If this is global warming...

Page 1 of 16  
Up to my groin in snow. Just a few drifts. *poke, poke, poke* "There's a car in here somewhere..."
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robatoy wrote:

28 degrees here in hot sunny (not) Texas... Brrrr! I'm leaving for Hawaii Monday morning :)
Pete C.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
According to the Drudge Report, a House Hearing on Global Warming was cancelled due to the ice storm.
Jack
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Poor Al ... if he had the courage of his convictions he's probably got rid of all his coats by now.
Naaahhh!
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 2/07/07
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
All right guys, settle down. The experts have said we have global warming, so you are gonna believe it and like it.
And no big stink from the peanut gallery, either.
I couln't stand it if Al Gore swept the Oscars.
Robert
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 14 Feb 2007 14:28:03 -0800, " snipped-for-privacy@aol.com"

I dunno--if he got the idea that he could have a career in show biz it might keep him out of politics. On the other hand it didn't stop Hanoi Jane.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Its pretty clear that he has no intention of ever running for office again. He could change his mind of course, but it would be a change.
--
FF




Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

I'm sure everyone is aware of this, but just in case...
The concept of global warming is just that...a global annual average. Those who predict it are *also* predicting more extreme weather in general. So its quite possible to both have global warming and harsh winters.
Chris
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Yeah, Yeah, Yeah, global warming causes all kinds of mayhem including the hurricanes, tornados, hailstorms, lightning storms, and lest we forget, it definitely caused Pangea to split apart.
These idiots that you call scientists were the same ones, 30 years ago that were saying that we were all doomed because another ice age was coming soon.
Show me a scientist who says that there is global warming and I'll show you a hundred more who say that there are only global cycles and a very dynamic planet that is constantly changing.
The fossil records speak very clearly. Areas 10,000 years ago were once deserts, now they are lush and other areas where giant lakes and forests are now arid.
Global cycles yes, man made global warming, a big fat NO.
Steve
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 16:57:48 -0600, Chris Friesen

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
----- Original Message -----
Newsgroups: rec.woodworking Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 5:38 PM Subject: Re: If this is global warming...

[Snip of Steve's opinions]

Steve,
Maybe these references will help you get up to speed on global warming.
http://peakoildesign.com/blog/peakengineer/global_warming_myths_and_lies See #5. Also: "Every now and again, the myth that "we shouldn't believe global warming predictions now, because in the 1970's they were predicting an ice age and/or cooling" surfaces. Recently, George Will mentioned it in his column and the egregious Crichton manages to say "in the 1970's all the climate scientists believed an ice age was coming" (see Michael Crichton's State of Confusion ). You can find it in various other places too. But its not an argument used by respectable and knowledgeable skeptics, because it crumbles under analysis. That doesn't stop it repeatedly cropping up in *newsgroups* though. I should clarify that I'm talking about predictions in the scientific press. There were some regrettable things published in the popular press (e.g. Newsweek; though National Geographic did better). But we're only responsible for the scientific press. If you want to look at an analysis of various papers that mention the subject, then try http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage /."

Okay. I'll take you up on that. Show me the hundred that agree with your opinion. Here are eight that say you are very wrong. J Ren (China) N Nicholls (Australia) M Rusticucci (Argentina) P Stott (UK) U Lohmann (Switzerland) R Stouffer (USA) V Kattsov (Russia) T Matsuno (Japan)
-Doug
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No, I'm not going to post 800 references, but I will ask you a very logical question for you to ponder that was originally posted by Phil Brennan.
We are being bombarded with horror stories about how the arctic regions are warming and the polar bears are disappearing (actually their numbers have increased by some 20,000) but we are not informed by Mr. Gore and his acolytes as to how a warming arctic region can continue to send more and more record breaking cold waves southward, creating the incredibly frigid weather much of the northern U.S. is shivering under.
If your refrigerator is running low on freon it will not keep its contents cold. If the arctic is our refrigerator, and the refrigerator is rapidly running out of coolant, how can it create colder and colder weather fronts?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Steve wrote:

Please acquaint yourself with the difference between weather and climate. Global warming ain't about weather.

The Arctic is not a refrigerator-- it is an effect and not a cause of climate. It is now mostly free of ice, as you admit, the result of global warming. Which, BTW, is the subject of a meeting of 600 scientists at the present. You made the unsubstantiated claim that you could provide the names of 100 scientists who believe that global warming is cyclical for every one who believes that is is man-made. You owe us 6,800 names.
I'll give you the name of one (most definitely) non-scientist who believes that it is man-made: George W. Bush. Or is Charlton Heston still your president?
Bob
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Flip flopping now?
.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

And I guess abdominal pain isn't associated with appendicitis, yeah right Skippy.

Quite frankly, I never wrote that the arctic is mostly free of ice. Quite the contrary, on his Web site, Bob Felix cites facts ignored or lied about by the global warming alarmists. He shows that despite their claims that the worlds glaciers are melting, fully 75 percent are actually growing.
In response to claims that oceans levels are rising and threatening to drown New York City, he shows they are actually falling.
And once again, yes Skippy, the arctic is a refrigerator.

Don't know what you're babbling about there Skippy.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

As the Polar ice cap recedes more open water is exposed. Open water is much more effective at cooling the air passing over it than is ice.

Are you claiming a downward trend in global temperature?
--
FF


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Steve wrote:

I was going to stay out of this off-topic argument, but the above is pure BS. Where were your hundreds of dissenters at the recent global warming conference? I suspect you've got the ratios reversed.
--
It's turtles, all the way down

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Steve wrote:

WHoa, backup, and slowdown there Bubba. It is not "the scientists" who are idiots, it's the people who take their incomplete work and make political fodder out of it *pretending* it is science. Science in the service of politics - left- or right- - is prostitution, nothing more or less. If you respond to this prostitution of science rather than to the actual known science, then you get nowhere but into another endless debate of political ideology.
If I may, let me summarize that I think the current state of the actual science is:
1) There is some global warming taking place. It is slight, in keeping with the 20,000 or so year trends since the last ice age, and far lower than all the climatology models thus far were predicting.
2) We are at local (with the last 200 year) highs in injecting CO2 into the carbon cycle of the planet. BUT ... they are not "all time" highs (that happened millenia ago) AND no one is certain that a) CO2 actually causes noticeable and uncontrolled warming or b) That global warming - however much it may be happening - is necessarily a bad thing.
3) To the extent that global warming is actually happening, there not yet an unimpeachable *causal* relationship between human action and warming. There is that suspicion, but it is not yet demonstrated. No serious scientist on any side of the scientific debate believes humans *cause* GW. The most aggressive claim is that humans are amplifying a natural process and in so doing may change the quiescent state of things drastically - sort of the straw that breaks the camel's back model. However, even if this eventually turns out to be demonstrated as being so, it is far, far, far less clear that humans could actually modify their behavior sufficiently to make a real difference. One of the reasons not to rush off and go start randomly trying to "stop" global warming is that it may well be better to use our limited resources to *adapt* to it's consequences. For instance, over the past 20,000 years, the ocean levels have risen about 600 feet. This translates to about 1 cm per year. Now, let's say that human action were to double that. It is probably a lot more socially, economically, and politically practical to adapt to a 2cm/yr rising coastline than trying to radically retool modern energy-dependent economies all at once.
5) There is also considerably more debate about this particular topic within scientific circles than the popular political discussion would have you believe. That's because politicians like to use words like "consensus" - as if scientists vote on what the laws of nature will become. But science proceeds by means of skepticism and *data* - which, to date, are insufficient to come to any final conclusions about GW, who causes it, and whether anything can be done about it.
In the end, it is in everyone's best interest to preserve and protect the "commons" - the things we cannot divide up as private property that are common to us all. However, the political spewing, exaggeration, and flatout lies about the nature and severity of the problem are causing otherwise smart people to make really stupid judgments. This is not unusual. We're terrified by the thought of someone breaking into our homes and killing us while we sleep (which very rarely happens) but don't think twice about driving on highways that kill 30,000 people a year in the US alone. The disaster prophets of the political left and the deniers of the political right have one thing in common: They want to create and artificial sense of emergency in the minds of the public and then none-too-gently propose themselves as the solution. The *real* (smart) idiots are people like Gore who wants to terrify the population into electing him and <insert your favorite rightwinger here> who wants to terrify the population with spectre of economic meltdown if we even consider a strategy of alternate fuels and lower emissions.
The fact is that the politicians are ignoring the *real* driver here: Energy independence for the West would mean we could rapidly disentangle ourselves from the sewer that is the oil-producing Middle East, Africa, and South America. That's because they don't have the brains, will, or selling skills to get the public rallied behind them in a cross-partisan way. The politicians will only act if it is good for "their side", and almost never when it is just "good". The reason to hold people like Gore in complete contempt is that they both lie about what is known, and play patently obvious political games while utterly failing to address more pressing short-term threats.
Bah, humug, and blech upon both the earth-worshiping pantheists as well as the commerce-at-all- costs worshiping idolators. We all - every one of us - ought to be thinking about what is in our own long term durable self-interest. It is not in our interest to "save the planet" if it means the highway death toll goes up 10x because we're all riding in tin boxes with exploding batteries. Commerce is a good thing - essential to human freedom and happiness - but it cannot be used as an excuse for justifying *everything*. Most importantly, we need to stop looking to any politician for answers on these (and most all other) issues. The fact is that Western democracies are good for defending personal liberty and very little else. The "answer" to global warming - if it is needed at all - will come from a better understanding of real science, not listening to Gore's Inconvenient Pack Of Exaggerations And Lies...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Bravo!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The smarter thing to do is round up every ground hog, slap them around until they start talking, and get their prediction. That is about as scientific as as the political morons looking for votes. And if their 'consensus' is correct, vote them in to office. At least we'll get intelligent government 50% of the time.
And just to show them who's boss, wear a morning suit, white gloves and top hat.
Pete
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No, the breakup of Pangaea was caused by local warming.

OK, I'll take you up on that by showing you Kevin Trenberth:
Here is quoted as saying, in effect, that there is global warming and it its anthropogenic: http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6334
And here is his bio,showing he is a scientist: http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
Your turn. Don't forget to include the biographical information needed to show the hundred on your list ARE scientists and not economists, engineers or whatever else.
Then maybe we can discuss the "lst of Steves".

Do you deny that the Earth's albedo has been changed by human action?
--
FF


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.