add to this, polar bears and other native species are already suffering from the sea-ice loss.

• Glaciers and mountain snows are rapidly melting. For instance, Montana's glacier park now has only 27 glaciers, compared to the 150 that existed in 1910. In the Northern Hemisphere, thaws a week earlier than usual and freezes end a week later than usual.

• Coral reefs suffered the worst bleaching since 1998 (when they're destroyed by stress from temperature change), with some areas seeing bleach rates of 70%. Scientists expect these sorts of events to increase in frequency and intensity in the next 50 years as sea temperatures rise causing the currents to change.

• An upsurge in the amount of extreme weather events (such as heat waves and tropical storms) has come with the climate changes.



We also know that:



• Industrialization, deforestation, and pollution have greatly increased atmospheric concentrations of water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, all of which are greenhouse gases.

• Humans are putting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere faster than plants and ocean algae can absorb it.

• These gases persist in the atmosphere for years, so that even if such emissions were reduced or completely eliminated today, it would still not cause global warming to immediately cease.

• Scientists have proven that natural cycles in Earth's orbit can alter the planet's exposure to sunlight, which may explain part of the current trend.


We're not entirely to blame, but we are accelerating the process. We do need to pay more attention to what we dump into the world, because if we don't, we're in trouble. Global warming is not some elaborate hoax conjured up by the scientists so they can obtain more money, but it's certainly not our fault alone as some claim.

[nikimcbee]

We know that:


Global warming is not some elaborate hoax conjured up by the scientists so they can obtain more money, but it's certainly not our fault alone as some claim.


Great, so all those tax scemes can go away then.

[Stealth Hunter]

Well, taxes and increased prices are going to be necessary if we want to moderate the amount of CO2 emissions. If we raised fuel prices and required industries to hand over reports on emissions anually, then we could push for a more environment-friendly plan and help the planet.

Electric cars work just as well as gasoline-powered cars.

EDIT:

Why did you cut out all the info about global warming in your quote? Just curious.

[SUBMAN1]

Well, taxes and increased prices are going to be necessary if we want to moderate the amount of CO2 emissions. If we raised fuel prices and required industries to hand over reports on emissions anually, then we could push for a more environment-friendly plan.

Electric cars work just as well as gasoline-powered cars.Maybe you didn't read the above article either, nor the 1000 others bits of news that comes out on the subject that is regularly posted here as it arrives, but I have to ask the question - Why? Why regulate CO2 when all the top worlds scientists tell you its a hoax?

It is at a ratio of 1:27 with water vapor making of the 27 parts. This proves that CO2 is even immeasurable as having any effect whatsoever. But I guess if you tell people it does over and over, a certain percentage of the population are stupid enough to buy it.

-S

[Stealth Hunter]

Maybe you didn't read the above article either, nor the 1000 others bits of news that comes out on the subject that is regularly posted here as it arrives, but I have to ask the question - Why?

Why what?

It is at a ratio of 1:27 with water vapor making of the 27 parts. This proves that CO2 is even immeasurable as having any effect whatsoever. But I guess if you tell people it does over and over, a certain percentage of the population are stupid enough to buy it.

I've been searching around on the net for 20 minutes now, I have no clue where you got the 1:27 ratio from.

The effect comes from the fact that CO2 and water vapor, when put together, create heat. So, the more CO2 you have with the same amount of water vapor, the higher the temperature and humidity.

[SUBMAN1]

Maybe you didn't read the above article either, nor the 1000 others bits of news that comes out on the subject that is regularly posted here as it arrives, but I have to ask the question - Why?
Why what?See above. I figured I wasn't clear enough and re-wrote it.

[August]

Well, taxes and increased prices are going to be necessary if we want to moderate the amount of CO2 emissions. If we raised fuel prices and required industries to hand over reports on emissions anually, then we could push for a more environment-friendly plan and help the planet

Waste of time. Continued world population increases will make such efforts futile.

[Stealth Hunter]

Why regulate CO2 when all the top worlds scientists tell you its a hoax?

Before we take this any further, I suppose you've got a source for that claim, that all the top world's scientists say global warming is a hoax.

[Stealth Hunter]

Well, taxes and increased prices are going to be necessary if we want to moderate the amount of CO2 emissions. If we raised fuel prices and required industries to hand over reports on emissions anually, then we could push for a more environment-friendly plan and help the planet

Waste of time. Continued world population increases will make such efforts futile.

If done properly, then not necessarily.

[AVGWarhawk]

We know that:


Global warming is not some elaborate hoax conjured up by the scientists so they can obtain more money, but it's certainly not our fault alone as some claim.


Great, so all those tax scemes can go away then.

:rotfl: Al Gore would like to refund any and all monies to those that paid for his book or watched his movie. He really felt it was an inconvienent truth that you had to pay. You know, if Al Gore was so convinced of this to push his book and make a movie, why then not take a seat in government to lead the charge for change? I guess making millions on inuendo is much easier in the regular world.

[Skybird]

A quick guide to why global warming science has to be wrong:

http://img357.imageshack.us/img357/7665/2446583eisschollentsbm8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[AVGWarhawk]

Examples of the hype:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,472084,00.html

[Rockstar]

Whats this 'we know' crap, you got a mouse in your pocket boy?

This is what happens when politicians and 'experts' get involved they make money.

Environmentally conscious travelers flying out of San Francisco International Airport will soon be able to assuage their guilt and minimize the impact of their air travel by buying certified carbon offsets at airport kiosks. ...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/12/24/MNIR14PSQF.DTL&type=green

Just one big guilt trip that keeps people shelling out cash, changes nothing, life goes on and so does the planet. It's bigger than you think.

[mookiemookie]

I'm no scientist, but it's naive to think that polluting our air and water can be done without consequences.

[Digital_Trucker]

I'm no scientist, but it's naive to think that polluting our air and water can be done without consequences.

Very true. I believe that the magnitude of the consequences is what is in question.

[Rockstar]

I'm no scientist, but it's naive to think that polluting our air and water can be done without consequences.

Try observing the data of big orange ball in the sky called the sun. Look at the data on solar flares and compare it with the data collected so far here on earth. You just might see a patten developing. When the activity in the sun flares up it gets warmer here, when it subsides it gets cooler. Imagine that.

Oh, can't collect a tax on that now can they so we blame YOU and get your money.

[Tchocky]

Try observing the data of big orange ball in the sky called the sun. Look at the data on solar flares and compare it with the data collected so far here on earth. You just might see a patten developing. When the activity in the sun flares up it gets warmer here, when it subsides it gets cooler. Imagine that.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6290228.stm

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html

[August]

Well, taxes and increased prices are going to be necessary if we want to moderate the amount of CO2 emissions. If we raised fuel prices and required industries to hand over reports on emissions anually, then we could push for a more environment-friendly plan and help the planet
Waste of time. Continued world population increases will make such efforts futile.
If done properly, then not necessarily.

Do you really think conservation efforts could keep pace with population increases?

[mookiemookie]

I'm no scientist, but it's naive to think that polluting our air and water can be done without consequences.
Try observing the data of big orange ball in the sky called the sun. Look at the data on solar flares and compare it with the data collected so far here on earth. You just might see a patten developing. When the activity in the sun flares up it gets warmer here, when it subsides it gets cooler. Imagine that.

Oh, can't collect a tax on that now can they so we blame YOU and get your money.


Direct measurements of solar output since 1978 show a steady rise and fall over the 11-year sunspot cycle, but no upwards or downward trend (http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant).


Similarly, there is no trend in direct measurements of the Sun's ultraviolet output and in cosmic rays. So for the period for which we have direct, reliable records, the Earth has warmed dramatically even though there has been no corresponding rise in any kind of solar activity.


http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11650

[longam]

I'm no scientist, but it's naive to think that polluting our air and water can be done without consequences.
Try observing the data of big orange ball in the sky called the sun. Look at the data on solar flares and compare it with the data collected so far here on earth. You just might see a patten developing. When the activity in the sun flares up it gets warmer here, when it subsides it gets cooler. Imagine that.

Oh, can't collect a tax on that now can they so we blame YOU and get your money.

I managed to sit threw the first hour of his docudrama and even in it they show with the core samples from the north that the earth has warmed up before and does this cycle over and over.

[Fish]

[ Why regulate CO2 when all the top worlds scientists tell you its a hoax?



-S

I always told you, those guys at NASA are a bunch of blockheads. :|\\

[Fish]

We know that:




Good post Stealth Hunter! :up:

[Fish]

Waste of time. Continued world population increases will make such efforts futile.

I am afraid your right here.

[SUBMAN1]

Why regulate CO2 when all the top worlds scientists tell you its a hoax?
Before we take this any further, I suppose you've got a source for that claim, that all the top world's scientists say global warming is a hoax.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6

This one is especially telling:

http://www.petitionproject.org/

Need more?

-S

PS. I forgot to mention that you'd naturally assume that there are an equal number of 'Pro' GW scientists too, but you'd be mistaken.

[Kapitan_Phillips]

http://img75.imageshack.us/img75/4016/hollywarnuk1.jpg

:yep:

[Stealth Hunter]

Why regulate CO2 when all the top worlds scientists tell you its a hoax?
Before we take this any further, I suppose you've got a source for that claim, that all the top world's scientists say global warming is a hoax.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6

On the quote page with the "top" scientists, you are aware that only six are actually well-known and have done something important: Iviar Giaever, Joanne Simpson, David Gee, Takeda Kunihiko, Eduardo Tonni, and Delgado Domingos. The rest, if you looked, were just research members of teams and organizations (in short, they're just your average scientists).

Still, the PDF report had some... "interesting" quotes from the dissenters. I took note that the majority of them rejected the idea that humans were solely to blame (the keyword being solely) for climate change.

Whether they like it or not, the climate is changing.

I'm also going to have to agree with some of the scientists criticising the IPCC. They get a little too radical for my taste at times, and the claim that global warming is all our fault is nonsense. While we're definitely to blame and while we're absolutely causing it to speed up, we're not the sole problem. It's also a natural phenomenon.

Here's also a link to some of the most famous organizations in the world who agree that climate change is occuring and humans are partially to blame:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Statements_by _concurring_organizations

This one is especially telling:

http://www.petitionproject.org/

Visit the SESTAT database. As of 2002, they represented roughly 13 million American scientists and engineers. The petition you cited had 31,072 scientists, of which, 9,021 had PhDs and were qualified. That's a tiny amount.:rotfl:

Need more?

For your sake, I'm going to need A LOT more.

[Stealth Hunter]

Well, taxes and increased prices are going to be necessary if we want to moderate the amount of CO2 emissions. If we raised fuel prices and required industries to hand over reports on emissions anually, then we could push for a more environment-friendly plan and help the planet
Waste of time. Continued world population increases will make such efforts futile.
If done properly, then not necessarily.

Do you really think conservation efforts could keep pace with population increases?

We can't really know unless we give it our best shot. Sometimes with science, you've got to take a gamble.

[August]

We can't really know unless we give it our best shot. Sometimes with science, you've got to take a gamble.

Well you understand that "best shot" is completely subjective.

I guess it comes down to whether the potential rewards are worth the gambles we have to take. I have my doubts about that as long as we continue to ignore overpopulation, the true source of human caused global warming. I fear conservation efforts are basically feel good actions that will have little or no effect.

[PeriscopeDepth]

We can't really know unless we give it our best shot. Sometimes with science, you've got to take a gamble.
Well you understand that "best shot" is completely subjective.

I guess it comes down to whether the potential rewards are worth the gambles we have to take. I have my doubts about that as long as we continue to ignore overpopulation, the true source of human caused global warming. I fear conservation efforts are basically feel good actions that will have little or no effect.
Well, as a country we can only do so much about the birth rate in other countries. Developing cleaner and more efficient technology is something we can definitely do.

PD

[SUBMAN1]

I always told you, those guys at NASA are a bunch of blockheads. :|\\

Most good NASA scientists left to work for other companies when Nixon screwed up the agency.

James Hansen however is a blockhead - who is in charge of climate data at NASA and who has a personal vendetta to turn us all into hut living freaks without modern conveniences.

He only changes wrong data when forced to. Now that's what I call reliable.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Why regulate CO2 when all the top worlds scientists tell you its a hoax?
Before we take this any further, I suppose you've got a source for that claim, that all the top world's scientists say global warming is a hoax.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6
On the quote page with the "top" scientists, you are aware that only six are actually well-known and have done something important: Iviar Giaever, Joanne Simpson, David Gee, Takeda Kunihiko, Eduardo Tonni, and Delgado Domingos. The rest, if you looked, were just research members of teams and organizations (in short, they're just your average scientists).

Still, the PDF report had some... "interesting" quotes from the dissenters. I took note that the majority of them rejected the idea that humans were solely to blame (the keyword being solely) for climate change.

Whether they like it or not, the climate is changing.

I'm also going to have to agree with some of the scientists criticising the IPCC. They get a little too radical for my taste at times, and the claim that global warming is all our fault is nonsense. While we're definitely to blame and while we're absolutely causing it to speed up, we're not the sole problem. It's also a natural phenomenon.

Here's also a link to some of the most famous organizations in the world who agree that climate change is occuring and humans are partially to blame:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Statements_by _concurring_organizations

This one is especially telling:

http://www.petitionproject.org/
Visit the SESTAT database. As of 2002, they represented roughly 13 million American scientists and engineers. The petition you cited had 31,072 scientists, of which, 9,021 had PhDs and were qualified. That's a tiny amount.:rotfl:

Need more?
For your sake, I'm going to need A LOT more.
All hoopla. You 13 Mil scientist may belong to an org and that org may agree with climate change, but 13 mil scientists do not agree. I'd bet you have a hard time numbering in the hundreds. The list I gave is very specific on what it is they are against.

Besides, these are scientists that beleive in proper research and know how to conduct it. So 31K is quite a bit.

The other side of the equation consists of only Al Gore and James Hansen of NASA.

-S

[mookiemookie]

All hoopla. You 13 Mil scientist may belong to an org and that org may agree with climate change, but 13 mil scientists do not agree. I'd bet you have a hard time numbering in the hundreds. The list I gave is very specific on what it is they are against.

Besides, these are scientists that beleive in proper research and know how to conduct it. So 31K is quite a bit.

The other side of the equation consists of only Al Gore and James Hansen of NASA.

-S
This is not the case: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

[SUBMAN1]

All hoopla. You 13 Mil scientist may belong to an org and that org may agree with climate change, but 13 mil scientists do not agree. I'd bet you have a hard time numbering in the hundreds. The list I gave is very specific on what it is they are against.

Besides, these are scientists that beleive in proper research and know how to conduct it. So 31K is quite a bit.

The other side of the equation consists of only Al Gore and James Hansen of NASA.

-S
This is not the case: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
Hardly a consensus. Take this statement for example:

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

They had a panel of scientists that consisted of approximately 2000. That is what they speak of. These same scientists were unable to speak out about their own work being taken out of context to support a political agenda of the UN.

That is hardly a consensus. you would know this if you bothered to read up on the subject at all.

-S

PS. And no, you can't win this argument for human caused GW. There is too much against you.

[Gorduz]

Stealth Hunter is right to point out that, as I sated in my previous post, most sceptics are not entirely dismissive about global warming but believe that the consequences have been exaggerated. Others critisize the religion like way the debate is taking, simply reducing it to a question of right and wrong with no grayzones.

But the truth is that some measures against global warming should be taken even with the uncertainty of the predictions. Here August is completely right the cost of the measure should be weighted against the posible benifits. Reducing CO2 emissions below a certain level might ruin the world economy which will only lead to more instability and perhaps even more CO2 emmisions in the long run. One needs to carefully plan what can/must be done without risking wasting valuable rescources that could better be spent bringning people out of poverty.

In my honest opinion the best investment we can make is to invest in R&D in renewable energy sources/new energy transportation systems. Sooner or later we have to remove our dependence on oil. This will not only reduce CO2 emissions, it will reduce pollution as a whole, provide a sustainable energy economy and without a doubt give a more stable world. Sun/Wind/Waves(or perhaps even Hydrogen) can be found most over the world reducing the dependency of geographically centered resources (Oil, Gas, Uranium). This path should be especially lucerative for the US since most of the energy usage right now has to be imported from politically unstable/unfriendly states giving the superpower an unfortunate achilles' heel.

BTW: My own goverment has, in my opinion, completely misunderstood it. They invest millions of dollars in CO2 purging, trying to store CO2 under the mountains. This doesn't have any of the advantages mention above, and if you have to invest in storing something I believe that storing radioactive waste is both cheaper and can bring more to the reduction of CO2(more nuclear plants).

[baggygreen]

I've said it before, but will again.

Yes, we need to start looking at both alternative and cleaner energy sources - its stupidity not to. Rely on one leaky bucket to carry water, and eventually you have no water left.

However, i resent being charged more money on pure speculation and hype. Carbon pollution?? I'm sorry, I thought carbon was a naturally occuring element, I must have been wrong. Whats that? We're carbon based?? Whoops, better charge me an existence tax too then.

The earth is resiliant. Its proven that time and time again. Creatures on the face come and go with changes to the environment, but the planet remains. Those that can adapt, do, and those that can't, die. At the moment, our influence is uncertain.

As for population, hell i say we should spread out! begin populating the moon, mars, space stations. Invest in this and go nuts!

[August]

As for population, hell i say we should spread out! begin populating the moon, mars, space stations. Invest in this and go nuts!

I'm all for the population of space but moving large numbers of people even just to a space station in orbit would be prohibitively expensive given our present levels of technology and even if we could that would only delay the problem not fix it.

The solution is to stabilize human populations on a worldwide basis by regulating the birth rate. First at a negative growth rate until population reaches a level that can be supported by the planet, then at a 0 growth rate thereafter that.

How this could be achieved with some degree of fairness is beyond me, but I feel we as a species need to find a way to do it somehow or we will consume our way to our eventual destruction.

[Stealth Hunter]

All hoopla.

:rotfl: :roll:

You 13 Mil scientist may belong to an org and that org may agree with climate change, but 13 mil scientists do not agree.

I'm sorry, but your sentence structure was so poor there that I don't have a clue what you're trying to convey. Do you mean that they disagree on some of the details?

I'd bet you have a hard time numbering in the hundreds.

...what?

The list I gave is very specific on what it is they are against.

The list I gave was specific on the organizations who still believe in climate change, and if you bothered to look into them, you'd know the finer details about each one. Don't expect me to run all over the web and find you every little bit of information about them. Visit their websites. They're specific.

Besides, these are scientists that beleive in proper research and know how to conduct it. So 31K is quite a bit.

And? The other 13 million agree and perform proper research.

And you mean 9,021 instead of 31,072. Remember, only the 9K group had graduated with degrees.:know:

The other side of the equation consists of only Al Gore and James Hansen of NASA.

:nope:

You know, such gross misconceptions might be humorous for a child, but it's honestly just shameful for an adult.

[baggygreen]

As for population, hell i say we should spread out! begin populating the moon, mars, space stations. Invest in this and go nuts!
I'm all for the population of space but moving large numbers of people even just to a space station in orbit would be prohibitively expensive given our present levels of technology and even if we could that would only delay the problem not fix it.

I agree, its tough at the moment. Thats why im so much in favour of space r&d.

I also agree that our population growth is unsustainable. I haven't looked into it too much as yet, but i've seen at least 2 points of view regarding it - either it will just continue growing, or it will hit a point where the majority are beyond the age for reproduction and numbers will eventually decline again. If memory serves, the predictions for that were for it to begin in about 30 years.

Whichever way the population goes, its silly not to have a viable alternative. just like fossil fuels -just because we have them doesnt mean we shouldnt look for something better.

End of the day, i feel its the future of our species. Humans are humans because we continually strive to develop new things, to explore and to learn. Here we are occupying the tiniest fraction of the universe, its time to spread our wings and start learning in new areas. Who knows, maybe we'll find a way to permanently control the earth's climate, maybe we'll find a cheap method of spaceflight and extraterristrial habitation.

[Zachstar]

As for population, hell i say we should spread out! begin populating the moon, mars, space stations. Invest in this and go nuts!
I'm all for the population of space but moving large numbers of people even just to a space station in orbit would be prohibitively expensive given our present levels of technology and even if we could that would only delay the problem not fix it.

The solution is to stabilize human populations on a worldwide basis by regulating the birth rate. First at a negative growth rate until population reaches a level that can be supported by the planet, then at a 0 growth rate thereafter that.

How this could be achieved with some degree of fairness is beyond me, but I feel we as a species need to find a way to do it somehow or we will consume our way to our eventual destruction.

The sustainable number is in debate but it is safe to say under a billion and living in a totally different matter.

AKA impossible.

[baggygreen]

How long has there been more than a billion people living on the planet though? I've never seen figures, but I would've thought there were close to a billion by say, 1066.

[fatty]

How long has there been more than a billion people living on the planet though? I've never seen figures, but I would've thought there were close to a billion by say, 1066.

Mid 19th century.

[baggygreen]

Why thankyou!

Thats fascinating... grown by 5.5 billion in 250 years... I'll be spending my break looking at numbers i think :D

[August]

Why thankyou!

Thats fascinating... grown by 5.5 billion in 250 years... I'll be spending my break looking at numbers i think :D

Actually 159 years. But why only one billion? I would have thought 3-4 billion would be sustainable.

[Hylander_1314]

The climate is going to change all by it's little old self, whether man adds to it or not don't really matter. The last 10,000 years of relative stability is not the normal routine it's the oddity. The normal is warm periods, and then downright nasty extreme cold. Where anybody even if they lived on the equator would be hard pressed to get a tan. So we're going through a warming period that apparently peaked back in around 01, and things are starting to cool again. Big deal. It's big dumbs**ts like Al Gore who want to use this as another reason to suck money out everybody's wallet to support his fat @$$ that keeps gettin' bigger.

Besides, the same folks who have brought us the global warming scare said back in the 70s we were on our way to another iceage, and we should be dropping coaldust on the polar caps. So how serious should these people be taken?

[XabbaRus]

OK I agree that the climate is changing, I also think we should go all nuclear.

I also disagree with a lot of what subman says but also hate the eco-freaks who ram it down my throat.

Thing is we have a carbon cycle no? Is there a net increas in CO2 given that it was absorbed, ended up in oil and coal and then has been released again to be reabsorbed and we start again?

All I want is my kids to have a nice planet to live on. I also agree that maybe we need some sort of population control but apart from a massive war I can't see a fair way to do it either.

I hate zealots on either side of the debate, in fact I must say I have less time for the pro-global warming lot eg Friends of the Eart etc as they never come up with alternatives to co2 producing plants. even wind power is bad as it might kill birds..

Hey just got my first lot for extermination, how many world wide members of greenpeace and friends of the earth?

[mookiemookie]

PS. And no, you can't win this argument for human caused GW. There is too much against you.

You're right if I'm arguing the case to someone who sees what they want to see regardless of how much it flies in the face of objective fact and reality, such as yourself.

[SUBMAN1]

All hoopla.
:rotfl: :roll:

You 13 Mil scientist may belong to an org and that org may agree with climate change, but 13 mil scientists do not agree.
I'm sorry, but your sentence structure was so poor there that I don't have a clue what you're trying to convey. Do you mean that they disagree on some of the details?

I'd bet you have a hard time numbering in the hundreds.
...what?

The list I gave is very specific on what it is they are against.
The list I gave was specific on the organizations who still believe in climate change, and if you bothered to look into them, you'd know the finer details about each one. Don't expect me to run all over the web and find you every little bit of information about them. Visit their websites. They're specific.

Besides, these are scientists that beleive in proper research and know how to conduct it. So 31K is quite a bit.
And? The other 13 million agree and perform proper research.

And you mean 9,021 instead of 31,072. Remember, only the 9K group had graduated with degrees.:know:

The other side of the equation consists of only Al Gore and James Hansen of NASA.
:nope:

You know, such gross misconceptions might be humorous for a child, but it's honestly just shameful for an adult.
A typical lefty response when they see something they don't like.

"I'm too educated to read these abbreviations!"

-S

[SUBMAN1]

PS. And no, you can't win this argument for human caused GW. There is too much against you.
You're right if I'm arguing the case to someone who sees what they want to see regardless of how much it flies in the face of objective fact and reality, such as yourself.

Sorry. I've presented the proof in this thread, provided links, and made a rational argument. All I've seen since is opinions, including yours.

Yawn.

Did you read the article above? Doesn't sound like it.

-S

[mookiemookie]

PS. And no, you can't win this argument for human caused GW. There is too much against you.
You're right if I'm arguing the case to someone who sees what they want to see regardless of how much it flies in the face of objective fact and reality, such as yourself.
Sorry. I've presented the proof in this thread, provided links, and made a rational argument. All I've seen since is opinions, including yours.

Yawn.

Did you read the article above? Doesn't sound like it.

-S

No, I've made a perfectly rational argument that the overwhelming majority of scientists agree with the findings of the IPCC. Providing links to some petition isn't a very convincing argument, as I could find 30,000 people who still believe the sun revolves around the Earth. I tend to trust stuff that's official and peer reviewed:

A joint statement of support was issued in May 2001 by the science academies of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, New Zealand, Sweden and the UK. It stated: “We recognize the IPCC as the world’s most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving consensus.”
In the journal Science in 2004, Oreskes published the results of a survey of 928 papers on climate change published in peer-reviewed journals between 1993 and 2003. She found that three-quarters of the papers either explicitly or implicitly accepted the view expressed in the IPCC 2001 report that human activities have had a major impact on climate change in the last 50 years, and none rejected it.
Furthermore, your "proof" is nothing more than a scam:

On 20 April 1998, the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) issued a warning about the document circulated with the petition because it had been presented “in a format that is nearly identical to that of scientific articles published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.” The statement pointed out: “The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal”.
http://royalsociety.org/downloaddoc.asp?id=1630

I haven't given you my "opinion." Only the opinions of the National Academy of Sciences, The American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). If you choose to reject that, then that's your opinion.

[Stealth Hunter]

All hoopla.
:rotfl: :roll:

You 13 Mil scientist may belong to an org and that org may agree with climate change, but 13 mil scientists do not agree.
I'm sorry, but your sentence structure was so poor there that I don't have a clue what you're trying to convey. Do you mean that they disagree on some of the details?

I'd bet you have a hard time numbering in the hundreds.
...what?

The list I gave is very specific on what it is they are against.
The list I gave was specific on the organizations who still believe in climate change, and if you bothered to look into them, you'd know the finer details about each one. Don't expect me to run all over the web and find you every little bit of information about them. Visit their websites. They're specific.

Besides, these are scientists that beleive in proper research and know how to conduct it. So 31K is quite a bit.
And? The other 13 million agree and perform proper research.

And you mean 9,021 instead of 31,072. Remember, only the 9K group had graduated with degrees.:know:

The other side of the equation consists of only Al Gore and James Hansen of NASA.
:nope:

You know, such gross misconceptions might be humorous for a child, but it's honestly just shameful for an adult.
A typical lefty response when they see something they don't like.

"I'm too educated to read these abbreviations!"

-S

Your posts are getting shorter, Sub, and are not bothering to refute my points.

I think he's running away, guys.:hmm:

[Sea Demon]

Whether they like it or not, the climate is changing.



Statements like this confirm to me that people who believe in this movement don't actually understand anything about meteorological sciences, or just plain common sense. Yes, the climate is changing. The climate has always been changing, at different rates during different eras, and would be changing with or without human output. With the variable swings to such colder temperatures, in areas with increasing outputs, it should be scorching hot......if you still believe the obsolete models of CO2 vs. delta temperature some of these types continue to use as "evidence".

Yes, Subman's posts to you have gotten shorter. At some point, people figure it's not worth trying to help a lost soul out of the forest. Some people, for usually quirky reasons prefer to be lost purposely. Subman may be coming to that conclusion with you.

[SUBMAN1]

Your posts are getting shorter, Sub, and are not bothering to refute my points.

I think he's running away, guys.:hmm:Already did tens times over. Maybe you just don't read? You are rehashing crap! But maybe your head is stuck in a perpetual loop. That is pretty likely.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

The data keeps piling in.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/3563532/The-world-has-never-seen-such-freezing-heat.html

Some nice data on NASA's James Hansen in there.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Here is a video for you guys to watch:

http://www.discovery.org/v/30

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Oh guess what? Antarctica is getting colder, not warmer:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0118/p02s01-usgn.html

Must be a fluke! :D:D :p:p ;)

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Google is my friend today. Check this one! If Kyoto is 'true', we have supposedely spent $580,000,000,000 so far for a temperature savings of 0.006007916 °C!!!!!! hahahahahahahaha! This is just great! :D

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Kyoto_Count_Up.htm

-S

[SUBMAN1]

I just figured it out. To save the 2 °C that they are requesting, we need to spend $193,078,000,000,000. Hmm. How much you guys willing to contribute? :D :lol: :know: :hmm: :up:

Good thing its a farce. The entire world cannot afford it, nor does the entire worlds economies even come close for probably 50+ years if that is all we did.

This part of the article says it all:

Guess that means for the bargain price of just $100 trillion we could theoretically lower global mean temperature by about 1 °C.

-S

[Letum]

This article from the Daily Mail columnist who claimed asbestos was harmless, "no
medical risk" and "chemically identical to talcum powder". :rotfl:

As for his record on global warming: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/12/the_australians_war_on_science_29.php

[SUBMAN1]

This article from the Daily Mail columnist who claimed asbestos was harmless, "no
medical risk" and "chemically identical to talcum powder". :rotfl:

As for his record on global warming: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/12/the_australians_war_on_science_29.php
Yes, we know arctic sea-ice is breaking up in Summer, as it should. For the last 10K years, Sea-Ice at the North Pole has only bee present 5% of the time. Imagine if it kept doing what it has done since before recorded history? Shock!!! :o I find it humorous that people are in shock when the Earth doesn't stay the same. Its like they are scared of change! Get used to it - the Earth has cycles. Right now, expect it to continue getting colder.

This is bad by the way considering we are still rising out of our mini ice age in the late 1700's.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/993807/posts

This is still in progress, and its not politically or economically motivated ala Al Gore.

-S

The Cooling World (Blast From The Past Archived Newsweek Article Warning About "Global Cooling") (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/993807/posts)

Newsweek ^ (http://www.freerepublic.com/%5Ehttp://www.globalclimate.org/Newsweek.htm) | April 28, 1975
Posted on 10/02/2003 10:21:17 AM PDT by presidio9 (http://www.freerepublic.com/%7Epresidio9/)
(http://www.freerepublic.com/%7Epresidio9/)
There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production– with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.



The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars' worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.



To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world's weather. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”



A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.



To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth’s average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras – and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the “little ice age” conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 – years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.



Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery.



“Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data,” concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. “Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions.”



Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases – all of which have a direct impact on food supplies.



“The world’s food-producing system,” warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA’s Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, “is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago.”



Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during past famines.



Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.

[Letum]

Yes, we know arctic sea-ice is breaking up in Summer[...]

...you didn't read the article did you?
It is about Christopher Booker whose article you linked to. In 2008 he claimed that:
"Without explanation, a half million square kilometres of ice vanished overnight." from
the ice records. He was accusing the ice records of cooking the books.

Of course, he turned out to be very wrong. There was a perfectly reasonable
explanation and it was available to him.

He conducts his environmental journalism in the same way he conducts his asbestos journalism.

[SUBMAN1]

[
Yes, we know arctic sea-ice is breaking up in Summer[...]

...you didn't read the article did you?
It's not about the sea ice.
It is about Christopher Booker whose article you linked to. In 2008 he claimed that:
"Without explanation, a half million square kilometres of ice vanished overnight." from
the ice records. He was accusing the ice records of cooking the books.

Of course, he turned out to be very wrong. There was a perfectly reasonable
explanation and it was available to him.Read enough to see that it was about arctic ice and Asbestos and knew it was a trash article. Basically it was out to attack the man not the data, but I'm sticking to the point of the thread.

[Letum]

Ah but it is very much about attacking his data!
to the tune of half million square kilometers.

[SUBMAN1]

Ah but it is very much about attacking his data!
to the tune of half million square kilometers.Well, I have a hard time reading a scientific account or article that attacks a man at its outset. This tells me they are trying to discredit him prior to your reading what is supposed to be scientific data. This is to create an idiot mindset before you get to their main point.

Extremely bad journalism. You already lost me at this point.

-S

[Letum]

It is not attacking the man at all.
It is attacking his science; which, even you must admit, is appealingly flawed.

To attack the man you would have to comment on his BO or some such.

[SUBMAN1]

It is not attacking the man at all.
It is attacking his science; which, even you must admit, is appealingly flawed.

To attack the man you would have to comment on his BO or some such.

No, they latched on to some article that was totally unrelated. Even if he made a mistake, this shouldn't be the case.

Also, if it is absolutely neccesary, you make that argument at the end. Not as the main thrust of the article in the beginning. That is pretty pathetic.

-S

[Kipparikalle]

Looks like the EA boys could foresee the future, when they were making the Battlefield 2142.

In today's world, games foresee our future

[Hylander_1314]

Here is a video for you guys to watch:

http://www.discovery.org/v/30

-S

That's about the 50th scientific platform I've seen where they make one big point. CO2 follows temperature increase, not the other way 'round. Also it shows that solar activity is the biggest factor, if not "the" main determining factor.

So maybe Al Gore and company ought to figure out how to control sunspot activity instead of carbon output. Just another way to use scare tactics to tax tax tax.

One thing noted in the docuentary Little Iceage Big Chill, was that the early astonomers noted that during the cooling period there was very little sunspot activity. So again the sun, is the biggest player at the table.

Good posts there Subman1

[Stealth Hunter]

Your posts are getting shorter, Sub, and are not bothering to refute my points.

I think he's running away, guys.:hmm:Already did tens times over. Maybe you just don't read? You are rehashing crap! But maybe your head is stuck in a perpetual loop. That is pretty likely.

-S

You posted one thing to attempt to refute my points, and I explained why CO2 does play a measurable role in affecting the climate.

:rotfl:

I gotta tell you, Sub, I really do hope you keep going with your "evil Atheists" and other general conspiracy threads. I wouldn't have you any other way.:up:

[Stealth Hunter]

Here is a video for you guys to watch:

http://www.discovery.org/v/30

-S

From the same people who defend the principle that Earth is 6,000 years old?:lol:

[Stealth Hunter]

Oh guess what? Antarctica is getting colder, not warmer:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0118/p02s01-usgn.html

Must be a fluke! :D:D :p:p ;)

-S

Again, from the same people who defend the cultist idea that Earth is 6,000 years old?

Come on Sub. Why not use a peer-reviewed scientific article instead of all this Christian science claptrap?

[Stealth Hunter]

Google is my friend today. Check this one! If Kyoto is 'true', we have supposedely spent $580,000,000,000 so far for a temperature savings of 0.006007916 °C!!!!!! hahahahahahahaha! This is just great! :D

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Kyoto_Count_Up.htm

-S

"Updated Again: September 23, 2005"

BTW, the temperature thing increased on my browser.

[SUBMAN1]

Google is my friend today. Check this one! If Kyoto is 'true', we have supposedely spent $580,000,000,000 so far for a temperature savings of 0.006007916 °C!!!!!! hahahahahahahaha! This is just great! :D

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Kyoto_Count_Up.htm

-S
"Updated Again: September 23, 2005"

BTW, the temperature thing increased on my browser.Yes, it increases by the tiniest fraction every hundred years. Keep watching. You are about to grow a very long beard and waste your entire life for something that is unfounded.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Again, from the same people who defend the cultist idea that Earth is 6,000 years old?

Come on Sub. Why not use a peer-reviewed scientific article instead of all this Christian science claptrap?


Again you discount information, no matter how true by unrelated events. How are those blinders? You should try taking them off sometime and actually think for yourself. Such a concept!

-S

[Onkel Neal]

Subman, I do not know why this subject is so crashingly important to you, but that's ok, just try to keep it to one thread. :) Thanks

Neal

[Stealth Hunter]

Again, from the same people who defend the cultist idea that Earth is 6,000 years old?

Come on Sub. Why not use a peer-reviewed scientific article instead of all this Christian science claptrap?


Again you discount information, no matter how true by unrelated events. How are those blinders? You should try taking them off sometime and actually think for yourself. Such a concept!

-S

:rotfl:

Congrats Sub. The conspiracy that global warming is a hoax made the news:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/howaboutthat/3477148/The-greatest-conspiracy-theories-in-history.html?image=1

Well hey, it might not have made it to number one, but that doesn't mean it won't get there someday.

Ho-hum. Putting laughs and lollygags aside, I have chosen to think for myself, and the evidence is telling me that global warming is not a conspiracy. It's also telling me that there's irony afoot here. You claim to be thinking for yourself, but you don't do actual research into topics like this. Have you even been to NASA's Goddard Center? Goddard offers some great tours and lectures on their programs, and they have a great exhibit on climate change.

Yes, it increases by the tiniest fraction every hundred years. Keep watching. You are about to grow a very long beard and waste your entire life for something that is unfounded.

Given that they base their numbers off hypothetical estimates and not actual daily measurements like the scientists do, I'd say that overrules their reliability (but perhaps not their credibility; they have some great articles now and then). So yes, I would be wasting my time.:)

[Hylander_1314]

Hey Subman, here's an interesting article on the topic.

http://lib.store.yahoo.net/lib/realityzone/UFNtempsdropglcontinue.html

[mookiemookie]

One thing noted in the docuentary Little Iceage Big Chill, was that the early astonomers noted that during the cooling period there was very little sunspot activity. So again the sun, is the biggest player at the table.



How is it then that sunspot activity has been stable for he last 30 years, but the climate has been getting warmer?

[Hylander_1314]

Actually it hasn't been that stable. It has been going through more activity progressively over the last 20 years. There are also notes of times where it is more active, and times when it's not.

But to think that man has that big of an impact is man's arrogance again.

Just as detailed drawings of sunspots that were recorded during the little iceage when astromers were able to start recording them show very little activity in sunspots. It has also been recorded that during times of little activity the sun puts out less intense heat and radiation, which results in cooler temperatures.

So if we start having colder and longer winters, what then? Are the global warming crowd going to keep pimping that we're still gonna fry?

http://www.veoh.com/videos/v158890018kQaxQaK?autoWatch=true

[mookiemookie]

Actually it hasn't been that stable. It has been going through more activity progressively over the last 20 years. There are also notes of times where it is more active, and times when it's not.
The data does not back this up:

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/images/600px-Temp-sunspot-co2.jpg

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/FAQ2.html

[Digital_Trucker]

Actually it hasn't been that stable. It has been going through more activity progressively over the last 20 years. There are also notes of times where it is more active, and times when it's not.
The data does not back this up:

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/images/600px-Temp-sunspot-co2.jpg

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/FAQ2.html

Is the intensity of the sunspots taken into account or only the number? (I hate pure numbers, they usually mean nothing).

[mookiemookie]

According to the authors of this NASA study, they measured the high-energy radiation output of the solar cycle and found it not to be a major culprit of warming:

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/19990408/

[Digital_Trucker]

According to the authors of this NASA study, they measured the high-energy radiation output of the solar cycle and found it not to be a major culprit of warming:

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/19990408/
That's interesting, but using data from 1991 forward doesn't sound like it's much related to the graph from the previous post. I was also kinda wondering what kind of equipment they were using to measure all that stuff in the 1800's when I noticed in the article (if I read it correctly) that much of that data was from a computerized model (also known as an educated guess).

[SUBMAN1]

Given that they base their numbers off hypothetical estimates and not actual daily measurements like the scientists do, I'd say that overrules their reliability (but perhaps not their credibility; they have some great articles now and then). So yes, I would be wasting my time.:)Now this is the most ironic statement you've made yet.

All the models are hypothetical estimates by their creators own submission, yet you pass it off as fact! Nice! :up: Lets get back to reality, shall we?

-S

[Stealth Hunter]

Given that they base their numbers off hypothetical estimates and not actual daily measurements like the scientists do, I'd say that overrules their reliability (but perhaps not their credibility; they have some great articles now and then). So yes, I would be wasting my time.:)Now this is the most ironic statement you've made yet.

All the models are hypothetical estimates by their creators own submission, yet you pass it off as fact! Nice! :up: Lets get back to reality, shall we?

-S

And I doubt this will be the most ignorant statement you'll make so long as the thread is active.

NASA, the guys that I got my facts and information from, regularly measure and catalogue temperature changes and gas levels using satellite imaging techniques including infrared observation and SAR photography. The facts and statistics I gave you were not presented off hypothetical models, though, and the ones you gave me were. That's the problem.:up:

Yes, let us do get back to reality. I don't suppose you have anything else to add, do you?

[SUBMAN1]

And I doubt this will be the most ignorant statement you'll make so long as the thread is active....
Man you made me spit my tea out while laughing at you for this ridiculous statement! :lol:

-S

[Stealth Hunter]

And I doubt this will be the most ignorant statement you'll make so long as the thread is active....
Man you made me spit my tea out while laughing at you for this ridiculous statement! :lol:

-S

You're not even trying at this point.:roll:

/thread

[Fish]

An other warning:


EGU Position Statement on Ocean Acidification

”Impacts of ocean acidification may be just as dramatic as those of global warming (resulting from anthropogenic activities on top of natural variability) and the combination of both are likely to exacerbate consequences, resulting in potentially profound changes throughout marine ecosystems and in the services that they provide to humankind”.


http://www.egu.eu/statements/egu-position-statement-on-ocean-acidification.html

[AVGWarhawk]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/3982101/2008-was-the-year-man-made-global-warming-was-disproved.html

[Tchocky]

What a joke.

Does this sound like balanced, reasonable prose to anyone?

Ever shriller and more frantic has become the insistence of the warmists, cheered on by their army of media groupies such as the BBC, that the last 10 years have been the "hottest in history" and that the North Pole would soon be ice-free – as the poles remain defiantly icebound and those polar bears fail to drown.

Nevermind that on December 20th, Acrtic sea ice reched the lowest extent ever recorded for that time of year.

This guy isn't making any sense. let's look at this sentence.

and that the North Pole would soon be ice-free – as the poles remain defiantly icebound
Evidently, to this guy, if there is any ice at the Pole, it makes claims of ice reduction invalid.

His treatment of the ski story reeks as well. Obviously if there is snow this year, it means that there has always been snow.

The warning comes four years after a study for the United Nations Environment Programme predicted that more than half of resorts in France, Italy, Germany, Switzerland and Austria could be forced out of business over the next five decades as the snow line rises.

So, a fifty-year timeline for that scenario. But no, it's obviously some propaganda cooked up by Al Gore in the Batcave because THIS YEAR THERE IS LOTS OF SNOW AND THOSE FATCATS IN BRUSSELS CAN'T COVER IT UP.
The old "but it's cold today in Guildford" argument.

Incidentally, check out this guy's writings on asbestos. Journalistic integrity, he hasn't got.

A delightfully revealing snippet from George Monbiot.

My favourite Booker column is the piece he wrote in February, titled "So it appears that Arctic ice isn't vanishing after all". In September 2007, he reported,
sea ice cover had shrunk to the lowest level ever recorded. But for some reason the warmists are less keen on the latest satellite findings, reported by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ... Its graph of northern hemisphere sea ice area, which shows the ice shrinking from 13,000 million sq km to just 4 million from the start of 2007 to October, also shows it now almost back to 13 million sq km
. To reinforce this point, he helpfully republished the graph, showing that the ice had indeed expanded between September and January. The Sunday Telegraph continues to employ a man who cannot tell the difference between summer and winter.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/23/controversiesinscience.health

[Tchocky]

Another shining display of balance and clear-headedness.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/12/the_australians_war_on_science_29.php

[SteamWake]

I dident read the entire thread but here is another article worth reading dont know if its already been posted or not.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/3982101/2008-was-the-year-man-made-global-warming-was-disproved.html

[SUBMAN1]

More fuel for the fire:

http://www.dailytech.com/Climate+Report+Downgrades+Ice+Loss+Media+Reports+O pposite/article13797.htm

-S
Climate Report Downgrades Ice Loss; Media Reports Opposite (http://www.dailytech.com/Climate+Report+Downgrades+Ice+Loss+Media+Reports+O pposite/article13797.htm)

[Fish]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/3982101/2008-was-the-year-man-made-global-warming-was-disproved.html

Written by Christopher Booker.
Booker's scientific claims, which include the false assertion that white asbestos (chrysotile (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysotile)) is "chemically identical to talcum powder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talcum_powder).

http://ecoworldly.com/2008/11/17/the-bias-and-logical-fallacies-of-christopher-bookers-freezing-heat/

[SteamWake]

I dident read the entire thread but here is another article worth reading dont know if its already been posted or not.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/3982101/2008-was-the-year-man-made-global-warming-was-disproved.html

It was posted and mocked already. What's next, the Daily Mail's analysis on global warming ? :lol:

Im waiting on the National Enquirer's take on it. Perhaps they can get Gore as a guest writer... thats about right to me.

[Digital_Trucker]

I dident read the entire thread but here is another article worth reading dont know if its already been posted or not.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/3982101/2008-was-the-year-man-made-global-warming-was-disproved.html
It was posted and mocked already. What's next, the Daily Mail's analysis on global warming ? :lol:
Im waiting on the National Enquirer's take on it. Perhaps they can get Gore as a guest writer... thats about right to me.

I thought Al Gore invented the National Enquirer.:hmm:

[SUBMAN1]

When will this dumb ass Hansen guy stop?

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/01/01/nasas-hansen-obama-use-global-warming-redistribute-wealth

This just confirms what GW is all about anyway.

-S

PS. Sorry for not using my other thread. Figured this one deserved its own since the discussion is about wealth redistribution.

[Zachstar]

I agree with taxing carbon (Means the idiots will finally start to move towards renewable and help get us the hell off of oil)

But NOT to give back to the poor. This idiot has no idea how much money the poor really need.

The poor are not just penniless these days. Many are sitting on huge amounts of debt.

A MUCH MUCH MUCH better use of the money is to set up a prize fund to encourage backyard inventors to create American solution to problems. Such as that one that created an extremely cheap wind energy converter that can power LEDs overnight in Africa to give the young there a chance to read at night.

[nikimcbee]

Bah, this is old news.

[JALU3]

Taxing carbon is one thing, it's much like taxing certain products of consumption, however, carbon "credits" sounds like a shell game. Because some dick/jane says he/she will not produce carbon that they may or may not have produced, if you pay them, sounds like a gimic that actually has zero net benifit except for those taking other people's money.

[Frame57]

Gee! Why not tax breathing...everytime I exhale I emit CO...We should tax the ignorant people who lead us down these dark paths:nope:

[A Very Super Market]

Burning fossil fuels is different from breathing. Breathing is part of a natural exchange between plants and animals. The carbon from exhaling is balanced and surpassed by oxygen out put from plants. The carbon from fossil fuel is millions of years old, and excess carbon in our times because there is nothing to counteract it.

[Zachstar]

Gee! Why not tax breathing...everytime I exhale I emit CO...We should tax the ignorant people who lead us down these dark paths:nope:

The carbon you exhale is NOTHING compared to that of even a Prius. You break up carbon chains to propel, keep warm, and to keep stuff working. Your body is not breaking large carbon chains to push a ton or 2 car or truck. Or running an old factory.

Tho I 100 percent agree that taxing the rich to give directly to poor is FAIL. It is MUCH better spent on encouraging technology dev so that the poor actually have a chance.

[SteamWake]

Gee! Why not tax breathing...everytime I exhale I emit CO...We should tax the ignorant people who lead us down these dark paths:nope:

Meh... lets tax Cow Farts.... :p

This whole thing has become ludircris.

[Frame57]

Gee! Why not tax breathing...everytime I exhale I emit CO...We should tax the ignorant people who lead us down these dark paths:nope:

Meh... lets tax Cow Farts.... :p

This whole thing has become ludircris.Or lets harness the methane produced from farts and run our cars on it. Damn, I am going to have to find a way to get a cow seat in my Catalina:D

[breadcatcher101]

In regards to cows there is talk of a cow tax due to just that. I thought it was a joke until I checked into it.

[Frame57]

In regards to cows there is talk of a cow tax due to just that. I thought it was a joke until I checked into it.It would not surprize me a bit. Now they are after those of us who enjoy fireplaces....:nope:

[A Very Super Market]

No one cares if you burn wood, or breath out. As long as plants grow, the carbon produced by dying plants and animals is simply circulated between the two. Carbon taxes on fossil fuels make sense because they aren't balanced by anything, having been stored in the Earth's crust from millions of years ago, they are being added into our atmosphere and not taken out.

[Frame57]

No one cares if you burn wood, or breath out. As long as plants grow, the carbon produced by dying plants and animals is simply circulated between the two. Carbon taxes on fossil fuels make sense because they aren't balanced by anything, having been stored in the Earth's crust from millions of years ago, they are being added into our atmosphere and not taken out.Well maybe in not the breathing part, but there is talk of taxing those of us that have fireplaces. I disagree on your take of Carbon produced from fossil fuels. An additional 250ppm in our atmosphere will spark additional plant life to grow to bring homeostasis to bare the brunt of this.

[Diopos]

...
Well maybe in not the breathing part, but there is talk of taxing those of us that have fireplaces. I disagree on your take of Carbon produced from fossil fuels. An additional 250ppm in our atmosphere will spark additional plant life to grow to bring homeostasis to bare the brunt of this.

Where will that additional plant life "spark" into existance?
How fast will it "spark" into it?

We don't seem to manage existing forests and their habitats... expecting our *sses to be saved by forests "to be" well ...:nope:

Other suggestions?

[SteamWake]

In regards to cows there is talk of a cow tax due to just that. I thought it was a joke until I checked into it.It would not surprize me a bit. Now they are after those of us who enjoy fireplaces....:nope:

Oh and BBQ grills too :doh:

[Frame57]

...
Well maybe in not the breathing part, but there is talk of taxing those of us that have fireplaces. I disagree on your take of Carbon produced from fossil fuels. An additional 250ppm in our atmosphere will spark additional plant life to grow to bring homeostasis to bare the brunt of this.

Where will that additional plant life "spark" into existance?
How fast will it "spark" into it?

We don't seem to manage existing forests and their habitats... expecting our *sses to be saved by forests "to be" well ...:nope:

Other suggestions?Good point!

[Syxx_Killer]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090104/sc_afp/australiaclimatefood

I guess our friends down under better get munchin! I don't think I could ever eat a kangaroo or camel. :dead:

[A Very Super Market]

I've eaten camel before, doesn't taste much different than other meat, if a a bit stringy. And its true that Sheep, Cows, and pigs are grossly inefficient foods to produce.

[baggygreen]

we post up every now and again, roo meat is one of the leanest, tastiest meats going around.

delicious.

And we simply have so many roos its silly not to make use of them!

[A Very Super Market]

You guys should start eating those rabbits too. Heard they're quite a nuisance down under

[TarJak]

Roo steaks! Yum goes great with a big bold Shiraz.:up: Got some for dinner tonight so I'm doing my bit.:D

Camel I've never tried but heard it is pretty good tucker as well. Rabbits are good eating too as long as it is a meaty one.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Roo steaks! Yum goes great with a big bold Shiraz.:up: Got some for dinner tonight so I'm doing my bit.:D

Camel I've never tried but heard it is pretty good tucker as well. Rabbits are good eating too as long as it is a meaty one.

I'd like to try a Kangaroo steak, but I'm not all that familiar with Australian wine. Do you know a good Australian Shiraz that's relatively affordable?

[Rockstar]

Anyone try camel toe?

[Mush Martin]

Roo steaks! Yum goes great with a big bold Shiraz.:up: Got some for dinner tonight so I'm doing my bit.:D

Camel I've never tried but heard it is pretty good tucker as well. Rabbits are good eating too as long as it is a meaty one.
I'd like to try a Kangaroo steak, but I'm not all that familiar with Australian wine. Do you know a good Australian Shiraz that's relatively affordable?

Wyndham Estates Bin 555 Shiraz. :|\\C'est Magnifique

[UnderseaLcpl]

Roo steaks! Yum goes great with a big bold Shiraz.:up: Got some for dinner tonight so I'm doing my bit.:D

Camel I've never tried but heard it is pretty good tucker as well. Rabbits are good eating too as long as it is a meaty one.
I'd like to try a Kangaroo steak, but I'm not all that familiar with Australian wine. Do you know a good Australian Shiraz that's relatively affordable?

Wyndham Estates Bin 555 Shiraz. :|\\C'est Magnifique


I couldn't find "Wyndham Estates", but I did find some "Yellow Tail". Is that any good, and would it be inappropriate if I obtained it from an Asian female at the liquor store?

[XabbaRus]

Roo burgers are great.....taste really nice.

[SteamWake]

Anyone try camel toe?

Its not bad to snack on smells a bit like fish though.

[kurtz]

Anyone try camel toe?

Its not bad to snack on smells a bit like fish though.

Always have it if I'm eating out.

[SteamWake]

Moooooooo la

http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20081230165231.aspx

[Frame57]

Humans belch and fart too, so perhaps we should eat....never mind:damn:

[Syxx_Killer]

Humans belch and fart too, so perhaps we should eat....never mind:damn:

Bon appetit! :huh:

[Stealth Hunter]

Humans belch and fart too, so perhaps we should eat....never mind:damn:

Queequeg, remember we had this talk once before... and remember what I told you? Cannibalism isn't healthy. Now run along and help Ishmael.

[darius359au]

Mmmmmmhhhhmmm , Tasty Skippy...:up::rotfl:

And for the none Aussies who are wondering What the..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skippy_the_Bush_Kangaroo ;)

[TarJak]

Roo steaks! Yum goes great with a big bold Shiraz.:up: Got some for dinner tonight so I'm doing my bit.:D

Camel I've never tried but heard it is pretty good tucker as well. Rabbits are good eating too as long as it is a meaty one.
I'd like to try a Kangaroo steak, but I'm not all that familiar with Australian wine. Do you know a good Australian Shiraz that's relatively affordable?

Wyndham Estates Bin 555 Shiraz. :|\\C'est Magnifique


I couldn't find "Wyndham Estates", but I did find some "Yellow Tail". Is that any good, and would it be inappropriate if I obtained it from an Asian female at the liquor store?Yellow Tail is drinkable and I don;t think it matters who you buy it from as long as they haven't opened the bottle first. Better would be a Jacobs Creek Reserve Shiraz. It should be available in the US for about US$10, but obviously not everywhere:

[Mush Martin]

the Jacob's Creek is a favourite of my wife's.
M

[SUBMAN1]

Burning fossil fuels is different from breathing. Breathing is part of a natural exchange between plants and animals. The carbon from exhaling is balanced and surpassed by oxygen out put from plants. The carbon from fossil fuel is millions of years old, and excess carbon in our times because there is nothing to counteract it.How do you explain the lusher forest and plant life then from our carbon emitting cars? It then results in more animal life that eat the lusher plants.

Sounds like someone left these details out of the political nonsense they were telling you.

-S

[A Very Super Market]

You need more than just carbon to grow. Plants need nutrients and soil that we are pretty much destroying. Besides which, what makes you think that Carbon instantly turns into plant material? It doesn't matter how much milk a pygmy drinks, he won't get taller. There is no lack of carbon preventing plants from growing most, it is weather, animals, outside influence that can influence them. Animals need oxygen, and its obvious that we aren't stressing the planet's supply of it. Explain why the planet isn't covered completely with them.


Where did you hear that we have lusher forests? Our forests are either unchanged, or cut down. While it is the true that the fossil fuel carbon can't harm them, it isn't like they need them.

[Zachstar]

Burning fossil fuels is different from breathing. Breathing is part of a natural exchange between plants and animals. The carbon from exhaling is balanced and surpassed by oxygen out put from plants. The carbon from fossil fuel is millions of years old, and excess carbon in our times because there is nothing to counteract it.How do you explain the lusher forest and plant life then from our carbon emitting cars? It then results in more animal life that eat the lusher plants.

Sounds like someone left these details out of the political nonsense they were telling you.

-S

Subman if you are going to sprout bullcrap atleast get it halfway right.

If anything seriously benefits from more CO2 it is Algae. Which is what actually gives most of the oxygen NOT plantlife.

[SUBMAN1]

...Where did you hear that we have lusher forests? Our forests are either unchanged, or cut down. While it is the true that the fossil fuel carbon can't harm them, it isn't like they need them.

Simple solution to all the rhetoric (Though some in this forum can only spew rhetoric since I think they are paid for it - this is not you VSM btw) I'm seeing to this idea - check the Amazon. It has been proven that increased carbon has led to lusher forests.

Another take on it:

http://www.oism.org/pproject/GWReview_OISM600.pdf

-S

[Zachstar]

Hell Subman I WISH I could be paid just to read your crap. Sadly there is no interest to do so.

Looks like all is well on Subsim. Conspiracy theories affluter. Tho I admit it is the first time some have been accused of actually being in a "paid" conspiricy.

Hey Subman will you give me 100 thousand a year to say the moon landings were fake?

[SUBMAN1]

...Hey Subman will you give me 100 thousand a year to say the moon landings were fake?Hell, I'd put money on that you believe they were fake too. So it would seem i wouldn't have to pay you and you'd still make a thread on it sooner or later. You believe whatever the conspiracy people tell you from everything I have ever seen you post.

So how about you pay me to shut up about the truth then? That would make a lot more sense.

-S

[kiwi_2005]

I thought Kangaroo was on the menu's in Aussie:hmm: I would eat it, Ive eaten posseum, taste very similar to chicken very nice cooked up as a stew we have millions of the bast**ds in our forests that hunters kill them for their fur and sell the furs to the french.

[Zachstar]

That would be money you would lose then as my post history on this and other forums prove otherwise.. Too bad..

What truth? The world has accepted that GW exists only your merry band of fools in my view cling to this idea that GW is fake.

You see it does not matter. Cause while you sweat to google up some new piece of evidence (As the moon hoaxers and 9/11 inside job retards do) People are actually finding solutions. Everything from iron seeding from ocean cloud forming to as far as moving debris into L points to slightly reduce solar influence.

Oh and they aint paid for by Al gore. They don't need his money.

[Tchocky]

Ah, the ol' Oregon Institute.

[Tchocky]

AFAIK camels milk is a lot less resource-intensive than cows

[SteamWake]

According to this guy its up to Barry to save the world in the next 4 years or else were dooooomed !

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jan/18/jim-hansen-obama

[breadcatcher101]

Holy cow, maybe that's why he doesn't want to give up his blackberry!

These changes have been happening throughout time. While I do believe we are making a small dent in it ourselves, putting a tax on cattle farmers because of gas emmisions from cows while the rest of the world spews forth all types of posions makes little sense.

He will just strip every program from the military to NASA and pour it all into socialist programs such as welfare for 4th generation families and the like unless I am wrong.

Rather than save the world in four years he is more likely to destroy our country with his ideas. Time will tell. I do hope I am wrong.

[kiwi_2005]

Wouldn't worry to much about global warming thats never going to destory us more likely something like a huge earthquake that will affect the whole world is more than likely to happen.

[AVGWarhawk]

Here is the latest on global warming:


http://www.mlive.com/opinion/flint/index.ssf/2009/01/its_time_to_pray_for_global_wa.html

Now that this is dispelled, I suspect we will be taxed to death.

The article which I did not read is probably providing the same message as the guy on the street corner with a sign that states, "THE END IS NEAR"

[Enigma]

unless I am wrong.

You are.

[SteamWake]

unless I am wrong.

You are.

Still trying to find where this quote came from. :hmm:

[Enigma]

Here: He will just strip every program from the military to NASA and pour it all into socialist programs such as welfare for 4th generation families and the like unless I am wrong.

[AVGWarhawk]

Here: He will just strip every program from the military to NASA and pour it all into socialist programs such as welfare for 4th generation families and the like unless I am wrong.

Yeah, he is wrong.

[UnderseaLcpl]

If this guy believes that anyone, even the President of the U.S., can do something meaningful with regards to global emissions in four years, he is retarded.
And even to get to that point, he'd have to honestly believe that mankind is having some kind of significant effect on the global climate cycle.:roll:

[Stealth Hunter]

And even to get to that point, he'd have to honestly believe that mankind is having some kind of significant effect on the global climate cycle.:roll:

:roll:

Let me get my notes out again.

We know that:


• Average temperatures have climbed 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit around the world since 1880, much of this in recent decades. NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies has confirmed this.

• The rate of warming is increasing. The 20th century's last two decades were the hottest in 400 years and possibly the warmest for several millennia, as shown by climatology scientists. The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports that 11 of the past 12 years are among the dozen warmest since 1850. This statistic was likewise confirmed by NASA.

• Average temperatures in Alaska, western Canada, and eastern Russia have risen at twice the global average, according to the multinational Arctic Climate Impact Assessment report compiled between 2000 and 2004. Once again, NASA investigated and confirmed this.

• Arctic ice is disappearing at an alarming rate, and the region may have its first completely ice-free summer by the year 2040 or even earlier. To add to this, polar bears and other native species are already suffering from the sea-ice loss.

• Glaciers and mountain snows are rapidly melting. For instance, Montana's glacier park now has only 27 glaciers, compared to the 150 that existed in 1910. In the Northern Hemisphere, thaws a week earlier than usual and freezes end a week later than usual.

• Coral reefs suffered the worst bleaching since 1998 (when they're destroyed by stress from temperature change), with some areas seeing bleach rates of 70%. Scientists expect these sorts of events to increase in frequency and intensity in the next 50 years as sea temperatures rise causing the currents to change.

• An upsurge in the amount of extreme weather events (such as heat waves and tropical storms) has come with the climate changes.



We also know that:



• Industrialization, deforestation, and pollution have greatly increased atmospheric concentrations of water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, all of which are greenhouse gases.

• Humans are putting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere faster than plants and ocean algae can absorb it.

• These gases persist in the atmosphere for years, so that even if such emissions were reduced or completely eliminated today, it would still not cause global warming to immediately cease.

• Scientists have proven that natural cycles in Earth's orbit can alter the planet's exposure to sunlight, which may explain part of the current trend.


We're not entirely to blame, but we are accelerating the process. We do need to pay more attention to what we dump into the world, because if we don't, we're in trouble. Global warming is not some elaborate hoax conjured up by the scientists so they can obtain more money, but it's certainly not our fault alone as some claim. That's the simple fact of it.

[longam]

I believe we don't know jack, but we keep guessing.

[Stealth Hunter]

I believe we don't know jack, but we keep guessing.

Well, you'd be wrong on both points. We're not guessing, and we do know quite a bit. The problem comes down to egos and politics. Some scientists are too proud to admit that they're wrong about something in regards to global warming and some politicians want to misuse it to earn money.

[SUBMAN1]

Sounds like a man worrying about everyone finding out the truth - that truth that their data comes from the late 1700's and that it was a mini ice age back then and it has never been about man made global warming, but only an excuse for control.

I find it hilarious there is a post above even showing that temps increased since the 1800's! Duh! :88) That is what happens when you come out of an ice age. The rest is hogwash.

So that is what NASA's James Hansen idiot looks like. He looks like a goof.

-S

PS.

We know that:
We know nothing other than human caused GW is not a reality.

[SteamWake]

The main problem is that we need to look at "the big picture".

The problem is that we have but a fleeting glimpse of the big picture given recorded weather trends.

Lets paint a fantasy scenario... Global Warming starts a new ice age. The eggheads deduce that if the earths temprature needs to rise 4 degrees in the next two years lest of all of eaths inhabitants will cease.

If all of mankind put their efforts into raising the earths tempratures by 4 degrees in the next two years.... do you think it could be done :hmm:

[AVGWarhawk]

The main problem is that we need to look at "the big picture".

The problem is that we have but a fleeting glimpse of the big picture given recorded weather trends.

Lets paint a fantasy scenario... Global Warming starts a new ice age. The eggheads deduce that if the earths temprature needs to rise 4 degrees in the next two years lest of all of eaths inhabitants will cease.

If all of mankind put their efforts into raising the earths tempratures by 4 degrees in the next two years.... do you think it could be done :hmm:

That would be an awful lot of cow droppings.

[Stealth Hunter]

Sounds like a man worrying about everyone finding out the truth - that truth that their data comes from the late 1700's and that it was a mini ice age back then and it has never been about man made global warming, but only an excuse for control.

I find it hilarious there is a post above even showing that temps increased since the 1800's! Duh! :88) That is what happens when you come out of an ice age. The rest is hogwash.

So that is what NASA's James Hansen idiot looks like. He looks like a goof.

-S

PS.

We know that:
We know nothing other than human caused GW is not a reality.

I'm going to summarize his post with one emoticon:

:roll:

Have you even bothered to do research on this topic from the Goddard Institution? No, of course you haven't. People, people, people... read a peer-reviewed science journal sometime. In the United States alone, there are 13 million scientists and engineers, and statistically, the vast majority believes and/or has shown evidence for mankind having some effect upon the Earth's climate. Now I'm not going to shove evidence for my stance down your throats, because that's not the proper way to teach someone. Indeed, it is a rarity to convince anyone to switch sides in an Internet debate and I doubt it will work in Subman's case (does it ever?). The point is, do research and take interest in a scientific subject before you argue on it.

That one thread you made, Sub, was priceless. Here's a link to it for anyone who is interested:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=145364

Your sources were... flawless (I'm referring to page 5 here). I mean, the Discovery Institute? Christian Science Monitor? What accuracy and reliability! I shall take out my eye so as to never forget their merit!

Here's something else the Discovery Institute defends (aside from the idea that global warming is a hoax):

http://www.discovery.org/a/7051

"Intelligent design (ID) has scientific merit because it uses the scientific method to make its claims and infers design by testing its positive predictions."

That's even more rich than Answers in Genesis' claim that oil was made by God:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v1/n1/origin-of-oil

Sorry for sidetracking, but it had to be said. I mean, if Subman gets his information on global warming from these people, do you really think it's accurate? Can you honestly say it is?

Again, go to your local library and check out a book, read a news article, or watch a documentary about this stuff. Get involved. Most importantly, form your own opinion. I gave some facts about global warming and my opinion, nothing more.

Oh and Sub, James Hansen is an Iowa University graduate. He studied under James Van Allen (the guy who's research led to the discovery of the Van Allen radiation belt), and had some of the highest marks/distinctions in physics and mathematics in the United States. He mastered astrophysics, astronomy, and climatology. Hope your sources can compete with Dr. Hansen, and he's only one person who knows climate change is taking place.:up:

Granted Dr. Hansen makes some claims I don't agree with...

[Digital_Trucker]

I believe we don't know jack, but we keep guessing.

I believe they call that science:D

[Stealth Hunter]

I believe we don't know jack, but we keep guessing.

I believe they call that science:D

The same thing that gave you the Internet, your computer, 99% of your house's appliances, medicine, and the ability to live in a civilized, healthy, advanced society?;)

[Digital_Trucker]

I believe we don't know jack, but we keep guessing.
I believe they call that science:D
Are you referring to the same thing that gave you the Internet, your computer, 99% of your house's appliances, and the ability to live in a civilized, advanced society?;)
Get a sense of humor, SH. Do you know how to interpret :D? Science can be right about one thing and totally clueless about another. Global warning is hardly the same as the internet and refrigerators:rotfl:

BTW, I noticed you used the word "believe" in your statement about how the vast majority of scientists feel about global warning. Isn't that the word that so many throw back at anyone who is religiously inclined.

Numbers are a strange commodity. They can be massaged to prove anything you'd like to prove. The earth has been here for millions of years and you want to base your "proof" of global warming on a couple hundred years of data? We flat out cannot prove that global warming is man made based on the miniscule amount of data we have to work with and anyone who tells you that you can is afflicted with delusions of grandeur. When you have a couple thousand years of data come back with your "facts".

[Zachstar]

Trying to talk to Subman about GW is absolutely useless. You will have far better luck convincing Moon Hoaxers or 9/11 truthies that there is no conspiricy.

However, There is a discussion about Taxes revolving around GW. Some idiot said that we ought to tax sources to throw into social programs. One of the dumbest ideas I have heard in ages. Everyone knows that ANY taxes collected on sources of carbon need to go into solar, wind, fusion research.

[Stealth Hunter]

Get a sense of humor, SH. Do you know how to interpret :D? Science can be right about one thing and totally clueless about another.

Such as?

Global warning is hardly the same as the internet and refrigerators

Yeah, no s***.:roll:

BTW, I noticed you used the word "believe" in your statement about how the vast majority of scientists feel about global warning. Isn't that the word that so many throw back at anyone who is religiously inclined.


Note the "and/or has shown evidence" part as well, thank you.:up:

Numbers are a strange commodity. They can be massaged to prove anything you'd like to prove. The earth has been here for millions of years and you want to base your "proof" of global warming on a couple hundred years of data?

Earth is 4 billion years old, not a few million years old; 4.54 billion years old to be precise. And why are you only commenting on the century temperatures data? It alone is meaningless, but when you add it in with all the other things like current temperatures, coral bleaching rates, etc., it starts to actually come together to provide proof.

We flat out cannot prove that global warming is man made based on the miniscule amount of data we have to work with and anyone who tells you that you can is afflicted with delusions of grandeur.

Nobody is saying it's all man's fault. We are having a profound impact on our climate, but it's also natural. Earth has gone through these cycles before.

By the way, read up a little more about the research we've done into climate change. You might want to change that part about a "miniscule amount of data" once you do.:up:

When you have a couple thousand years of data come back with your "facts".

:roll:


Oh, the .54 in the age of the Earth was rounded in the hundredths place.