Global Warming? WHAT global warming?

[Imperatrix]

hahahahah first the self -deprecating joke ,followed by the wicked double entendre!!!

you are truly Queen mumTAS of the taj Mahal!!!!!!!!!!:headset:

:lmao:

Thank you, dollface; it's a living. :angel:

[Imperatrix]

What I meant was I posted documented articles from Time and Newsweek, printed in the mid '70's, that clearly showed that we were in a cooling period and that the scientific community thought we were on the verge of an ice age. Interestingly, they blamed global cooling for many of the same things they're now blaming global warming for, such as famines in certain areas. Here are the links:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html

http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

Yes, I understand...but I don't think you understand what I meant, so I'll ask you again: how do you know that any sources of information from the media, the scientific community, etc. (whether conservative or liberal, mind you!), have or have not been falsified? You seem to believe blindly what your own sources say. How do you know your sources are wholly honest, that no one's tampered with stats, etc.?

You really don't know if this is the case or not....just as the more liberal of posters in this thread don't know whether the facts they've gleaned from their own sources are truly verifiable.

In any case, Terry, as I posted previously, it does not matter what causes global warming, whether it's a warming trend which is natural for the Holocene, or if it is happening as a result of people/creatures mucking up the environment...but it can't be denied that global warming is happening and that it exists. How do we know it does exist? Don't blind yourself to the changes that are happening around us. You don't need the scientific community or the media to prove or deny it---it's right here in the midst of our lives.

[podo]

Yes, I understand...but I don't think you understand what I meant, so I'll ask you again: how do you know that any sources of information from the media, the scientific community, etc. (whether conservative or liberal, mind you!), have or have not been falsified? You seem to believe blindly what your own sources say. How do you know your sources are wholly honest, that no one's tampered with stats, etc.?

You really don't know if this is the case or not....just as the more liberal of posters in this thread don't know whether the facts they've gleaned from their own sources are truly verifiable.

In any case, Terry, as I posted previously, it does not matter what causes global warming, whether it's a warming trend which is natural for the Holocene, or if it is happening as a result of people/creatures mucking up the environment...but it can't be denied that global warming is happening and that it exists. How do we know it does exist? Don't blind yourself to the changes that are happening around us. You don't need the scientific community or the media to prove or deny it---it's right here in the midst of our lives.

Thats all very true

If in the next few years there is major scientific support for debunking the man made global warming theory, then I will happily support that. At this stage, none exist. I just beleive that people who should understand these things know more than I do.

However, if the above turns out to be the case, it is really of no significance. If nothing else, the public has become aware of the unbridled waste of energy and resources that have occurred and are now more efficient on the way we use things. That in itself justifies the attention.

[somissound]

Maybe all this will wake up the human race finally that there is no "back up planet" and that we have to pay attention to our Earth and stop doing all the different types of damage that is hurting this wonderful miracle of a planet!

Whether the planet is warming or cooling by itself or because of humans does not seem to me to be the problem. Whats in motion is in motion. We could argue about this till its too late...

We have to change our wastefull, polluted, corporate, and toxic ways regardless,,,, and quick! If we are going to survive... One World -imo-

[pedro skychaser]

yeah...dunno about the scientists but the birds+fish are pretty sick of the pollution...geez i studied environmental science in the 70's (when i wasn't being distracted by mesmerising prog)...the kyoto protocol will be ratified by australia, if labor win in upcoming election...it is a pragmatic/symbolic gesture to sway china + india to do likewise ( note to US diplomats--you don't get anywhere telling china+india what to do---the soft war is being won by them--see oz politics--on both sides... www.smh.com.au (http://www.smh.com.au)

[BrianD]

I have long believed that the Kyoto protocol is worthless and just an excuse to keep a whole lot of mainly European bureaucrats happy. So its never bothered me too much that Australia & the US haven't ratified it. The practical actions in these countries are more important - though both lag in this area too.

There are much more important practical ways that we should be approaching this issue and that does involve protocols that include the developing giants Brazil, India and China.

[Terry Shea]

""In the early 1970s, the rise of environmentalism raised public doubts about the benefits of human activity for the planet. Curiosity about climate turned into anxious concern. Alongside the greenhouse effect, some scientists pointed out that human activity was putting dust and smog particles into the atmosphere, where they could block sunlight and cool the world. Moreover, analysis of Northern Hemisphere weather statistics showed that a cooling trend had begun in the 1940s.""

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm


next time,, read the articles that are postedNext time try thinking for yourself (and reading more carefully) instead of letting others do it for you. If human activity was causing cooling by putting smog and dust particles into the atmosphere in the '70's it should have an even more pronounced (and greater) cooling effect today. Furthermore it clearly states that this was "alongside the greenhouse effect", suggesting that the "greenhouse effect" itself was helping to create global cooling. Now that we've reached a warming period these theorists/conspiratists have reversed themselves. This theory of manmade global cooling was debunked not on any real scientific basis but simply on a historical basis over the course of time.

These same theorists/ conspiratists are once again ignoring the history of the earth's climate and temperatures. They have to because the historical record is not consistent with their hair-brained theory. They're calling their wild stabs in the dark factual when they have no factual, scientific evidence whatsoever to support their ridiculous theory. Instead they villify, mock, scorn and threaten anyone who dare to disagree with them. But that's okay. It's better to agree with a bunch of lying, manipulative scum than to actually have to think for yourself, right?:headset:

[Terry Shea]

I made no such point. You're just dreamin' now, Terry.

The Global "Cooling" scare did not last very long because it had no traction. And trying to use it as a rationale for Global Warming also being wrong is an argument that also has no traction.

This would be like infering that the notion that the Sun is at the center of the solar system will also be debunked because scientists had previously believed that the Earth was the center, and they were proved wrong. Yep, this whole "Sun-at-the-Center" thing is just another scare to make money: "Earth-at-the-Center lasted for centuries, and there was no talk about Sun-at-the-Center during that time! How could there be?"

Besides, the scientists weren't "wrong" about global cooling. That proposed theory never gained any consensus in the scientific community. What was "wrong" was that some media outlets ran with the story believing that there was significant scientific support for the theory. Please read previous posts explaining how this happened - Even though you seem to enjoy repeating the same claptrap over and over doesn't mean that any of us enjoy explaining the flaws in your claptrap to you over and over.

BTW, another research group has weighed in on the UN backed IPCC report. This group thinks that things will actually be getting MUCH worse before they get better:Sorry Zach but you certainly did make my point, now you're trying to twist out of it. You can twist and squirm all you want but it won't change anything. The fact is there was a cooling period that lasted about 4 decades despite dramatically increasing CO2 and other "greenhouse gas" levels. Many scientists did jump on the "global cooling" bandwagon during this period. It didn't last very long because the theory was being discussed towards the end of the cooling period and it didn't receive the funding the global warming kooks are receiving today.

It was debunked not on a scientific basis, per se, but rather because of a review of the historical record of climate and temperatures. This same historical record is now being ignored by the global warming alarmists! They can't explain this generation of cooling temperatures despite increased CO2 and other "greenhouse gas" levels. It doesn't fit the theory, so they simply ignore it. They can't explain the Medieval Warm Period that saw temperatures much warmer than today over a 500 year period despite low CO2 and other "greenhouse gas" levels. It doesn't fit the theory, so they simply ignore it. They can't explain why we had a Little Ice Age following this warming period despite increasing CO2 and other "greenhouse gas" levels. It doesn't fit the theory, so they simply ignore it.

They present no scientific evidence to support their nonsense but resort to lying by calling it a fact. Instead of presenting any factual scientific evidence they rely on hype, threats, bullying, intimidation and brainwashing tactics. Instead of challenging the historical record they resort to trying to impeach and villivy the source when they simply can't ignore it anymore!

And thanks for posting the IEA info. It gave me a real good laugh! A 5.4 degree F increase in the next 23 years, eh? That's better than (or at least as good as) Al Gore's claim of 20 foot sea increases!

[Terry Shea]

Yes, I understand...but I don't think you understand what I meant, so I'll ask you again: how do you know that any sources of information from the media, the scientific community, etc. (whether conservative or liberal, mind you!), have or have not been falsified? You seem to believe blindly what your own sources say. How do you know your sources are wholly honest, that no one's tampered with stats, etc.?

You really don't know if this is the case or not....just as the more liberal of posters in this thread don't know whether the facts they've gleaned from their own sources are truly verifiable.

In any case, Terry, as I posted previously, it does not matter what causes global warming, whether it's a warming trend which is natural for the Holocene, or if it is happening as a result of people/creatures mucking up the environment...but it can't be denied that global warming is happening and that it exists. How do we know it does exist? Don't blind yourself to the changes that are happening around us. You don't need the scientific community or the media to prove or deny it---it's right here in the midst of our lives.Well I know the Time and Newsweek articles weren't falsified because I remeber when they came out during the '70's. And I seriously doubt that either publication would post false information on their own websites to make themelves look stupid.

And as far as my other sources go, most of the information they post is verifiable by other means, or they argue on a logical basis. I don't believe anything blindly...that's what these global warming nuts are doing!

And I certainly have not denied that global warming exists! Where did you get an idea like that from?

[Imperatrix]

Well I know the Time and Newsweek articles weren't falsified because I remeber when they came out during the '70's.

So? What difference does it make that you remember when the articles came out or that they came out during the 70s? How does that have any bearing on the veracity of the information they contained?

And I seriously doubt that either publication would post false information on their own websites to make themelves look stupid.

Why not? Any publication or institution can aver or publish information that is contrary to logic and/or blatantly untrue if something can be gained from it in the long run...or, let's not forget, if another entity forces them to. What that something might be, we certainly can't guess---but don't rule it out.

And as far as my other sources go, most of the information they post is verifiable by other means,

How is it verifiable? Through "facts" and figures on a page? Not good enough. By what other means is this information verifiable? Show us.

or they argue on a logical basis.

You merely believe this because their "logic" is consistent with yours.

I don't believe anything blindly

You do if you trust your sources.

And I certainly have not denied that global warming exists! Where did you get an idea like that from?

I will ask you this: do you place absolute credence in global warming? Tell us.

[gunsfornuns]

The founder of The Weather Channel says... (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/11/weather_channel_founder_global.html)

[kirk]

John Coleman isn't even a metorologist, he's a bitter old Republican
weatherman that had the WTC taken from him by a corporate.

Hmmm....I wonder what Al Roker thinks?

C'maan..research these "sources". All you're doing is attempting
to reinforce the "conservative" BS w/ whatever talking head fills
the bill. It's split (as usual) straight down party lines.

K

[Terry Shea]

John Coleman isn't even a metorologist, he's a bitter old Republican
weatherman that had the WTC taken from him by a corporate.

Hmmm....I wonder what Al Roker thinks?

C'maan..research these "sources". All you're doing is attempting
to reinforce the "conservative" BS w/ whatever talking head fills
the bill. It's split (as usual) straight down party lines.

K
Translation: No opinion counts unless it's from a raving, lunatic leftist who preaches that the world is going to come to an end in the next few years because we're enjoying driving around in our automobiles, flying around in jets and having electricity in our homes. Any scientist who says otherwise is not a scientist at all, and anyone who is not a scientist has no business uttering an opinion on the matter unless it supports manmade global warming. Free speech only applies to who we want it to apply to. Anyone who doesn't believe in our short-sighted, idiotic, doomsday theory must be silenced and/or villified.

You say John Coleman isn't even a meteorologist? Really! That certainly should be news to folks in San Diego, particularly to those who hired him as a meteorologist at KUSI TV!

http://www.kusi.com/weather

I don't see anything suggesting that he's a "bitter old Republican" though. He may very well be a Republican, but it's a moot point and shouldn't be relevant to this conversation. The point is, he is a meteorologist (you lied) and you further tried to villify him by referring to him as a "bitter old Republican". Now, is Al Gore a meteorologist or any kind of scientist? I think not! He is most certainly a raving, lunatic, leftist politician though!

You just chastised someone for not researching his sources. Reasearch your own sources and quit fabricating things that you know (or at least should know) aren't true. Oh wait a minute...if you did that you'd have no reason to believe that global warming is manmade!

[kirk]

I'm finding sources that go both ways on Coleman, so honestly
I don't know. I'm having trouble finding where he studied, who
granted him the degree. This has become so smoke-filled, that it's
becoming tough to trace the players, most likely intentionally.

I do know however, The Weather Channel's stance on Global Warming-
http://climate.weather.com/articles/pessimism092707.html

Fact is though Terry, you and yours have lost this battle, so be
a man and eat it. You're going to lose big time on the next election,
so suck it up. The majority of Republicans are calling for action on the climate.

Have a warm and ----ty day.

K

[kirk]

Here, i know you're too blinded to actually read that link-

Poll: Pessimism widespread over environment; most give Bush, Congress poor grades
By ALAN FRAM Associated Press WriterThursday, September 27, 2007WASHINGTON (AP) — People want their leaders to move boldly to help the environment but give them dismal grades for their actions so far, according to a poll released Wednesday that highlighted rampant pessimism on the issue.

Only about one in five voiced approval of how President Bush, Congress and U.S. businesses have been handling the environment. And while decisive majorities said they want strong public and private action, fewer than one in 10 said they had seen such steps in the past year, according to the poll by The Associated Press and Stanford University's Woods Institute for the Environment.

The survey, conducted days before Bush was convening an international climate conference in Washington, showed that though Democrats and independents were consistently more critical than Republicans, anxiety is widespread over the environment and global warming.

"I don't understand why we're letting people destroy the Earth the way we are," said Jerry Menees, 34, an independent voter and truck driver from Potosi, Mo. "It scares me what this world is coming to."

Only about a fifth think the environment is in good or excellent shape, including 39 percent of Republicans. Just over one in 10 think it is faring better than a decade ago or will improve a decade from now, while about eight in 10 say global warming is under way — views that were broadly shared across party lines.
The 84 percent who believe world temperatures are rising is virtually unchanged since Stanford and ABC News conducted a similar poll in March 2006. But while 45 percent of that group said in 2006 they were very or extremely sure, 61 percent said so in this month's survey — including most Democrats and independents and a sizable 39 percent of Republicans. On the other hand, of the 14 percent who said global temperatures are probably not rising, nearly half say they are very or extremely sure — up from the roughly one-third who felt that strongly last year.

K

[Terry Shea]

So? What difference does it make that you remember when the articles came out or that they came out during the 70s? How does that have any bearing on the veracity of the information they contained?



Why not? Any publication or institution can aver or publish information that is contrary to logic and/or blatantly untrue if something can be gained from it in the long run...or, let's not forget, if another entity forces them to. What that something might be, we certainly can't guess---but don't rule it out.



How is it verifiable? Through "facts" and figures on a page? Not good enough. By what other means is this information verifiable? Show us.



You merely believe this because their "logic" is consistent with yours.



You do if you trust your sources.



I will ask you this: do you place absolute credence in global warming? Tell us.You still seem to be missing the point entirely (and being rather cynical and paranoid). I remember these articles from the '70's. I was around then and I read them. They have not been altered from their orignal content. I'm sure some contributing authors and/or scientists may like to alter them to save further embarrassment, but they haven't. The conclusions these publications (specifically, Time and Newsweek) made have been proven false over the course of time. There was no ice age and things have warmed back up.

Now some rogue scientists have taken this return to normalcy and removed it from it's proper context, focusing only on the last 30 years or so and completely ignoring (or in some cases, contrasting with) the previous 30-40 year cooling period and also ignoring the past 20,000 year period of overall temperature increases. The media has once again jumped on the bandwagon w/o any factual evidence to support this madness. They're making the exact same mistake they made previously.

That's what most of my sources have pointed out. They show specifically who lied about what, where timeline and temperature information were fudged, where the funding dollars are actually going and how the global warming alarmists are threatening and intimidating "non-believers". I've specifically pointed out false information being doled out by several different sources. My opposition has only made general statements about my sources such as your sources are wrong, or right-wing or some other nonsense. They can't identify anything specifically, so they just make generalized specific statements to libel the source because they have no factual or logical ground to argue from. Sometimes, as has just been demonstrated, they just simply out and out lie to try to impeach the source.

Logic is logic. Logic is not open to interpretation. Something is either logical or it is not. There is no such thing as "my logic" or "your logic".

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/logic

a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning

(I know...how can I trust the dictionary...it could have been falsified)

:Wow:

[Terry Shea]

I'm finding sources that go both ways on Coleman, so honestly
I don't know. I'm having trouble finding where he studied, who
granted him the degree. This has become so smoke-filled, that it's
becoming tough to trace the players, most likely intentionally.

I do know however, The Weather Channel's stance on Global Warming-
http://climate.weather.com/articles/pessimism092707.html

Fact is though Terry, you and yours have lost this battle, so be
a man and eat it. You're going to lose big time on the next election,
so suck it up. The majority of Republicans are calling for action on the climate.

Have a warm and ----ty day.

K
We're all going to lose in the next election because all the candidates running (from either party) are absolute idiots! Not that it really has anything to do with the conversation at hand.

As for Mr. Coleman:

http://www.kusi.com/about/bios/weather/1838191.html

He has been a TV weatherman in Champaign, Peoria and Chicago, Illinois; Omaha, Nebraska, Milwaukee, Wisconsin and New York City. For seven years he was the weatherman on "Good Morning, America" on the ABC Network.

John also cooked up the idea of a cable channel devoted to nothing but weather and spent six years developing "The Weather Channel" on cable. "That's my baby", he says. "The bad guys took it away from me, but they can't steal the fact that it was my idea and I started it and ran it for the first year. I put everything I had into making TWC the success it is."

And I know all too well what TWC's stance is on global warming. They're not nice people to deal with:

Heidi Cullen, host of The Weather Channel's series The Climate Code, and self proclaimed "Climate Expert" (that's what it says next to her name on her blog), is proposing that the American Meteorological Society (AMS) decertify any meteorologist who is even remotely skeptical about whether humans could cause or contribute to a climate catastrophe. Here are some of her statements:

http://climate.weather.com/blog/9_11396.html


"If a meteorologist has an AMS Seal of Approval (http://www.ametsoc.org/amscert/), which is used to confer legitimacy to TV meteorologists, then meteorologists have a responsibility to truly educate themselves on the science of global warming."


"Meteorologists are among the few people trained in the sciences who are permitted regular access to our living rooms. And in that sense, they owe it to their audience to distinguish between solid, peer-reviewed science and junk political controversy. If a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn't give them a Seal of Approval. Clearly, the AMS doesn't agree that global warming can be blamed on cyclical weather patterns. It's like allowing a meteorologist to go on-air and say that hurricanes rotate clockwise and tsunamis are caused by the weather. It's not a political statement...it's just an incorrect statement."



See, that's exactly what I've been talking about. Your side is nothing but a bunch of corporate stooges who won't tolerate any kind of scientific debate (because they know they're wrong)! They threaten, bully, intimidate and villify all opposition. They attempt to squelch all free speech on the matter. They have no facts and they have no balls so they resort to such thuggery techniques!

[Terry Shea]

Here, i know you're too blinded to actually read that link-

Poll: Pessimism widespread over environment; most give Bush, Congress poor grades
By ALAN FRAM Associated Press WriterThursday, September 27, 2007WASHINGTON (AP) — People want their leaders to move boldly to help the environment but give them dismal grades for their actions so far, according to a poll released Wednesday that highlighted rampant pessimism on the issue.

Only about one in five voiced approval of how President Bush, Congress and U.S. businesses have been handling the environment. And while decisive majorities said they want strong public and private action, fewer than one in 10 said they had seen such steps in the past year, according to the poll by The Associated Press and Stanford University's Woods Institute for the Environment.

The survey, conducted days before Bush was convening an international climate conference in Washington, showed that though Democrats and independents were consistently more critical than Republicans, anxiety is widespread over the environment and global warming.

"I don't understand why we're letting people destroy the Earth the way we are," said Jerry Menees, 34, an independent voter and truck driver from Potosi, Mo. "It scares me what this world is coming to."

Only about a fifth think the environment is in good or excellent shape, including 39 percent of Republicans. Just over one in 10 think it is faring better than a decade ago or will improve a decade from now, while about eight in 10 say global warming is under way — views that were broadly shared across party lines.
The 84 percent who believe world temperatures are rising is virtually unchanged since Stanford and ABC News conducted a similar poll in March 2006. But while 45 percent of that group said in 2006 they were very or extremely sure, 61 percent said so in this month's survey — including most Democrats and independents and a sizable 39 percent of Republicans. On the other hand, of the 14 percent who said global temperatures are probably not rising, nearly half say they are very or extremely sure — up from the roughly one-third who felt that strongly last year.

KAssociated Press? Please see post # 757 on page 38 about the AP! I don't want to reprint their list of lies again.

We are told nothing about how many people were polled or how the poll was conducted. Furthermore, who is disputing that temperatures are rising? This poll doesn't even address what the cause is of rising temperatures so what is your point?

[podo]

Now some rogue scientists have taken this return to normalcy and removed it from it's proper context,
:Wow:


Some rogue scientists ??

Terry, the only rogue scientists are the ones bisbeleiving the global warming theory

I think you will find that any scientist who should have an opinion on the subject, has an opinion on the subject, and in the vast majority of cases, there is overwhelming support of the theory.

How many where involved with the UN study 12 months or so back ?? was it 500 ? more I beleive.

[Imperatrix]

You still seem to be missing the point entirely (and being rather cynical and paranoid). I remember these articles from the '70's. I was around then and I read them. They have not been altered from their orignal content. I'm sure some contributing authors and/or scientists may like to alter them to save further embarrassment, but they haven't. The conclusions these publications (specifically, Time and Newsweek) made have been proven false over the course of time. There was no ice age and things have warmed back up.

Now some rogue scientists have taken this return to normalcy and removed it from it's proper context, focusing only on the last 30 years or so and completely ignoring (or in some cases, contrasting with) the previous 30-40 year cooling period and also ignoring the past 20,000 year period of overall temperature increases. The media has once again jumped on the bandwagon w/o any factual evidence to support this madness. They're making the exact same mistake they made previously.

That's what most of my sources have pointed out. They show specifically who lied about what, where timeline and temperature information were fudged, where the funding dollars are actually going and how the global warming alarmists are threatening and intimidating "non-believers". I've specifically pointed out false information being doled out by several different sources. My opposition has only made general statements about my sources such as your sources are wrong, or right-wing or some other nonsense. They can't identify anything specifically, so they just make generalized specific statements to libel the source because they have no factual or logical ground to argue from. Sometimes, as has just been demonstrated, they just simply out and out lie to try to impeach the source.

Your blindness is appalling.

Paranoid? No. I just know that anyone can lie to make a point or to make a buck or out of fear, or for any other reason. There is absolutely no way in hell that your---or anyone's---sources are scrupulously honest.

Logic is logic. Logic is not open to interpretation. Something is either logical or it is not. There is no such thing as "my logic" or "your logic".

Have you ever studied critical thinking?

(I know...how can I trust the dictionary...it could have been falsified)

:Wow:

Irrelevant. But, if you insist, the dictionary is biased. Is a bias a falsehood? Think about it, and then go roll. :D

[Terry Shea]

Some rogue scientists ??

Terry, the only rogue scientists are the ones bisbeleiving the global warming theory

I think you will find that any scientist who should have an opinion on the subject, has an opinion on the subject, and in the vast majority of cases, there is overwhelming support of the theory.

How many where involved with the UN study 12 months or so back ?? was it 500 ? more I beleive.
Wrong! The vast majority of tv meteorologists don't believe this nonsense:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=3a9bc8a4-802a-23ad-4065-7dc37ec39adf

I have been in operational meteorology since 1978, and I know dozens and dozens of broadcast meteorologists all over the country. Our big job: look at a large volume of raw data and come up with a public weather forecast for the next seven days. I do not know of a single TV meteorologist who buys into the man-made global warming hype. I know there must be a few out there, but I can’t find them.

http://www.crainscleveland.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070213/FREE/70213008/1010

Mr. Webster observed that in his dealings with meteorologists nationwide, “about 95%” share his skepticism about global warming.

Now, as for the UN study, they simply listed every scientist they contacted as being a "contributor" to the report, whether they agreed with the UN's position or not! Many scientists offered dissenting opinions, but their opinions were not included in the report even though their names were included! That's how a corrupt, politically driven organization like the UN operates:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2007/090307warminghoax.htm

The UN's much vaunted IPCC report was heralded as closing the case on the argument of man-made global warming. But as the show explains, the IPCC's conclusion was politically driven and they deliberately censored any dissenting scientists while still listing them as participants, leading many to threaten legal action against the IPCC to have their names removed from the report. Scientists who were invited to participate in the IPCC report expose the fundamental flaws contained throughout the document.

If you'd like to view the documentary go here:

http://en.sevenload.com/videos/ha4PoKY/The-Great-Global-Warming-Swindle

[Terry Shea]

Your blindness is appalling.

Paranoid? No. I just know that anyone can lie to make a point or to make a buck or out of fear, or for any other reason. There is absolutely no way in hell that your---or anyone's---sources are scrupulously honest.



Have you ever studied critical thinking?



Irrelevant. But, if you insist, the dictionary is biased. Is a bias a falsehood? Think about it, and then go roll. :DYou're definitely paranoid.

And yes, there are honest sources. You simply making a general statement with nothing to back you up means nothing!

You aren't God, even though you seem to believe that you are.

And, once again, the dictionary isn't biased just because you say it is. You may be able to show that a certain dictionary may be biased but that would take a lot of digging and research on your part. Good luck with that!

And even if a certain version of a dicitonary did show some type of bias it wouldn't likely discredit the entire dictionary. I find it rather hard to believe that you'd actually dispute the meaning of the word "logic"! That's illogical!

[podo]

Wrong! The vast majority of tv meteorologists don't believe this nonsense:




TV meteorologists ???????????

Is that the best you can do ??

Holy crap mate.. you think thats a reliable source.. Thats like saying Judge Judy represents the High Court

Complete idiocy

[Imperatrix]

You're definitely paranoid.

This is your opinion, babycakes---but it is patently untrue. In any case, it's well known that what comes out of your brain and into a post is not enough vis and is always vomitus. :winknudge

And yes, there are honest sources. You simply making a general statement with nothing to back you up means nothing!

Show me these honest sources, and then prove to me that they are honest. Go ahead; do it. Do it now.

You aren't God, even though you seem to believe that you are.

:dog:

And, once again, the dictionary isn't biased just because you say it is. You may be able to show that a certain dictionary may be biased but that would take a lot of digging and research on your part. Good luck with that!

Ever read the OED?

I find it rather hard to believe that you'd actually dispute the meaning of the word "logic"! That's illogical!

:lmao: Read any of Dogen's works, and then get back to me.

[podo]

Let me ask you this Terry

Why is it so important to you to disprove all this ?? What is so evil about the theory of man made global warming ?

As far as Im concerned, we are now heading towards clearner cars, cleaner power generation, renewable energy, more emphisis on enviornmental issues. Whilst these pushes existed beforehand, they have really come to the fore because of the theory of man made globas warming. That in itself justifies the whole thing

I cant see why your so hell bent on proving it wrong. SImply to score browny points as far as I can see

[pedro skychaser]

[quote=Imperatrix;1334517]This is your opinion, babycakes---but it is patently untrue. In any case, it's well known that what comes out of your brain and into a post is not enough vis and is always vomitus. :winknudge

/quote]

...no one, and i mean no-one can be colloquial+cute, then ram home latin like you tasmania brown...i dips me lid, queen mumTas----that's not to say tel, that you should not return serve...game on??? :xolicon42:


btw soon newly -elected socialist australian government to ratify kyoto ( oh APEC---one of PK PM's better ideas...):headset:

[Terry Shea]

TV meteorologists ???????????

Is that the best you can do ??

Holy crap mate.. you think thats a reliable source.. Thats like saying Judge Judy represents the High Court

Complete idiocySo I guess you know more than the tv meteorologists do then, eh? We're supposed to believe you and not them, eh? No it isn't like saying Judge Judy represents the High Court. TV meteorologists are getting paid to make accurate predicitions about the weather while Judge Judy is getting paid to be an entertaining ass.

[Terry Shea]

Let me ask you this Terry

Why is it so important to you to disprove all this ?? What is so evil about the theory of man made global warming ?

As far as Im concerned, we are now heading towards clearner cars, cleaner power geberation, renewable energy, more emphisis on enviornmental issues. Whilst these pushes existed beforehand, they have really come to the fore because of the theory of man made globas warming. That in itself justifies the whole thing

I cant see why your so hell bent on proving it wrong. SImply to score browny points as far as I can seeBecause it's all a big lie. Because people are getting brainwashed by these evil leftists. Because it's all a scam to control people and put money in evil leftists pockets. Because these evil leftists are bullying, intimidating and scaring people into submission.

But I'm not trying to prove it wrong, per se. I'm simply trying to show the truth of the matter. People are being force fed these liberal lies and accept is as fact, when in fact the facts show that there is absolutely nothing to this manmade global warming lunacy! Why would you or anyone else want to keep perpetuating such a lie?

[Terry Shea]

[quote=Imperatrix;1334517]This is your opinion, babycakes---but it is patently untrue. In any case, it's well known that what comes out of your brain and into a post is not enough vis and is always vomitus. :winknudge

/quote]

...no one, and i mean no-one can be colloquial+cute, then ram home latin like you tasmania brown...i dips me lid, queen mumTas----that's not to say tel, that you should not return serve...game on??? :xolicon42:


btw soon newly -elected socialist australian government to ratify kyoto ( oh APEC---one of PK PM's better ideas...):headset:Socialist government huh. Yup that's where the world is heading with this manmade global warming nonsense! Communism has found new life!

[Terry Shea]

This is your opinion, babycakes---but it is patently untrue. In any case, it's well known that what comes out of your brain and into a post is not enough vis and is always vomitus. :winknudge



Show me these honest sources, and then prove to me that they are honest. Go ahead; do it. Do it now.



:dog:



Ever read the OED?



:lmao: Read any of Dogen's works, and then get back to me.Try having a sane, logical thought and then get back to me.

[yesyadda]

Hey Ms. T, you never call ME babycakes! :crybby:

[pianozach]

So I guess you know more than the tv meteorologists do then, eh? We're supposed to believe you and not them, eh? No it isn't like saying Judge Judy represents the High Court. TV meteorologists are getting paid to make accurate predicitions about the weather while Judge Judy is getting paid to be an entertaining ass.

Ah, c'mon Terry.

How can you slam someone with a tidbit like "So I guess you know more than the tv meteorologists do then, eh? We're supposed to believe you and not them, eh?", when the very same argument can be used even more effectively on yourself?

So, Terry, I guess you think you know more than the most respected scientists in the world do then, eh? We're supposed to believe you and not them, eh?

Let's see: Who's the more reliable source of information for scientific theory: TV weathermen or most of the scientists in the world?

I suppose you'll answer "TV weathermen". They're always right.

[pianozach]

Socialist government huh. Yup that's where the world is heading with this manmade global warming nonsense! Communism has found new life!

Is this your real beef, Terry. You deny Global Climate Change because you're afraid of socialism and communism?

And which is it, communism or socialism? A common mistake is to confuse Socialism, the economic system, with Communism, the political system. This would be very much like confusing capitalism with representative democracy (ie, a republic like the USA has for a political system).

[pianozach]

This just in . . .

UN panel gives dire warming forecast

By ARTHUR MAX, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 3 minutes ago

VALENCIA, Spain - The Earth is hurtling toward a warmer climate at a quickening pace, a Nobel-winning U.N. scientific panel said in a landmark report released Saturday, warning of inevitable human suffering and the threat of extinction for some species.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon said climate change imperils "the most precious treasures of our planet" and called on the United States and China — the world's two biggest polluters — to do more to fight it.

As early as 2020, 75 million to 250 million people in Africa will suffer water shortages, residents of Asia's megacities will be at great risk of river and coastal flooding, Europeans can expect extensive species loss, and North Americans will experience longer and hotter heat waves and greater competition for water, the report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says.

The potential impact of global warming is "so severe and so sweeping that only urgent, global action will do," Ban told the IPCC after it issued its fourth and final report this year.

The IPCC adopted the report, along with a summary, after five days of sometimes tense negotiations. It lays out blueprints for avoiding the worst catastrophes — and various possible outcomes, depending on how quickly and decisively action is taken.

The document says recent research has heightened concern that the poor and the elderly will suffer most from climate change; that hunger and disease will be more common; that droughts, floods and heat waves will afflict the world's poorest regions; and that more animal and plant species will vanish.

The Summary for Policymakers, and the longer version, called the synthesis report, distill thousands of pages of data and computer models from six years of research compiled by the IPCC.

The information is expected to guide policy makers meeting in Bali, Indonesia, next month to discuss an agreement to succeed the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012.

The panel was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize this year along with former Vice President Al Gore for their efforts to raise awareness about the effects of climate change.

The report is important because it is adopted by consensus, meaning countries accept the underlying science and cannot disavow its conclusions. While it does not commit governments to a specific course of action, it provides a common scientific baseline for the political talks.

The U.N. says a new global plan must be in place by 2009 to ensure a smooth transition after the expiration of the Kyoto terms, which require 36 industrial countries to radically reduce their carbon emissions by 2012.

"There are real and affordable ways to deal with climate change," Ban said. He said a new agreement should provide funding to help poor countries adopt clean energy and to adapt to changing climates.

Ban encouraged the United States and China, which have stood apart from the Kyoto accord, to join in the next phase of cooperative efforts against climate change.

"I look forward to seeing the U.S. and China playing a more constructive role starting from the Bali conference," Ban told reporters. "Both countries can lead in their own way."

The report says emissions of carbon, which comes primarily from fossil fuels, must stabilize by 2015 and go down after that. Otherwise the consequences could be "disastrous," said IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri.

In the best-case scenario, temperatures will continue to rise from carbon already in the atmosphere, the report said. Even if factories were shut down today and cars taken off the roads, the average sea level will reach as high as 4 1/2 feet higher than the preindustrial period, or about 1850.

"We have already committed the world to sea level rise," said Pachauri. If the Greenland ice sheet melts, the scientists couldn't even predict by how many meters the seas will rise, drowning coastal cities.

Yet differences remain stark on how to control carbon emissions.

While the European Union has taken the lead in enforcing the carbon emission targets outlined in Kyoto, the United States opted out of the 1997 accord.

President Bush described it as flawed because major developing countries such as India and China, which are large carbon emitters, were excluded from any obligations. He also favors a voluntary agreement.

Sharon Hays, a White House science official and head of the U.S. delegation, said the certainty of climate change was clearer now than when Bush rejected Kyoto.

"What's changed since 2001 is the scientific certainty that this is happening," she said in a conference call to reporters late Friday. "Back in 2001 the IPCC report said it is likely that humans were having an impact on the climate," but confidence in human responsibility had increased since then.

"What's new is the clarity of the signal, how clear the scientific message is," said Yvo de Boer, the U.N.'s top climate change official. "The politicians have no excuse not to act."

Opening with a sweeping statement directed at climate change skeptics, the summary declares that climate systems have already begun to change.

Unless action is taken, human activity could lead to "abrupt and irreversible changes" that would make the planet unrecognizable.

Advocacy groups hailed the report as indispensable for the 10,000 delegates expected at Bali.

"We expect to see their personal copies of the Synthesis Report return from Bali, battered and worn from frequent use, with paragraphs underlined and notes in the margin," said Stephanie Tunmore of Greenpeace.

Oh, and Terry, you don't have to believe this article: It's from those evil and wrong folks at the AP. :lol:

[Imperatrix]

Try having a sane, logical thought and then get back to me.

Is this the best you can do? You do realize that you sound like a four year old boy having a temper tantrum, don't you?

It's most interesting that an intelligent woman can threaten you so.

In any case, are you not going to show me these honest sources and prove to me that they're honest?

Terry: educate yourself, study critical thinking, and don't just merely skim the surface of a concept...and then you might---might---be able to produce a sane, logical thought.

[Imperatrix]

...no one, and i mean no-one can be colloquial+cute, then ram home latin like you tasmania brown...i dips me lid, queen mumTas----that's not to say tel, that you should not return serve...game on???


:angel: It's all in a day's play, laddie-me-love. :lmao:

Hey Ms. T, you never call ME babycakes! :crybby:

That's because you're my darling sweetie kissy-kissy boo. :hearts:


Anyway....once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more....:xolicon42:

[podo]

So I guess you know more than the tv meteorologists do then, eh? We're supposed to believe you and not them, eh? No it isn't like saying Judge Judy represents the High Court. TV meteorologists are getting paid to make accurate predicitions about the weather while Judge Judy is getting paid to be an entertaining ass.

When did I ever say that I knew more than anyone?? All Ive ever said is that I hang my hat on the opinions of people who I beleive and respect the most.

People who a paid to be entertaining and read the weather report, or people who have studied environmental sciences all there lives and are well respected in there field ?

[podo]

Because it's all a big lie. Because people are getting brainwashed by these evil leftists. Because it's all a scam to control people and put money in evil leftists pockets. Because these evil leftists are bullying, intimidating and scaring people into submission.

But I'm not trying to prove it wrong, per se. I'm simply trying to show the truth of the matter. People are being force fed these liberal lies and accept is as fact, when in fact the facts show that there is absolutely nothing to this manmade global warming lunacy! Why would you or anyone else want to keep perpetuating such a lie?

That sounds lie someone talking about Iraq, and weapons of mass distruction.

The end result of the Iraq lunacy ?? billions of dollars spent for nothing, thousands of innocent people dead

The end result of man made global warming action ? billions of dollars spent to improve efficencies and better the environment we live in

[podo]

Is this your real beef, Terry. You deny Global Climate Change because you're afraid of socialism and communism?

And which is it, communism or socialism? A common mistake is to confuse Socialism, the economic system, with Communism, the political system. This would be very much like confusing capitalism with representative democracy (ie, a republic like the USA has for a political system).


I think the cat is out of the bag.. Its all political after all. The only one making it political is Terry however.

Maybe it wasnt Al Gore after all. It was all a communist plot !. those nasty reds. never could trust em

[yesyadda]

Real or not, regardless of the causes (or natural cycles) it looks like fresh groundwater would be the most precious casualty:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071117/ts_alt_afp/usclimatewarmingresourceswater_071117180004

[yesyadda]

Real or not, regardless of the causes (or natural cycles) it looks like fresh groundwater would be the most precious casualty:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071117/ts_alt_afp/usclimatewarmingresourceswater_071117180004

My father drilled over 1,000 water wells for customers from 1950-1967. He always said the day would come when fresh water would be in short supply, for whatever reason.

[Timmo]

The founder of The Weather Channel says... (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/11/weather_channel_founder_global.html)Nice website.

They also said this http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/hollywoods_red_decade.html.

Paranoid schitzophrenia, anyone?

Any group that goes on, ad nauseum, like this group does, about the Communist threat facing America these days really shouldn't be taken all that seriously.

That is, if you live on the planet Earth.

[Timmo]

You still seem to be missing the point entirely (and being rather cynical and paranoid).Pot? Black? Meet Terry...er, kettle.

[Timmo]

Wrong! The vast majority of tv meteorologists don't believe this nonsense:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=3a9bc8a4-802a-23ad-4065-7dc37ec39adfAs far as I can tell from following your link, all it says is that one James Spann, a TV meterologist, doesn't agree with global warming.

The last I heard, one person does not constitute "a vast majority."

[pianozach]

My father drilled over 1,000 water wells for customers from 1950-1967. He always said the day would come when fresh water would be in short supply, for whatever reason.

Some politicians believe the next war in the Middle East will be about water and hydrologists tend to agree.

The world's supply of fresh water is running out. Already one person in five has no access to safe drinking water.

Only 2.5% of the world's water is not salty, and two-thirds of that is locked up in the icecaps and glaciers.

Of what is left, about 20% is in remote areas, and much of the rest arrives at the wrong time and place, as monsoons and floods.

Humans have available less than 0.08% of all the Earth's water. Yet over the next two decades our use is estimated to increase by about 40%.

A United Nations report predicts that access to water may be the single biggest cause of conflict and war in Africa in the next 25 years. Such wars are most likely to be in countries where rivers or lakes are shared by more than one country. There is already fierce national competition over water for irrigation and power generation - most notably in the Nile river basin. Cairo warned in 1991 that it was ready to use force to protect its access to waters of the Nile, which also runs through Ethiopia and Sudan. If the populations of these countries continue to rise, competition for the water could be fierce.

[yesyadda]

Timmo, what about the "group" within America that goes on about the American threat facing Americans? They scare me even more.

[yesyadda]

Wow, p-zach I wasn't aware of that. But from what I have read, the Muddle East is in the forefront of sea water desalination.

Regarding fresh water- the Western U.S. states have their sights on the Great Lakes. Yes, piping kazillions of gallons of fresh water out West to slake the agri-thirst of corporate farms. Spooky.

[Mind Driver]

What about piping the water from the Great Lakes to the south? They are almost out of drinking water.

Did anyone see the reports that the rotting trees in Louisiana left from Hurricane Katrina are pumping a ton of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere?

[podo]

Environment goes from bad to worse

""
Eleven of the last 12 years rank among the warmest years on record, the report finds, and concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are the highest for 650,000 years.
More concerning, carbon dioxide emissions, largely from fossil fuel, grew 80 per cent between 1970 and 2004.""

An Australian scientist, Dr David Karoly, who worked on the report, told the Herald: "We have already overshot the target for avoiding serious impacts from climate change. We need to peak our carbon dioxide emissions by 2015 and reduce our emissions globally by up to 85 per cent by 2050."
Critically, the report also finds the technology is available to achieve those cuts, and the cost to the world economy could be as little as 0.12 per cent of gross domestic product """

Thats less than most countries give in international aid.

Full story here

http://www.smh.com.au/news/federal-election-2007-news/environment-goes-from-bad-to-worse/2007/11/18/1195321609217.html

[kirk]

You know guys, whether Meteorologists believe in Global Warming
or not is a moot point. Meteorologists study the weather, Climatologists
study climate and trends.
Climatology isn't part of the meteorological curriculum.
It's like asking a Podiatrist what he thinks of a Proctology issue.

K

[Roan's Lady]

You know guys, whether Meteorologists believe in Global Warming
or not is a moot point. Meteorologists study the weather, Climatologists
study climate and trends.
Climatology isn't part of the meteorological curriculum.
It's like asking a Podiatrist what he thinks of a Proctology issue.

K

Really? Well, I'm having surgery on my foot on Tuesday. Before I'm put out, I'll ask my podiatrist/surgeon about his feelings on anal fissures.
Or do you think I should wait until the surgery's over?
:winknudge

[Enoch]

UN Cuts Estimate Of AIDS Epidemic by Millions!
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/19/AR2007111900978_pf.html)Now, ten years ago, if I were to claim these numbers were being exaggerated, you joiners would just as vehimently argue that I was wrong, uninformed, ignorant, etc... just wait, these doomsday corrections do/will happen over and over again and you all will buy into each one; never learning the lessons of the previous "sky is falling" claim.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/19/AR2007111900978_pf.html

[pianozach]

UN Cuts Estimate Of AIDS Epidemic by Millions!
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/19/AR2007111900978_pf.html)Now, ten years ago, if I were to claim these numbers were being exaggerated, you joiners would just as vehimently argue that I was wrong, uninformed, ignorant, etc... just wait, these doomsday corrections do/will happen over and over again and you all will buy into each one; never learning the lessons of the previous "sky is falling" claim.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/19/AR2007111900978_pf.html

Of course, trying to use the argument that "people have been wrong before" to prove that people are now wrong about Global Warming is not a valid course of logic. It's an anecdote, not evidence.

That's like saying that scientists were wrong about the earth being the center of the solar system, so it's likely that they're wrong about being able to create an atomic bomb that can wipe out an entire city.

Besides, who's to say that it wasn't the warnings of a global AIDS crisis that itself helped turn the tide? Perhaps without the claims that this Washington Post editorial calls "exaggerations" AIDS might very well have been exactly what they predicted.

If you're still trying to cast doubt on Global Climate Change Theory, you should be advised that warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising sea level.

If you need more concrete evidence, all you have to do is open your ears and eyes and bear witness to all of the extreme weather events that have increased and regional climate patterns that have been changing. Heat waves and other weather extremes, as well as changes in atmospheric circulation patterns, storm tracks and precipitation, can now be traced back to climate change caused by human activities.

We are already feeling the effects of Global Warming.

[Altres]

http://pic.uncommonpics.com/pics/pic_6841.jpg

[podo]

UN Cuts Estimate Of AIDS Epidemic by Millions!
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/19/AR2007111900978_pf.html)Now, ten years ago, if I were to claim these numbers were being exaggerated, you joiners would just as vehimently argue that I was wrong, uninformed, ignorant, etc... just wait, these doomsday corrections do/will happen over and over again and you all will buy into each one; never learning the lessons of the previous "sky is falling" claim.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/19/AR2007111900978_pf.html

So using that argument,

if people said 10 or even 20 years ago "Yeah, that AIDS thing.. no big deal, nothing to worry about"" where might we be now ??

If people said 10 or even 20 years ago "Yeah, smoking, probably not doing anyone any good, but no worries, just keep puffing away" where might we be now ??

If people said 10 years ago "Oh, that climate change thing.. not our fault, now lets get the gass gussler fired up" where might we be now ?

I could go on, but your have probably stopped reading by now

[Altres]

Apparently hanging wasn't dangerous either.

http://i10.tinypic.com/6qcjc6h.jpg

Saddam's still out there, somewhere.

[kirk]

So using that argument,

if people said 10 or even 20 years ago "Yeah, that AIDS thing.. no big deal, nothing to worry about"" where might we be now ??

If people said 10 or even 20 years ago "Yeah, smoking, probably not doing anyone any good, but no worries, just keep puffing away" where might we be now ??

If people said 10 years ago "Oh, that climate change thing.. not our fault, now lets get the gass gussler fired up" where might we be now ?

I could go on, but your have probably stopped reading by now

:appl[1]: Exactly. The reason AIDS fell short of predictions was
the introduction of treatments, distribution and education of condom use
in third world nations, introduction of safe sex practices in the
Gay community... what an absurd, uneducated, myopic POV.

On the other hand, of course there's media-induced scares that
are purely based on greed. See Rumsfeld's connection to Tamiflu,
millions lining up for shots that had no effect whatsover to prevent
bird, or any other type of flu.
I can see how the "conservatives" might become confused.

K

[pianozach]

http://pic.uncommonpics.com/pics/pic_6841.jpg

That's one powerful photo.

[podo]

UN Cuts Estimate Of AIDS Epidemic by Millions!
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/19/AR2007111900978_pf.html)Now, ten years ago, if I were to claim these numbers were being exaggerated, you joiners would just as vehimently argue that I was wrong, uninformed, ignorant, etc... just wait, these doomsday corrections do/will happen over and over again and you all will buy into each one; never learning the lessons of the previous "sky is falling" claim.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/19/AR2007111900978_pf.html

From the article:

""U.N. officials say the revisions stemmed mainly from better measurements rather than fundamental shifts in the epidemic. They also say they are continually seeking to improve their tracking of AIDS with the latest available tools.""

So now there is a better understanding on how to track the issue.. It doesnt say the issue doesnt exist. It does say there is no fundamental shifts in the epidemic.

""The worldwide total of people infected with HIV -- estimated a year ago at nearly 40 million and rising -- now will be reported as 33 million""

No worries, only 33 million infected instead of 40 million, nothing to see here, move along people

[yesyadda]

That's one powerful photo.

Really now. It's actually cropped and edited from a photo of a polar bear romping in the Miami harbor. Pffft. Global Smarmy.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v705/yesyadda/Shawnee/miamibearcopy.jpg

[Imperatrix]

Really now. It's actually cropped and edited from a photo of a polar bear romping in the Miami harbor. Pffft. Global Smarmy.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v705/yesyadda/Shawnee/miamibearcopy.jpg

:dog: :appl[1]: :appl[1]: :appl[1]:

[yesyadda]

You know I do miss Terry Shea. I am more in his camp but I hope ya still love me.

[Timmo]

:appl[1]: Exactly. The reason AIDS fell short of predictions was
the introduction of treatments, distribution and education of condom use
in third world nations, introduction of safe sex practices in the
Gay community... what an absurd, uneducated, myopic POV.
The attitude towards AIDS during the Reagan administration was "Let the fags and junkies die...they don't vote for us anyway."

[yesyadda]

Is that a truism or a Timmoism? ;)

[Wild Westie]

I was talking with a friend of mine last night who works for American Family Radio ~ shudders ~

They have a very anti-gay agenda and also send money to politicans who share their same view. This is illegal and I think I just might report them, as they are a "watchdog" and haven't any problems reporting so-called "non-family friendly" programming to the FCC.

I told him this was wrong and he agreed.

He's a Christian, but I love him anyway.

[kirk]

That's one powerful photo.

Yes, but sadly only 64% of all polar bears believe
Global Warming is real (+ -.3).

K

[Terry Shea]

Ah, c'mon Terry.

How can you slam someone with a tidbit like "So I guess you know more than the tv meteorologists do then, eh? We're supposed to believe you and not them, eh?", when the very same argument can be used even more effectively on yourself?

So, Terry, I guess you think you know more than the most respected scientists in the world do then, eh? We're supposed to believe you and not them, eh?

Let's see: Who's the more reliable source of information for scientific theory: TV weathermen or most of the scientists in the world?

I suppose you'll answer "TV weathermen". They're always right.TV weathermen (aka meteorologists) are scientists! They have to accurately predict the weather on a daily basis! If they don't do a good job they aren't going to last long, whereas these manmade global warming lunatic freaks know that no matter what kind of lunacy they utter about future climate conditions they'll be long gone before they can be proven right or wrong.

Meteorologists are respected scientists! Most respected scientists don't believe in manmade global warming. Once again, you're merely dismissing anyone who disagrees with you and falling for the myth with all the money and hype behind it.

[kirk]

I was talking with a friend of mine last night who works for American Family Radio ~ shudders ~

They have a very anti-gay agenda and also send money to politicans who share their same view. This is illegal and I think I just might report them, as they are a "watchdog" and haven't any problems reporting so-called "non-family friendly" programming to the FCC.

I told him this was wrong and he agreed.

He's a Christian, but I love him anyway.

Westie, how and where have you been?

Enclosed, is a check for a one year subscription.
Your publication makes a fine counterpoint to the much
more radical Biotch on Wheels .

Hugs,

K
Oh...I know some lions i'd like those kind of
"Christians" (jesus wept) to meet.

[Terry Shea]

This just in . . .



Oh, and Terry, you don't have to believe this article: It's from those evil and wrong folks at the AP. :lol:Not to mention it's the evil, corrupt UN Panel who provided the info.

[kirk]

TV weathermen (aka meteorologists) are scientists! They have to accurately predict the weather on a daily basis! If they don't do a good job they aren't going to last long, whereas these manmade global warming lunatic freaks know that no matter what kind of lunacy they utter about future climate conditions they'll be long gone before they can be proven right or wrong.

Meteorologists are respected scientists! Most respected scientists don't believe in manmade global warming. Once again, you're merely dismissing anyone who disagrees with you and falling for the myth with all the money and hype behind it.

Yer an idjit Terry.

:thinkerg:

K

[Terry Shea]

Is this the best you can do? You do realize that you sound like a four year old boy having a temper tantrum, don't you?

It's most interesting that an intelligent woman can threaten you so.

In any case, are you not going to show me these honest sources and prove to me that they're honest?

Terry: educate yourself, study critical thinking, and don't just merely skim the surface of a concept...and then you might---might---be able to produce a sane, logical thought.Sorry, but I don't find you threatening nor do I find you to be very intelligent. I find you to be a rather boring attention seeker who will do or say anything to call attention to herself.

Is studying critical thinking what made you so paranoid?

How does one go about proving a source to be honest? It can't really be done. A source can only be proven to be dishonest if it repeatedly makes claims which are later to be found false. That's exactly what I've done with several of these opposition sources. I've shown specifically where they've lied.

I haven't seen even 1 specific similar charge being leveled at any of "my" sources, just some general "your sources are wrong" type nonsense with absolutely nothing to back up their claims! You know it very well, yet you hide behind your pat answer of all sources being dishonest, or at least potentially dishonest, to try to confuse the issue. Is that the best you can do?

How's that for critical thinking?

[Terry Shea]

When did I ever say that I knew more than anyone?? All Ive ever said is that I hang my hat on the opinions of people who I beleive and respect the most.

People who a paid to be entertaining and read the weather report, or people who have studied environmental sciences all there lives and are well respected in there field ?Maybe things are different down under, but over here they don't pay people to simply read the weather report...the tv stations hire meteorologists to make their own accurate forecasts. The local stations here all have betwen 4 and 6 meteorologists on staff.

Now why would you believe an unscientific stooge like Al Gore over a group of scientists who study the weather and climate on a daily basis?

[Terry Shea]

As far as I can tell from following your link, all it says is that one James Spann, a TV meterologist, doesn't agree with global warming.

The last I heard, one person does not constitute "a vast majority."
Perhaps you should try reading the rest of the thread Timmo.

[Imperatrix]

Sorry, but I don't find you threatening nor do I find you to be very intelligent. I find you to be a rather boring attention seeker who will do or say anything to call attention to herself.

Okay; your call. But as you are so frequently backed into a corner by your own obtuse thinking and behavior here, I'm not really surprised that this is the only way in which you are able to express yourself.

Is studying critical thinking what made you so paranoid?

Is this meant to be an insult, or can you not think of something coherent to say?

How does one go about proving a source to be honest? It can't really be done.

And that's all we really need to know, isn't it? :D So you cannot truly verify the veracity of your sources. Therefore...why are you still here?

you hide behind your pat answer of all sources being dishonest, or at least potentially dishonest, to try to confuse the issue.

My claim that all sources are dishonest, or at least potentially dishonest, does not confuse the issue in the least. You are merely terrified to think that your sources are suspect...for no other reason than that you will be thought of as ignorant or that you have been played for a fool.

[Terry Shea]

Only 2.5% of the world's water is not salty, and two-thirds of that is locked up in the icecaps and glaciers.

Gee, one might surmise that having glaciers and icecaps melting would increase the fresh water supply!:Wow:

[Terry Shea]

The world's supply of fresh water is running out. Already one person in five has no access to safe drinking water.
That is a blatently false statement. There is certainly more demand for water now because the population is ever increasing, but the fresh water supply itself remains at a constant level and continually renews and replenishes itself.

http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/earthwherewater.html

Water is continually moving around, through, and above the Earth as water vapor (http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/watercycleatmosphere.html), liquid water, and ice (http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/watercycleice.html). In fact, water is continually changing its form. The Earth is pretty much a "closed system," like a terrarium. That means that the Earth neither, as a whole, gains nor loses much matter, including water. Although some matter, such as meteors from outer space, are captured by Earth, very little of Earth's substances escape into outer space. This is certainly true about water. This means that the same water that existed on Earth millions of years ago is still here. Thanks to the water cycle (http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/watercycle.html) (view a graphic of the water cycle (http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/watercycle.html)), the same water is continually being recycled all around the globe. It is entirely possible that the water you drank for lunch was once used by Mama Alosaurus to give her baby a bath.

People with drinking supply problems should move to areas with plentiful water supplies. For example, why would anyone live in the Sahara when they know there is no water in the area to be found? This isn't a new phenomenon. People have always been stubborn and stupid about such things.

[Terry Shea]

What about piping the water from the Great Lakes to the south? They are almost out of drinking water.

Did anyone see the reports that the rotting trees in Louisiana left from Hurricane Katrina are pumping a ton of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere?
Damn Republicans caused that hurricane!

[Terry Shea]

What about piping the water from the Great Lakes to the south? They are almost out of drinking water.

What about pumping water out of the Mississippi River?:Wow:

[kirk]

Damn Republicans caused that hurricane!

Damn(ed) administration left those people to rot.
Swept under the rug so as not to cause embarrassment
based on their ineptitude (not to mention cronyism),
80% of New Orleans remains in shambles.

K

[Terry Shea]

Environment goes from bad to worse

""
Eleven of the last 12 years rank among the warmest years on record, the report finds, and concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are the highest for 650,000 years.
More concerning, carbon dioxide emissions, largely from fossil fuel, grew 80 per cent between 1970 and 2004.""

http://www.smh.com.au/news/federal-election-2007-news/environment-goes-from-bad-to-worse/2007/11/18/1195321609217.html

Obviously that report has been using faulty and outdated information. NASA has recently revised it's global warming estimates:

http://www.justput.com/forum/showthread.php?t=670

A NASA research department has admitted that the calculations it used to show an increase in U.S. temperatures were flawed, after a campaign by an amateur meteorologist using his blog.

Climatologists at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York have been forced to revise estimates after research by Stephen MacIntyre, who published his findings on his Climate Audit blog.

As a result of his calculations, which he e-mailed to NASA, scientists at the agency now say that 1934, not 1998, was the warmest year in the United States since records began to be kept in 1880.

They also accept that five of the 11 warmest U.S. years on record occurred before 1940, and that only one was in the 21st century.


Revised NASA data:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt

More:

http://www.businessandmedia.org/commentary/2007/20070822130511.aspx

[pianozach]

TV weathermen (aka meteorologists) are scientists! They have to accurately predict the weather on a daily basis! If they don't do a good job they aren't going to last long, whereas these manmade global warming lunatic freaks know that no matter what kind of lunacy they utter about future climate conditions they'll be long gone before they can be proven right or wrong.

Meteorologists are respected scientists! Most respected scientists don't believe in manmade global warming. Once again, you're merely dismissing anyone who disagrees with you and falling for the myth with all the money and hype behind it.

Yes, Terry, meteorologists are scientists. So are doctors and paleontologists and astronomers and chemists. As was already pointed out, meteorologists are not necessarily climatologists. And many TV weathermen and weatherwomen are actually meteorologists.

And many TV weathermen and weatherwomen are actually pretty talking heads.

It would probably be easy to conduct a poll of TV weathermen. Just get a list of national TV stations and networks and fire off letters or emails to their weatherpeople:

You could ask them their education levels, whether they're meteorologists or not, whether they believe that the earth is warming and if they think that mankind has contributed to it. You could ask them some of your conspiracy questions, like if they think Global Warming Theory is fronted by swindling capitalists . . . .

If they don't do a good job they aren't going to last long, whereas these manmade global warming lunatic freaks know that no matter what kind of lunacy they utter about future climate conditions they'll be long gone before they can be proven right or wrong.

Terry, there's no reason to call people who promote the evidence of Global Warming lunatics and freaks. Name calling doesn't help your POV, rather, it makes you sound more like you've reached the end of your so-called evidence and are grasping at straws.

Most respected scientists don't believe in manmade global warming. Once again, you're merely dismissing anyone who disagrees with you and falling for the myth with all the money and hype behind it.

Actually, Terry, you're dead wrong here. Most respected scientists do believe in manmade global warming.

Wherever you're getting this misinformation from is patently incorrect. And it's you who are buying into the hype, the Global Warming Naysayers Hype. The real money is interested only in keeping the profits flowing, whether it's by keeping you suckling at the oil and gasoline teats, or privatizing services to capitalist concerns to line someone else's pockets.

Think about it: Isn’t most of the money that finances studies that claim this crisis is imaginary come from the organizations that want to exploit us?

One thing you are right about is that corporations and the wealthy will slide right in to capitalize on the Global Warming Crisis. They will capitalize on everything and anything using any and all methods. It's fairly predictable. That's partly why it's called capitalism.

But the fact that there are companies and organizations that will ultimately profit from this doesn't make it any less real.

The idea of global warming was not started by corporations.

Instead, the idea of global warming stemmed from measurements made on a mountaintop in Hawaii, beginning in the 1950s. These measurements – made then, and still being made today – show an increasing amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasees in Earth’s atmosphere.

In the 1960s and ’70s, as they measured from year to year, scientists were surprised to find this increase. Like you, they would not have imagined – at that time – that “puny humans” could have such an effect.

But, even the ’60s and ’70s, scientists knew that greenhouse gases trap heat. And, by the 1970s scientists were already saying that human activities were the likely cause of this increase in greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. They were using the tools of science – physics, mathematics, computers, Earth-orbiting satellites – to study this idea. By the 1970s, they were already predicting that Earth would begin to warm noticeably as a result of excess greenhouse gases – caused by human activities – in the atmosphere.

And now Earth has begun to warm noticeably.

Global warming is not a “plot” by the left or right. It is a real observed phenomenon on the Earth.

And as scientists’ understanding has increased over the last few decades, they have begun to see the MANY ways in which humans affect Earth, while Earth is affecting humanity. Scientists now speak of Earth and its humans as a “coupled” system. This is an active area of scientific study in the 21st century.





Speaking of scientists, here's how they really feel (Terry! Note that some are even meteorologists!):



David Easterling … “global warming is real”

I’d just like to leave the public with the thought that global warming is real. We have certainly seen increases in temperature over the past hundred years, and especially in the last 30 years. The scientific community is at least in large part convinced that it’s mainly due to human activities. And it’s something that I think needs to be taken seriously.

David Easterling is Chief of the Scientific Services Division at NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, North Carolina, a contributing author to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Second and Third Assessment Reports, and a lead author for the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report being released this year.

Elizabeth Holland … “no longer uncertain”

I’m speaking here from my personal scientific view – not as an author of an IPCC chapter, but my personal view. My view is that most of us scientists are now convinced that global warming is happening. We are now convinced that the most likely cause of global warming is human activity. And we are no longer uncertain about whether the climate is warming. We are actually quite certain that the climate is warming, and we are certain that human activity is the cause.

Elisabeth Holland is a Senior Scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. She was lead author of Chapter 7 of the IPCC report, which outlined connections between changes in Earth’s climate and biogeochemistry.

Adam Sobel … “happening now”

I am a climate scientist, and would like to say this.

Global warming is real, and is happening now. There are details we don’t understand, but the big picture is very clear. The evidence has become overwhelming.

Adam Sobel is an Associate Professor in the Department of Applied Physics and Applied Mathematics and in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University.

Amber Soja … “a reality we must address”

Global warming is a current reality and it is driven, in part, by humankind. All but a handful of climate–related scientists, worldwide, are convinced of this reality.

Temperature increases and warming–induced change are progressing faster than had been predicted in some regions, suggesting a potential non–linear rapid response to changes in climate, as opposed to the predicted slow linear response to climate change. The greatest increases in warming are predicted to occur and are occurring in northern hemisphere upper latitudes, and evidence exists in melting glaciers, longer growing seasons, larger and more severe fire seasons, and changes in species assemblages at upper altitudes and latitudes.

There is currently much to be learned about the interactive processes that force and feedback within our climate system, and in this venue, there is much debate. This is not a gloom and doom prognostication, but a reality that we must mindfully and responsibly address today. Climate change is not some future possibility. Climate change is apparent today.

Amber Soja is a research scientist with the National Institute of Aerospace, currently resident in the Climate Dynamics branch of NASA Langley Research Center.

Waleed Abdalati … “climate can adversely affect human society”

Climate is changing. It always has, and it always will. What is different now as compared to past human history is that we are at a point where we humans are having a significant global impact on our Earth environment. We can’t say for certain that those impacts will bring dire consequences , nor can we say that those impacts will be minor. The balance of the evidence, however, suggests that climate will change in ways that can significantly and adversely impact society, and the seriousness of those impacts is going to depend on three things:

1. the magnitude of the changes

2. the rate at which they occur, and

3. our ability to anticipate and prepare for them.

Scientists are working hard to improve our ability to anticipate those changes, and effective policies can help reduce the magnitudes and rates of change. The longer longer we as a society wait to take meaningful steps to adapt to and mitigate climate change, the greater the level or sacrifice will be to meet those challenges. For this reason everyone should be paying attention to climate change and discussing it in real terms, not exaggerated arguments targeted at trying to make a particular point. The more literate the general public is on this issue and the more society as a whole understands the nature of climate change, the more likely we as a society can work to achieve solutions to the climate change challenge.

The bottom line is, I don’t think we should be afraid, but we should all be very concerned.

Waleed Abdalati is head of the Cryospheric Sciences Program at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center.

M. Granger Morgan … “we need deep cuts in emissions”

I want to say two things.

First, the main cause of climate change comes from carbon dioxide produced when we humans burn coal, oil and natural gas.

Second, unlike conventional pollutants that stay in the atmosphere a few hours or days, once carbon dioxide enters the atmosphere much of it stays there for a century. That means that to reduce concentrations (which are what cause warming and climate change) we’re going to have to reduce emissions by 80% or more. We need deep cuts, not just stablization of emissions.

M. Granger Morgan is head of the Department of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh.

Bruce Wielicki … “global warming does not mean uniform temperature change”

When you see climate signals discussed in reports like the IPCC, remember that climate scientists are basing these on the big picture, and that “global warming” does not mean uniform temperature change over the entire Earth.

The climate system is sufficiently complex that like the economic analogy: it does not do anything in a simple uniform way. So even when the global average temperature is increasing, a few places will actually be cooling.

The scientific debate is shifting from whether mankind is causing climate change (we are), to how large a change we can expect in the future, how fast climate will change, and what the regional impacts will be. In the coming decades, even regional climate change will reach levels that exceed natural variability. In some areas like the polar regions, it already has. This will be much easier for the public to understand as their own regional climate change becomes increasingly obvious. But we cannot wait that long to act. (for more, see Don’t notice climate change yet? You will.)

Bruce Wielicki of NASA’s Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virgina is the Principal Investigator for CERES, a project now using four instruments on two different Earth–orbiting satellites to monitor how clouds affect our climate.

Michael Mann … “false controversy”

Unfortunately, there are a number of so–called “organizations,” a lot of their funding can be traced back to fossil fuel corporations. They’re often not much more than a p.o. box and an individual or two who are behind them. They have been paid money to manufacture false controversy. They’ve been doing that for years. That has been a particularly profound influence here in the United States. That’ll probably continue to go on for some time.

I’m pleased, and many of us are pleased that Exxon–Mobil has announced that they are no longer going to provide funding for many of these organizations that they were providing to manufacture this false controversy. This was actually detailed in an extensive report by the Union of Concerned Scientists that was issued about a month ago, where they detailed all of the unfortunate ways that Exxon–Mobil had been funding to cloud the public understanding of the science. Well, it looks like they’re backing away from that now. But I don’t think that that means that we’re not going to see some efforts of that sort again, even with this next IPCC report. So we shouldn’t be surprised that there will be some talking heads out there, probably most of them financed by industry, to try to confuse the public’s understanding of the report, to try to raise false criticisms of the conclusions that have been drawn. We’re going to see some of that. There’s no question. So it’s important for us to keep in mind that we’re probably seeing the last gasps of this sort of disinformation effort that is probably in its tail end now that the science has become ever more strong as time has gone on.

Michael Mann, professor of meteorology and geosciences at Pennsylvania State University and director of the university’s Earth System Science Center.

Alan R. Townsend … “no longer on the distant horizon”

Global climate change is no longer just a threat on the distant horizon. It is with us today, and it is already affecting the lives of people around the world. We can do something about it, but now is the time for nations everywhere to begin those efforts in earnest. The more we delay, the more we increase the probability of abrupt and truly significant changes in climate that would have enormous social and economic consequences.

Alan R. Townsend is the Associate Director for the Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research at the University of Colorado in Boulder.

Helen Amanda Fricker … “changing habits”

Yes, global warming is very, very real. It is actually happening and is not a myth. The ramifications around the world are being seen all the time, and this will only get worse unless the major countries contributing to the problem reduce their carbon dioxide emissions significantly. While people are not believing it and not doing anything to change, the problem is getting worse. By the time everyone is convinced, it will be too late. It takes effort to change habits, and I think that is why there are so many people refusing to change.

Changing habits starts at home, and one simple way I could see the average household in the US reducing their energy consumption is to start line–drying their washing instead of using tumble dryers. Millions of people in Europe and Australia hang their washing out to dry, in their back yard or patio. In fact, in Australia the “Hill’s Hoist” washing line in the back yard is commonplace. The same is not true in the US. Here, for some reason, seeing your neighbor’s washing is not tasteful or acceptable, and it is actually forbidden to hang out washing in some places. This needs to change. In some parts of the US, such as California, the conditions are perfect for drying clothes outside. The air is dry and the sun is warm, sometimes it actually takes less time than in the dryer, and consumes no energy at all!

Helen Amanda Fricker is research geophysicist with the Scripps Institution of Oceanography.

Bruce A. Boe … “we are stewards”

The Earth’s climate is changing. The planet appears to be warming, perhaps as much as 2 degrees Fahrenheit in the next 40 or 50 years, according to the newest report by the IPCC. According to the report, this projected change is occurring primarily because of human activities.

Change of any kind, warming or cooling, will certainly have impacts on the world’s weather and economies. Those impacts will be negative in some areas, and positive in others. We humans are the only species on the planet capable of causing such changes, at least so rapidly. It is our responsibility to be good stewards of this planet which we call home.

At the same time, we must recognize that the Earth’s climate has always changed. The “Little Ice Age” which occurred between 1300 and 1850, is a very recent example. Some 12,000 years ago, a mere blink in geologic time, glaciers covered much of the northern hemisphere.

Furthermore, it is well established that the irradiance of our sun, often termed “the solar constant”, is not completely constant, after all.

The bottom line is this: We humans need to be the best stewards of the planet we can, but at the same time should recognize that control of the climate ultimately does not rest with us. The climate has always changed, and will always change. It is absurd to think, even for a second, that the climate can somehow be “steadied” to our liking.

We must also be aware that there are many sources of carbon dioxide in addition to the combustion of fossil fuels. Each of us exhales approximately 1.2 ounces of carbon dioxide per hour, if we choose to breathe. Just for the United States, this is an additional 270,000 tons of CO2 added to our atmosphere per day!

So what should we do? Plant more trees. Drive less. Recycle more. And keep breathing.

Bruce A. Boe is Director of Meteorology at Weather Modification, Inc. He is a present member and past chair of the American Meteorological Society’s Committee on Planned and Inadvertent Weather Modification.

Isaac Held … “droughts … environmental justice”

I am most concerned about the changes in tropical rainfall patterns that will accompany global warming, especially increased frequency and severity of droughts in underdeveloped regions that have the fewest resources to adapt to changing conditions. This is a question of “environmental justice”, with many regions of the developing world likely to be affected adversely, not due to their own actions, but as a consequence of the emissions of greenhouse gases by the developed world.

Isaac Held is a senior research scientist at the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

W. H. Berger … “sea level rise”

The history of ice ages for the last 600,000 years suggests that a sea level rise of three feet per century occurred about ten percent of the time during warm periods such as we live in. And there was no excess greenhouse effect to push the system. Thus, to a geologist familiar with ice–age climates, a global sealevel rise distinctly exceeding three feet in a century would hold no surprise whatever.

W. H. Berger is a professor of oceanography in the Geosciences Research Division in the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at University of California, San Diego.

Norm Ellstrand … “I am changing my lifestyle”

As a geneticist whose research addresses the risks of plant biotechnology, people often ask me what I think is the earth’s most pressing environmental crisis. The answer is a no–brainer, “global warming”. It surprises folks because they are waiting for something about genetics. But for the past decade I have been concerned about global warming. It’s so easy to see what a nasty legacy we are handing to our grandchildren. But I don’t just worry, I’m doing something about it. I am changing my lifestyle. I asked my family to donate to tree planting programs instead of buying me birthday presents. I am a commuter cyclist, enjoying hundreds of carbon–free miles a month! We have replaced as many lightbulbs at home with compact fluorescents. Every little decision counts. Do you really need that plastic bag? Finally, I am giving up teaching my genetics for non–majors class so that I can teach a science–of–food class —– a venue where it is more appropriate to sneak in a lecture or two on global warming.

Norman C. Ellstrand is a professor of genetics at the University of California Riverside.

Bill Patzert … “skeptics going way of dodo bird”

The global warming skeptics are going the way of the dodo bird – to extinction. The evidence is in. We’re definitely living in a warming world and headed into unknown, dangerous territory. The future of our civilization is at stake! It’s time for each and every one of us to change wasteful habits and cut back on our energy consumption. A good start would be losing the SUV. Real men and women drive hybrids or take the bus. Let’s all think more and use less – of everything. Remember, warming is global, but solutions are local and – bottom line – individual.

Bill Patzert, scientist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

C. Mark Eakin … “coral reef ecosystems”

Our warming climate has already changed many of the world’s ecosystems, and will continue to affect them into the future. The first recorded mass coral bleaching event happened in 1982. As ocean temperatures have risen since then, coral bleaching and death have increased in frequency and intensity. Coral bleaching occurs when stressed corals expel the symbiotic micro–algae living in their tissues – algae that provide corals with food. Severe or prolonged high temperatures kill corals, leaving reefs devoid of key ecosystem processes and vulnerable to natural processes of erosion that break down the structures that form the basis for major food chains. When this happens over large areas— as it did in 1997–98 in the Indian and Pacific Oceans and 2005 in the Caribbean region— it has wide–reaching ecological, social, and economic impacts on ecosystems that support $375 billion annually in fish, seafood, tourism, and coastal protection worldwide. There is growing scientific evidence that it is unlikely that corals can adapt fast enough to keep pace with even the most conservative climate change projections. This means that as global temperatures rise, we expect to see more reef corals around the world bleaching and dying.

We have two means of addressing this problem: the root issue and contributing threats. Solving the root issue, of course, requires reducing oceanic warming by reducing the human contribution to greenhouse gases. However, reducing global greenhouse gas concentrations is beyond the direct control of coral reef resource managers. Instead, managers need to reduce the local environmental stresses under their control, thus increasing the resilience of coral reef ecosystems to the bleaching caused by oceanic warming. As the world continues to warm, resource managers around the globe will have to take greater actions to mitigate the impacts of climate change through local actions.

C. Mark Eakin is NOAA’s Coral Reef Watch Coordinator.

Lisa Graumlich … “national parks”

For the past 25 years, I have been doing field work at high elevations in the mountains of the Western US. I have worked in the premier national parks, including Glacier, Yellowstone, Mt. Rainier, Yosemite, and Sequoia. In all of these parks, we are seeing the fingerprint of global climate change. Glaciers are disappearing and plants, animals and insect pests are moving upslope at unprecedented rates. Our national parks can no longer be protected from human influence by building a fence or hiring park rangers. Recall that national parks are an American invention. In fact, the writer Wallace Stegner often remarked that the idea of national parks was the best idea that we ever had. It’s my fervent hope that we find the will to address global climate change in order to ensure that the parks and wild places of the West continue to delight and inspire future generations.

Lisa Graumlich is a professor and director of the School of Natural Resources at the University of Arizona.

Ken Caldeira … “can we transcend our past?”

Carbon dioxide is increasing more rapidly and to higher levels than has been experienced on Earth for perhaps 50 million years or more. The consequences of our actions will leave its imprint on the Earth for millions of years to come.

Ecosystems and organisms have not evolved to cope with such rapid change, despite the fact that these changes seem slow by our human standards. If we do not change our ways, and soon, our activities threaten the collapse of ice sheets, loss of entire ecosystems, and shifts in precipitation that could potentially initiate famines and other forms of suffering. We might be lucky, and outcomes might turn out not to be this bad, but who is in the mood to gamble?

Reversing the increasing trend in carbon dioxide emissions will take an effort on the scale of today’s military expenditures. We are willing to spend those resources when the threat is external, but will we be willing to do the same when the threat is from ourselves?

Our hunter–gatherer minds have developed to address problems involving competition and problems that are local in scale, and where planning for the future meant hoarding enough nuts to last the winter. Can we transcend our hunter–gatherer past and develop the wisdom to cooperate to address problems that are global in scale and involve time horizons of decades and longer?

Music and art show that our minds have capabilities that go far beyond what could be reasonably expected to develop out of the brutal forces of evolution. Let us demonstrate that our minds have the equally unexpected capability to solve the environmental problems facing us today.

Ken Caldeira is in the Carnegie Institution Department of Global Ecology where scientists attempt to understand how humanity can prosper sustainably.

Kai Lee … “enlightened and active public needed”

Global climate change is a slow but now unstoppable process that will bring large changes to the natural world. Most of these, however, will not be apparent to people living in rich countries.

In order to contain the long–term damage from human–caused warming, and in order to adjust to the warmer world we are still creating, it is essential for people to make small but important changes in the way they live.

Of these, the most important is energy conservation and efficiency. This does NOT mean a poorer lifestyle necessarily. It does mean insulating one’s attic and exterior walls, using public transit when available and working for there to be better transit options, and it means supporting carbon taxes or other means of building in the real costs of climate change into the everyday economic choices people make. None of this is hard to live with, but it also does not have a strong–enough constituency, yet, to change public policy – particularly the higher charges for energy. For that reason, an enlightened and active public will be needed for the next several years (through and beyond the 2008 presidential election in the US).

We can do this, but we can’t wait for others to do it for us.

Kai N. Lee is the Rosenburg Professor of Environmental Studies at Williams College.

Ron Flick and Bob Guza … “sea level rise”

Sea level rise over the coming century, a consequence of global warming, could reduce drastically the availability of southern California beaches for recreation and protection of public and private infrastructure. If sand supplies are not greatly increased, beaches that are now narrow, with only a small strip of sand between the high tide line and cliffs or seawalls backing the beach, could disappear entirely.

Reinhard “Ron” Flick is a Research Associate at the Center for Coastal Studies, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego. Robert Guza, is a Professor at the Center for Coastal Studies, Coastal Data Information Program (CDIP), Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego.

Roger Edwards … “tornadoes”

Will we have more, fewer or as many tornadoes 100 years from now? As an atmospheric scientist specializing in tornadoes, my short answer is: we simply don’t know.

As of this writing, no scientific studies solidly relate climatic global temperature trends to tornadoes. I don’t expect any such results in the near future either, because tornadoes are too small, short–lived, hard to measure and count, and too dependent on day to day, even minute to minute weather conditions.

Is it possible that any given shift in global temperature patterns may eventually change long–term tornado risk probability? Maybe, just maybe…if we make assumptions built on assumptions built on assumptions, about subtleties of regional warming (or cooling) by a few degrees, and how it might change the distribution of the four basic ingredients for tornado producing storms (for more, see Will global warming cause more tornadoes?).

Our challenge is to predict future worldwide changes in something we haven’t sharply defined, can’t even count or measure very well, and that we often can’t predict an hour from now, all based on a model that doesn’t know it exists. That “something” is a most elusive, quick and stealthy quarry: the tornado. We might meet this challenge someday, but right now we’re a long, long way from that place in science.

Roger Edwards is a meteorologist at the Storm Prediction Center of the National Weather Center in Norman, Oklahoma.

Colin Price … “worried about surprises”

The facts are that the temperatures observed today and during the last few decades are the highest they have been for at least 1000 years if not longer (we don’t have accurate data further than that). Furthermore, the concentration of greenhouse gases that are known to absorb heat emitted from the Earth’s surface are now the highest we have seen in at least 600 thousand years, and likely longer (we have no data going back further in time). If you don’t trust the temperature data, take a look outside. 95% of all mountain glaciers around the world are melting and receding. The Greenland ice sheet is dramatically losing mass (ice) due to melting, while the summer Arctic sea ice is continuously shrinking every year. (for more, see The Earth has a fever!)

What we scientists are worried about now are surprises. It is much easier to melt the Greenland ice sheet than it is to rebuild it. The ice and snow around the planet have a cooling effect due to their white color that reflects large amounts of solar radiation back to space. Without this ice and snow, additional radiation will be absorbed at the surface and the Earth will warm even more. The thawing of the high latitude permafrost (frozen ground) may result in huge emissions of CH4 that will also accelerate the warming.

Colin Price is a professor in the Department of Geophysics and Planetary Science at Tel Aviv University.

Jay Gulledge … “change is the key word”

Change is the key word in climate change. For most people, this change will involve larger, more frequent extremes. For instance, in 2030 a Midwestern city will probably experience more rainfall, but it will likely come in fewer, larger events, with more frequent flooding. And between these events, there might be more frequent, longer, and hotter droughts. Residents of the city may come to expect 100+ degrees for many days running during extended droughts, when the soil is dry and no longer draws heat from the air. In summer, peak water and electricity demand will probably grow faster than city planners anticipated, requiring emergency infrastructure investments. With fewer hard freezes in winter, more pesticides will likely be needed to control mosquitoes and other pests. We will need to bolster emergency health care funds and disaster response systems to cope with these new extremes. (for more, see In Climate change, ‘change’ is key word)

Jay Gulledge is a senior research fellow and staff scientist at the Pew Center on Global Climate Change.

John Kermond … “I have seen it”

Having been involved in the U.S. Global Change Research Program from its inception in 1989, I have been exposed to most of the conferences, workshops, reports and assessments that have been made, including those from the International Panel on Climate Change. I have not read every word or watched every animation or talking head, but I have read and seen a lot.

Fast forward to 2007 and I do not have to read another single word with respect to global warming. I have seen it! In both hemispheres of this planet.

In the late summer of 2006, I spent 3 weeks aboard a Russian ice breaker in the Arctic. We found less ice in extent; less ice in thickness; and, very warm water pouring into the Arctic from the Atlantic Ocean. In the fall, I traveled to my native Australia and went to the beach in the town that I was raised — Warrnambool. When I was a kid there, you had to run (fast) over the hot sand before you got to a place on the wide beach where you could put down a towel. You still had quite a hike before your feet got wet. Total sandy beach in the order of 50 to 80 meters. In October of 2006, at high tide, there was 1 to 3 meters of beach available. Even the sand dunes along the two mile crescent shaped beach terminate in a vertical wall with roots of plants exposed. The beach is shrinking. The ocean is rising.

Both of these observations are clinical manifestations of global warming. And they are as predicted. For over a decade we have said that global warming will manifest itself in the higher latitudes. We are seeing the effects of global warming via ice reduction at both Poles, and in a rising sea level in many parts of the world. Already the citizens of Vanuatu (a tiny atoll in the Pacific) have decided to leave and re–settle in new Zealand. The citizens of Shishmareff in Alaska have also decided to leave and re–locate because the sea is taking back their land.

John Kermond is a UCAR Visiting Scientist with NOAA’s Climate Program Office.

Tom Knutson … “merely the beginning”

There is no doubt that the Earth has warmed over the past century or more. The question has been: what role have humans have played in causing this warming, especially through burning of fossil fuels that have caused an increase in greenhouse gases that blanket the planet?

The answer from most scientists who study this problem in detail is that we are now more confident than ever that humans have caused most of the warming, particularly over the last 50 years, and that this man–made warming stands out well above the background of natural climate variability.

But the warming to date is merely the beginning of what is expected to be a much more pronounced global warming in the coming century, although how much warming will occur will depend on how humans continue to modify the atmosphere, and we still have many uncertainties that need to be narrowed in our scientific understanding of the climate system. Warmer global temperatures are just one symptom – perhaps the most obvious one at present – of a global scale change to the Earth’s climate that has great potential to affect future generations in important and varied ways. Some climate change impacts are expected to be beneficial in
some regions. But stronger hurricanes, more heat waves and drought, and increased storm surge damage from rising seas are among the harmful changes we expect to see as we humans continue this global “experiment” with our planet. The challenge facing scientists – and in fact humanity – is to understand and deal with this complex issue in what is already a complicated world.

Tom R. Knutson is a research meteorologist with the Climate Dynamics and Prediction Group at NOAA’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory.

Real scientists. Real quotes. Real crisis.

Want more scientists? - there's plenty more . . .

[pianozach]

Most respected scientists don't believe in manmade global warming.

Regardless of how ridiculous this statement is, it should not go unanswered.

Here is a list of organizations that accept anthropogenic global warming as real and scientifically well-supported:


NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS):
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA):
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC):
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm
National Academy of Sciences (NAS):
http://books.nap.edu/collections/global_warming/index.html
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC) -
http://www.socc.ca/permafrost/permafrost_future_e.cfm
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA):
http://epa.gov/climatechange/index.html
The Royal Society of the UK (RS) -
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=3135
American Geophysical Union (AGU):
http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/climate_change_position.html
American Meteorological Society (AMS):
http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/climatechangeresearch_2003.html
American Institute of Physics (AIP):
http://www.aip.org/gov/policy12.html
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR): http://eo.ucar.edu/basics/cc_1.html
American Meteorological Society (AMS):
http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/jointacademies.html
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS):
http://www.cmos.ca/climatechangepole.html

Every major scientific institution dealing with climate, ocean, and/or atmosphere agrees that the climate is warming rapidly and the primary cause is human CO2 emissions. In addition to that list, a joint statement that specifically and unequivocally endorses the work and conclusions of the IPCC Third Assessment report was issued by:

Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academie des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)

This statement includes all the above signatories plus the following:

Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences


But if scientists are too liberal and politicians too unreliable, perhaps you find the opinion of key industry representatives more convincing:

BP, the largest oil company in the UK and one of the largest in the world, has this opinion:

"There is an increasing consensus that climate change is linked to the consumption of carbon based fuels and that action is required now to avoid further increases in carbon emissions as the global demand for energy increases."

Shell Oil says:

"Shell shares the widespread concern that the emission of greenhouse gases from human activities is leading to changes in the global climate."

Eighteen CEOs of Canada's largest corporations had this to say in an open letter to the Prime Minister of Canada:

"Our organizations accept that a strong response is required to the strengthening evidence in the scientific assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). We accept the IPCC consensus that climate change raises the risk of severe consequences for human health and security and the environment. We note that Canada is particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change."

Have "environazis" seized the reigns of industrial power, in addition to infiltrating the U.N., the science academies of every developed nation, and the top research institutes of North America? That just doesn't seem very likely.

No, you and people like you, the "global warming is a hoax" believers don't seem to understand the difference between informed opinion, uninformed opinion, misinformed opinion and totally ignorant opinions.

[Terry Shea]

You know guys, whether Meteorologists believe in Global Warming
or not is a moot point. Meteorologists study the weather, Climatologists
study climate and trends.
Climatology isn't part of the meteorological curriculum.
It's like asking a Podiatrist what he thinks of a Proctology issue.

K
Now that's just plain ignorant! Climatology is indeed part of the meteorological curriculum:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=define:meteorology&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

Definitions of meteorology on the Web:


1. The study of the physics, chemistry, and dynamics of the earth's atmosphere, including the related effects at the air-earth boundary over ...
mkwc.ifa.hawaii.edu/glossary/index.cgi (http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=0&oi=define&q=http://mkwc.ifa.hawaii.edu/glossary/index.cgi%3Fletter%3Dm&usg=AFQjCNGWiYE8fh6f3xeIUkLZLB-QmZUd8A)The study of the atmosphere and atmospheric phenomena.
ggweather.com/glossary.htm (http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=1&oi=define&q=http://ggweather.com/glossary.htm&usg=AFQjCNGLmAiOCn7PQDm--P_LIc4TLtDcZQ)The study of weather.
terrax.org/sailing/glossary/gm.aspx (http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=2&oi=define&q=http://terrax.org/sailing/glossary/gm.aspx&usg=AFQjCNGVIAsIe6DH2kCif0Ufmmui30oMkw)The science of the atmosphere and its phenomena.
nandankanan.tripod.com/scienceterms.htm (http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=3&oi=define&q=http://nandankanan.tripod.com/scienceterms.htm&usg=AFQjCNHrhPxThYnYCnS_PXX99yg-ygp-kQ)The science of weather-related phenomena. (EPA)
www.climatechange.ca.gov/glossary/letter_m.html (http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=4&oi=define&q=http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/glossary/letter_m.html&usg=AFQjCNFzx5as7_NiXaIeXMtLvgQ60XeIjg)the science dealing with the atmosphere and its phenomena.
www.met.utah.edu/Members/whiteman/Glossary.html (http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=5&oi=define&q=http://www.met.utah.edu/Members/whiteman/Glossary.html&usg=AFQjCNHiAm-8Xua1MhRFewDnt19-g8oEJw)The science that studies the weather.
www.teachervision.fen.com/weather/vocabulary/3833.html (http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=6&oi=define&q=http://www.teachervision.fen.com/weather/vocabulary/3833.html&usg=AFQjCNH_nevk6AwwXip89J6peSfr5hfxxg)The scientific study of the physics, chemistry, and dynamics of the Earth's atmosphere, especially weather and climate.
weather.ncbuy.com/glossary.html (http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=7&oi=define&q=http://weather.ncbuy.com/glossary.html%3Faction%3DLETTER%26term%3DM&usg=AFQjCNG8ESAjoImYstTqK2sUuFftIw6RUA)The study of the atmosphere, including weather and climate.
www.apsu.edu/wet/OLD_PROJECT_WET_WEBSITE/whatis.html (http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=8&oi=define&q=http://www.apsu.edu/wet/OLD_PROJECT_WET_WEBSITE/whatis.html&usg=AFQjCNGRh6b5YGoCfIt7xTTHoVnWFe3aRA)the study of the earth's atmosphere, often focused on weather prediction and analysis.
www.naturalhazards.org/glossary/ (http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=9&oi=define&q=http://www.naturalhazards.org/glossary/&usg=AFQjCNEJh_vE-KVwWunPGWRAqOI8-Gg-OQ)The science and study of the weather and of atmospheric processes.
www.nps.gov/archive/grsa/resources/curriculum/glossary.htm (http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=10&oi=define&q=http://www.nps.gov/archive/grsa/resources/curriculum/glossary.htm&usg=AFQjCNHZf5f7Z-3KGlb7hJXYNSYHmWvl2A)the scientific study of the weather.
www.flightofdreams.net/AVIATION%20GLOSSARY.doc (http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=11&oi=define&q=http://www.flightofdreams.net/AVIATION%2520GLOSSARY.doc&usg=AFQjCNG8h4oA5XMXLU2ugqMDpqMKEGy-LA)the science that investigates the atmosphere, its interactions, and its processes
scifiles.larc.nasa.gov/text/kids/Problem_Board/problems/weather/glossary.html (http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=12&oi=define&q=http://scifiles.larc.nasa.gov/text/kids/Problem_Board/problems/weather/glossary.html&usg=AFQjCNEsx9POl7mpBFcdD2b97Uw2QyeH_A)the study of weather and its daily, seasonal, and annual patterns
www3.newberry.org/k12maps/glossary/index.html (http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=13&oi=define&q=http://www3.newberry.org/k12maps/glossary/index.html&usg=AFQjCNHFgUaFci2hDiroV2VNIrrtDfzmHg)analysis of data taken simultaneously over a large area for the purpose of weather forecasting
www.environment.nsw.gov.au/soe/95/28.htm (http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=14&oi=define&q=http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/soe/95/28.htm&usg=AFQjCNHC9CrVXDW4k97WqZlFz_A0LYnUkA)The study of the atmosphere and its phenomena; more generally the science of the atmosphere, dealing in particular with its structure and composition, interactions with the oceans and land, movements (including weather forming processes), weather forecasting, climate variability and climate ...
www.wmo.ch/web/spla/R&Op-II(02)APPENDIX_G.doc (http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=15&oi=define&q=http://www.wmo.ch/web/spla/R%26Op-II%2802%29APPENDIX_G.doc&usg=AFQjCNG38XM1QFMqljIyj3w5Ycdp2cjP6g)predicting what the weather will be
the earth science dealing with phenomena of the atmosphere (especially weather)
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn (http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=16&oi=define&q=http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn%3Fs%3Dmeteorology&usg=AFQjCNH5kOEvPiX39rzymZfSZcSUWeJsPA)Meteorology is the interdisciplinary scientific study of the atmosphere that focuses on weather processes and forecasting. Meteorological phenomena are observable weather events which illuminate and are explained by the science of meteorology. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteorology (http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=18&oi=define&q=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteorology&usg=AFQjCNE9XfkWI-MBp7twSodH9lx-oQoHvA)Meteorology (or "Meteorologica") is a text by Aristotle which contains his theories about the earth sciences. These include early accounts of water evaporation, weather phenomena, and earthquakes.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteorology (Aristotle) (http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=19&oi=define&q=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteorology+%28Aristotle%29&usg=AFQjCNGROxdx-1SYuUk-KnGj_DMoR4hvqA)

This is interesting:

http://www.mountalverniahs.org/mahs/Departments/Science/Gr11ChemWeb04/climate.htm

How much do Climatologist make?
Many people are in this field, such as a weather man on a television news station. The average salary of a climatologist a year is any where from $20,000 to $50,000 a year.





Here's a list of American schools who offer degrees in meteorology:

http://www.nssl.noaa.gov/faq/schools.html

The list is quite extensive. I can't find any American schools that offer degrees in climatology, and I've only been able to find 1 school worldwide who may offer such a degree, that being the University of Southern Queensland which was to be the first school to offer such a degree, starting way back in 2001. I can't verify whether or not they actually do offer such a program though.

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:9jWmjW2fD5IJ:www1.usq.edu.au/resources/09feb.pdf+Who+offers+degrees+in+climatology%3F&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

[Terry Shea]

Of course, trying to use the argument that "people have been wrong before" to prove that people are now wrong about Global Warming is not a valid course of logic. It's an anecdote, not evidence.

That's like saying that scientists were wrong about the earth being the center of the solar system, so it's likely that they're wrong about being able to create an atomic bomb that can wipe out an entire city.

Besides, who's to say that it wasn't the warnings of a global AIDS crisis that itself helped turn the tide? Perhaps without the claims that this Washington Post editorial calls "exaggerations" AIDS might very well have been exactly what they predicted.

If you're still trying to cast doubt on Global Climate Change Theory, you should be advised that warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising sea level.

If you need more concrete evidence, all you have to do is open your ears and eyes and bear witness to all of the extreme weather events that have increased and regional climate patterns that have been changing. Heat waves and other weather extremes, as well as changes in atmospheric circulation patterns, storm tracks and precipitation, can now be traced back to climate change caused by human activities.

We are already feeling the effects of Global Warming.

Unequivocal? Hardly! We've had periods when it's been much warmer than now, for much longer periods of time. In fact NASA has revised it's temperature estimates and the 1930's now appear to be a warmer decade on record (and only because such records only go back to about 1880)!

http://www.justput.com/forum/showthread.php?t=670
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt

And no, you can't trace storms and such to climate change caused by human activities. That's nothing but more hype and lies with nothing whatsoever to back it up.

[Terry Shea]

http://pic.uncommonpics.com/pics/pic_6841.jpg
Newsflash: Polar bears are excellent swimmers and photoshop is nothing new.

[Terry Shea]

The attitude towards AIDS during the Reagan administration was "Let the fags and junkies die...they don't vote for us anyway."Strange the only people I hear making those statements are fags and junkies...sorry, couldn't pass that one up.

Yeah you're right. It's been well documented that the AIDS epidemic was a vast right-wing conspiriacy started by God himself.

[Terry Shea]

Damn(ed) administration left those people to rot.
Swept under the rug so as not to cause embarrassment
based on their ineptitude (not to mention cronyism),
80% of New Orleans remains in shambles.

KYeah, and Bush personally blew up the levee's too didn't he?

[Terry Shea]

Okay; your call. But as you are so frequently backed into a corner by your own obtuse thinking and behavior here, I'm not really surprised that this is the only way in which you are able to express yourself.



Is this meant to be an insult, or can you not think of something coherent to say?



And that's all we really need to know, isn't it? :D So you cannot truly verify the veracity of your sources. Therefore...why are you still here?



My claim that all sources are dishonest, or at least potentially dishonest, does not confuse the issue in the least. You are merely terrified to think that your sources are suspect...for no other reason than that you will be thought of as ignorant or that you have been played for a fool.No, you merely resort to cop-outs instead of actually addressing anything.

[pianozach]

Sorry, but I don't find you threatening nor do I find you to be very intelligent. I find you to be a rather boring attention seeker who will do or say anything to call attention to herself.

Is studying critical thinking what made you so paranoid?

Gawd! You are such a charmer, Terry.

How does one go about proving a source to be honest? It can't really be done. A source can only be proven to be dishonest if it repeatedly makes claims which are later to be found false. That's exactly what I've done with several of these opposition sources. I've shown specifically where they've lied.

I haven't seen even 1 specific similar charge being leveled at any of "my" sources, just some general "your sources are wrong" type nonsense with absolutely nothing to back up their claims! You know it very well, yet you hide behind your pat answer of all sources being dishonest, or at least potentially dishonest, to try to confuse the issue. Is that the best you can do?

How's that for critical thinking?

Poor, Terry. You are evidently not reading others' posts carefully if you think that people are answering your posts with nothing but ""your sources are wrong" type nonsense with absolutely nothing to back up their claims!" Your sources have certainly been charged with all sorts of bias that has been well documented.

Tas' cynicism is critical of both sides of the story, and she is certainly not trying to confuse any issue, nor is she confusing.

[pianozach]

Gee, one might surmise that having glaciers and icecaps melting would increase the fresh water supply!:Wow:

Your understanding of the water cycle is appalling, Terry.

Do you think that we can simply build a pipeline to the antarctic and somehow get the melting ice to insert itself into the other end?

Glaciers are a renewable source of water for many areas. There's a certain amount of thaw every spring, bringing fresh water to some areas.

When a glaciers melts rapidly, there is no currently no mechanism to capture and retain the overwhelming amount of water that is released.

When a glacier disappears, there's no more water.

You're also ignoring the the issues of water pollution and water tables.

[pianozach]

Maybe things are different down under, but over here they don't pay people to simply read the weather report...the tv stations hire meteorologists to make their own accurate forecasts. The local stations here all have betwen 4 and 6 meteorologists on staff.

Now why would you believe an unscientific stooge like Al Gore over a group of scientists who study the weather and climate on a daily basis?

Your hypocrisy is showing, Terry.

Again you are using arguments that work better against yourself:

Now why would you believe an unscientific stooge like Terry Shea over a group of scientists who study the weather and climate on a daily basis, such as the five year IPCC panel that produced a report by around 600 authors from 40 countries, and reviewed by over 620 experts and governments, and before being accepted was reviewed line-by-line by representatives from 113 governments?


Oh, and before you go trying to bring me to task for name-calling, let's point out that you used the word first, calling Al Gore a stooge. I'm just using your terminology to illustrate my point. Had you used the phrase "the mistaken Al Gore" my above blurb would have reflected this by calling you "the mistaken Terry Shea".

[Terry Shea]

Yes, Terry, meteorologists are scientists. So are doctors and paleontologists and astronomers and chemists. As was already pointed out, meteorologists are not necessarily climatologists. And many TV weathermen and weatherwomen are actually meteorologists.

And many TV weathermen and weatherwomen are actually pretty talking heads.

We're not talking about other types of scientists or pretty faces who aren't meteorologists so what's your point.

It would probably be easy to conduct a poll of TV weathermen. Just get a list of national TV stations and networks and fire off letters or emails to their weatherpeople:

You could ask them their education levels, whether they're meteorologists or not, whether they believe that the earth is warming and if they think that mankind has contributed to it. You could ask them some of your conspiracy questions, like if they think Global Warming Theory is fronted by swindling capitalists . . . .

The local stations around here hire meteorologists exclusiviely and I'm not the one questioning their beliefs.



Terry, there's no reason to call people who promote the evidence of Global Warming lunatics and freaks. Name calling doesn't help your POV, rather, it makes you sound more like you've reached the end of your so-called evidence and are grasping at straws.

There has been no credible evidence presented. In fact they ignore vast amounts of historical and scientific evidence regarding the temperature and climate.



Actually, Terry, you're dead wrong here. Most respected scientists do believe in manmade global warming.

I don't believe that to be the case. The problem is you don't respect anyone who doesn't preach this lunacy and I don't respect anyone who does.

Wherever you're getting this misinformation from is patently incorrect. And it's you who are buying into the hype, the Global Warming Naysayers Hype. The real money is interested only in keeping the profits flowing, whether it's by keeping you suckling at the oil and gasoline teats, or privatizing services to capitalist concerns to line someone else's pockets.

Wrong. We're going to need oil whether global warming is manmade or not...unless you want us to go back to the caveman days.

Think about it: Isn’t most of the money that finances studies that claim this crisis is imaginary come from the organizations that want to exploit us?

The only one's I see exploiting us are Al Gore and the Muckrakers. You can make the case that we're being exploited by oil companies, but gas is still much cheaper here that it is almost anywhere else in the world, and if they're exploiting us they will do so whether manmade global warming is real or imagined.

One thing you are right about is that corporations and the wealthy will slide right in to capitalize on the Global Warming Crisis. They will capitalize on everything and anything using any and all methods. It's fairly predictable. That's partly why it's called capitalism.

But the fact that there are companies and organizations that will ultimately profit from this doesn't make it any less real.

The idea of global warming was not started by corporations.

Instead, the idea of global warming stemmed from measurements made on a mountaintop in Hawaii, beginning in the 1950s. These measurements – made then, and still being made today – show an increasing amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasees in Earth’s atmosphere.

Well duh! You do know that Hawaii has volcanos that belch nearly continuously and put vast and increasing amounts of carbon into the air on a daily basis. It has nothing to do with manmade activities and it has not been shown to cause the temperature to increase.

In the 1960s and ’70s, as they measured from year to year, scientists were surprised to find this increase. Like you, they would not have imagined – at that time – that “puny humans” could have such an effect.

Go do some reasearch. The volcanos there are constantly putting more carbon into the air. Talk about a loaded up study!

But, even the ’60s and ’70s, scientists knew that greenhouse gases trap heat. And, by the 1970s scientists were already saying that human activities were the likely cause of this increase in greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. They were using the tools of science – physics, mathematics, computers, Earth-orbiting satellites – to study this idea. By the 1970s, they were already predicting that Earth would begin to warm noticeably as a result of excess greenhouse gases – caused by human activities – in the atmosphere.

This has not been proven and has been widely disputed.

And now Earth has begun to warm noticeably.

It's been warming for 20,000 years and NASA has had to revise it's global temperature estimates downwards because they were caught cheating.

Global warming is not a “plot” by the left or right. It is a real observed phenomenon on the Earth.

Global warming is real. It's been real for 20,00 years.

And as scientists’ understanding has increased over the last few decades, they have begun to see the MANY ways in which humans affect Earth, while Earth is affecting humanity. Scientists now speak of Earth and its humans as a “coupled” system. This is an active area of scientific study in the 21st century.

So how did the earth survive before humans set foot on it?





Speaking of scientists, here's how they really feel (Terry! Note that some are even meteorologists!):























































Real scientists. Real quotes. Real crisis.

Want more scientists? - there's plenty more . . .

And your point is? No one is disputing that some scientists or even meteorologists have fallen into the manmade global warming trap. That's hardly an exhaustive list.
Blue.

[Terry Shea]

Gawd! You are such a charmer, Terry.



Poor, Terry. You are evidently not reading others' posts carefully if you think that people are answering your posts with nothing but ""your sources are wrong" type nonsense with absolutely nothing to back up their claims!" You sources have certainly been charged with all sorts of bias

Tas' cynicism is critical of both sides of the story, and she is certainly not trying to confuse any issue, nor is she confusing.
Yeah, you keep saying my sources are biased, yet you never even provide one specific example that demonstrate's how they are biased.

[pianozach]

That is a blatently false statement. There is certainly more demand for water now because the population is ever increasing, but the fresh water supply itself remains at a constant level and continually renews and replenishes itself.

http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/earthwherewater.html

Water is continually moving around, through, and above the Earth as water vapor (http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/watercycleatmosphere.html), liquid water, and ice (http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/watercycleice.html). In fact, water is continually changing its form. The Earth is pretty much a "closed system," like a terrarium. That means that the Earth neither, as a whole, gains nor loses much matter, including water. Although some matter, such as meteors from outer space, are captured by Earth, very little of Earth's substances escape into outer space. This is certainly true about water. This means that the same water that existed on Earth millions of years ago is still here. Thanks to the water cycle (http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/watercycle.html) (view a graphic of the water cycle (http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/watercycle.html)), the same water is continually being recycled all around the globe. It is entirely possible that the water you drank for lunch was once used by Mama Alosaurus to give her baby a bath.

Yer crackin' me up, Terry. You're leaving out so many links in this simplistic water model that it's hard to believe that you feel that this is a decent argument.

Yes, Terry, matter, energy, and, of course, water, is conserved in a closed system. That much is not in dispute.

However, a rise in temperature globally creates changes in how and where water is distributed and stored. If arctic ice, sea ice and glaciers are vanishing, the water mostly ends up in the oceans, yes? Salt water is undrinkable and of no use agriculturally. A rise in sea level dramatically affects low lying coastlands. A rise in temperatures, both in the atmostphere and the oceans, creates changes in weather patterns, animal migrations, disease, food production and in countless other ways. A global rise in temperature creates more areas with less water, and more areas with too much rainfall, usually of the violent variety.

People with drinking supply problems should move to areas with plentiful water supplies. For example, why would anyone live in the Sahara when they know there is no water in the area to be found? This isn't a new phenomenon. People have always been stubborn and stupid about such things.

Are you friggin' serious, Terry? You must be out of your freakin' mind. Can't you even see the lack of logic behind such a proposal? This reminds me of rich folks that dismiss poverty by recommending that poor people "better" themselves and get better jobs.

How do you propose to move millions of people? And where do you propose we move them to? Michigan, perhaps?

If you keep spouting ignorant statements like these, I'll soon get the impression that you do so because you actually might be ignorant.

[Terry Shea]

Regardless of how ridiculous this statement is, it should not go unanswered.

Here is a list of organizations that accept anthropogenic global warming as real and scientifically well-supported:


NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS):
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA):
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC):
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm
National Academy of Sciences (NAS):
http://books.nap.edu/collections/global_warming/index.html
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC) -
http://www.socc.ca/permafrost/permafrost_future_e.cfm
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA):
http://epa.gov/climatechange/index.html
The Royal Society of the UK (RS) -
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=3135
American Geophysical Union (AGU):
http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/climate_change_position.html
American Meteorological Society (AMS):
http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/climatechangeresearch_2003.html
American Institute of Physics (AIP):
http://www.aip.org/gov/policy12.html
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR): http://eo.ucar.edu/basics/cc_1.html
American Meteorological Society (AMS):
http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/jointacademies.html
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS):
http://www.cmos.ca/climatechangepole.html

Every major scientific institution dealing with climate, ocean, and/or atmosphere agrees that the climate is warming rapidly and the primary cause is human CO2 emissions. In addition to that list, a joint statement that specifically and unequivocally endorses the work and conclusions of the IPCC Third Assessment report was issued by:

Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academie des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)

This statement includes all the above signatories plus the following:

Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

Uh huh. I believe every single source listed here is a political organization. Right?

[Imperatrix]

No, you merely resort to cop-outs instead of actually addressing anything.

Oh, girlfriend, how misguided you are. :D Addressing the macrocosm is what it's all about. Your scurrying about and adding exclamation points to the questionable minutiae you post here addresses nothing. You yourself have copped out because you are not able to prove, without doubt, that any of your sources are valid.

[Terry Shea]

Your understanding of the water cycle is appalling, Terry.

Do you think that we can simply build a pipeline to the antarctic and somehow get the melting ice to insert itself into the other end?

Glaciers are a renewable source of water for many areas. There's a certain amount of thaw every spring, bringing fresh water to some areas.

When a glaciers melts rapidly, there is no currently no mechanism to capture and retain the overwhelming amount of water that is released.

When a glacier disappears, there's no more water.

You're also ignoring the the issues of water pollution and water tables.Whoa! Who's ignorant? There's plenty of glaciers and icecaps melting waaaay south of the Arctic, and it isn't exactly melting overnight. And yes, nature has provided us with a wonderful mechanism for capturing this water. It's known as evaporation, condensation and precipitation. The water doesn't just disappear!

[Imperatrix]

Are you friggin' serious, Terry? You must be out of your freakin' mind. Can't you even see the lack of logic behind such a proposal? This reminds me of rich folks that dismiss poverty by recommending that poor people "better" themselves and get better jobs.



:lmao: Wasn't that classic?

[pianozach]

Yeah, you keep saying my sources are biased, yet you never even provide one specific example that demonstrate's how they are biased.

Then you haven't been paying attention . . .

Maybe it's YOU who should go back and read the entire thread, this time not ignoring the evidence and posts that don't agree with your naysaying philosophy. It's all there: You just keep repeating that it's not.

All your kicking and screaming doesn't change the fact that the Climate is warming, and warming rapidly and suddenly, facts that you either dismiss offhandedly or ignore.

Instead of digging your heels in and ignoring the evidence that's as plain as the nose on your face, perhaps you should assess why you feel the need to behave in such a boorish fashion, with your little tantrums and name-calling and paranoia.

[Terry Shea]

Yer crackin' me up, Terry. You're leaving out so many links in this simplistic water model that it's hard to believe that you feel that this is a decent argument.

Yes, Terry, matter, energy, and, of course, water, is conserved in a closed system. That much is not in dispute.

However, a rise in temperature globally creates changes in how and where water is distributed and stored. If arctic ice, sea ice and glaciers are vanishing, the water mostly ends up in the oceans, yes? Salt water is undrinkable and of no use agriculturally.
Using that line of "logic", California must get nothing but salt-water rain since the weather patterns and clouds develop over the Pacific and move east over the land. Oh wait, the salt doesn't get absorbed into the clouds does it? What was your point again?

[Melissa]

TV weathermen (aka meteorologists) are scientists! They have to accurately predict the weather on a daily basis! If they don't do a good job they aren't going to last long, whereas these manmade global warming lunatic freaks know that no matter what kind of lunacy they utter about future climate conditions they'll be long gone before they can be proven right or wrong.

Meteorologists are respected scientists! Most respected scientists don't believe in manmade global warming. Once again, you're merely dismissing anyone who disagrees with you and falling for the myth with all the money and hype behind it.

Sorry, but I don't find you threatening nor do I find you to be very intelligent. I find you to be a rather boring attention seeker who will do or say anything to call attention to herself.

Is studying critical thinking what made you so paranoid?

How does one go about proving a source to be honest? It can't really be done. A source can only be proven to be dishonest if it repeatedly makes claims which are later to be found false. That's exactly what I've done with several of these opposition sources. I've shown specifically where they've lied.

I haven't seen even 1 specific similar charge being leveled at any of "my" sources, just some general "your sources are wrong" type nonsense with absolutely nothing to back up their claims! You know it very well, yet you hide behind your pat answer of all sources being dishonest, or at least potentially dishonest, to try to confuse the issue. Is that the best you can do?

How's that for critical thinking?


If this is what you believe, then you are not paying enough attention to legitimate news sources.

It is NOT true that "most respected scientists don't believe in man-made global warming."

That you believe that the majority of scientists saying your sources are wrong is not sufficient back-up to the fact that your sources are, in fact, wrong, is tantamount to stonewalling. You seem to have decided that some sliver of a minority, who believes what you believe, against all reasonable evidence, is right and everyone else is wrong.

This is not a discussion. Denying evidence doesn't make it not true; it's just denying evidence.

I have a question:

What is the payoff if global warming is NOT anthropogenic? Why are you so invested in saying it's not?
What would be so horrible if it were true - that global warming is anthropogenic - that makes you post denial with such ferocity?

Seriously.

[Awakened by the Gates]

With Terry it seems to be more WHO is saying what that annoys him.

He is blatantly RIGHT with no regard for other views.

Do you have children Terry? What of their future?

Just don't go 'postal'!

[podo]

[quote=Awakened by the Gates;1339100]With Terry it seems to be more WHO is saying what that annoys him.

quote]

Its obvioulsy all a communist plot perpetrated by that evil UN organisation

.
.
.
or Al Gore

[pianozach]

Yer crackin' me up, Terry. You're leaving out so many links in this simplistic water model that it's hard to believe that you feel that this is a decent argument.

Yes, Terry, matter, energy, and, of course, water, is conserved in a closed system. That much is not in dispute.

However, a rise in temperature globally creates changes in how and where water is distributed and stored. If arctic ice, sea ice and glaciers are vanishing, the water mostly ends up in the oceans, yes? Salt water is undrinkable and of no use agriculturally. A rise in sea level dramatically affects low lying coastlands. A rise in temperatures, both in the atmostphere and the oceans, creates changes in weather patterns, animal migrations, disease, food production and in countless other ways. A global rise in temperature creates more areas with less water, and more areas with too much rainfall, usually of the violent variety.


Using that line of "logic", California must get nothing but salt-water rain since the weather patterns and clouds develop over the Pacific and move east over the land. Oh wait, the salt doesn't get absorbed into the clouds does it? What was your point again?

Oh, yes, Terry. We have saltwater rain in Californi-ay.

. . . and all the cops have wooden legs
And the bulldogs all have rubber teeth and the hens lay soft boiled eggs . . .

Don't be so provincial, Terry. Your attempts to obsfucate the issue don't make you look as smart as you think they do.

There's plenty of glaciers and icecaps melting waaaay south of the Arctic, and it isn't exactly melting overnight. And yes, nature has provided us with a wonderful mechanism for capturing this water. It's known as evaporation, condensation and precipitation. The water doesn't just disappear!

Seriously, Terry, there's no need for you to be so thick. Of course glaciers have not and do not melt "overnight". It's an expression meant to convey a sudden and rapid development - in this case the fact that many glaciers have receded like crazy in "the blink of an eye" (in "earth time").

You see, when measuring climactic cycles, in terms of change, we're discussing events that happen over tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of years, not events that happen in a hundred years or a few decades. When a glacier recedes over the course of a few decades it is practically "overnight". This sort of sudden and rapid glacial melting has not ever happened in earth history until the late twentieth century. Of course we've had ice ages and warming trends, but those cycles were natural and took place over hundreds of thousands of years.

Alaska

http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/images/PortageGl1950.jpghttp://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/images/PortageGl2001.jpg

The Alps

http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/images/pasterze.jpghttp://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/images/Pasterze04Match.jpg

Oregon

Glaciers in the Northwest United States have also been shrinking. Studies by the Climate Impacts Group at University of Washington show regional temperature has been 1.5° F warmer in the 20th century, with rising snow lines, decreasing mountain snowpack, and earlier spring runoff. These photos of Mt. Hood Oregon comparing late season snow and ice only 18 years apart indicate the problem: much less late summer ice from which the region gets water for irrigation, drinking, and fish habitat.

http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/images/MtHoodSnwless84.jpghttp://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/images/MtHoodSnwless02.jpg

LESS water for irrigation and drinking, Terry.

Where's the water, Terry? Where's that mechanism for "capturing" that lost water, Terry?

Your laughable notions of the conservation of fresh water are naive to the point of pity.

Look, if sea levels rise, coastal communities will lose sizeable percentages of their fresh water supplies because saltwater will intrude into fresh water aquifers.

When saltwater and fresh water meet, they mix in complex ways, depending on the texture of the sand along the coastline. In some cases, a zone of mixed, or brackish, water can extend 50 percent further inland underground than it does above ground (the exact percentage varies, of course, depending on the type of coastline, courseness of the sand and other factors).

Like saltwater, brackish water is not safe to drink because it causes dehydration.

The loss of fresh water is just another way that global warming will affect us, in addition to changes in precipitation patterns and the melting of glaciers, another source of fresh water. The whole thing just snowballs (pun intended) after that - lack of fresh water also affects fishing and wildlife and agriculture.

Almost 40 percent of the world population lives in coastal areas.

According to the United States Geological Survey, about half the country gets its drinking water from groundwater.

In order to obtain cheap water for everybody, we need to use groundwater, river water, or lake water, but all those waters are disappearing due to several factors -- including an increase in demand and climate change.

If the current trend of more glacial ice melting continues, there will soon come a time when these glaciers will not exist, causing hydropower stations to shut down.

Many animals, birds, and fish that depend on fresh melting water from glaciers for survival will either reduce in numbers or get extinct over a period of time.

Not only that, the melting glaciers only help increase global temperatures. Ice reflects heat from the sun back into space, but when the land below gets exposed it absorbs most of the heat.

One other thing that we may have to look forward to with the rapid melting of glaciers: DDT, a pesticide widely used and was banned worldwide many years ago. Most of this harmful chemical got airborne and settled in the cooler climates and were embedded and trapped into layers of glaciers. With glaciers melting at the rate they are today, these chemicals are being introduced into the water melting from glaciers, contaminating streams and rivers as they flow.

So, listen up you wanker: Most of the impacts of rapidly melting glaciers are already being felt in many places across the globe.

Places that never witnessed temperatures of 104+ degrees Fahrenheit (40+ Celsius) are witnessing it today;

places that never suffered from drought are facing it today;

places that never seen forest fires are seeing it today;

places that never saw floods are witnessing it today.

If the current trend of global warming continues, the situation will just keep getting worse, and far more rapidly than we may be able to adapt to -- we have all caused this horrible situation and only we can help reverse it.

[Altres]

http://pic.uncommonpics.com/pics/pic_6841.jpg
Newsflash: Polar bears are excellent swimmers and photoshop is nothing new.
You hate that bear, don't you? :D

Brian

[kirk]

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Science/story?id=1407585

This is going in circles guys. We provide scientists, sources, everything
from NASA, the U.N., The Weather Channel, even fearless leader GW,
Terry calls them "evil", then claims we don't have a shred of proof that
debunks his bloggers, weathermen, Exxon-sponsored scientists.

He does nothing but parrot Republican lines on everything,
then makes claims that he's a "free thinker" (oy), that we're brainwashed
...Unbelieveable.

Is he really worth the effort? I seriously have my doubts
if this is constructive any longer. How about we chalk him up as
"lost soul", and move on?

I have a project to launch, music to write.

K

[pianozach]

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Science/story?id=1407585

This is going in circles guys. We provide scientists, sources, everything
from NASA, the U.N., The Weather Channel, even fearless leader GW,
Terry calls them "evil", then claims we don't have a shred of proof that
debunks his bloggers, weathermen, Exxon-sponsored scientists.

He does nothing but parrot Republican lines on everything,
then makes claims that he's a "free thinker" (oy), that we're brainwashed
...Unbelieveable.

Is he really worth the effort? I seriously have my doubts
if this is constructive any longer. How about we chalk him up as
"lost soul", and move on?

I have a project to launch, music to write.

K

I guess I feel obligated to refute his claims and complaints lest there be someone who takes his ignorance seriously, including himself.

To make some changes in our attempts to mitigate Global Warming and its effects it will be easier if everyone is "on board", even Terry.

And while you may be correct about no one ever being able to reach Terry's logic centers, I feel that this issue is far too important to let his kind of misinformation :bs: and ignorance :lame: pass unchallenged. And it's better to have a open forum so that opinions such as Terry's can be addressed.

Futile? Only as far as reaching someone like Terry is concerned. But there are others :wave: that may also share some of his reservations about accepting the concept of Global Warming that are not as loud and noisy as he - folks that are simply quietly following the debate to weigh the facts, claims and opinions of both sides.

Reading this thread from top to bottom is quite an education . . .

[Mind Driver]

The global warming scare where I live is gone. It is 22 degrees with a wind chill of 14, and I've got to go to work. :yikes:

[Imperatrix]

I guess I feel obligated to refute his claims and complaints lest there be someone who takes his ignorance seriously, including himself.

Honey, it's a humorless, sketchily educated bowling postman with all the charisma of a mildewing dishrag. Who's honestly going to take that seriously?

To make some changes in our attempts to mitigate Global Warming and its effects it will be easier if everyone is "on board"...

You can lead a horse to water, etc.

Don't try to teach a pig to sing, etc.

[pianozach]

Honey, it's a humorless, sketchily educated bowling postman with all the charisma of a mildewing dishrag. Who's honestly going to take that seriously?

People take Bush, Limbaugh and Coulter seriously, why not Terry too?

You can lead a horse to water, etc.

Don't try to teach a pig to sing, etc.

You're right, of course, about Terry. He wouldn't be on board even if there were no tap water and sand dunes in his front yard.

I think that the pig metaphor is quite appropriate . . .

[Imperatrix]

People take Bush, Limbaugh and Coulter seriously, why not Terry too?

OK...I'll take it one step further: it has no money. I'm convinced that people take those other things (Bush, Limbaugh, Coulter) seriously because said things do have money.


You're right, of course, about Terry. He wouldn't be on board even if there were no tap water and sand dunes in his front yard.

I think that the pig metaphor is quite appropriate

As do I...and for more reasons than we have seen here.

[yesyadda]

I'm a Bushie AND a Blind Patriot! ;)

[Imperatrix]

I'm a Bushie AND a Blind Patriot! ;)

Yes, but you're brilliant and pleasant and loving. :hearts:

[yesyadda]

I'm also speechless. Thank you m'dear.

[Imperatrix]

I'm also speechless. Thank you m'dear.

I mean it---and you're most welcome. It is also interesting and enjoyable to debate with you!

[podo]

Honey, it's a humorless, sketchily educated bowling postman with all the charisma of a mildewing dishrag. Who's honestly going to take that seriously?



You can lead a horse to water, etc.

Don't try to teach a pig to sing, etc.


excellant...much more eloquent than "F$%king idiot"

I dips me hat to you hon

[podo]

OK...I'll take it one step further: it has no money. I'm convinced that people take those other things (Bush, Limbaugh, Coulter) seriously because said things do have money.




.

and god speaks to them

[Imperatrix]

excellant...much more eloquent than "F$%king idiot"

I dips me hat to you hon

I dips me hat to you as well.

It was . . . well . . . perfect!


:lmao: Thank you.

and god speaks to them

Yes, there is that. ;)

[Melissa]

excellant...much more eloquent than "F$%king idiot"

I dips me hat to you hon

I dips me hat to you as well.

It was . . . well . . . perfect!

[pianozach]

This weird news just in . . .

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/img/v3/bbc_logo.gif

Friday, 23 November 2007

Jellyfish in second salmon sting


Deadly jellyfish have attacked Northern Ireland's only salmon farm for a second time in two weeks.

More than 150,000 young salmon in cages off the County Antrim coast were killed on Friday after billions of jellyfish flooded in, stinging the fish.

It had been thought that last week's attack was a freak event.

Northern Salmon warned after the first attack that it could lose £1m, and has renewed its call for financial help from the Northern Ireland Executive.

This latest jellyfish invasion took place in Red Bay, off the coast at Waterfoot, a few miles down the coast from where the last attack happened.

Financial help from the government is being ruled out at the moment by Agriculture Minister Michelle Gildernew.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/07/uk_enl_1195684462/img/laun.jpg
The density of jellyfish stopped workers from reaching cages

She said on Thursday that budgets were already fixed but further talks would take place with her colleagues in the Executive.

The company has some high-profile clients, with Irish chef Richard Corrigan serving Glenarm salmon to the Queen on her 80th birthday last year as part of the BBC's Great British Menu programme.

In recent years, increasing numbers of mauve stinger jellyfish in the Mediterranean have posed a danger for swimmers.

Their presence in the colder northern waters is thought to be due to wind and tidal factors.

. . . . due to wind and tidal factors . . . .

. . . or perhaps those colder northern waters aren't as cold as they used to be . . .

[pianozach]

. . . . And you're just gonna be floored by this story from the TimesOnline (That's the London Times)


November 22, 2007
Coalmine fire put out after half a century

Jane Macartney in Beijing
After a three-year effort and untold quantities of water, Chinese firefighters have extinguished a fire that had been burning underground in a coalmine for more than 50 years.

The blaze had consumed as much as 12.5 million tonnes of coal as it raged unchecked beneath the surface and spewed out more than 70,000 tonnes of toxic gases annually since the 1950s.

Firefighters finally beat the fire by boring into the coal seam and flooding it with water and slurry. They then capped the mine shafts to starve the flames of oxygen. As well as staving off further environmental damage, they have saved more than 651 million tonnes of coal, which will be mined to fuel the Chinese economic and industrial juggernaut.

Miao Pu, head of the firefighting team at the Terak mine in Xinjiang, a sparsely populated, mainly Muslim region in northwestern China that is rich in resources, said: “First, we drilled into the burning coal bed and then poured water and slurry into it to lower the temperature. After the temperature dropped we covered the surface to starve the fire of oxygen.” Officials plan to monitor the coal seam for several years in case the fire reignites.

The smouldering furnace 100 metres (330ft) underground at the second-largest coalfield in Xinjiang had released more than 70,000 tonnes of toxic gases annually since the 1950s. Two years ago firefighters in the area put out a similar fire that had been burning for more than 50 years, but there is much more to do.

Thousands of underground coalmine fires are believed to cover an area of 720sq km (280sq miles) in China. They consume as much as 20 million tonnes of high-quality coal and another 200 million tonnes of coal storage each year.

Damage to the environment is as troubling as the economic losses. Scientists believe that the underground fires may produce as much carbon dioxide as about 1 per cent of the total burnt as fossil fuels, although estimates vary.

Some scientists say that the fires could release as much as 360 million tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere — as much as all the cars and light lorries in the United States.

The fires, often smouldering in coal seams on or just below the surface, have shaped the landscape of coal-rich regions in China for millenniums. The layers of coal can go on for miles underground, with fuel to burn for decades or centuries.

The smoke darkens already polluted skies. The fires emit poisonous gases and can even make the earth cave in — swallowing roads, homes, animals and humans — when weak ash replaces firm coal underground. The are also wasting resources in a rapidly developing country that relies on coal for about three quarters of its energy requirements, and the Government wants them extinguished.

The fires can start spontaneously. The oldest is believed to be at Baijigou, northwest China, and has been burning since the Qing Dynasty, a century before the mine opened in 1965.

[kirk]

Yes, but you're brilliant and pleasant and loving. :hearts:

That's the deal, why i'm losing my taste for this.

MD and I don't umm...always see eye to eye, but I like him
as a person. Ditto for Canon. We've gone at it hammers and tongs,
but if we were to meet up, we'd likely have a laugh, buy each
other a drink. Underneath it all, there's a level of respect.

Frankly, i doubt Terry could prepare Tash's lunch correctly,
let alone have the ability to gauge her obvious intelligence.

K

[Mind Driver]

Thanks, Kirk - the feeling is mutual.

Zach: if those Chinese firefighters keep putting out all those fires, they are going to take "burn in hell" out of my vocabulary! (Sarcasm off)

[Imperatrix]

MD and I don't umm...always see eye to eye, but I like him
as a person. Ditto for Canon. We've gone at it hammers and tongs,
but if we were to meet up, we'd likely have a laugh, buy each
other a drink. Underneath it all, there's a level of respect.

Well said. I feel this way about MD, Canon, and TrueYouTrueMe, too.

Frankly, i doubt Terry could prepare Tash's lunch correctly

Strewth; I refuse to eat beanie-weenies. :winknudge

her obvious intelligence.

Oh, that emasculates him, the poor guy.

[kirk]

[=Terry Shea;1338548]Now that's just plain ignorant!
Well, there's one thing I'd have to consider you an expert on..ignorance.


The list is quite extensive. I can't find any American schools that offer degrees in climatology, and I've only been able to find 1 school worldwide who may offer such a degree, that being the University of Southern Queensland which was to be the first school to offer such a degree, starting way back in 2001. I can't verify whether or not they actually do offer such a program though.

That's because it's called "Atmospheric Sciences" genius,
housed in the Geography department.
btw- before you do your typical BS, "See, raht tere"
"Dynamic meteorology", has nothing to do w/ weather forecasting.
It's about soil erosion from weather processes, ect.

Again, as podiatrists, dentists, and Proctologists are all doctors,
climatologists can't tell you if it's likely to rain next week,
weathermen/meteorologists can't tell you that GW is definitively
real or false.


http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:9jWmjW2fD5IJ:www1.usq.edu.au/resources/09feb.pdf+Who+offers+degrees+in+climatology%3F&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us[/QUOTE]

K

[MrZuLu]

People with drinking supply problems should move to areas with plentiful water supplies. For example, why would anyone live in the Sahara when they know there is no water in the area to be found? This isn't a new phenomenon. People have always been stubborn and stupid about such things.I have kept quite because... well ya'll know why


Terry? Why would anyone want to live in Atlanta?

:lol:

Where should the people of Atlanta, Georgia move?

They have drinking water issues that are not going away...

where should they go?

2 MILLION plus people?

huh, Terry?

What are the people of Boulder Colorado going to do?

The Arapahoe Snow Field (formerly known as Arapahoe Glacier, Boulder's ONLY source of drinking water) is not growing... it is shrinking.... STILL!

65% of Colorado is in Serious Drought stage.

85% of Georgia is in Serious Drought with 52% in EXTREME DROUGHT Stage.

sorry no links

that was from the EVIL Weather Channel!


nevermind...

I'll shut up now

I am an uneduacated and non-thinking idiot anyway!

oh yeah and drop the alarmist eviro-nazi routine...
it doesn't work anymore!

[yesyadda]

oh yeah and drop the alarmist eviro-nazi routine...
it doesn't work anymore!

It doesn't mean they're not out there. ;)

Urban growth has long been allowed to go unchecked. That buck doesn't seem to stop anywhere and it just keeps going. I guess it's just time to pay up. I'm living above one of the largest fresh water aquifers in the world but if populations suddenly gravitated to the midwest then what? It could work with proper planning, zoning, and engineering but that would mean even bigger bucks with more places to stop nowhere. We should have always had very serious and comprehensive urban planning that encompassed air, water, solar, sanitary, and transportation issues. I believe the earth can accomidate population growth but not without drastic lifestyle (and corporate and political) changes.

[Imperatrix]

It doesn't mean they're not out there. ;)

Urban growth has long been allowed to go unchecked. That buck doesn't seem to stop anywhere and it just keeps going. I guess it's just time to pay up. I'm living above one of the largest fresh water aquifers in the world but if populations suddenly gravitated to the midwest then what? It could work with proper planning, zoning, and engineering but that would mean even bigger bucks with more places to stop nowhere. We should have always had very serious and comprehensive urban planning that encompassed air, water, solar, sanitary, and transportation issues. I believe the earth can accomidate population growth but not without drastic lifestyle (and corporate and political) changes.

Excellent points, Gary.

[Buglunch]

Canada in 2050:
http://www.cbc.ca/quirks/archives/07-08/nov24.html

They always have a show+d/l Saturdays but not
usually one topic only.

[Mind Driver]

My daughter and the rest of my family live in Atlanta, so I can comment:

They are in extreme drought stage. I was there a month or so ago and their main problem was that the main lake that feeds water to Atlantans, Lake Lanier, was being lowered and the water sent downstream to Florida to protect mussels. This is a normal practice because the lake fills back up with winter and spring rains. The Governor filed suit and the courts ordered the Army Corp of Engineers, who control the water region, to stop what they were doing. If this had not happened, most of Atlanta would have been out of water by February, barring any significant rainfall.

We had a similar drought back in the 80s when I lived in Atlanta, but not to this degree.

[MrZuLu]

Canada in 2050:
http://www.cbc.ca/quirks/archives/07-08/nov24.html

They always have a show+d/l Saturdays but not
usually one topic only.no fair bug!

those are REAL scientists!

[Frosted Sun]

Since we are on the water drought issue,… I live north of Knoxville near Cumberland Gap, Tn., west of Kingsport, Tn. In Va. Wheeew,.. In a very rural area, I moved here a few years ago from a southern city because the drought problem was very severe and I had, had enough of water restrictions, traffic problems, poor city design and urban sprawl.

That said, the drought followed me here, as it seems to be getting bigger and bigger. I’ve made noticed to the problem in a few posts, but it gets old after a while and people really don’t care until it starts nipping their own butt.

I use to live in Atlanta and know the city very well. This is the perfect op for them to lead in this issue, and I would almost bet that they would have to reach such extreme’s as having 2 million port-o-potties before a real action is made, and I have no idea what that would be.

But if no rain is falling north of Atlanta, it really doesn’t matter if they just shut the water out flow off completely, once it gets down to a certain level, it’s not worth anything anyway because it gets to contaminated and polluted for anything. No present water treatment plant can handle that.

[Frosted Sun]

Is it ok if I ask a really stupid question?

The penguins, where are they in the artic or da tropics?

[Altres]

Antarctic

[pedro skychaser]

antarctic????

man-- i've bodysurfed with the little darting darkies in bermagui...

[Frosted Sun]

why did u delete the pic and post for?

[pianozach]

. . . and people really don’t care until it starts nipping their own butt. . . .

It's not so much that people don't care, but that people are blissfully unaware.

The media, for it's dual liberal and corporate persona now only presents "news" that has some "Action" to it. Hence, the this story is under-reported by the media.

When a city is slowly, s-l-o-w-l-y - - running out of water it has none of those alarmist properties to it, except to those people who are directly affected.

So whether it's "north of Kingsford" or even Atlanta, most Americans are completely uninformed.

Why are they uninformed? There's a handful of competing reasons many of which would be better addressed in one or more of the political threads. But one of the reasons that can be addressed here is because the media, whether it's TV, radio or newspapers are simply advertisement delivery mechanisms - therefore they have figured out what people want to hear and see and read - and drought is not one of those things, at least not until there's blood on the sand . . .

Out here in Cal-i-for-ni-ay (Southern, that is - swimmin' pools, moooovie stars!) we no longer have a fire "season": all year round is now fire season: I believe we've had wildfires every month this year so far (well, there's always December . . . ).

Anyways, the in-your-face evidence such as wildfires and drought are lost on some GlobalWarming naysayers: My favorite denial of it is the "Chicken Little" rationale - "a little bump on the head doesn't mean the sky is falling . . . "

What's the opposite of the "Chicken Little" story - a story where the sky IS falling, falling in chunks, little chunks, big chunks, all day long, and all night long . . . but "Chicken Grande" pays no attention and rationalizes that it's a natural cycle, or that he didn't cause it?



Perhaps it's time to set up some dew collectors . . .

http://www.rexresearch.com/airwells/1vignola.gif

[Frosted Sun]

It's not so much that people don't care, but that people are blissfully unaware.



I would rep u if i could.

I did at one time know that but, had forgotten it. very well put, Thx dude. your very cool.

[Frosted Sun]

http://i.usatoday.net/news/_photos/2007/11/26/bush-gorex.jpg

OMG, global warming is over,....hell freezes over.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jiUG2__c1X2VWmcooQmcaZ2gK2ywD8T5LN900

[pianozach]

Just another brick in the wall . . .

http://www.guardian.co.uk/feedarticle?id=7114577

Wheat prices surge on renewed supply fears

Reuters
Thursday November 29 2007
By K.T. Arasu and David Evans

CHICAGO/LONDON, Nov 29 (Reuters) - World wheat prices surged on Thursday, with Chicago futures rallying the session limit for a second straight day as new weather problems renewed fears of a supply crunch at a time of strong demand.

Wheat had retreated from record highs hit in September as drought decimated the crop in Australia. But the markets surged on Wednesday when Argentina closed its wheat exports registry, giving the government of the world's No. 3 wheat exporter five business days to assess this month's frost damage to the crop.

Industry analysts in Argentina said production could drop by as much as 2 million tonnes.

Adding to supply concerns, the U.S. hard red winter wheat crop has suffered a lack of rain, with the U.S. Agriculture Department's condition ratings falling four straight weeks.

"We've just had an unusual series of weather problems, first Australia then Argentina and now the hard red winter crop here," said Citigroup analyst Mario Balletto.

"There is the weather concern and we keep exporting wheat, exports are good and we continue to have buyers like Pakistan and India coming into the market," Balletto said.

The state-run Trading Corporation of Pakistan issued a tender to import 200,000 tonnes of wheat. . . . [continued]

. . . .

[Terry Shea]

Then you haven't been paying attention . . .

Maybe it's YOU who should go back and read the entire thread, this time not ignoring the evidence and posts that don't agree with your naysaying philosophy. It's all there: You just keep repeating that it's not.

All your kicking and screaming doesn't change the fact that the Climate is warming, and warming rapidly and suddenly, facts that you either dismiss offhandedly or ignore.

Instead of digging your heels in and ignoring the evidence that's as plain as the nose on your face, perhaps you should assess why you feel the need to behave in such a boorish fashion, with your little tantrums and name-calling and paranoia.Actually I'm the only one here who is presenting any factual evidence! Your side keeps claiming things to be factual and then can't show any factual basis whatsoever! Your whole argument stems from the "it's a fact because I say it is mentality!" Your side keeps ignoring the long term history of temperatures and climate and focuses only on the last 30 year warming cycle, which followed a 40 year cooling cycle, which you can't explain so you ignore it! Now we find out that NASA exaggerated its recent temperature estimates and you ignore that too.

Then you all get mean and nasty and resort to insults and gang piling. Gee, I wonder where you got that from (see Heidi Cullen, Al Gore and almost any other manmade global warming fanatical liar..they have to resort to that tactic because they can't and won't deal with the truth). You're all truly brainwashed and have resorted to using these same tactics because you know you'll lose any historical, factual, logical and/or scientific argument on the subject!

You people are the meanest bunch of illogical, brainwashed losers I've ever met in my life! You blindly accept as fact that which has not and cannot be proven and ignore the real historical evidence which cannot be disputed! You believe known liars and mean-spirited, evil people! And now you've become just like these mean-spirited, evil mentors!

I don't know why most of you are worried about global warming when you should be worried about burning in Hell for eternity!

[yesyadda]

Good to see you got your second (third?) wind, Terry!

My ex told me I'm going to hell, so why the hell should I care about global smarming?

[pianozach]

Actually I'm the only one here who is presenting any factual evidence! Your side keeps claiming things to be factual and then can't show any factual basis whatsoever! Your whole argument stems from the "it's a fact because I say it is mentality!" Your side keeps ignoring the long term history of temperatures and climate and focuses only on the last 30 year warming cycle, which followed a 40 year cooling cycle, which you can't explain so you ignore it! Now we find out that NASA exaggerated its recent temperature estimates and you ignore that too.

Then you all get mean and nasty and resort to insults and gang piling. Gee, I wonder where you got that from (see Heidi Cullen, Al Gore and almost any other manmade global warming fanatical liar..they have to resort to that tactic because they can't and won't deal with the truth). You're all truly brainwashed and have resorted to using these same tactics because you know you'll lose any historical, factual, logical and/or scientific argument on the subject!

You people are the meanest bunch of illogical, brainwashed losers I've ever met in my life! You blindly accept as fact that which has not and cannot be proven and ignore the real historical evidence which cannot be disputed! You believe known liars and mean-spirited, evil people! And now you've become just like these mean-spirited, evil mentors!

I don't know why most of you are worried about global warming when you should be worried about burning in Hell for eternity!

That's what the Eskimos wanted when missionairies tried to put the fear of Hell into them - to get to Hell where it's always warm!

No, Terry, your tantrums and name-calling amount to squat in the big scheme of things.

The evidence is in: Look forward to hotter summers, colder winter, wetter springs and more severe and unusual weather. And the consequences that come with it.

Actually I'm the only one here who is presenting any factual evidence!

:dog:

:bs:

You are certainly not the "only one here who is presenting any factual evidence!" There's been plenty of evidence. Very little unbiased evidence has come from you, however - most of your sources have been exposed as unreliable at best.

And as far as public perception of global warming, your views on it are the minority opinion. A very small minority it is, too. A large majority of Americans — 85% — say global warming is probably happening, according to a new TIME magazine/ABC News/Stanford University poll. Of course, you've given your opinion on polls as well . . .

The Nobel prize commitee awarded the Peace prize jointly to Al Gore and the IPCC. And you've given your opinion on Gore, the IPCC and the UN, too. And the Associated Press as well.

The Pew Center on Global Climate Change released the report "Observed Impacts of Global Climate Change in the U.S." back in 2004. It chronicalled effects of climate change seen across the U.S.

The IPCC released several reports and a summary that was clear, concise and well supported in facts, evidence and substance.

There's your evidence: Charts, graphs, models, scientists, data, models, core samples. You just choose to ignore it.

http://www.princeton.edu/~willman/Earthrise.jpg

It's not the simple fact that the earth is warming - the only thing you're right about in this debate is that the earth goes through cycles - in this case we're just coming out of a "Little Ice Age". The earth is warming, and we expected it to. The scary thing is how fast the world is warming. Most experts will say that the world has never warmed as fast as it is now.

It is quite evident that global warming is occuring. It is also evident that human activities play a role in the warming of the Earth.

So save your objections for your personal vanity blog and MySpace page. Your anger and lashing out here is caused by so many people continually pointing out the many flaws in your protestation of Global Warming. Your methodology in dabating this topic just makes your side of the argument look juvenile and unreasoned. You're an awful spokesman for your POV. And while there are others here that question the validity of Global Warming theory, that doesn't mean that they're on your side. Your bullying tactics don't work around here.

As far as name-calling is concerned, it appears that most of it has started and continued with you as the main instigator and perpetrator.

So, in the spirit the baseness in which you prefer to argue, if I'm an "illogical, brainwashed, mean-spirited, evil, lying loser", I guess that makes you a tin foil hatted, rightwingnut, anti-science, brick-wall-minded bigoted lunatic stuck in the 19th century.

No wonder you're mad at the whole world.

You must be a real joy to go bowling with.

I hope to God that you don't own any guns: You're a headline waiting to happen.

I pray that you get the help you need.

[MrZuLu]

R O F L M A O

[Altres]

Terry, your hot air is only adding to the problem. Sorry, I cannot even bring myself to finish your essays these days; vita brevis.

Brian

[Roan's Lady]

That's what the Eskimos wanted when missionairies tried to put the fear of Hell into them - to get to Hell where it's always warm!

No, Terry, your tantrums and name-calling amount to squat in the big scheme of things...

...I pray that you get the help you need.

Wow. Quite an awesome post.

[BrianD]

Now I know the real purpose of Terry Shea on Yesfans......he is here simply to give dieing threads like this one the (hot) kiss of life - from hell apparently

[podo]

I was at the Sydney Powerhouse museum yesterday. Its the tech museum. They have a section on the environment.

I was looking at a chart showing temperatures and CO2 concentrations going back 400,000 years. The temperatures seemed to fluctuate up and down over that period with about 10,000 year peaks and troughs. the CO2 flutuated a little, and seemed to line up with the temp.

What was alarming was that they had magnified the very last part of the graph, and the CO2 levels went way higher in the last 100 years than any other time on the graph.