The forecast for tonight, here in the Midwest, is for the low to be in
the single digits and the wind chill to be in the negative single
I hope this doesn't start another discussion about W I N D C H I L L.
On 11/17/2014 10:20 PM, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
Due to global warming (and our failure to act) ISIS
or ISIL will likely soon be active in the USA, along
with all those Mexicans and OTM. It's our fault of
course, driving cars and using air conditioners.
Last night I forgot to put the towel in the crack
under the door, and it sure is global warming in
the living room this morning. Western NY is about
18F of global warming, and I'm not eager to step out.
I'm part of the problem, using a natural gas furnace
to stay warm. I'm so evil, I should use solar panels.
Been 100% overcast for last several days, not likely
to do much good. I need government subsidies, that's
it. Government money.
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
Albert Gore, Jr.;3309852 Wrote:
> The forecast for tonight, here in the Midwest, is for the low to be in
While that may be true, Australians are baking in 40+ degree Celsius
temperatures. That's over 104 deg. F.
The highest temperature I've ever experienced here in Winnipeg is 37
deg. C, or 98.6 degrees F, and that was about 20 years ago. Coldest was
-52 deg. Farenheit, when I was a kid and before Canada went metric.
Winter is not the best time to be looking for evidence of global
On Mon, 17 Nov 2014 20:36:55 -0600, "Albert Gore, Jr." <There's a
sucker born every minute.> wrote in
Man-made climate warming/change is quack science used by
big-government tax and spend politicians and special interest groups
to justify massive new taxes and government control (think gas cans,
light bulbs and carbon taxes). Indeed, many of the UN-IPCC input data
assumptions used in the Global Warming Climate Change computer models
are egregiously unrealistic, e.g. CO2 uptake via the global ocean/air
interface, effects of solar activity, very limited data sampling,
sub-surface ocean current movement changes, chronic underestimate of
methane effects, variability of volcanic ash and CO2 ejection, methane
overestimation, etc. There are many others. As the developers of
computer models like to say: "Garbage in, garbage out".
The IPCC previous report, in 2007, was so grotesquely flawed that the
leading scientific body in the United States, the InterAcademy
Council, decided that an investigation was warranted. The IAC duly
reported in 2010, and concluded that there were "significant
shortcomings in each major step of [the] IPCCs assessment process",
and that "significant improvements" were needed. It also chastised the
IPCC for claiming to have "high confidence in some statements for
which there is little evidence".
Indeed, A peer-reviewed climate change study released in Sept 2013 by
the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change finds the
threat of man-made global warming to be not only greatly exaggerated
but so small as to be "embedded within the background variability of
the natural climate system" and not dangerous.
Want more? How about: The dysfunctional nature of the climate
sciences is nothing short of a scandal. Science is too important for
our society to be misused in the way it has been done within the
Climate Science Community. The global warming establishment has
actively suppressed research results presented by researchers that do
not comply with the dogma of the IPCC. -- Swedish Climatologist Dr.
Hans Jelbring of the Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics Unit at Stockholm
Last, but not least, is additional dissonance added to the debate
regarding the many beneficial aspects of warming, regardless or who or
what is causing it.
A new report from the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate
Change (NIPCC), written by an international collection of scientists
and published by the conservative Heartland Institute, claims just
that, declaring that humanity's impact on climate is not causing
substantial harm to the Earth.
For a sample of big-media bias on this issue, read "LA Times bans
letters from climate skeptics" (you will have to search for it because
this site doesn't allow posting of links.)
Permission granted to freely copy/paste the above.
Web based forums are like subscribing to 10 different newspapers
and having to visit 10 different news stands to pickup each one.
On Tuesday, November 18, 2014 11:19:25 AM UTC-5, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
The Chinese didn't buy anything. All they did was take Obama over
the barrel, just like everyone else. It's not a treaty, it's not binding.
It's just a bad agreement, where the US is supposed to reduce our emissions
by 25% by 2025. The Chinese in turn "say" they will stop increasing their
emissions by 2030. You think that's a good deal? Obama wants to pretend it
is, because he's desperate to grasp at straws.
If you like that deal, wait until next week, when they conclude dealing
with the Iranians. He'll probably let them build the bomb and declare
that a historic agreement too.
Last night I was listening to some "expert" talking about global
warming, and he was saying that current forecasts suggest that it won't
be until 2080 or thereabouts that the use of fossil fuels will start
diminishing. That is, the use of fossil fuels for energy is going to
keep increasing until 2080, and then start to subside. A lot of this is
because of all the people in China, India and Brazil that are making
their way out of the lower class into the middle class and wanting to
buy cars. Also, many countries have abundant coal resources and don't
want to be importing oil and LNG as long as they can use their own coal
reserves to provide the energy they need.
This week, Barak Obama and the Chinese Prime Minister signed a deal
saying that both countries would begin reducing their carbon footprints
by 2030. Obama is a lame duck president and he knows that anything he
signs will not bind the next President of the USA. The Chinese Prime
Minister knows that he's not likely to still be in power by 2030
The bottom line here is that our society is based on fossil fuels. Our
cities have suburbs where people live 10 or more miles from the city
centers where they work. If it were not for cars and gasoline, those
suburbs would not be practical. Also, cities are growing, and most new
houses and buildings use fossil fuels for heat and use electricity
produced by burning fossil fuels for air conditioning. That's simply
because using fossil fuels for heat costs less than electricity, and
will for the foreseeable future. And, while we may be able to use
electric cars to commute to work, what will aeroplanes be powered with
except hydrocarbon fuels? Our entire society runs on fossil fuels, and
it's going to take several generations to change to a non-carbon based
society. It's easy enough for people to complain about the problem, but
changing our society to a carbon neutral one is going to be a very slow
process if it happens at all.
On Tuesday, November 18, 2014 1:17:16 PM UTC-5, nestork wrote:
Wrong. Under the agreement, the USA is to reduce it's emissions starting
immediately and have them down by ~25% by 2025. China? They can keep
increasing their emissions until 2030 and only then start reducing them.
There are no penalties, it's not even a treaty. In other words, it ain't
worth the paper it's printed on. And even if it were, it's a bad deal for
Obama is a lame duck president and he knows that anything he
Bingo. Plus the Chinese president doesn't have to change for him to
just say "never mind" a few years from now. Hell, he could do it next
year, tell Obama to get lost, and Obama would call that a historic
That he is closer to a dictator than an elected official and a very
tough character who I wouldn't think cares very much about what the
world wants to hear.
Likewise, I would not see The Central Committee as being driven by
public opinion. Witness Tiananmen Square and the
hundreds-if-not-thousands of people in prison for saying the wrong
Bottom Line: if somebody is calling global warming some sort of hoax,
they have to explain why the Chinese government is buying in to it.
That doesn't mean an explaination is not there - just that I have not
yet heard one that makes sense.
On Mon, 17 Nov 2014 20:36:55 -0600, "Albert Gore, Jr." <There's a
sucker born every minute.> wrote:
Yes, freezing on the east coast as well. But that's why the name
changed to "Climate Change", because certain people point out the cold
extremes and say puff to global warming. Weather does not equal
Climate (<> or != depending on the computer language).
I think that climate change is real and is caused by use of fossil
fuels, and I certainly hope that I (and the vast majority of climate
scientists) are wrong. I think not.
I think that climate change has been happening
since long before humans discovered fossil fuels.
I don't think there is a cause and effect bit that
fuels cause change. Rather, changes in weather
dictate more or less use of fuels to keep our homes
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
I pointed out in another ng that there are other "Grubber's" than the
one being talked about in lying about Obamacare.
You can bet that there are many of them in the government climate change
Where are the most climatologists employed but in the government?
These scientists are just like any other people that know that the way
to get along is to go along and give the boss what he wants.
I saw it happen here in Delaware when the state climatologist said when
Mother Nature comes along, get out of her way. The Democrat government
had a hissy fit because they wanted him to say we must stop using fossil
fuels. He's no longer the state climatologist.
On Tuesday, November 18, 2014 2:51:19 PM UTC-5, Frank wrote:
An interesting observation. I agree. If the global warming controversy
were over, I would not be surprised to see some similar Grubers
come forward to admit they were fudging, distorting, lying. After all,
like Gruber and Obama, they are smarter than the rest of us, know what's
best, and anything is justified to further the cause.
Another interesting thing. I have to fast forward through the first
five minutes of the nightly national news about half the time now. The lead
story is the weather. A wind storm here, some heavy rain there, a small
tornado that blew over one building, etc. Ten years ago, that was just
normal stuff of little consequence and they didn't even cover it. Now
it's the lead story. They even give the forecast for the days ahead as the
top story. I'm sick of it. They don't directly try to link it to global
warming, but clearly they have an agenda and are desperately trying to
portray the weather now as somehow radically different.
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.